in a prison, the moment he began to dilate on his favourite theme the cosmogony of the world.

I confess, Mr. Editor, my expectations were raised, when I found that "a Deist" had condescended to notice "Christophilus" in the way of controversy, and that I was greatly though rather agreeably disappointed to find how abortive his attempts had proved, to fritter away the evidences of Christianity. It is with pleasure 1 reflect that the failure of "a Deist" cannot be attributable to his want of talent, but to this simple circumstance the TRUTH of the system he opposes; and if Christianity be true, the most enlightened scepticism must assail it in vain!

pos

Your correspondent informs us, he is "no enemy to the Christian religion," and I am willing to believe him, for no good man who understands it can be; but he objects to "its pretensions to divinity on a general principle, and not from any fixed or rooted antipathy to the system itself." Now it is sible "a Deist" may be mistaken in his general principleto me it seems extremely exceptionable. But, adds he," it is absolutely necessary to erect a standard against superstition somewhere, or to surrender to it at discretion." Allowed; and to us the plain, the rational, the philosophical system of Christianity, appears the most favourable situation on which to raise this standard; and the proof we give of this is, that priests, impostors, and enthusiasts, have combined their efforts to corrupt its truths and pervert its principles. "For this purpose (says the writer) the stability of the laws of nature affords an elevated and commanding post; a situation from which future philosophers will be able, if not to destroy the forces of the priesthood, at least to keep them everlastingly at bay." In this respect I can conceive no advantage that is not comprised in the Christian system-in the perfectability of the divine intentions, and the immutability of the moral government of the universe-and the Freethinking Christian, acting on its prin ciples, and inspired by its spirit, will be second to no man in his opposition to the priesthood-he will be the foremost in the foremost rank to press upon their forces, and proudly expose himself to the brunt of the battle.

Now let us see what "a Deist" has to oppose to the argument of Christophilus-(p. 123) "As to the facts which your correspondent so exultingly refers to, they are all either easily accounted for on principles common to our nature"-here let us stop the main point in dispute is, did the. pretended witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus bear testimony to a known falsehood?-If they did, let the objector account for their conduct on any principle common to our nature-if he is capable -f doing this, he may yet render the cause of Deism no inconsi

derable service. But feeling the objection would return upon him, the writer attempts very dexterously to slip out of the argument by supposing that these facts are all either accounted for in this way, "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." The gentleman may lose himself in his own dilemma, but the force of the objection must not be lost quite so easily→→ the argument comes into a small compass. Account for the facts if you please on any principle common to our nature—if you cannot, the facts must not be lost in any combination of events and circumstances, however rare and extraordinarythey must still have had an adequate cause. In the absence of all other causes then, we propose revelation as a cause commensurate to the effect; and agreeable to all the rules of philosophising, we insist that revelation must be considered as the real cause till some better one be assigned. The hypothesis is indisputable-the deduction is positive-to object to it is (to use the language of Mr. Burke) to elude truth and carp at conviction.

But will the gentleman really allow of facts which "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 ?" For myself I readily admit of them, but how will it square with his own scheme? what becomes of his arguments against revelation drawn from the "usual course of nature" and "the settled order of events 2" May not all his insuperable objections to miracles "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 (says the writer) 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." Will "a Deist" specify a few of those causes-will he inform us how a company of illiterate fishermen were capable of propagating their system in a few years, to other nations and other tongues, when printing was unknown, and when the honest teachers of a persecuted religion had to gain a precarious livelihood by pursuing their ordinary occupations? When Christianity became corrupted, its spread is not so much a matter of enquiry; but in the primitive times, when its pureness and simplicity found nothing congenial with itself in the spirit and temper of the age or people among whom it was propagated, how, I ask, is its general diffusion to be accounted for?

The writer then reverts to the condition of the Jews, and

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 pro- poses 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 di-rected 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 forbidden, 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.

their sacred precepts regulate your lives and doctrines, and form the true church of God, who are called upon to look on and rejoice at the destruction of every antichristian power, for it is God that has threatened to destroy them.

In my next, I purpose proceeding to examine the doctrines and practices of the church of England, if you shall account this worthy insertion; and with the most ardent wish for your success in the glorious cause you have undertaken a cause which demands the support and good wishes of every friend to real Christianity, I am, Sir, your's, &c.

A FRIEND TO TRUE RELIGION.

QUERY.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

BY inserting the following Query in your magazine, viz. To what extent can a disposition for resisting insult be carried, without encroaching upon the principles of religion?-you will much oblige Your well-wisher,

London, March 3, 1812.

JUVENIS.

ON A REVELATION, IN REPLY TO MR. BURDON.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

CLAIMING the same privilege which is allowed to the opener of a parliamentary debate, I shall, without further preface, trouble you with a reply to Mr. Burdon's answer. Mr. Burdon's reasons for denying there ever was a revelation, are, "because mankind are not agreed about that which is the true revelation; there many religions which pretend to that title, and there are millions of men who differ about them." But, because mankind differ about which is the true revelation, does it follow that there is none? As well might we say, because we hold different opinions concerning matters of taste, there is no standard of taste to which we can refer; or, because men differ on points of general jurisprudence, and in their interpretation of particular laws, there are no principles of equity, and no common nor statute law existing. And because some religions are impostures, does it follow that all are so ? 1s there no difference between the evidences for the Jewish and Christian revelations, and those for the religion of Mahomet or the Hindoos? Every one who has examined the subject, and is free from prejudice, will, I venture to affirm, answer in the affirmative.