renown and valiant for the truth. These, during their stay in the same city, must have kept a watchful eye over such (as some suppose) sacred ordinance, and given the alarm long before it could possibly have been so corrupted. Silas and Timotheus

were also at Corinth during the residence of Paul in that city, and it does not appear that they left the place when the Apostle did (Acts xviii. 5, 18); but how long they staid cannot be ascertained.

It is not surprising that some in the church at Corinth, considering the different characters of which it was composed, converted Jews and Gentiles, should manifest a particular partiality towards those who preached unto them the Gospel. Some, wiser than the rest, claimed no other name than that of Christ; nor is it more surprising that there should have crept in some irregularity at the feast or supper of the Lord, or of love or charity; that they are all one in Scripture is evident. The rich in that church became (as is too often the case) rather too highminded as Christians-they were regardless of, or had forgot, the precept and example of Jesus, of Paul, and others who had been with them, that if any would be chief let him be as he that doth serve; instead of which one takes before the other his own supper, to the shame and confusion of the poor, who had no houses to call their own. The Apostle was grieved at their conduct, and tells them that by so doing they could not eat the Lord's Supper*.

* As for verses 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, of 1 Cor. xi. I reject them as base forgeries, and as such consign them to the shades below. There can scarce be a doubt, but that they were first created in some celebrated parson factory, and blazoned abroad by the trumpets of priests, to im pose on the credulity of unthinking multitudes; they not merely smell of popery, but are altogether repugnant to the revealed character of God, and the whole tenor of scripture given by his inspiration. I will only mention one striking instance: take a view of Jesus extended on the cross, bound and nailed hand and foot, by those murderers who shed bis most innocent blood; behold him in the agonies of his cruel death, uttering forth a prayer to God for his real murderers" Father (cries Jesus), forgive them for they know not what they do." But Oh! ye unmerciful priests (and certain others also I am sorry to say; once my brethren, who ought to have known better), ye consign unto Satan, to damnation, and death, all those who believe it not necessary to partake of the bread ye have broke, nor to drink of the wine ye have poured. Not so was the conduct of Jesus and his Apostles towards those who committed vast greater crimes than this; if a crime it could be proved.

I will here acknowledge, for the encouragement of " Philo Veritas," that he was the first I ever knew who disputed the above-named six verses; but not being willing to reject any part of divine revelation, as is generally believed to be such, on the mere statement of any man, without proper examination for myself, I devoted much attention to them during the space of six months; the result of which has been as you see above. And do indeed enlightened Unitarians make use of such a cun

1

" I did think, Mr. Editor, of retiring into winter quarters atr this advanced season of the year, after having bombarded at least, if not finally reduced, the last entrenchment of the enemy; but as the Philistines are again come down in order to fight it out on the plain, 1 will therefore muster all the forces entrusted to my care, consisting of native troops but lately trained to arms, and some ancient pieces of artillery formerly made use of by Jesus and his apostles. Now as I am conscious that the commander in chief, and his noble captain Paul, are on my side, with such help as this, victory must be certain, and the enemy beaten clean off the field of battle. O, thou stripling, is there no mention made in holy writ of eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ ? Yes, verily there is, for without Jesus and the resurrection we should be of all men the most miserable. The Apostle Paul speaks of it in 1 Cor. x. 16;and, as if particularly anxious not to be misunderstood, he first says "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup and the bread of which we (Christians) partake, is it not the communion of the body and blood of Christ? not such as ye, my brethren after the flesh, partook of at your passover suppers before ye believed in Jesus: such outward ceremonies and ordinances of divine service ye well know belong to the old covenant, but concerning those under the new covenant it is written-The just shall live by faith ; for we, though many (some of all nations), are one loaf, one body in Christ : for we are all partakers (by faith) of that one bread" (Christ) 17.

Paul (1 Cor. v. 8) speaks of keeping a feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I once heard a sacramental sermon preached by a doctor of divinity from that text, but 1 think no man whose mind had not been corrupted by the priest,

ningly derised fable in support of an ecclesiastical institution, presumptuously called the Lord's Supper? surely I must be mistaken!

I shall now add the motley catalogue of horribles contained in those few verses: there is the heinous sin of murder-the worst ever known upon the earth--that of shedding most innocent blood, a being guilty of the body and blood of Christ--there is a dreadful fear and terror instilled into the mind of man, lest he should become thus guilty in consequence of eating a little bit of bread and wine (said to be holy) in a certain unworthy manner, nd for want of a certain discernment, which the poor trembling soul can neither see nor comprehend-there is eating and drinking damnation to himself on the same account--and there is weakness of body, sickness, and death--nor is this all, there is self-examination as well as selfjudgment must be performed, if not, some other judgment is denounced upon his devoted head--the chastisement of the Lord; and if this last sore scourge is not inflicted, condemnation with the world awaits the unhappy man or woman. Behold here are a few of the blessings bestowed upon mankind through the cunning craftiness of priests; and if any man, whether bond or free, receive such sayings as the true sayings of God, let hin receive them, and by all means salute the pope's toe!

would have discovered any analogy between Paul's words and the bread used at a ceremonial supper. As you must recollect, Sir, the cause of my being delivered unto Satan, you may safely conclude that I am not now under the intoxicating influence of the priestly notion of the body and blood of Christ being communicated through the fingers of clergymen; and that to have communion, or to partake thereof, one must necessarily come to their holy board, and partake of their holy supper; neither according to the apparent idea of my late brethren, that I must eat a little bit of bread and wine, though alone by myself.

Jesus spoke largely on the subject about a twelvemonth before he suffered, to which I will now direct your attention (John iv). He there calls himself the bread of God (v. 33), the liv. ing bread which came down from heaven, and that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life, and he would raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed (ver. 54, 55). Now to believe for a moment that Jesus means his human flesh and blood would be next to insanity; nor do I think it a whit better to believe the popish notion of consecrated bread and wine being this flesh and blood. Protestants in general believe, that by eating a little morsel of bread and wine from the hand of the priest, after his blessing, it is somehow communicated to them, unless they happen to eat and drink unworthily, in which case they are liable to premature death and judgment; but by keeping close to the words which Jesus spake, none of these things do appear. Himself explains the figurative language he makes use of over and over again in the very same chapter-" verily, verily, I say unto you (saith Jesus), he that believeth on me hath everlasting life, shall never hunger nor thirst, and I will raise him up at the last day;" see also John iii. 16, 17. So that according to the testimony of Jesus and Paul, it is by faith alone that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.

Where are we now to look for scripture precept or example for an ecclesiastical institution of bread and wine? Alas! not to be found. Here then is discovered the key of heaven so much talked of as belonging to the see of Rome: howbeit every priest keeps one of the same stamp, for his sole and separate use; for, saith the clergy, as you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, to have eternal life—and as this inestimable blessing is communicated to man through the medium of bread and wine, which we bless-the distribution thereof is committed unto us his ministers, and us only, therefore, as saith the Lord, unless ye eat and drink thereof, ye must perish everlastingly. They hold this firm, like a bone

within the jaws of a greedy dog-let any man, friend or foe, try to dispossess them of this their key, or bone of contention, see if they will not bite, and if possible rend him in pieces.

Stoke Newington, Jan. 1812.

I remain, &c.

W. C.

REMARKS ON THE EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

Writer in your Magazine, who calls himself" Christophilus," attaches, in my opinion, a vast deal too much weight and operation to his arguments on the side of Christianity. To me he appears to have said nothing, which had not been said a thousand times before; and certainly, I would add (with his permission), quite as well. His last effort, in particular, is no way distinguished, except by an air of superciliousness, not, perhaps, eminently fitted to disarm and soften an adversary. Is it possible that this gentleman can be aware of the serious and formidable objections that have been urged against that particular system of belief which professes to be a divine revelation? Has he never read for himself the works of Gibbon, Voltaire, Hume, or Bolingbroke? And if he has, where is the candour, where is the decency, of calling such objections" silly and ridiculous?"

I despise and abhor, as much as "Christophilus" can do, the abusive and miserable publications of Paine: still I would do him justice some of his arguments, I fear, it is not in the abilities of a Christophilus to shake. For my own part, I am not an enemy to the Christian religion: some of its doctrines appear to me just and sublime; and many of its precepts are, beyond all doubt, salutary and beneficial. If I reject its pretensions to divinity, it is upon a general principle, and not from any fixed or rooted antipathy to the system itself. It is absolutely necessary to erect a standard against superstition somewhere, or to surrender to it at discretion: and, for this purpose, the stability of the laws of nature affords an elevated and commanding post; a station, from which future philosophers will be able, if not to destroy the forces of the priesthood, at least to keep them everlastingly at bay.

As to the facts which your correspondent so exultingly refers to, they are all either easily accounted for on principles common to our nature, or such as lose themselves in some of those rare and extraordinary combinations of events and circumstances, which the revolution of numberless ages can hardly be expected to repeat.

Gibbon has most satisfactorily explained the causes, by the operation of which Christianity spread with such unexampled rapidity, through the vast extent of the Roman empire. And with regard to the condition of the Jews, it is by no means difficult to trace, with great accuracy and precision, the effects of the Mosaic constitution upon their sentiments, customs, manners-upon every thing in short which has distinguished and marked the posterity of Abraham through a long range of vicissitudes, certainly the most singular. Ask a modern enthusiast, to give you the history of his conversion; he will give you a marvellous account of what he calls the dealings of the spirit; of the dreams, and doubts, and terrors, and illuminations. Read the Jewish history, or, indeed, the history of any barbarous people, and every page is crowded with supernatural events; and all as well attested, as any of the public transactions of those times. And what have we to oppose to all this? Shall we believe it? That is not possible. Shall we reject it? O, but it is supported by testimony. In truth, nothing can be done, at this distance of time, but appealing to the common sense of mankind, and the invariable course of nature.

The reasonableness of believing in a fact, which contravenes the settled laws of the world, is, after all, unquestionably, the grand, fundamental, leading matter of discussion. If Christophilus is equal to this, he may yet render the cause of reve lation no inconsiderable service, Your's, &c. February 7, 1812.

ON THE RESURRECTION.

A DEIST.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

A CORRESPONDENT, in your last number, who signs himself G. G. F. says, on the subject of the resurrection, "man is a being compounded of body and ideas, and feelings are dependant upon the body." Without going into the question at present, whether those ideas and feelings, or as Mr. Hume has termed them, ideas and impressions, be material, or otherwise, 1 should be glad to be informed, how, if man be compounded of body and ideas and feelings alone, those ideas and feelings are perceived and compared-They must, I apprehend, upon this hypothesis, either perceive themselves; that is, sounds must perceive sounds, odours perceive odours, &c. or sounds must perceive odours, odours perceive tastes, &c. The ideas and feelings too of touch must compare themselves with those of sight, with those of hearing, &c.

What Haliet has said, and which I recollect to have read