are the same, so that their names and consequence can but be published to the world.

But who is E. K. Fordham, esq.? if I am not misinformed, a Unitarian, one who no doubt has given his support to an improved version, because the old was calculated to lead men into gross errors-one who believes that the present version is not only incorrect in its translation, but that it has in it the grossest forgeries of the most indecent and immoral nature, calculated to support a system of idolatry and superstition; and yet he joins with churchmen in distributing this book without note or comment. Surely one would have expected from common conscience, common honesty, or common principle, instead of moving a vote of thanks, he would have made a speech on the occasion that the world might have had his note or comment, his warning voice at least, to guard them against those parts which he thinks to be false; but not a word about this does he utter. Indeed we read that he moved the vote of thanks that he is an esquire of course that he is rich. How hard it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God! But perhaps he thought that the distribution of the Bible, corrupted as it is, would make pupils for him or for the Unitarians: if he did so, all experience must convince him of his mistake. Wherever the present version has gone, without note or comment, it has made pupils for methodism or the established church, but none for rational Christianity; and I have invariably found, that it is much more difficult to make converts to rational religion, of those who have read the present version, without note or comment, than of those who have never read the Bible at all.

But the church is in danger, and this will help to prop it up; for which they ought to move a vote of thanks to E. K. F. esq. and those inconsistent Unitarians who, like him, are weak or blind enough to join in the same unprincipled undertaking. If he is so anxious to do good, let him do it consistently. We cannot but judge of a man by the company he keeps. Even if E. K. F. thought that good would result from the distribution of Bibles, he ought not to have joined with men who act from such different motives. The Apostle Paul, though he rejoiced that Christ was preached, even of contention and strife, never countenanced the persons who did it, but exhibited them in their proper colours, as deceivers, and ministers of the adversary; but, unlike Paul, E. K. F. never exposes or complains of their motives, but becomes the conspicuous mover of a vote of thanks-so would not Jesus--so would not Paul-and so ought not any honest, enlightened, and consistent Unitarian. It is by such men as E. K. F. that rational religion is brought into disgrace and contempt; and though the light

may not be put under a bushel, it is so mixt with darkness, rubbish, and confusion, that it will reflect no light at all. Thus are all these characters conspiring, though with the most discordant motives, to keep up the age of ignorance, darkness, and superstition; and when it should seem from passing events, that God has laid his hand upon the tottering fabric of the church, these men are holding out their feeble arms to support the falling fabric. "Come out ofher, Oh! my people (says Jehovah), that ye be not partakers of her sins, or of her plagues ;" and shall rational Christians do any thing to support what God has threatened to destroy, and over which destruction he has called his people to rejoice-for that in one hour destruction shall come upon her?

It may be possible that E. K. F. may have acted on the principle of preponderating utility; but where is his criterion? who made him a judge in this matter? The Christian's rule is, do right, and leave heaven to answer for the rest. Paul has declared that we must not do evil that good may come-that evil communications corrupt good manners, and that we should avoid the very appearance of evil. It is the Deity alone who can, from seeming evil, be still educing good; because by his omniscience he can embrace the mighty whole, and form his plans upon a certainty. Weak as we are, and contracted as is our knowledge of effects, the line of our duty is prescribed—we must do only that which is strictly true, strictly just, strictly good and consistent, and avoid every thing that is contrary to these rules.

In the hope that E. K. F. may see this, and be convinced of his error, I remain, your's, &c.

A FRIEND TO CONSISTENCY.

ON A REVELATION.

1

IN

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

N answer to the queries of W. I. I have only to say, that there never was a revelation, because mankind are not agreed about that which is the true revelation; there are many religions which pretend to that title, and there are millions of men who differ about them. Now a revelation of the will of God (having first proved what God is) must be clear and intelligible to all the world, or there can be no infallibl criterion of such a revelation. And considering that of the small portion of mankind who believe in the Christian revelation, not one million agree to understand it in the same sense, follows inevitably, that it cannot come from heaven: if there

it

never has been a revelation, the presumption is so strong as to be almost undeniable that there never will be one. As to the direct and positive evidences of Christianity, I know not what they are. I allow that it contains many good moral precepts; so do the writings of the heathen philosophers, and the books of the Apocrypha. 1 remain, &c.

Welbeck Street, Feb. 2, 1812.

W. BURDON.

ANSWER TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF A DEIST, ON THE STABILITY OF THE LAWS OF NATU RE, AS OPPOSED TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

THE

SIR,

HE enquiry, whether the present is or is not the only stage of our existence, is so interesting in its nature, and important in its consequences, as to require no apology for my adding another to the list of your correspondents on that subject.

The doctrine of the resurrection, like every other of conse quence to mankind, has had its friends and its foes; and it must be confessed, that much frivolous argument has been advanced, as well in support of, as in opposition to, its truth. To confirm a favourite system, or to invalidate an obnoxious one, we are too apt to press in arguments which are either unnecessary or inadmissible. The enthusiasm of system is the most dangerous of enthusiasms-it swallows up every thing-it confounds the most palpable distinctions, and unites the most opposite extremes-it transmutes whatever it comes in contact with, not like the touch of Midas into gold, but into dross-it makes all nature subservient to its own fanciful designs, and there is nothing so remote but what may be associ ated with the utmost facility to its darling theory, from the falling of a leaf to the appearance of a comet.

a

These reflections are occasioned by a perusal of the controversy between your correspondent, who signs himself" Deist," and Mr. Teulon. Your Christian friend, in his zeal to serve the cause of revelation, finds the proofs of the resurréction of man in grasses and orange trees, in lizards and spiders skins, in the shells and claws of lobsters, and in the tails of salamanders; whilst "a Deist" rejects altogether the belief of a future state, in opposition to the testimony of the most virtuous and disinterested of men, who lived as eye-witnesses, and died as martyrs to the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, merely because it does not happen to agree with certain notions of his own about the laws of nature.

I can readily believe, Mr. Editor, that the motives of the contending parties are equally laudable-the one supports what he believes to be true, the other opposes what he imagines to be false. Perhaps nothing does so much injury to a good cause, as the attempt to support it by weak and erroneous principles; for if the controversialist cannot feel the force of a strong argument adduced by his opponent, he can very readily detect the fallacy of a weak one: and it is on this account I have been extremely sorry to see Mr. Teulon place the doctrine of the resurrection on so slippery and untenable a foundation, for as far as I can understand his system, he has compleatly committed the important question: and it is not surprising that "a Deist" should have been able to avail himself with considerable success of the incautious mode of defence adopted by Mr. T. though it is worthy remark, that of the regular and compleat body of evidence brought together in the papers signed" Christophilus," the writer has taken no notice, but has preferred to fall on the weak-to engage in unimportant skirmishes, and to waste his strength in insignificant controversies about rainbows and uninhabited islands. On those subjects, as well as in commenting on Mr. Teulon's hypothesis (for such it must be called, as it is not the hypothesis of the New Testament), it is but justice to say that he has evinced much judgment, much ingenuity, and no small degree of candour; but even if we were to admit that he has been successful in proving his antagonist in the wrong, it will not follow as a consequence, I presume, that he himself is in the right.

As all the communications of the writer bear upon one point, "the stability of the laws of nature," it is my intention to offer a few observations on that subject, in connection with the resurrection of man. I proceed to my task with becoming diffidence-it will be necessary to take back the attention of my readers to the Magazine for December last (page 506), as in that we find the foundation of all his reasoning. In commenting on Mr. Teulon's opinions, he begins by stating the point at issue to be "the stability of the laws of nature," and proceeds to lay down the following proposition as the groundwork of his argument-" that there is not sufficient reason to believe that from the creation to this day the laws of nature have in a single instance been disturbed, and that to raise a man absolutely dead from the grave strictly involves such a disturbance."

Now, Mr. Editor, it would have simplified the subject considerably, as well as have communicated much information to your readers, if the writer had first let them know what the laws of nature are. I am surprised that it never occurred to that clearness of perception which he possesses in so eminent a degree, that unless the laws of nature are previously defined,

it is impossible to say what is or is not a disturbance of themthe position is self-evident. And further, though philosophy may boast of having settled some of the laws of nature, yet as long as there exists in nature a single law with whose operations we are unacquainted, so long we must be incapable of ascertaining what phenomena manifestly involve a disturbance of the laws of nature; because the very effect which may appear contrary to the order of nature may be produced physically by the unknown law. For, as Rousseau has somewhere observed, "it might be in the power of one unknown law in certain cases to change the effects of such as were known;" so that it may be true, that" there is nothing in the usual course of nature which bears the most distant analogy to the supposed resurrection of the human person." Nay, the course of nature may appear to be against such a presumption, and yet it may be perfectly in unison with some ultimate principle in nature, which the penetrating eye of philosophy has never been able to discover. Whether the raising a man absolutely dead from the grave strictly involves a disturbance of the laws of nature, I cannot pretend to determine, till the laws of nature are made known. If I play at billiards, or at chess, and my adversary accuses me of making a move contrary to the laws of the game, it is for him to state or to produce the laws, and we proceed immediately to judge of the supposed deviation; and so, Mr. Editor, when your correspondent produces the laws of nature (and by the laws of nature I mean the whole of the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature), then if we can discover no principle which has any affinity to the resurrection of man, I shall conclude, not that the thing is impossible, but that nature cannot accomplish it without the immediate power and interference of NATURE'S GOD; and I have yet to learn that there is anything unworthy in the end proposed of such power and interference. The question would then resolve itself into this-has the Deity held out any ground of hope to man beyond the grave? I think he has.

For a list of the laws of nature, I shall look with some anxiety in the next letter of your correspondent; without them I cannot join issue with him, for who would attempt to draw conclusions from unknown premises? Concerning the laws of nature, 1 blush not to own my ignorance-myself but an atom of one grand and comprehensive system, I do not pretend to understand the principles by which the world is governed, of which I form so insignificant a part.

“And lives the man, whose universal eye

Has swept at once the unbounded scheme of things;
Mark'd their dependance so, and firm accord,
As with unfalt'ring accent to conclude

That these are Nature's laws ?",