rious maricles; and that, whilst the witnesses of them were still living. If all these were pious frauds," the existence of them without detection, is a greater miracle than any one recorded in the Evangelical History.

And, if it was a "pious fraud," whence arose "the calamitous necessity of going on?" why, if a few persons had contrived such a fraud (which Mr. Paine acknowledges they would not do, except " under circumstances productive of some good") should thousands, not participators in that " good," suffer imprisonment, scourging, and death itself, in vindication of it? All this contradicts reason, and is repugnant to the motives of human conduct. See page 49, 64, 100.

"The persons who first preached the Christian system of faith, and in some measure combined with it the morality preached by Jesus Christ, might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology that then prevailed. From the first preachers, the fraud went on to the second, and to the third, till the idea of its being a pious fraud became lost in the belief of its being true; and that belief became again encouraged by the interests of those who made a livelihood by preaching it.

But though such a belief might, by such means, be redeered almost general among the laity, it is next to impossibility to account for the continual persecution carried on by the Church, for several hundred years, against the sciences, and against the professors of science, if the Church had not some record or some tradition, that it was originally no other than a pious fraud, or did not foresee that it could not be maintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe afforded."

When Mr. Paine said, that "the persons who first preached the Christian system of faith, and in some measure combined with it the morality preached by Jesus Christ, might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology that then prevailed," he surely might have told us something about its first preachers, and the probability of their being influenced by the motives he has here assigned them. But no, it is always the practice of slander to breathe general surmises; it is the

business of truth to descend to particular evidence. Such I shall produce in this place. The first two persons that preached the Christian system of faith" were Peter and John, two disciples of Jesus Christ, the excellency of whose morality Mr. Paine has here for the third time acknowledged. Those disciples, surely, cannot be suspected either of having preached a "pious fraud," or with being anxious to revolutionize the religion of the world.

"Starving their gain, and martyrdom their price." But these, when forbid to "preach that faith," replied to the unbelieving and persecuting Jews, in a manner and language very little characteristic of a "pious fraud." "We cannot, said those Apostles, but speak the things which we have seen and heard." These, afterwards, suffered martyrdom in attestation of their faith. The next who

preached the Christian system of faith," was Stephen, another disciple of the Founder of that system. He submitted to be stoned to death declaring his belief in it, and with his last breath, confirmed the sincerity and immoveableness of his faith; "calling upon God, saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." And if we go on to the fourth person who "preached the Christian system of faith," we find him to be an individual, not born a Christian, not trained to it by education, not induced to it by worldly interest, but one "who thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." This individual became a convert to it, and preached it at the hazard of his life, to the very people with whom he had formerly conspired to oppose it; and, finally, he yielded himself a martyr to the cause of it. After these, succeeded other Apostles, who closed their career in the same glorious manner; and all these had seen, and heard, the Lord Jesus.

If we proceed further we find the same attestations of the truth of the Christian system of faith. See pages 49 &c. 64, 100, 261.

Thus we find "the fraud" originated; thus it was transmitted onwards; and with this evidence it is received by us..

1

The first preachers obtained a bare" livelihood by preaching it ;" and nothing more than a bare, a very bare, a too bare livelihood, is obtained by preaching it now; much too bare, to favour the propagation of a fraud. All that the clergy now obtain, more than this, is purchased with the same price that would purchase an estate.

The second paragragh is directed against the Roman Catholic Church; and Mr. Paine should have confessed, that Christianity was taught and flourished for more than three hundred years in opposition to the prejudices, and cruelty of secular power; without a capacity to make one effort against "the sciences, or the professors of them;" that there is nothing in its precepts contrary to the study of philosophy; and that the very persecution which came in with the Romish Church, did not originate in an apprehension, that the principles of science could overturn it, or prove it to be a pious fraud; but, that the abuse of those principles might be successfully employed with the ignorant to repress it. And, perhaps, this motive, at first pure, might, when the occasion of it no longer existed, be assigned to cover more sinister, and worldly designs. See pages 216-222.

It has been my business, so frequently, to confront Mr. Paine with himself, that the discovery of a contradiction has long lost its novelty. But, he improves in his absurdity, as he advances in his labours. In the first of these paragraphs, he says, " from the first preachers, the fraud went to the second (preachers) and to the third (preachers) 'till the idea of its being a pious fraud became lost (to the preachers) in the belief (by the preachers) of its being true." In the second paragraph, he says, "it is next to impossible, &c. if the church (the preachers) had not some record, or some tradition, that it was originally, no other than a pious fraud." That is, the fraud either sunk into a belief of being a truth; or, was remembered to be a fraud, just as it suited the hypothesis of Mr. Paine. Can charity ascribe this to ignorance? Justice would assign it to a want of principle.

I have already shown, that Christianity could not possibly be a "pious fraud" That conclusion is further strengthened by the fact, that many of its professors became apostates, but no one ever fixed upon it the character of fraud. Even Julian, who laboured hard to bring it into contempt, laboured in vain; which could not have been the case, if "a record or tradition had existed, that it originated in a pious fraud."

The assertion, that Christianity could not withstand the counter-evidence of science, has been confuted by at least two centuries of experience. If science be advancing, so also is Christianity; and the greatest infidels of the present day, are not men of science, but dabblers in philosophy, who, like Mr. Paine, know no more of it, than is sufficient to lead them into error.

66

Having thus shewn the irreconcilable inconsistencies between the real word of God existing in the universe, and that which is called the word of God, as shewn to us in a printed book, that any man might make, I proceed to speak of the three principle means that have been employed in all ages, and, perhaps, in all countries, to impose upon mankind.

Those three means are mystery, miracle, and prophecy. The two first are incompatible with true Religion, and the third ought always to be suspected.

With respect to mystery, every thing we behold, is, in one sense, a mystery to us; our own existence is a mystery; the whole vegetable world is a mystery. We cannot account how it is, that an acorn, when put into the ground, is made to develope itself, and become an oak. We know not how it is, that the seed we sow, unfolds, and multiplies itself; and returns to us such an abundant interest, for so small a capital.

The fact, however, as distinct from the operating cause, is not a mystery, because we see it; and we know also, the means we are to use, which is no other than putting the seeed in the ground. We know, therefore, as much as is necessary for us to know; and that part of the operation that we do not know, and which, if w did, we could not perform, the Creator takes it upon himself, and performs it for us. We are, therefore, better off than if we had been let into the secret, and left do it for ourselves."

"Having thus shewn the irreconcilable inconsistencies &c." Having shewn! Where? What! is the flimsy superficial tirade of scraps and fragments of philosophy displayed in this volume, the "shewing" the irreconcilable inconsistencies between Religion and science? The nonsense, the absurd, the almost tangeable nonsense, about "all science in the starry heavens." That trigonometry is "the soul of science," the mathematical demonstration of which man speaks! The power of beholding an immensity of worlds revolving in the ocean of space! &c. &c. &c. Are these the "shewings," that shall annihilate the Religion of Newton, of Bacon, of Locke?

It is because there are men who suffer ignorance or prejudice to blind them against truth, that I have drawn them again to these absurdities. See page 5-12, 24, 33, 47, 94, 106, 110, 157, 165, 171, 177, 184, 199, 232.

In opposition to the opinion of Mr. Paine, that the Christian record, is a book " that any man might make;" I will take the liberty of quoting the opinion of Mr.. Locke. "Let it be granted, he says, (though not true) that all the moral precepts of the gospel, were known by somebody or other, amongst mankind, before. But, where, or how, or of what use, is not considered. Suppose they may be picked up here and there; some from Solon and Bias, in Greece; others from Tully in Italy; and, to complete the work, let Confucius, as far as China, be consulted; and Anacharsis, the Scythian, contribute his share. What will all this do, to give the world a complete morality, that may be to mankind the unquestionable rule of life and manners? I will not here urge the impossibility of collecting from men so far distant from one another, in time, and place, and languages. I will suppose there was a Stobæus in those times, who had gathered the moral sayings from all the sages of the world. What would this amount to towards being a steady rule, a certain transcript of a law that we are under? Did the saying of Aristippus or Confucius give it an authority? Was Zeno, a lawgiver to mankind? If not, what he or any