any logic in this argument, "Christianity is a figment of human invention, because it has been corrupted," is there not as much argument in saying "Natural religion is a figment of human invention, because it has been corrupted"? And where is the deist who denies that natural religion has been corrupted until every idea of the God of nature, and of moral obligation, has been so obscured as to be wholly unavailing to any moral or religious use whatever? Can any deist instance any nation, tribe, or family, which has not so far corrupted this natural religion of his as to equal it to the vilest forms of Paganism? If so, is it not a good argument that works both ways? If liability to perversion be an argument against the divine authority of revealed religion, does it cease to be an argument against natural religion.!!

Yes! but the text of our bible cannot be corrupted like the text of your bible," responds the deist. This is another argument. But where is the text of your bible? who read it alike? who translate it alike? It is illegible, and therefore cannot be translated. The folks are all dead who once could read your bible. No man living does read it, can read it, who has no other book than this book of nature. It will settle the whole controversy if you produce only two men who read it alike; nay, only one man who can read it all, without the aid of dictionary, grammar, or spelling book. The book of nature can be read after the book of revelation has been learned. But here is the question, Who, without the book of revelation, has ever learned to read the book of nature? It is as useless as the dream of the Assyrian monarch till Daniel gave him the interpretation. The dream first, and the interpretation afterwards; but without the interpretation what avails the dream? The book of natural signs is illegible to him who has not read the book of stipulated artificial signs.

A WORD FROM SIMPSON.

From the Boston Recorder. Mr. Editor-The following extract from "Simpson's Plea for Religion," seemed to me so forcible when reading it, that I was induced to copy it, and request you to insert it in your paper, in the hope that it might strike some eye unaccustomed to view the subject. Being so short and comprehensive a statement of the evidences of christianity, it might induce some to read it who would never peruse a treatise on the subject, and thereby excite curiosity and interest to examine further. The work from which it is taken is well worthy the perusal of every one.

The Truth and Divinity of the Bible.

There are four grand arguments for the truth of the Bible. 1. The miracles it records. (These are easily proved to have been recorded and published at the time they profess to have been, and not having been disputed for several hundred years after, cannot be doubted.) 2. The prophecies it contains. (See those in the Old Testament, held by the Jews then and to this day, who disbelieve in the Messiah Jesus Christ and the New Testament; but which prophecies any child may see fulfilled in Christ and in the events of his time) The celebrated infidel Rochester was converted by reading the 53d chapter of Isaiah. 3. The goodness of the doctrine, (the greatest infidels ackcowledge it and no one can deny it.) 4. The moral character of the penmen.

The miracles flow from divine power; the prophecies, from divine understanding; the excellence of the doctrine, from divine goodness; and the moral purity of the penmen, from divine purity.

Thus ohristianity is built upon these four immutable pillars-the power, the understanding, the goodness, and the purity of God.

The Bible must be the invention of good men or angels; of bad men or devils; or of God.

It could not be the invention of good men or angels, for they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, Thus saith the Lord," when it was their own invention.

It could not be the invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their own souls to all eternity.

I therefore draw this conclusion: the Bible must be given by inspiration of God. [Simpson.]

ATHEIST'S CORNER.

"The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”

The atheist chooses to say the universe is uncaused, rather than to say it has an intelligent First Cause. Because, says he, it is so difficult to conceive how the universe came to be, and to continue to be as it is, if we suppose an intelligent first cause. But to cut the matter short, we ask, whether is it not more difficult to conceive how the universe came to be, and to continue as it is, upon the supposition that there is no intelligent contriver, creator, or governor of it, than upon the presumption that there is!! "If weak thy faith, why choose the harder side!"

Again, says the atheist: It is as difficult to conceive of an intelligent first cause uncaused, as to conceive of an universe uncaused. Yes; but this is a play upon words: for it is impossible to conceive of a first cause caused. If any cause is caused, it is not the first cause. But reason says that so long as any thing has existed, a cause has existed, or something began to exist without a cause: i. e. nothing pro duced something. Now he who can conceive of nothing causing something, or something causing nothing, is more fit for an hospital than a college.

Something always existed, or nothing could begin to exist. Grant it, says the atheist; but here is my refuge: any eternal something is as easily to be understood, or conceived of, as another. This we deny; for an eternal unintelligent something never could be the cause of any intelligent something. An eternal intelligent something is necessary to the existence of any intelligent creature. This our experience attests; for we see that intelligence can control and modify that which is unintelligent, but we have no experience of unintelligent matter creating, modifying, or controlling intelligence.

And may we not in all reason ask, seeing something must be eternal, whether it is not more difficult to conceive of an eternal unintelligent something, than of an eternal intelligent something; the latter being doubtless more adequate than the former to our existence? "f weak thy faith, why choose the harder side?"

EDITOR.

THE VERSE-A-DAY SYSTEM THE HIGH ROAD TO HERESY.

MUCH is now said and done in hehalf of the Bible. As Paul once said concerning some who preached Christ in pretence, so say we in reference to all these enterprizes in honor of the Bible. Whether in sincerity or pretence the Bible is extolled, its excellency set forth, and the reading and memorizing of it commended, we rejoice, and will rejoice, that it is so far honored even by them who will not sub. mit to be governed by it alone.

The "verse-a-day" system, or the daily committing a period of the scriptures to memory, has of late been much extolled. It is a very dangerous course. This was one principal cause of my ruin. My father, from my earliest recollections, imposed this task upon me; and not upon me only, but made it a part of his domestic economy. All his children and domestics were, by a law like that of the Medes and Persians, compelled daily to commit one complete period, whether one or more verses, and to repeat it every evening when the family assembled for worship.

Emulation sometimes led us to commit a chapter per day. I have heard whole epistles repeated off in an evening, each one repeating in turn a chapter, until some of the longest were thus recited. The consequence was, his children became heretical, and were ruined. We lost all relish for creeds, for fashionable sermons, and for all the ceremony belonging to sectarianism. We became sceptics in every thing sectarian-in every thing in religion-but the Bible. We doubted of every thing that had not a "thus saith the Lord” for it.

When I had completed what is usually called an education, or after some fifteen or sixteen years' schooling, and had counted 21 years, I was good for nothing. The Bible had spoiled me. I could not be a lawyer; for, as I then viewed that profession, it was not favorable to avoiding "every appearance of evil." I could not be a Doctor, bccause I then thought that men's souls needed more medicine than their bodies, and that to have souls for patients was better than to have bodies for cure, But worse than all, after trying it for a while, I could not be a Clergyman in its proper import, because I saw that Clergymen generally were ministers of a creed and of a party, and that I must either harden my heart and sear my conscience, or abandon that honorable calling.

Again, if I taught nothing but the Bible, I foresaw that I must starve. I was driven to the alternative of seeking some other way of getting my bread and meat, and of preaching the Bible without money or price. But not only was my living just snatched from my teeth, but my reputation was blasted in a moment! I was gone!" "ruined!" "a confirmed heretic!" in the estimation of my religious acquaintance. Thus the "verse-a-day" system proved my ruin.

Charity compels me to give this timely notice, and to relate so much of my experience as pertains to this project, now that the religious periodicals are so highly recommending it to the young. Having

seen and experienced the consequences of this course, I can speak with all assurance, and must inform the eulogists of this scheme that it will, in the clerical import of the term, ruin the youth of this generation. Let all who wish for the wealth or fame of this religious world, beware of the "verse-a-day" system!

EDITOR.

QUERIES,

From Baltimore and Richmond, touching Universalism.

1. MUSTI study Paley, Beattie, Hume, Kaimes, and Comb, on the philosophy of the human constitution, mental and physical; must be a moral philosopher, a master of Locke, Reid, Brown, and Stuart; must I read all the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, the creeds of all sects and the historians of the church, before I can judge of the truth of a system of religion, before I can decide which merits my approbation, and what I ought to do to be saved?

Answer. Before you are competent to decide where doctors disagree, you must be wiser than they. You must read all the systems of moral philosophy and religion in the world, ancient and modern, before you can decide on the claims of the Calvinistic or Arminian creed: for in them are found propositions which involve all the discussions of two thousand years. I am not sure but that you ought to read Confucius, Zoroaster, Mahomet, Aristotle, and Plato, before you can safely decide on every proposition in these creeds. But if you want to know what you must believe and do in order to be saved, one vo lume is sufficient; nay, the book of the Acts of the Apostles fully settles this matter.

2. I am at a loss to know what is meant by the word Satan, since I heard a Universalist preach-What is the meaning of that word?

Answer. We once thought that the word Satun and the word devil denoted that evil agent which deceived our race, and has opposed our happiness ever since the seduction of Eve. But certain wise and benevolent men have of late discovered, by the means of some greatly improved telescopes, that the word Satan represents a fictitious, not a real person, and is, indeed, a mere personification of the evil nature of man. There is, therefore, no such being in existence, but like the Centaur, the Hydra, the Sphinx, the Polyphemus, it is a creature of imagination!! It is of use to affright some folks who are not philosophers, as are the tales about ghosts and witches told to children to keep them quiet. But these men of universal genius and lofty philosophical minds, regard the whole matter as an innocent fraud, or a bold metaphor, used by the sacred writers in those dark corners of the earth where they lived and labored, finding it well adapted to alarm the ignorant and depraved.

3. I have read a long disquisition on the word "damnation,” and the phrase "shall be damned,” in the Cincinnati "Sentinel," and I

would be glad to have your definition of it. What does the term damnation mean?

Answer. Condemnation. "He that believeth not shall be con demned," is the new version of it. But I see from the pieces alluded to, by the aid of these immensely powerful telescopes it only means doomed to "a state of ignorance, sin and blindness, without any future punishment," He that believeth not shall be (whereas he is now free and intelligent) doomed to a state of ignorance and sin in this present life, but after death will be just as happy as he that believeth and is baptized: so that the true version of the whole passage is, "He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved just now, and he that believeth not shall be saved at last. According to the new system of grammar which these philanthropists have introduced, “shall be” and "is now" are perfect equivalents. "Shall be condemned" is no threat of future punishment: for they are now condemned; and as the future means the present, so the present means the future-and therefore, those that shall be condemned are now condemned, and those that are saved shall be saved in no other sense than that in which they are now saved,

4. What is the meaning of the word Hell?

Answer. See Notes on Matth. v. new translation. But it has been discovered by these philosophers to have no metaphorical nor literal meaning as respects future punishment. Gehenna is burned out; and as there is now no literal hell, or Tophet, or Valley of Hinnom in this world, so there is nothing like it in the future. The only place now metaphorically called hell, is the heart of a sinner; and this admits but one person. It is, also, only temporal. So soon as the heart turns to dust, the sinner escapes out of his individual hell, and is at once in Abraham's bosom. Elysium, Tartarus, Purgatory, and future punishment, are all of the same school, the inventions of the orthodox demons of ancient and modern times; of which class there are yet many legions. By the aid of these new discoveries, it is to be hoped that the whole universe will be converted into heaven; that both cold and darkness will be proved to be but heat and light: for a benevolent creator could never have been the author of either winter or night. Every thing incompatible with universal benevolence, according to the new standard of benevolence, is the creature of the wicked orthodox. Indeed, had it not been for them, we would have had no torrid, no frigid zones; no night, no winter, no death, no devil, no hell, no future condemnation: we should have all been in Eden, in paradise, if these were not mere figures of speech.

5. What is the meaning of the word Heaven?

Answer. Once we regarded it as the eternal home of the righteous, a state of pure and perfect felicity. But we do not now know what to think about it. If these gentlemen were only to turn their telescopes in that direction, perhaps they might discover that it only means air. It is only a strong metaphor. And as Satan is a metaphor for an evil nature, so the term Saviour is a metaphor for a good disposition, and heaven denotes only peace of mind. Religion is very