countries. Facts are one thing, and the question why not more extensive, another. We do not see every individual alike, in intellect, or in privileges. We do not see every nation alike in privileges. For, this there are no doubt wise reasons, as well as for the limits of Christianity. 2d. Long before the time of Constantine, Christianity was more general than the objection would suppose. Pliny acknowledges, that the contagion of what he calls "this superstition" has seized, not cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country.' Justin Martyr, who wrote after Pliny thirty years, or so, tells us, that there is no nation, either of Greek, or Barbarian, or of any other name, even of those who wander in tribes, and live in tents among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered to the father and creator of the universe by the name of the crucified Jesus. Tertullian, who wrote about seventy years after this, enumerates a long list of nations, not excepting the very Britons and Scythians, which Christ posssesses as his empire 1o. You say that the death of Jesus produced no revolution that tended to improve the condition of man. Now had Christianity done no more than what it did, during three centuries before Constantine, (not to speak of what it has done since his reign) still it would have done an infinite good. What a renovation of character it made! It exalted to the purity of angels many of the most besotted of the species, and made myriads lovers of God, lovers of man, and prepared for every sacrifice however costly that conscience might demand of them. But even in the dark ages, though the "Sun of Righteousness" was obscured, it had not set. can tell how many virtuous souls even then owed all their purity and excellence to its influences? Who can say that men in general would not have been more corrupt, even in these ages, but for Christianity? Perhaps however those ages called dark were not so corrupt as they were deficient in literature, and profligacy perhaps was not at its height under the deformation of Christianity till the period of the reformation, when the tumour bursts, in a great measure by the excess of its own corruption". But how 7 This is admirable! Why then employ Priests and Missionaries? Who R. C. . In the neighbourhood of Antioch only-not near Rome. R. C. 9 Every ecclesiastical history written, by whatever author, proves the falsehood of this assertion. R. C. 10 It spread no where, but where the Roman power preceded it within the first three hundred years. The Roman Conquests facilitated its progress-the Mahometan Conquests had nearly annihilated it. R. C. Here is one perhaps contradicting another perhaps, and the conclusion contradicting the whole. In all reading or observation, I have never seen that Christianity improved the character of one human being. Fanaticism is not improvement. Christianity is neither knowledge nor morality. R. C. ever, this may be, those ages were not stained with customs which disgraced even civilized nations under Paganism 12. Again, who can say how much civilization is indebted to Christianity? What has it not done for Britain for instance? What a difference between our Pagan ancestors, under the bloody man-sacrificing Druids, and us their posterity 13. You do not seem to pay much respect to miracles. You consider them as adapted only to confound and astonish the ignorant, and you assert, that Jesus resorted to the same means of convincing mankind, that were used by Mahomet and other impostors. Now, to what miracles did Mahomet ever pretend? Mahomet never risked the credit of his pretended mission on miracles; and many other impostors that have pretended to miracles, took good care as to the persons to whom they offered their pretensions, and also to the object in behalf of which they offered them". How was the humble, the pennyless, the persecuted Jesus to succeed in making men believe in the reality of his miracles if he really did not perform them? Had Jesus been a Jewish or a Pagan priest, pretending to work miracles to uphold some pretensions of the priesthood, the account of them would I own require to be received with more caution. But, if Jesus was the enemy of priests, and despised and rejected of men, surely, surely, it could not be easy for him to cheat a credulity which could not possibly exist in his behalf. Besides, the opposers of Christianity, in the early ages, never denied the miracles of Jesus. They denied only the divine origin of them 15. But, I am already considerably beyond my hour of appointment, and must in conscience stop short, yet cannot stop without conjuring you with all the earnestness of a friend, and all the solemnity of a Christian, to examine this subject seriously and patiently. And that God may bless you in your enquiries, is the prayer of, Yours, &c., 12 What were they, that Christianity does not embrace? R. C. 13 Yes, but the change is the least of all attributable to Christianity. And as yet, we are not civilized. R. C. 14 So did the Christian miracle workers. R. C. 15 One proof that they never saw them in reality performed. R. C. DOCTOR TO THE PRIEST. SIR, February 9, 1824. In looking over the observations which are contained in yours of the second current, I really in reply have little to say, but that little, I wish to communicate, in case you may imagine from my silence, that what you have said has had a tendency to shake the general tenour of my argument. In my last I granted you the existence of Jesus, though it appeared to me doubtful; and I rested the chain of my reasoning upon the grand basis of nature itself, to which, in your present answer, you have not in the least degree alluded. Could you present to mankind a system free from the many incongruities that accompany Christianity, I can assure you, there would be fewer sceptics; but when the philosophic mind takes a view of all that is connected with this religion, and finds that it has nothing to support its fabric, but obscure dogmas revolting to common sense, there is little wonder, that men, escaped from the bondage of early prejudices, throw such unintelligible doctrines into the back ground. While Christiany is connected with objects, that are entirely inaccessible to our senses, and of course incapable of demonstration, I shall always feel convinced, that it has no more claim to truth, than the pretensions of a thousand other religions, which offer the same proof to substantiate their divinity. I never heard of a religion without miracles, and therefore, when you state, that Mahomet did not resort to them, I really feel surprised that the character of this adventurer should be so much overlooked. Do not the followers of Mahomet, believe in the miraculous vision of Gabriel, who transmitted from Heaven, leaf by leaf, the pages of the Koran? Do they not believe, that in one night, Mahomet traversed ninety heavens, mounted upon a monster which they call Borak? Is it not related, that their prophet, being endowed with the gift of miracles, walked in the sunshine, without a shadow?-that he caused trees already withered to resume their verdure, filled the wells and cisterns with water, and cut in two equal parts the body of the moon? If these are not miracles, I know not what constitutes them; and we have undoubtedly the same species of proof that they were performed, which is brought forward to support the evidence of miracles, wrought by those, who are said to have founded Christianity. In my last, I alluded to events almost of a similar kind. I shewed, that to establish religion, the great order of nature was reversed, and stories palmed upon mankind, as weak, and as silly, as ever were invented, to de your ceive the Turks, or confound the Pagaus. Till these inconsistencies are done away with, Christianity will continue to be exposed as a fraud: for all men who think rationally will sooner believe, that the different records handed down to us, by human invention, are more liable to abound in error, than that even an atom of the universe can undergo any change in its nature. With respect to the dark ages, when you argue in favour of them, you really forget what history unfolds to us. Christianity was a thing entirely unknown to the bulk of mankind. Even in those countries where it is said to have been taught, a few priests only knew the secret; for, till the reformation, the Bible was never seen beyond the walls of a monastery. The dark ages present to us the most miserable barbarism. The Pagans, as they are named, will vie in point of character with the Christians. Who cannot but admire the Emperor Saladin, a man who fell covered with virtue, amid the sanguinary and horrific deeds of the pious Crusaders-a set of barbarians, that with the banners of Christ carried desolation, and ruin, wherever they went. In fact, none can think of this part of the history of Christianity without horror; none can ever view it, without considering it, as one of the most durable monuments of human folly, that the history of the world exhibits. All that you have said only unfolds to me, how feebly Christianity holds its ground. You have done nothing to prove its good effect upon the actions of mankind. If it ever exalted any to the state of angels, and brought forward a few who were willing to make sacrifices; on the other hand, it has sunk millions into the gulph of perdition. Throughout the whole period of its history, we hear of nothing but bloody massacres, cruel persecutions, and all those horrid deeds, at which humanity recoils. I, therefore, contend, that the present degree of improvement, among mankind, is not owing to the influence of any religion; but purely, to the intelligent rays of science, which, without doubt, will ultimately be the means of expelling from the earth those pernicious dogmas, that have ever been the favourite tenets of those, who have allowed themselves to be led by the unintelligible ravings of theology. Your remarks, regarding the fact that Christianity is not universal, would convince any one, that, were it for no other consideration, we ought to reject the idea of its emanating from an all powerful being. We are expressly given to understand, that it was for the good of all mankind, that it was promulgated; and the circumstance of it being known only to a small portion of the human race, either implies the impotence, or the malevolence of a Deity. This question involves the very point which we are discussing. The difference that exists, among nations or individuals, with regard to the various degrees of happiness, can be explained upon natural principles; and if there exist wise reasons for the limits of Christianity, I should really wish to see them fully developed. It has all along been the cry of theologians, that the plans of the Deity are in scrutable-a resort, to which they never fail to cling, when they are embarrassed in perplexing arguments; and thus men always will be embarrassed till they are content to abide by the unerring and perpetual laws of nature. I remain, Dear Sir, yours, &c., (To be continued.) A SHORT NOTICE OF ONE OF THE LAST EFFORTS AND TRICKS OF PRIESTCRAFT, OR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS: WHERE ARE YOU GOING? How are you about to spend that day, which is called, by way of distinction, "THE LORD'S DAY?" Are you about to devote it to your own pleasure? Are you forgetting whose day this is, and for what purpose it is given?-O pause! Turn not the day of God into a day of folly and sin.-The sabbath is one of the greatest blessings, if improved; but the abuse of it is ruinous to the soul. God will call you to a strict account for your Sabbath hours. What reply can you make to your Judge? O consider this; and if you had purposed to spend this holy day in pleasure, and forgetfulness of God, receive this friendly caution against conduct so displeasing to Him, and so dangerous to your immortal souls. Retire-search the Scriptures-attend the House of God. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John chap. i. ver. 29. THIS question appears to me to be put in a very abrupt manner. One would think it the effusion of some unlettered rustic, rather than the production of one, who doubtless styles himself a gentleman and a scholar. It is one of many proofs, that the power and aggrandizement of the priesthood have rendered them insolent, arbitrary, arrogant, and tyrannical. What would any one of them say to me, were I to ask him where he was going? His reply would probably be: "Fellow, if you insult me with your impudent questions, I will have you taken care of. Do you know, that I am a doctor of divinity and a justice of the peace?" What a very unpleasant question it would have been, to have asked the Right Reverend Father in God, Percy Jocelyn, Lord Bishop of Clogher, where he was going, or how he intended to spend |