The Writings of
Thomas Jefferson

editor H.A. Washington
New York :  H.W. Derby, 1861

To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1801.


DEAR SIR,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 3d instant, and to thank you for the friendly expressions it contains.  I entertain real hope that the whole body of your fellow-citizens (many of whom had been carried away by the X.Y.Z. business) will shortly be consolidated in the same sentiments.  When they examine the real principles of both parties, I think they will find little to differ about.  I know, indeed, that there are some of their leaders who have so committed themselves, that pride, if no other passion, will prevent their coalescing.  We must be easy with them.  The Eastern States will be the last to come over, on account of the dominion of the clergy, who had got a smell of union between Church and State, and began to indulge reveries which can never be realized in the present state of science.  If, indeed, they could have prevailed on us to view all advances in science as dangerous innovations, and to look back to the opinions and practices of our forefathers, instead of looking forward, for improvement, a promising ground-work would have been laid.  But I am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain ;  that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

I sincerely wish with you, we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted.  Bad men will sometimes get in, and with such an immense patronage, may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles.  This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied.

I pray you to accept assurances of my high respect and esteem.




To Doctor Benjamin Rush
Washington, April 21, 1803.

DEAR SIR,—In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic;  and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it.  They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed ;  but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;  sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others;  ascribing to himself every human excellence;  and believing he never claimed any other.  At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation.  But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information.  In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley, his little treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.”  This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise.  The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as I wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself.  This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute.  And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.  I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public;  because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed.  It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others;  or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.  It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself.  Accept my affectionate salutations.


Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others.


In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals ;  particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.

I.  Philosophers.  1.  Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind.*  In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2.  In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective.  They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence.  Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

II.  Jews.  1.  Their system was Deism;  that is, the belief in one only God.  But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.

2.  Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us ;  and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations.  They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

III.  Jesus.  In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared.  His parentage was obscure;  his condition poor ;  his education null ;  his natural endowments great ;  his life correct and innocent : he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.

The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.

1.  Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.

2.  But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him.  I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain.  On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages;  and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men;  who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.

3.  According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.

4.  Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.

5.  They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.

Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.

The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.

1.  He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.

2.  His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends, were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews;  and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids.  A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

3.  The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only.  He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man ;  erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4.  He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews;  and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.


* To explain I will exhibit the heads of Seneca’s and Cicero’s philosophical works, the most extensive of any we have received from the ancients.  Of ten heads in Seneca, seven relate to ourselves, viz. de ira, consolatio, de tranquilitate, de constantia sapientis, de otio sapientis, de vita beata de brevitate vitae;  two relate to others, de clementia, de beneficiis;  and one relates to the government of the world, de providentia.  Of eleven tracts of Cicero, five respect ourselves, viz. de finibus, Tusculana, academica, paradoxa de Senectute;  one, de officiis, relates partly to ourselves partly to others;  one, de amicitia, relates to others;  and four are on different subjects, to wit, de natura deorum, de divinatione, de fato, and somnium Scipionis.





“A Real Christian”

To Charles Thomson
Monticello, January 9, 1816


My Dear and Ancient Friend, — An acquaintance of fifty-two years, for I think ours dates from 1764, calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that we remain in existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion.  I am reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr. Patterson, of your synopsis of the four Evangelists.  I had procured it as soon as I saw it advertised, and had become familiar with its use; but this copy is the more valued as it comes from your hand.  This work bears the stamp of that accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful to those who, not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure morals.  I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus;  it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject.  A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen;  it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.  They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.  If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side.  And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi’s Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.

I retain good health, am rather feeble to walk much, but ride with ease, passing two or three hours a day on horseback, and every three or four months taking in a carriage a journey of ninety miles to a distant possession, where I pass a good deal of my time.  My eyes need the aid of glasses by night, and with small print in the day also;  my hearing is not quite so sensible as it used to be;  no tooth shaking yet, but shivering and shrinking in body from the cold we now experience, my thermometer having been as low as 12 degrees this morning.  My greatest oppression is a correspondence afflictingly laborious, the extent of which I have been long endeavoring to curtail.  This keeps me at the drudgery of the writing-table all the prime hours of the day, leaving for the gratification of my appetite for reading, only what I can steal from the hours of sleep.  Could I reduce this epistolary corvee within the limits of my friends and affairs, and give the time redeemed from it to reading and reflection, to history, ethics, mathematics, my life would be as happy as the infirmities of age would admit, and I should look on its consummation with the composure of one "qui summum nec me tuit diem nec optat."

So much as to myself, and I have given you this string of egotisms in the hope of drawing a similar one from yourself.  I have heard from others that you retain your health, a good degree of activity, and all the vivacity and cheerfulness of your mind, but I wish to learn it more minutely from yourself.  How has time affected your health and spirits ?  What are your amusements, literary and social ?  Tell me everything about yourself, because all will be interesting to me who retains for you ever the same constant and affectionate friendship and respect.





“ Never an Infidel, If never a Priest ”

To Mrs. Samuel H. Smith
Monticello, August 6, 1816


I have received, dear Madam, your very friendly letter of July 21st, and assure you that I feel with deep sensibility its kind expressions towards myself, and the more as from a person than whom no others could be more in sympathy with my own affections.  I often call to mind the occasions of knowing your worth, which the societies of Washington furnished; and none more than those derived from your much valued visit to Monticello.  I recognize the same motives of goodness in the solicitude you express on the rumor supposed to proceed from a letter of mine to Charles Thomson, on the subject of the Christian religion.  It is true that, in writing to the translator of the Bible and Testament, that subject was mentioned; but equally so that no adherence to any particular mode of Christianity was there expressed, nor any change of opinions suggested.  A change from what? the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom.  They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations.  But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests.  I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another.  I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed.  I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives, and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must be an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness.  For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.  By the same test the world must judge me.  But this does not satisfy the priesthood.  They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities.  My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest.  The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.  These, therefore, they brand with such nick-names as their enmity chooses gratuitously to impute.  I have left the world, in silence, to judge of causes from their effects;  and I am consoled in this course, my dear friend, when I perceive the candor with which I am judged by your justice and discernment;  and that, notwithstanding the slanders of the saints, my fellow citizens have thought me worthy of trusts.  The imputations of irreligion having spent their force;  they think an imputation of change might now be turned to account as a holster for their duperies.  I shall leave them, as heretofore, to grope on in the dark.

Our family at Monticello is all in good health;  Ellen speaking of you with affection, and Mrs. Randolph always regretting the accident which so far deprived her of the happiness of your former visit.  She still cherishes the hope of some future renewal of that kindness;  in which we all join her, as in the assurances of affectionate attachment and respect.




To John Adams.
Monticello, May 5, 1817.

Dear Sir

Absences and avocations had prevented my acknowledging your favor of February the 2d, when that of April the 19th arrived.  I had not the pleasure of receiving the former by the hands of Mr. Lyman.  His business probably carried him in another direction ;  for I am far inland, and distant from the great line of communication between the trading cities.  Your recommendations are always welcome, for indeed, the subjects of them always merit that welcome, and some of them in an extraordinary degree.  They make us acquainted with what there is excellent in our ancient sister State of Massachusetts, once venerated and beloved, and still hanging on our hopes, for what need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberality.  I had believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them.  They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations good or bad.  I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.  If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, “that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”  But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, “something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.”




To Ezra Styles, Esq.
Monticello, June 25, 1819.

We probably differ on the dogmas of theology, the foundation of all sectarianism, and on which no two sects dream alike ;  for if they did they would then be of the same.  You say you are a Calvinist.  I am not.  I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.  I am not a Jew, and therefore do not adopt their theology, which supposes the God of infinite justice to punish the sins of the fathers upon their children, unto the third and fourth generation;  and the benevolent and sublime reformer of that religion has told us only that God is good and perfect, but has not defined Him.  I am, therefore, of his theology, believing that we have neither words nor ideas adequate to that definition.  And if we could all, after this example, leave the subject as undefinable, we should all be of one sect, doers of good, and eschewers of evil.  No doctrines of his lead to schism.  It is the speculations of crazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral and sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to create differences.  These religious animosities I impute to those who call themselves his ministers, and who engraft their casuistries on the stock of his simple precepts.  I am sometimes more angry with them than is authorized by the blessed charities which he preaches.  To yourself I pray the acceptance of my great respect.




To William Short.
Monticello, August 4, 1820.

There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus Himself ;  but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which He acted.  His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses.  That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a Being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust.  Jesus, taking for His type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed Him really worthy of their adoration.  Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people.  Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision.  Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries, and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue ;  Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance.  The one instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations;  the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence.  The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous.  Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion;  and a step to right or left might place Him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the Being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.  They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle Him in the web of the law.  He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending Himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least.  That Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.  But that He might conscientiously believe Himself inspired from above, is very possible.  The whole religion of the Jew, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration.  The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity;  and as it could not but happen that, in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they have not only preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who have schismatised from them.  Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught Him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of His own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order.  This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Dæmon.  And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects.  Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the Gospels which seem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to Him what alone is consistent with the great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities, I think myself authorized to conclude the purity and distinction of His character, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix upon Him;  and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is granted in all other historical works.




To Doctor Benjamin Waterhouse.
Monticello, June 26, 1822.

Dear Sir

I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine.  Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind.  You will find it is as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God.  I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it.  The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1.  That there is one only God, and He all perfect.

2.  That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3.  That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.  These are the great points on which He endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews.  But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1.  That there are three Gods.

2.  That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.

3.  That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.

4.  That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5.  That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned ;  and that no crimes of the former can damn them ;  no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian ?  He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus ?  Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin ?  Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way.  They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.  Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed Author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to Him.  Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.  I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.

But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama;  that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato.  How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren.  Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor !  I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.




To John Adams.
Monticello, April 11, 1823.

Dear Sir

The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of “Mon Dieu ! jusqu’à quand !” would make me immortal.  I can never join Calvin in addressing his God.  He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be ;  or rather his religion was daemonism.  If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.  The Being described in his five points, is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent Governor of the world;  but a dæmon of malignant spirit.  It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme Him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.  Indeed, I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God.  Now one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians;  the other five-sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knowledge of the existence of a God !  This gives completely a gain de cause to the disciples of Ocellus, Timæus, Spinosa, Diderot and D’Holbach.  The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is, that in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something ;  and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice.  They say then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a Being whom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance and mode, or place of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.  On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.  The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces ;  the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere;  animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles;  insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth;  the mineral substances, their generation and uses;  it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.  We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order.  Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view;  comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws;  certain races of animals are become extinct;  and were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.  So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe.  Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in the other hypothesis.  Some early Christians, indeed, have believed in the co-eternal pre-existence of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect.  That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleta, in these words :  “Deus ab æterno fuit jam omnipotens, sicut cum produxit mundum.  Ab æterno potuit producere mundum.  Si sol ab æterno esset, lumen ab æterno esset; et si pes, similiter vestigium.  At lumen et vestigium effectus sunt efficientis solis et pedis; potuit ergo cum causa æterna effectus co-æterna esse.  Cujus sententia est S. Thomas theologorum primus.”--Cardinal Toleta.

Of the nature of this Being we know nothing.  Jesus tells us, that “God is a Spirit.”  4 John 24.  But without defining what a spirit is :  “pneuma 'o Theos.”  Down to the third century, we know it was still deemed material ;  but of a lighter, subtler matter than our gross bodies.  So says Origen, “Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta originem, reapte corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.”  These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen.  Origen himself says, “appellatio asomaiou apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.”  So also Tertullian ;  “quis autem negabit deum esse corpus etsi deus spiritus ?  Spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in sua effigie.”--Tertullian.  These two fathers were of the third century.  Calvin’s character of this Supreme Being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews.  But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure, and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in His discourses to the Jews ;  and His doctrine of the cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the three first verses of the first chapter of John, in these words :  “----(greek text of John 1:1-3)----”  Which truly translated means, “In the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God.  This was in the beginning with God.  All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.”  Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus, that the world was created by the Supreme, Intelligent Being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism, by a mistranslation of the word logos.  One of its legitimate meanings, indeed, is “a word.”  But in that sense it makes an unmeaning jargon ;  while the other meaning, “reason,” equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal pre-existence of God, and His creation of the world.  Knowing how incomprehensible it was that “a word” the mere action or articulation of the organs of speech could create a world, they undertook to make of this articulation a second pre-existing being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe.  The atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe.  The truth is, that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in His genuine words.  And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.  But we may hope that the dawn of reason, and freedom of thought in these United States, will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated Reformer of human errors.

So much for your quotation of Calvin’s “Mon Dieu !  jusqu’à quand !” in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await His time and will with more readiness than reluctance.  May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation, “well done, good and faithful servants.”