ing to the Billingsgate fishwoman, and Jesus to the gentleman; but he being dead, his friends can only act as they suppose he would have acted, had he been living. To treat him with contempt, would make him think he had triumphed; to answer all his false charges, would be as endless a task as replying to the Billingsgate. I shall, therefore, set the real character of Jesus, and the Gospels in contrast to his false one; I shall show many of his charges to be known and wilful perversions, vilely so, for the basest of purposes; and by exhibiting his complete dishonesty, shew that not one word of what he says is to be depended on; that he is a suborned and a false witness, who would be kicked out of any court of justice, were he to give such evidence there. Ecce Homo! Behold the man! and when you have beheld him, reader, if you have any sense of virtue, honour, or honesty, you will turn from him with disgust and abhorrence; not because he has opposed, analyzed, and criticised Christianity, but because pretending to do so, he has basely perverted and abused it, and blackened or attempted to blacken, with crimes the most odious, the most virtuous of men. But if you thus despise the author, how much more must you execrate the publisher of such a work.

I have read the work with attention, and its features I will exhibit in a very clear and summary way, by shewing the spirit and the plan of the book from the following comparisons. Suppose then that an author should pretend to give a rational analysis of the life of Howard or any other virtuous Philanthropist, Sir Francis Burdett, for instance-of Howard it might be written, that "he visited the penitentiary houses where those who had been prostitutes resided; his generous soul scorned that pride which keeps the rich from visiting the receptacles of wretchedness and guilt; wherever he could give relief or instruction there he visited, regardless of the consequences. On one occasion he was accosted by a female who had led a profligate life, but sick of folly desired to forsake it; she applied to him for instruction; he took her into his service, and she becoming a virtuous woman, he ever after kept her in his house. On another occasion, hearing of a distressed widow, with a large family of children, most of them females, and consequently least able to obtain a maintenance, feeling for their distressed situation, he gave them money, delivered them from their distress, and constantly watched over their welfare." Or were it written of Sir Francis Burdett, "that he was always the friend

of the people in opposition to a corrupt government; that he fostered and encouraged men of learning and science; that his house was always open to the friends of reform, and that he was ever ready to assist with his services those who suffered in the cause of liberty "-I say, if an author were to sit down to analyse these works, and turning honey into gall, should pervert every fact so as to make these men appear the vilest of hypocrites, would not their friends be mad to attempt an answer to every charge? They would leave facts to speak for themselves, and either laugh at or despise the man who should say, "their characters are ruined, unless you answer all the charges I have brought against them.' To perform this task of perversion would be easy, and the following remarks will shew that from such criticism the purest character could not escape.

Suppose, in his analysis of the life of Howard, he were to say, "we find him visiting houses where prostitutes resided. Ah! the case is clear, he was fond of low company, he cared not who it was, so that he could gratify his lustful disposition under the mask of humanity; these ladies of easy virtue were just to his taste, he wisely concluded they were accessible, and had not entirely lost the relish of their old employment. Here again, says he, we find him in company, téle-à-léle with a common prostitute; they soon struck the bargain, and he took her home for purposes, which I will leave the reader to judge, but no doubt suited to his vitiated propensities, as we always find him in such company. Again, we find him visiting a widow with five blooming daughters; no doubt he relieved the mother that he might seduce the daughters. This my readers cannot doubt, as we find him frequently among the ladies, to whose company he always seemed attached." Or, analyzing the life of Sir Francis Burdett, he should say, "here is the true character of the man, his object was ambition, and all these fine actions merely tended to conceal a black heart and to help him in the attainment of his object, that of overthrowing the government, that he himself might mount the throne."

I say it would be easy thus to pervert the best actions; and in respect to Sir Francis Burdett, we know it has been done even by the man who now disgraces him by his praise, Mr. Cobbett. This then is the true character of the work before me. The writer has exactly pursued the same method with Jesus, that such an analyzer above is supposed to do with Howard and Burdett; and everybody must see the case with which it may be

performed; and if the readers are as credulous as men called Deists are in general, it will go down, and the author be applauded; but if I make out my case, that the book called Ecce Homo is the same perverted criticism and unfair analysis, whatever would be the opinion of the public respecting the analyzer of Howard and Burdett, must also belong to the analyzer of Jesus and the gospels.

The whole of the work is a flimsy tissue of perversion, falsehood, deception, and abuse. To prove which, I shall first produce the motto-" The cross was the banner under which madmen assembled to glut the earth with blood." This no doubt is intended to convey the idea that Christianity was the cause. Let us only alter two words, it will shew a fact equally liable to be perverted-"Liberty was the banner under which Frenchmen assembled to glut the earth with blood." Shall we then say, ergo, libertyis a curse? Certainly not; yet he would infer that Christianity was so, because madmen assembled under the banner of the cross. Does he not know that the best principles are often the most abused? Let him shew me that Jesus ever recommended war to his disciples, and it shall prove to me at once that Christianity is answerable for the blood shed in its sacred name. But the author shall answer for himself, and clear both Jesus and the gospels from the malicious charge, (see p. 18.) where he says fiery devotees are earnestly entreated to moderate their holy rage, and suffer the meekness so often recommended by their divine Saviour sometimes to occupy the place of that bitter zeal, and persecuting spirit, which creates so many enemies to the Christian religion and its doctors." Again (p. 19), "Jesus has said, in the clearest manner, happy are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth; unless indeed interpreters should pretend that this only signifies persecuting, exterminating, and cutting the throats of those whose affections they wish to gain." And (p. 20.) "It was by dint of meekness, patience, and precaution, that the disciples of Jesus succeeded in establishing Christianity. Their successors have employed violence, but not until they found themselves supported by devout tyrants." Let, then, devout tyrants, and not Christianity, be charged with the consequence; he himself has shewn that the principles taught, and means employed, by Jesus and his disciples, were friendly to peace-let him shew that they ever sanctioned. other principles, or take to himself the charge of a corrupt interpreter, a vile and intentional calumniator, while I hold him up to public contempt, saying Ecce Homo!

Let us now look at the other clause of his motto, for

Y Y

mottos are generally intended to speak home to the mind of the reader-" Let us not despair that truth will one day force its way even to thrones." I confess I do despair of it; I should as soon expect it would reach the heart of this author; but what then? what truth is the reader to understand is to have such power? Why, surely, the truth of what the writer has given to the public in this book. Here then the reader enters on the work, persuaded this is the truth, which ought to be implicitly believed as essential to the happiness of man. I do not despair but the Christian truth shall ultimately spread over the whole earth; but what then? it has nothing to do with the argument. It is my opinion, and if I wish to prejudice my readers, I shall, in a motto, try to prepossess his mind before he enters on the work,

My next analysis and criticism shall be the title and pretensions on the title page-" Ecce Homo; or, Behold the Man." A little Latin makes the vulgar stare; thus bookmakers, like the priests, their brethren, are very partial to a little mystery: therefore to heighten curiosity, and sell the work, they give a pompous title-" Ecce Homo! or, a Critical Enquiry into the History of Jesus Christ; being a rational Analysis of the Gospels." Had it fulfilled its pretensions, however I might have differed with the writer, he should have had my esteem; but if his pretensions are all fallacions, which I will prove they are, then he is to be despised, because he has deluded the public by his title page, to enhance the sale of his work. He has indeed "kept the word of promise to the ear, but broke it to the hope." This is the common practice of those who write against Christianity; on assertion and assumption all their pretensions are built-remove these and down comes the fabric.

I will conclude this letter, lest I should encroach too much on your present number; and in my next shall go on to analyze this author's pretensions, to shew him in his proper colours, and prove" that injuries are not reasons." The writer of Ecce Homo cannot complain of the harshness of my epithets; they are mostly put hypothetically: but if I had used them ever so directly, his own work would justify the retaliation.

How proud would it make the opposers of Christianity to see their works published by royal authority! Here, they would say, behold the fulfilment of prophecy, "truth has forced its way even to thrones." -Not so the Christian; he feels his religion degraded when wicked men support it by royal authority; he feels only honoured in -the approbation of the wise, the virtuous, and the good.

Every page, teems with the lowest abuse, falsehood, and perversion. One only trait can I discover in his favour, and that is, he has let us know what his object is, though not who he is; and in this respect is preferable to Cobbett, who opposes Christianity under the pretence of being a Christian; lays down a criterion of his own for Christianity; and then' combats the phantom he has formed: but no sooner does a writer in your Magazine meet him on fair and strong ground, than he shuffles, and shifts, and lies, and at last silently sneaks off from the combat. He pledged himself to insert your correspondent's letter in his Register, if he would give his name; no sooner is this given, than he first abuses the confidence of your friend-calls him an infidel, and then drops the subject without fulfilling his promise. Such a man is not to be credited even when he speaks the truth; and his various tergiversations prove him to be, in politics or religion, a mean, degraded, and unprincipled manand I should not be surprised to find that it became proverbial-as mean and pitiful as Cobbett, as unprincipled as Cobbett, as cowardly as Cobbett, &c. &c.

I remain, &c.'

JUSTICE.

REMARKS ON MR. BURDON'S REPLY TO CHRISTOPHILUS.

I

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

am extremely pleased to see, that in compliance with the wishes of myself, and others of your correspondents,, you have inserted the rejected letters of Mr. Burdon, as in my opinion a perusal of them will be sufficient to convince every man of candour and discrimination that you were perfectly right in not imposing upon your readers such heterogeneous and contradictory bombast.

As in vol. ii, page 36, I gave you my thoughts on Mr. Burdon's former correspondence; and as I think it-beneath the pen of Christophilus to honour him with his notice, much less to depart from that clear ground he has fixed upon to justify a reply; I shall again take up Mr. Burdon, and shew the futility of what he has advanced, which he says is done to the best of his ability. Your correspondent W. I. (vol. iii. p. 254) in requesting you would insert these letters, assigns as a reason that he is "anxious for his (Mr. Burdon's) reasons why a miracle is impossible, and why its