their oppressors. In speculating on the Jewish character then, let us first remember what human nature is in its infancy-let us conceive a people in times of general ignorance passing from slavery into liberty-liberty which is so liable to abuse, and whose advantages are so difficult to estimate-a people put in possession of a country rich with all the bounties of nature, or to use the beautiful figure of their prophets, a land flowing with milk and honey-their natural advantages producing luxury and riches, which have generally a tendency to enervate and demoralize a nation-a people in continual danger of being seduced by the superstitious worship of surrounding countries, and inflamed by that indulgence of the passions which is uniformly sanctioned by idolatry a people professing a religion accompanied with ceremony and show, amused with the paraphernalia of a priesthood, and fond of the glittering nothingness of royalty—such were the people to whom the Deity had communicated his will, and whom he had selected for the most important purposes to society.

-

If it should be asked why was not the religion and political constitution of the Jews more simple and enlightened? the answer is, because they were not fit for it; but as it was, they increased, and flourished-they exhibited all that is called great in the history of nations: they were skilful in arts and in arms-they excelled in agriculture, and all the arts of peace

their cities were impregnable-their public buildings spacious and elegant-their teachers and moralists surpassed all who lived near their own times in truth and sentiment--and their poets still charm with immortal song.

Such were the people whom the Deity had selected as the depositaries of divine truth, as the instruments of his benevolent purposes, and the means of spreading light and knowledge throughout the world.

It has been asked, "what is this grand discovery which it seems it pleased the Deity to unfold for the benefit of his human offspring?" I would answer-THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF: this was the grandeur-this the simplicity of the discovery-connected with this sublime communication are many of the best principles of religion and virtue, descending even into the most trifling ramifications of moral dutiestogether with numberless minute and (if a Deist pleases) petty regulations adapted to the then condition of man, and suited to the circumstances of the times.

A vain and arrogant philosophy, unaccustomed to trace back human nature through its successive stages of improvement, and judging of man only from his present advancement in knowledge, will reckon the revelation to the Jews unworthy.

the Supreme Being; but an attentive consideration of the subject may afford ground for concluding, that such is man naturally, and such the circumstances of society, that no other mode of treatment could have been attended with any salutary effect.

But it remains still, Mr. Editor, to notice other objections, Your correspondent flourishes not a little about a fact which he thinks "absolutely conclusive"-a fact which he tells us good people never mention; and what is this fact, after all?— why, simply this, that the Deity was pleased to bring life and immortality to light at a time when society were best fitted to receive it, and not till then. The writer also considers it incompatible with his notions of the justice of the Divine Being, that only a few of his creatures should have received the supposed advantages of revelation, and that the scripture account of the dealings of God with the Jews implies a system of partiality and favouritism unworthy the great and benevolent Parent of man. Now, Mr. Editor, in all these respects, the divine conduct may be very easily and very satisfactorily explained; but this is not my business at present.

It requires no uncommon share of talent to find fault with any system, however perfect. Deists assume to themselves the exclusive priviledge of raising objections; but this must not be I shall claim the right of an objection or two-I shall attempt to show that the very same difficulties which your correspondent charges on the system of revelation belong to his own opinions. The gentleman acknowledges the existence of a God-a God who governs by fixed and immutable laws; he believes that every event which transpires in the moral and physical world is produced by the operation of these laws, and consequently by God, the author of them; so that, in reality, God is the efficient cause of every thing that exists. Let us apply this system to the writer's animadversions on Revelation" Is it conceivable (he asks) that God, the creator and governor, and judge of mankind, should withhold from them for 4000 years a communication (referring to a future state) which he always intended to make, and of which it was to the last degree important that they should be possessed?" is it, I would ask, that under the moral government of God, the science and philosophy of modern times, with all their inestimable advantages, have been withheld from mankind in the early ages of the world? How is it that society were not blessed with a Newton and a Locke till the last century? Yet, notwithstanding this, the writer still entertains the most exalted conceptions of the divine Being.

How

"View (says he) the operations of Deity, wherever those operations are accessible, and mark their grandeur, noble

ness, and universality; do you discover any thing like petty interruption, or weak partialities? In every province of his extensive empire, in the heaven, in the sea, on the land, is not the administration of affairs conducted on a broad and liberal plan?" And again, after deprecating the idea of revelation being given only to the Jews, he adds-"Whatever may be the true character of Deity, that character must be taken, in so far as we are competent to judge of it, from his conduct to mankind at large, and not from his supposed behaviour to one or a few favourite nations."- Well then, how is it that in his conduct to mankind at large, we observe some nations lost in ignorance and barbarity, and others enjoying all the blessings of civilisation and refinement?-one portion of the globe shaded in eternal darkness, another shining in the full plenitude of enlightenment? How is it that one race of men is weak, another powerful? How is it that thousands should toil and die in slavery to support their fellow-men in ease and voluptuousness? or, to notice particular instances, how is it that a fourth of the inhabitants of a fine and populous country should have starved through a rice monopoly, or that millions of the human species should exist under the despotism of a few merchants in Leadenhall Street?

The conduct of God is inscrutable, and his ways past find ing out; and if, in what we see of his dealings with mankind at large, we do not impeach his wisdom, justice, or goodness, why are so many idle objections made against the Divine conduct, as set forth in revelation, when that conduct is in strict unison with what we observe every day of the moral government of the world?

Blackfriar's-road.

W. C.

ON PULPIT PREACHING.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

YOUR correspondent Timotheus, in reply to my enquiries on Pulpit Preaching, having kindly offered to meet any further doubts which may arise in my mind on that subject, I beg, though the medium of your pages, to state a few on the propriety of some of his arguments against such a practice.

As Timotheus has observed that it is not the pulpit which the Freethinking Christians object to, but the principle "of one man's teaching to the exclusion of the rest," it appears necessary for me to say, I am not at issue with him on this point; I would freely say, If any man or woman have a word

of exhortation let him or her say on. Having acknowledged this, Timotheus can inform me wherein consists "the difference of opinion," if it be not, that I consider pulpit preaching (what I understand by pulpit preaching) an useful means of instruction, and not opposed to the direction of Paul-while Timotheus believes the practice is productive of bad or of no good effects, and contrary to what he esteems a mode appointed by sacred authority.

Notwithstanding the repeated appeals to Paul's direction, I have still a doubt whether it be at all applicable to the subject. Does it not appear there were different gifts bestowed on persons forming the Corinthian church? Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor. xii. v. 29). It appears to me there were; and I would ask, are the directions suitable for such a church-suitable for us? If they are, is it not reasonable to suppose we should have the same orders, offices, and gifts? The direction (xiv. 31) I do at present apprehend, alluded to the prophets (whatever they were), that they might all prophesy one by one; for though the second person "ye" is used, is there not a difficulty in supposing the apostle meant the members of the church at large, composed of men and women, when he adds "let your women keep silence in the churches," &c. "And if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home," &c. ?

Viewing their situation, I would ask, what stimulus they received, when they knew the task of instructing rested solely with their husbands? They were in as miserable a state as a congregation under its minister, "no one daring to open her mouth either to enforce any truth that had been stated, or to correct any error that had escaped the notice of the preacher."

2

Timotheus glances at the vile conduct of some pulpit preachers, and asks "did you ever find a bad man in the habit of doing that which was good?" Would he infer that the practice was bad, because some bad men have abused it? The abuse of a thing can be no argument against the thing itself. I might ask, did you ever find a good man in the habit of doing that which was bad? and thence conclude the practice of pulpit preaching was good, because good men have practised it; or I might say, that all legal power ought to be abolished, because some kings have acted improperly. I doubt, if such reasoning be good. I doubt also if it be correct, that the whole system of Christianity, as contained in the New Testament, may be swept away at once, if we doubt whether Paul's direction ought to be considered as a rule for every nation,

'age, and place, any more than by doubting whether the mandate of Jesus to his apostles, (6 go, teach all nations," &c. or his direction to his seventy disciples, be general or particular. : 1 perfectly agree with Timotheus, that nothing ought to be called Christian, but what is authorised by Christianity; but Timotheus would not allow that the publication of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine was antichristian, because Jesus never appointed it; neither can I call the public means of instruction by preaching, antichristian, because Christianity does not directly authorise it. The stability of the thing suf ficiently justifies the means, and I hope both pulpit preaching and the circulation of the Magazine has been, and will be, instrumental in correcting errors, convincing the unbelieving, and reclaiming the vicious.

What clear demonstration Timotheus requires of the moral tendency of pulpit preaching, I know not; I think there are thousands who could bear testimony to its value both as it relates to points of doctrines and principles of conduct; but my thinking so does not prove it, I allow, any more than his saying, "if ever it existed it has been counteracted, and so effectually that not the least trace is left behind," proves the reverse to be fact. To point to particular persons as proofs of my opinion would be of no use, as such persons would be unknown to Timotheus.

It is probable some better plan may be devised to produce general happiness to man; this I do not deny; I would contend only that pulpit preaching is a good one, against which one would suppose Timotheus "perceives the impropriety of contending," unless by "a better" he means another. I would inform Timotheus I am no stranger to a plan, or to the good ef fects of a mode of instruction similar to that of Jewin-street, having been accustomed from my childhood to religious conferences, at which meetings every person has liberty, "either to correct any error or enforce any truth," then stated, or which had been spoken in the pulpit at a former period. And from bservation, I doubt if Timotheus's reasoning on the action of the mind, and the insufficiency of pulpit preaching to excite it into action, be correct; for I have frequently heard one and another say, "what such a person (meaning the pulpit preacher) said at such a time led me to examine the subject more closely, and I am persuaded I was in an error." Now it ap pears to me here was a stimulus which did excite to action and pulpit preaching was the means of producing it.

With my thanks to Timotheus for the manner in which he has written, so free from that moroseness and censoriousness, which is detestable in a writer, I remain your's, &c. Cranbrook, April 18, 1812.

→ JUVENIS.