tells us, that "it is by no means difficult to trace with great accuracy and precision the effects of the Mosaic constitution upon their sentiments, customs, and manners." Why certainly all that the Jews were, as a people, is attributable to the Mosaic constitution, under which' they lived-a constitution professing to have been appointed and ordained by God, and avowedly founded on the supposition that the Deity had reveal ed himself to man. Now if the Mosaic constitution was not appointed by God-if the disciples of Moses possessed no revelation of the divine will-how came they, an ignorant, a "barbarous people," to conceive such comparatively exalted notions of the Deity, of his existence, and attributes ?-how came they in possession of such a constitution, which encouraged the best truths of religion and justice? for every constitution not appointed by heaven must necessarily derive its character from the character of the people. "Read (says a Deist) the Jewish history, or indeed the history of any barbarous people, and every page is crouded with supernatural events." Well then, if every other barbarous people have equally had with the Jews the advantage of supernatural interposition-show me any other "barbarous people" with such rational notions of philosophy, theology, and morality, as were common to the Jews-show me any other "barbarous people," whose ideas of the great first cause of nature were so simple, whose conceptions of the divine greatness were so sublime, whose sentiments of honour, of justice, of public faith, were so dignified-whose knowledge of the social and relative duties between man and man were so general. Nay, I might say more, show me any civilised, any enlightened and polished nation, contemporary with the Jewish, who were equal to them in these respects; and if you cannot, account for these phenomena-a variation in the effect must imply a variation in the cause. Your correspondent, Mr. Editor, concludes with the burden of his song, the stability of the laws of nature. "The reasonableness of believing a fact which contravenes the settled laws of the world is after all unquestionably the grand fundamental leading matter of discussion." Well then, for mercy's sake, be it so; only let the writer try every thing by this rule-let him determine by this criterion, not merely what he rejects, but what he must consequently be compelled to believe-let him not be as credulous as he is sceptical-let him not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, but let him attend to the argument of Christophilus on the resurrection of Jesus-and let him show, if the fact did not take place, that the conduct of the ostensible broachers of it is not an infraction of the settled and inflexible course of nature-is not contrary to all we know of human nature is not a violation of all the laws of the human mind-is not a disturbance of the usual course of moral events-is not in fact as great a miracle as the resurrection of a man from the grave. The moral miracle " a Deist" must be forced to believe, though it proposes no advantage-the physical one, which is designed to teach an impor tant truth to man, and to develope a vast system of eternal beneficence, he rejects, because, to his limited capacity, it appears to contravene the settled laws of the world. I shall take my leave of your correspondent with the words of Hamlet "There are more things in heav'n and earth, Horatio, Blackfriars Road. W. C. PULPIT PREACHING NOT DEFENSIBLE ON THE GROUND OF UTILITY. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, NOTWITHSTANDING the difference of opinion that exists between your correspondent Juvenis and myself, I cannot but admire the frankness he displays in acknowledging the truth of a position which must be clear to every thinking Unitarian, although not one in a hundred will openly avow it "that pulpit preaching, as practised in the present day is not authorised by any command, precept, or example of Jesus, or his apostles." Being therefore agreed on the point of scriptural authority, we have only to examine it on the ground of expediency, or moral utility. Juvenis asks, if it be true that "he is not against us who is for us?" Undoubtedly it is; but what then? The man who intends to serve me cannot at the same time intend to injure me. But it does not follow, because he intends well that he will do well; on the contrary, with the utmost desire to serve me, he may pursue those means which will really injure me. A physician, with the best intention of saving life, may ad minister that which will destroy it; and Paul thought he was doing God service when he endeavoured to destroy that which the Deity was establishing. It does not follow, therefore, be cause a man's intentions are good, that the line of conduct he pursues must necessarily and consequently be correct: if indeed it be right, then the greater merit is due to him, inas much as he not only intended well, but he also did well. But if it be wrong, then although we cannot censure the man be. cause he still acts from the best intentions, yet we must ob ject to his means, as being incompetent to produce the end, and injurious to society. If then the intentions will not justify the means-if from the imperfect state of our minds, and the numerous difficulties we have to encounter before we can acquire the art of accurately comparing and determining the weight of evidence, and of forming correct judgments-if from these circumstances it be possible that with good motives we may do wrong actions, then although the views of Juvenis in practising pulpit preaching be ever so pure and benevolent, his conduct still remains to be tried at another bar-at that which he has himself prescribed the "welfare of man." Whatever produces the general happiness of man cannot be wrong, and if Juvenis can clearly demonstrate that such is the tendency of pulpit preaching, then pulpit preaching must_be morally good, although it is not a Christian institution. But how can we determine the moral tendency of a practice but by looking at its effects? What have been the effects of pulpit preaching? Can Juvenis show us the moral excellence it has produced? If he can, then he will have at least one good plea in favour of the system. Perhaps he will say it has been counteracted; why, truly, if ever it existed, it has been counteracted, and so effectually that not the least trace of it is left behind; and since it has been tried so long, so universally, and is found to be so compleatly inadequate to its professed design, surely upon this ground, alone it is high time that some better plan were devised. But what if we were to look for a moment on the conduct of those who have been the supporters and practisers of itwhat if we were to see that some of the most direful calamities, the vilest practices, and the most cruel tortures that have ever been inflicted or imposed on man, proceeded from the body of pulpit preachers, would this be any recommendation in its favour? Juvenis will say, these things apply to the men, and not to the practice. True, Juvenis; but did you ever find a bad man in the habit of doing that which was good? Did you ever gather grapes from thistles, or figs from thorns? Let us now examine the probable tendency of pulpit preaching, supposing it to be in good hands supposing Juvenis to be the preacher. It will be readily acknowledged, that as it regards the human mind, where there is no stimulus there can be no exertion; and where there is no exertion of the mental faculties, wisdom cannot be acquired, and its consequent virtue cannot be practised. The first thing, therefore, to be attended to in the human mind, is to excite it into action. Is pulpit preaching calculated to do this? Where the congregation know that the task of instructing rests solely with their minister, what stimulus does it present to induce them to exert themselves? But it goes further than this-it is. not satisfied with being deficient in the first and most impor tant point it actually forbids, under civil penalties, the exercise of the mind; for who dares open his mouth in a church or chapel, either to enforce any truth that has been stated, or to correct any error that may have escaped the notice of the preacher Pulpit preaching, therefore, viewing it in its most favourable colours, instead of being calculated to call the mind into action, positively debars it from exercise, and must of course be injurious to society. Let us again take it in another point of view: from the imperfect state of our nature we are continually making erroneous calculations, and pursuing wrong means, but it cannot be so with God. Whenever he proposes an end, the means that he takes will most certainly be adequate to his design. When he gave Christianity to man, his object was to make him wiser and better,and to fit him for the enjoy-ment of greater happiness; and the line of conduct which he directed him to pursue (as given by Jesus and his messengers) was no doubt such as, if properly attended to, would answer the desired effect, and was also calculated for all ages, or otherwise he would have told us so. Why then should we wish to deviate from that plan? And since we have it before us, why seek for any other? what right have we to judge whether that mode which the Deity has prescribed to us be correct or not? If we are satisfied it came from him, that ought to be sufficient; and what business, have we to inquire whether any better system can be devised, particularly before we have endeavoured to practise the one already appointed? Juvenis seems to think that the organization of the Christian church, as delineated in the New Testament, is at present not practicable; but the Freethinking Christian Society is a standing and living wit ness against this supposition. Besides, admitting even for argument sake that the original plan is not practicable, how can any man, with propriety, adopt a system or an institution which is not authorized by Christianity, and then call it Christian?* Juvenis may possibly imagine that it is the wooden pulpit which excites the indignation of the Freethinking Christians; Christianity is what Jesus and his apostles TAUGHT, not what they forbade, or what they omitted to forbid. If we are permitted to incorporate with it any thing that we think may have a moral tendency, which is not positively forbidden, then all the paraphernalia of Popery and Ma hometanism, may be introduced upon the same principle; for there can be no doubt but that each of these systems of superstition has had followers, who have piously thought their practices to be fully as useful as Juvenis does pulpit preaching, and they were certainly not more directly forbidden, for one of the best reasons, because they did not exist ➡nor quite so much, for although pulpit preaching is not expressly for bidden, because it was not known while Jesus and his apostles lived, yet a principle is laid down which actually opposes it--that of teaching one by one, &c.and surely this is tacitly forbidding it. but if so, he is mistaken. It is of no more consequence whether a speaker or speakers stand on a level, on a stool, or in a pulpit, than whether one is an inch taller than the other—it is not the pulpit, but the principle of what comes from the pulpit, that they object to that of one man's teaching to the exclusion of the rest-a principle positively contrary to the direction of Paul, that they should all teach one by one, that all might be edified. Juvenis perceives the impropriety of contending for both practices, as equally proper, and therefore states his doubts whether Paul's direction to the Corinthians ought to be considered as a rule for every nation; but if we look to it in its connexion, we shall find it to be a general rule given to the whole church, without any restrictions or exceptions whatever; and if it becomes a matter of doubt whether such directions are applicable to all Christians, why then the whole system of Christianity, as contained in the New Testament, may be swept away at once, for there is no part from beginning to end which is ExPRESSLY addressed to the Christian church in England. From this short view of the subject, Juvenis may perhaps see that, in his support of pulpit preaching, he does not rest so firmly on the ground of propriety as before he might imagine; and if further doubts should arise in his mind, I shall be happy to meet them. Your's, &c. Kingsland Road, Feb. 12, 1812. TIMOTHEUS. AN EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGIN, DOCTRINES, AND PRACTICES, OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. I To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, HAVE frequently remarked that your pages, unlike all other theological publications, are seldom occupied by severe or censorious remarks on the church of England, although you differ more widely from her than any other sect of Christians; and I have been informed that the cause of your silence has been, either that you have thought her doctrines and practices beneath your notice, or that she had not any pretence whatever to the title of a Christian church; and that being a mere political institution, it would be contrary to your principle of not interfering with politics to have meddled with her. But, Sir, since she has thus forced herself on our notice-since she does lay claim to the character of a Christian church, and has called upon the public to support an establishment for instructing the rising generation exclusively in her principlesshe fairly becomes an object of examination. I, therefore, pur |