lived Joshua" (c. 31, the handle and t Is Just could not have toit that. After enumerating the militare brisa i is said, “As for the Jebusin, the matters of Jesam từ thiês f Judah could not drive them out but the Jebus ¿wer with the china f Judah at Jerusalem un čas." The account of fore taking of deresslem by David, is giver 2 Samuel tít. I: Chances ch KM 5. 6. &c. But no other capture of the city is aimed to the Bhim, anỀ N foundation exists for the suppostin dhe i va uka beins; sot v ŽR that in the accomte nothing whatever sat of saugmeing the riginal inhabitants, as was always the case when a 10WI Was Thim je assaut, and we may reasonably suppose the IT Led, and therefter the expression in Joshua can correspond with me scher time than sher the tasting of the place by David, and therefore Joshua cocit not write the bwk the contains such an allusion. The same observation may may to Joshua's pretended writings as to those of Moses, that, as they are reERY EDBLYIDUUS End not written till many years after the events they profess to describe, we can cre no credit to them. Let us also remember that the authors, whoever they were, give us no account of the means by which they became soquainted with the circumstances recorded by them, and we have no more probable supposition than that they gathered them from mere traction.

In speaking of the miracles of Christ, the few remarks Mr. Leslie makes are founded upon the Scriptures alone, and these are not proved satisfactorily by him. As for their being done in the sight of all men, I say that there is only one of all the miraculous deeds that are said to have been publicly performed, that, if done as is said, admits of no deception, viz., the feeding of the five thousand, and even then the five thousand say it not, nor do they in anywise corroborate the story. In addition to this, we are told with no certainty in what place this was done, the utmost we can discover being that it was near Bethsaida by the sea of Galilee. Of his other miracles, the stilling of the tempest, the walking on the sea, the appearance after the resurrection, the transfiguration and the ascension, were most wonderful, but these were performed only in the presence of his disciples, that is, the apostles, and there is no other evidence of their truth but theirs. The Lord's Supper is said to be a memorial of Christ, but this also was only instituted in the presence of the twelve apostles, and these communicated it to others who were obliged to take it upon their word. If the existence of ceremo nies, whose causes the books of the New Testament allude to and treat of, be an evidence of their authenticity because they mention them, why was it not also a sufficient reason for the acknowledgment of the numerous books, candidates for inspiration, rejected by the councils appointed to determine the case? If the apostles instituted and assigned causes for the ceremonials of Christianity there were none to deny it, because they were the sole witnesses. Of the evidences of Mahometanism I shall say nothing; it is enough to

show the falsity of the Bible without attempting to look to another religion with which I have no concern.

I may here remark, that if the books of Moses and Joshua were forgeries, as I have already proved that they were, it was as easy to gain credence to a tale of the origin of any particular monument as to palm these upon the people.

With regard to the fallacious triumph Mr. Leslie has thought fit to enjoy at the expense of Deists, who, he says, would laugh at one who should deny Homer, Virgil, Cæsar, or Alexander, his own expression proclaims his own conviction when he says they are of so much less importance to men. But I did not know that Deists were so apt to laugh at any person foolish enough to waste his time in such a profitless inquiry.

After this comes a dissertation on the sufferings of the apostles. Christians do not appear to understand that these might be attributed to any other cause but that of religion, but I will show that they might. The Romans, as is well known, had subjugated the whole of Europe, and were, as all conquerors must be, extremely jealous of all appearance of treason; the emperors in particular punished attempts, real or imaginary, with the greatest severity, and the cruel ones even went so far as to put a general to death when they considered him too high in the favour of the army. The Christians aroused their suspicions by proclaiming that a king was come, meaning a heavenly king, but it was often received by the people as signifying an earthly monarch, and the Christian writers did their utmost to undeceive them. But we know that they did not succeed, and were burnt and tortured to death. To accuse in those halcyon days was to convict, and conviction was condemnation to the most horrible torments. Again, the people were divided into freemen and slaves, of whom the former of course held all power. The adherents of Christianity preached the emancipation of slaves, and must necessarily have incurred the anger of the higher classes, who held all power of punishment in their own hands, while they progressed rapidly in the favour of the common people. To check this growing partiality, the former contrived many means to render them odious to the populace. The principal among these contrivances was, that in the reign of Nero, when after the city of Rome was nearly destroyed by fire, the Christians were accused of being the incendiaries. This raised the pitch of popular frenzy to a violent degree, and their tortures under this persecution were the most terrible that can be imagined. Yet all this was not for the sake of their religion, but for the accusation, which Nero had an additional motive for pressing because he was suspected of having fired the city himself. Mr. Leslie says that, supposing the apostles had hoped to obtain temporal advantages, when they discovered their error they would have saved their lives by confessing their deceit; but several of them, including Peter and Paul, are said to have died in this persecution and as I have said above, and the asser

tion is fully corroborated, there was no chance of their escaping by confession, which would most probably not have been regarded at all.

For an examination of the prophecies which are here alluded to, but not given, I must refer the reader to the Bible to examine under what circumstances those sentences were delivered which were wrung into such, and if he has not penetration sufficient to discover their flimsiness, let him read an examination of those prophecies quoted in the New Testament as concerning Jesus Christ, by Thomas Paine, which he may obtain of Mr. Watson, or Mr. B. D. Cousins, for a few pence.

The usual cant of Christianity has been echoed by Mr. Leslie that it was not propagated by the sword, forgetting that as soon as they had the opportunity and power they used the stake and faggot with great liberality.

In arguing upon the subject of miracles, Mr. Leslie says that the Deists, in denying that they can be evidences of a revelation, deprive God of the power of revealing anything extraordinary to mankind, But the Deists have such an exalted notion of the Author of Nature, that, say they, he has provided beferehand for all emergencies, and has created the whole system of nature in perfection (as internally considered, and without reference to other objects), and therefore has no need of patching his work. Besides, if he had the power to make a revelation of his existence by a lasting proof, he would possess and exercise the same power in revealing that which was equally necessary to be known, and not proceed by transient or doubtful

means.

His argument, that if we cannot point out the bounds of nature, we cannot say that there is such a thing as nature, is downright nonsense, for as we all know that the exact laws of nature are far from being discovered, why, if his assertion holds good, we must be atheists according to his own admission, which of course would lay the Christian faith at once in the dust.

Deists are challenged to produce a forgery which possesses all Mr. Leslie's four marks. To this I reply, that there are few miracles of any importance in the Bible which have them, of which the principal are the passing over Jordan and the deliverance from the Egyptians. There was no monument of the passage of the Red Sea; it possessed, if true, only the first two marks, which the exploded tale of the sea of Pamphilia opening to allow Alexander and his army to pass through had in common with it. The tale of the Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man and also a cripple at Alexandria, whom the physicians had examined, is as well attested as those of Christ; and the blind man was, according to Tacitus, notorious for disease in the eyes. Nor does this tale admit of the solution Christian writers have offered, that there was a collusion between the physicians and patients, and most probably Vespasian himself; because the physicians would have given a very different account of the diseases of the two men-they would have favoured the Emperor, whereas they leaned to neither side.

But I will give a reputed miracle bearing all these four marks, but which is undoubtedly false, namely, the appearance in the heavens, which is sup posed to have caused the conversion of Constantine, surnamed the Great, Emperor of Rome. The story runs thus. Constantine, who was at the time disputing the Empire with Maxenlius, a Pagan, was marching at the head of his army to Rome. Suddenly there appeared in the sky a pillar of fire in the form of a cross, with the inscription in Greek EN TOYTA NIKA, which signifies, In this overcome. The whole army witnessed it; and it was also a wonder of which men's eyes were the judges. Constantine caused a banner to be made with a representation of this vision upon it, and it was also sculptured upon every statue of him. But the best monument we can find of it is, the immediate establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire. Yet this tale, with all its four marks, is generally allowed to be a falsity. It is, indeed, ridiculous to suppose that God would make his wishes hnown to a Latin people through the medium of the Greek tongue, in which the inscription was written.

Of Christ's miracles, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are said to be the observances; but baptism was instituted long before, and was the most natural means that could be employed by the founders of a new sect; and the Lord's Supper was observed in memory of no miracle any more than baptism, that I am aware of. A mere observance proves nothing; any new creed may have its observances, and yet not be true.

If Christ's miracles were performed in the presence of so many persons at a time, it is very marvellous that so few should believe in him. We must remember that the Messiah was expected by the Jews, and that, therefore, he was not a person unlooked for. The pretence that the Jews would have been required to abandon their ancient laws is false, for Jesus said he came not to destroy the law. Again, it is surprising that so many should see him, and yet the high priests be obliged to bribe one of his twelve followers handsomely to point him out. This shows that he was but little known; and if he had preached frequently in the midst of them, and talked with the priests themselves, they would have had no need to have paid large sum for his capture.

A jeer is levelled at Deists, who are told that if priests are so wise and cunning they should worship them as deities, which idea, in my opinion, although suited to Christian models of a God, does not agree with deistical notions of his mercy and benevolence.

It is further said that God's miracles (those called such in the Bible) have never contradicted human senses. But if Mr. Leslie would have had the kindness to have given us a rule by which we might know infernal from celestial miracles, we should have been eternally obliged to him. His talking of imposing upon mankind a tale that they had practised institutions and observed laws of which they really knew nothing, is entirely neutralised by

the position I have assumed regarding the forgeries of the books of the Bible. Amid the brutal nations among whose inhabitants Deism has progressed, I suppose the French people are reckoned.

Mr. Leslie has truly said that false religion is but a corruption of the true. Pure Deism has had its imitations and corrupted forms, amongst which we may reckon Paganism, Mahometanism, and Christianity. Each sect is compelled to declare war against all different professions on those points, the belief or disbelief of which constitute their distinction; and can it be an argument against Deists to say that they comply with this inevitable law?

I suppose, amongst the several institutions which the founder of Christianity has left behind him (according to Mr. Leslie) for the benefit of mankind, tithes are intended to be included.

In consigning Deists to damnation for attacking the priesthood, the Dissenters and Quakers are mentioned by name as being included in the same throng. Let me ask whether the dreams and visions, on which so much in Christianity depends-the visitations of Joseph and Mary, and many others, by angels in their sleep, and the book of Revelations-have one of these four marks? If they have not, then priests have no reason why they should not give them up to neglect and to the contempt they deserve. But this would not do, for we should then have a religion without a foundation at all, in which case we could not be deluded-but now a cloud or a sand-bank may be tortured into some form or other, and exhibited to the world as a firm resting-place for faith.

The professors of Deism are called self-conceited. Such an accusation rather belongs to Christians, who damn every man everlastingly who holds a creed contrary to theirs, even though he believe conscientiously. But Deists are not so selfish. They consider that to put faith in such horrible slaughters as are said in the Scriptures to have been done by the command of God is to debase him below the level of a vindictive man, and it is blasphemy and nothing else, when held in the face of conviction; but when any person believes such things with a good conscience, they do not trample him down with anathemas, excommunications, and all the thunder which ecclesiastics and their followers are so ready to hurl upon those of opposite sects. The little marks of contemptible petty spite which Christians so delight to exhibit find no place in the conduct of a Deist. Girt round by no threatened torments, Deism stands pure and uncorrupted. The noble-minded and generous Hume has no superior in the ranks of Christianity. This man, beloved by all who knew him, and conspicuous for all the virtues that shine like jewels in the crown of humanity, a master-piece of nature, these infuriate madmen, religion-struck, would consign to eternal tortures for not holding their faith. What example can show more plainly how fallacious and weak are the threats they hold out to apostates from their execrable superstitions to deter them from acknowledging the truth and following the dictates of conscience?