think he ought to have done. In my last I endeavoured to shew that the intention would not justify the means; but Juvenis, regardless of the propriety or impropriety of the arguments adduced, still keeps to his text, that "the stability of the thing sufficiently justifies the means." I called upon him to shew the moral excellence of pulpit preaching; but all he says in return is, that he thinks there are thousands who could bear testimony to its value. I endeavoured to shew by reasoning founded on the nature of the human mind, that pulpit preaching, as practised in the present day, is not calculated to excite it into action; and his reply is, that he doubts the correctness of the reasoning. I argued to shew that if the plan contained in the New Testament was consonant to the will of God, then we ought not to deviate from it, or seek for any other; and to this he makes no sort of reply. Now I leave it to you and your readers, Mr. Editor, to determine whether he has dealt with these as a man ought to have dealt with them who was really desirous of coming at the truth.

I shall close my observations by proposing a few questions, to which I beg the future attention of Juvenis, and of any others who may be disposed to defend pulpit preaching.

1. Does the New Testament contain any rules or regulations by which the primitive Christian church was organized? 2. If it does, is there any one among them that relates to the mode of teaching in that church?

3. If there is, what authority have Christians of the present day, who are members of the same church (for the church of God is but one church)-what authority have they for adopting any mode that is contrary to, or that differs from, the mode there laid down?

Hoping that these queries will meet with plain, fair, and manly replies, 1 remain, Sir, your's, &c. Kingsland Road, June 12, 1812.

IT

TIMOTHEUS.

EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

T has been frequently objected to Christianity, that the evidence of its truth depends entirely on a book, the authenticity of which remains to be proved. In obviating this, it has been my endeavour to adduce such arguments in its favour as does not depend upon, although they are sanctioned and supported by, the book called the Scriptures. 1 have advanced facts and effects which cannot be disputed; to these facts and

effects 1 have assigned adequate, and in my opinion, the only adequate causes that can rationally account for them. I have called upon the opposers of Christianity to find, if they can, more adequate, or at least as adequate causes-but in vain; for all that I have seen even attempted has consisted of loose and vague conjecture, such as it is possible they might arise from such and such causes, without shewing that they were really adequate or more rational and conclusive than those I had proposed.

Proceeding upon my old plan, I shall in this letter state a fact which was foretold by Jesus, as a proof of his resurrection, and which the New Testament says did actually take place. I do not claim any thing in its favour from being written in the acts of the apostles; because proof would be asked of their authenticity. I will examine it as a philosopher-I see an effect, and desire an adequate cause and no more. The effect I refer to shall not be taken from scripture, but from the writ ings of a man, the most insidious enemy that Christianity ever had.

Mr. Gibbon, who has stated, in a variety of instances, which I shall quote, the amazing spread of Christianity, has assigned causes for it, though, in my opinion, no ways adequate; and has omitted the only cause which could be adequate to the effect, viz. the cause which the New Testament assigns, and which, I believe, he omitted for that very reason; the consequence of which is, that all his reasoning on the subject is a heterogeneous mass of contradiction and confusion. Speaking of the progress of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 265, he says, "a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposi tion; and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross on the ruins of the capitol." Thus was confirmed what Jesus told his disciples, Matt. xxiv. 14. and "this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world (the Roman empire), for a testimony to all nations." Surely if Jesus was not a prophet this must be a lucky hit indeed, that history should so completely fulfil the prophecy, if Jesus had not a knowledge superior to other men. Again, p. 277, "the Jewish converts, or as they were afterwards called the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundation of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism, enlisted under the banner of Christianity;" and, p. 286, speaking only of a sect of Christians (or heretics as they were called), who arose in the second cen tury, he says "they covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the pro

vinces of the West." How numerous then must have been the main body of Christians! since the appellation of heretics (says Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 360), has always been applied to the most numerous party." Again, p. 364, he says "the Christians of Rome, at the time of the accidental persecution of Nero (first century), are represented by Tacitus, as already amounting to a great multitude." Again, speaking of Pliny, Seneca, and Tacitus, all of whom lived in the first century (p. 376)"their language or their silence equally discover their contempt for the growing sect which, in their time, had diffused itself over the Roman Empire;" and, p. 358, "there is the strongest reason to believe, that before the reign of Dioclesian and Constantine, the faith of Christ had been preached in every province, and in all the great cities of the empire." P. 359, 66 Among the societies which were instituted in Syria,

none were more ancient or more illustrious than those of Damascus, of Berea or Aleppo, and of Antioch. The prophetic introduction of the apocalypse has described and immortalized the seven churches of Asia-Ephesus, Symrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, and Philadelphia; and their colonies were soon diffused over that populous country. In a very early period the islands of Cyprus and Greece, the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, gave a favourable reception to the new religion, and Christian republics were soon founded in the cities of Corinth, of Sparta, and of Athens." Again, p. 360, "From the writings of Lucian (2nd century), a philosopher who had studied mankind, and who describes their manners in the most lively colours, we may learn, that under the reign of Commodus, his native country was filled with Epicureans and Christians. Within fourscore years after the death of Christ, the humane Pliny laments the magnitude of the evil, which he vainly attempted to eradicate; in his very curious epistle to the Emperor Trajan, he affirms that the temples were almost deserted, that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the superstition (the Christian religion) had not only infected the cities, but had eyen spread itself into the villages and the open country of Pontus and Bythynia."

Here then are plain facts stated by Gibbon, and from the best authority, viz. persons who were living at the time they took place, and who could have no interest in giving conse quence to the success of a religion they despised, which proves that at a very early period Christianity had spread itself over the whole Roman empire, among people of all nations, languages, and tongues; that it had nearly subverted the religion of all these nations, and caused their temples, &c. to be

deserted, and their sacred victims to be despised. The busi'ness of this essay shall be to call for an adequate cause for such a mighty effect, so contrary to all our experience.

But so averse was Gibbon to this testimony, which as an historian he was constrained to give, that in opposition to authentic records, which he has himself quoted, he endeavours by circumstantial evidence, to shew that the spread of Christianity was not so rapid as these testimonies would prove; but, with all his endeavours, he has failed; for one circumstance, which he himself afterwards records, and which nobody can dispute, shall compleatly destroy all he has gathered from other cir 'cumstances, viz. the conversion of Constantine to the Christian religion, whose sincerity he justly suspects, and imputes it to policy-a man who, having two rivals whom he wished to subdue, Maxintius and Sicinius, would naturally wish to make himself popular in the empire, and of course incline him to the most numerous party. Vol. iii. p. 254, he says, "while Constantine, in his own dominions, increased the number and zeal of his dependants, he could depend on the support of a powerful faction (the Christians), in those provinces which were still possessed or usurped by his rivals." Again, p. 255, "the enthusiasm which inspired the troops, and perhaps the emperor himself, had sharpened their swords while it satisfied their consciences; they marched to battle with the full assur ance, that the same God who had formerly opened a passage to the Israelites through the waters of Jordan, &c. would dis play his visible majesty and power in the victory of Constantine;" and, p. 260, "the authority of the church might alone have had sufficient weight to justify the devotion of Constan tine, who in the same prudent and gradual progress acknow ledged the truth, and assumed the symbol of Christianity;' and, p. 262, speaking of the pretended dream of Constantine, he says, "as readily might a consummate statesman indulge himself in one of those military stratagems, one of those pious frauds, which Philip and Sentorius had employed with such art and effect."

Here then we have the confession of Gibbon, that to him it appeared the conversion of Constantine was a matter of policy, possibly "a military stratagem, or pious fraud;" and all for what end, unless what he and other writers have recorded be true, that Christianity had overspread the empire. Of what use would it have been if the majority of his army had not professed Christianity-or how could Pagans, fighting under a Christian standard, have their consciences satisfied, and their zeal increased, by recurring to facts, as encouragement, recorded in a book which they neither believed in or knew? It is clear

then, that in less than three hundred years Christianity had been made known and received as true, by the majority of the Roman empire; for if Constantine's conversion originated in policy, his subjects must have been converted before he found it prudent to adopt their faith. Here then is the fact, and, as a philosopher I ask for an adequate cause; I seek it not from the scriptures, although if I find it there I shall not reject it on that account, but I look to other religions, and enquire if they have met with the same success, and by the same means? The principal one that presents itself is the religion of Mahomet-its spread was exceedingly rapid; but I find it was accomplished by force and the sword; that all the nations whom the prophet and his adherents subdued, were compelled to embrace his religion, or were either extirpated or reduced to the most abject slavery.

Again, I look to Gibbon, to an enemy, for information, whether during the three hundred years in which Christianity obtained such myriads of converts, similar means were resorted to? and he tells me, vol. iii. p. 265, "that it gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross on the ruins of the capitol." It is true that Gibbon has endeavoured to counteract this assertion, by imputing to Christians less justifiable means of promoting their cause; but if those charges are examined, they will be found, in general, only applicable to those who lived after the conversion of Constantine; and it is only to the time previous to bis conversion, to which I refer to a period when, whatever might be their inclination, it must be clear they never had possessed the means of making converts by force or conquest.

So far from this being the case, Mr. Gibbon tells us, that they were placed in circumstances the most unfavourable that the human mind can conceive for bringing over converts to their party; whilst the religion which Christianity opposed had every thing connected with it that could indulge the passions, fascinate the fancy, and gratify the avarice and ambition of its adherents. It allowed the most unlimited licentiousness, had the popular voice in its favour, and opened a way to all the honours and emoluments of the state-while (says Gibbon, (vol. ii. 289), “it was the first but arduous duty ofa Christian to preserve himself pure and undefiled from the practice of idolatry. The religion of the nations was not merely a spe-. culative doctrine, professed in the schools or preached in the temples-the innumerable deities and rites of polytheism were closely interwoven with every circumstance of business or plea