true, ninety-nine out of every hundred of clergy and laity must be damned; for such I am persuaded is the proportion of those who do not" thus think of these things.'

1 shall now endeavour to shew, not only the absurdity of this creed and its doctrine, and that it is not only not to be proved by holy scripture," but is directly contrary thereto. And here let me observe, by the way, that could it be proved the scriptures taught such a doctrine, it would be the strongest argument against their truth; for a doctrine so absurd, a denunciation so unjust, as to punish men eternally for what they can't understand, would be such a libel on the Supreme Being, that it would afford the strongest ground for rejecting then that could be adduced. Deists might cease to write-the doctrine itself would be the most active agent in obtaining conversion to their system. For my own part, I declare, much as I now reverence the scriptures, and count them the best gift heaven ever hestowed upon man, did they sanction this creed, or the doctrine it contains, I would call my children together, I would collect every Bible 1 had, and burn them as the most abominable libel that ever was published against the majesty of heaven. But, 1 thank God, this is not the case; for they not only teach me that such foul impostors would arise who would sit in the temple of God, making themselves as if they were gods; but they also tell me, that their machinations, though they may succeed for a while, shall fail, and that sudden destruction shall come upon them, when they least expect it. We have seen the work began in France, where a wicked priesthood, who had long blinded, insulted, and trampled upon truth and the people, have been swept away with the besom of destruction; and he that has accomplished this, has promised to destroy every antichristian establishment. His word is sure-his power equal to the task; and while we pity the men, we must, as friends to Christianity, hail the day when BabyJon the Great shall fall, and truth and Christianity triumph in the ruin of every opposing power. But in the mean time, hap`py am I to know, that Christianity is chargeable with none of these absurdities; it is a light shining at present in a dark place, but all its doctrines are pure, just, and rational. It wants but fair play-to be delivered from the foul embrace of kings, princes, nobles, and priests-to enlighten and make happy the whole world. Let us wait patiently-the time will come-the strong pangs of the clergy prove it is not far offthen shall it be found that the religion of nature, of reason, and revelation, are the same, and handmaids to each other. The more one is known, the other will be approved and admired. Then will men see, that revelation was a blessing from heaven, to teach, to illustrate, and enforce the reli

gion of nature, adding to its benign doctrines the forgiveness of sins that were past, and the assurance of a future life of happiness to the wise, the virtuous, and the good. But this wicked and idolatrous doctrine of the trinity, of three being one, and one being three, which contradicts all our senses, and leads men to worship they know not what-which has deluged Europe with blood and with persecution, with blindness and the most stupid idolatry-will be despised, will be ridiculed, and cast to the moles and the bats, while Christianity will triumph and rise resplendent upon its ruins; for it is contradicted by every part of scripture, by Moses and the prophets, by Jesus and his apostles.

The first law which Moses promulgates is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." God, by the mouth of his prophets, continually declares "I am God, and beside me there is none other." Jesus declared that the lawyer spoke right, when he said, "there is none other God but one." Jesus declares that "the Father is greater than he ;" and when he prays to his Father, he says, "this is life eternal to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here he acknowledges, as plain as words can express, that the Father, distinct from himself, is the only true God; and in his temptation he says, "it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God" (not Gods); and all the apostles join in the same doctrine. Peter, when praying, addresses the God that made the world, and thanks him for performing a miracle, "by his holy servant Jesus." Paul says, there is but one God," for though there be Gods many and Lords many, yet to us (Chris tians) there is but one God, even the Father." This is the general tenor of scripture; so says reason, nature, and common sense; and all the passages that seem to favour any other doctrine, have been proved to be either forgeries, interpolations, mistranslations, or else misinterpreted by blind bigots, who when they read the scriptures, or enter a church or chapel, leave their reason at the door, and by taking detached parts of scripture, persuade themselves to believe what common sense and a fair examination would teach them to deny.

If what I have stated is correct, and I think I may defy the ablest defender of the church fairly to contradict it, what claim has such a church upon Christians for support? Let them look to the state from whence they sprung; let them be con tent with their ill-gotten and hard extorted gain, and learn that silence is their best defence-exposure to enquiry must be their ruin. Let them no more persecute men for denying their nonsense; let them not pretend to advocate the cause of Christianity, by prosecuting men for writing against the scriptures or Christianity; but let them leave it to be defended by

1

those who are not interested in supporting its corruptions, and whose weapons are not carnal but spiritual. For what can blast the fame of the Christian religion equal to that of such men as Erskine or Gibbs defending and panegyrising it in a court of law, and inflicting civil punishment for religious opinions? Let such characters, and all the bench of bishops and clergy, declaim against Christianity and the scriptures, as being contrary to the religion of the state, and every Christian will be bound to thank them; it will raise their value in the sight of every thinking man: but when men, who hold a creed repuguant to the sacred dictates of Christianity, who are paid enormous sums for keeping up the craft, call the church of England the Christian church, and profess anxiety for the scriptures and Christianity, the contradiction is so great that Christians hear it with disgust, and Deists feel further satisfied that they are right in rejecting such a religion, supported by such persons. Be it my task, and that of every friend to real Christianity, to disclaim their assistance-to give them no more pay or support than what as a political institution the law obliges us to do; and let us pray that the time may soon come in which the wisdom of our government, or the dispensations of Providence, may do away every state religion under heaven, and on its ruins raise the fair edifice of Christianity, to warm, enlighten, and make wise and happy the whole of the human race.

1 have dwelt longer on this article than I intended: in my future letters I shall be more concise, but feeling the importance of the subject, I have dilated upon it, thinking this alone sufficient for every thinking man. Your's, &c.

A FRIEND TO TRUE RELIGION.

THOUGHTS ON THE LETTER OF A DEIST ON THE STABILITY OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.'

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

THE instability of your Correspondent" on the stability of the laws of nature," has not a little surprised me. When I call to mind the candour with which his opinions were originally delivered, the anxiety he manifested to defend them, his eagerness to provoke controversy, the various invitatations he had given, and the general challenge he had made to any one who would take up the argument with him, I am astonished (if any thing can astonish us in the inconsistency of controversy) at the manner he has treated those who have had the temerity to enter with him in the list of combatants.

In the magazine for March, the reader must be convinced that I had met "a Deist" on his own ground, and that I had shewn, or attempted to shew, the futility of his hypothesis; and yet in the last long letter with which he has favoured us, he scarcely deigns to notice the argument adduced. I certainly have no greater reason to complain than other of your correspondents, who stand in a similar predicament with myself. In the number in which my paper appeared, Christophilus animadverted in a forcible manner on one of the letters of" a Deist;" and a writer, under the signature of Juvenis, in a communication full of deepness of thought, and inferior in nothing to the best productions of this gentleman's pen, had adopted a mode of argument, which, whilst it excites in the minds of his readers a grand and extensive idea of revelation, completely obviates the objections of "a Deist," and swallows up his narrow and partial system in the more comprehensive one which it delineates. And yet all that the writer stoops to in this letter is to refer, "at least incidentally, to some of the strictures which appeared" on his communications.

to

But I must suppose, Sir, that your correspondent has been so much engaged of late with the laws of nature, that he has forgotten the laws of propriety; for his conduct, if not an infraction of the settled and inflexsible course of nature, manifestly involves an infraction of that settled and inflexible course of consistency, which ought to characterise every candid writer, and which we had a right to expect from himself in particular. But inconsistency in controversy, I am sorry say, is by no means contrary to the usual course of events, and is easily accounted for on principles common to our nature; "for a particular mode of thinking long indulged in, we acquire a parental affection, and rather than renounce our creed will surrender our lives." Such was the language of the gentleman at the commencement of this controversy, and his subsequent conduct is bnt a comment on the sentiment. Personal allusions are not always, I trust, indecorous; at least we have respectable authority for it on some occasions. Thus we remember that " a Deist" himself in a former instance observed that the letter signed T. was "clearly the effort of a young man" (though en passant, it afterwards appeared that he was clearly mistaken); but if I can judge from the blind attachment the writer evinces to his darling system, and his eagerness in pressing it on our notice at all times, and on all occasions, I should really suspect him to be in his dotage. I have no objection to the gentleman's fondness for his bantling --it is natural; but it cannot be expected, that every body should gaze on it with the same doating eyes. Ifl cannot admire a hump-back or a wen as marks of beauty, or consider the

spasms or the rickets as proofs of strength, I don't see why I should be reckoned" flippant" or "insolent" for just hinting as much. It may be want of taste or judgment on my part, to be sure; but however, Sir, I shall not be readily offended by any little expression of morosity which the gentleman may manifest, but shall read with pleasure whatever comes from his pen, allowing something to the hauteur of talent.

Concerning his last communication, I shall speak with that freedom which 1 reckon the soul of all true discussion. It is in substance a mere repetition of what he had before advanced; the principles he sets out to prove are his former principles, and the argument he had already expressed with sufficient clearness to convey a just conception of his system. Now the reader must bear in mind, that what he had before advanced had been amply controverted; and yet the writer goes on reasoning in the same strain as before, and with as much volubility as though his argument had never been answered, calling to our minds the polemic abilities of Goldsmith's village schoolmaster.

"Though oft refuted he could argue still."

Your correspondent, Mr. Editor, has thought fit to put words in my mouth which I had never used, and then to ridicule them, for no other purpose that I can conceive but to get rid of the real question, and evade the difficulty with which he found himself encompassed. Ridiculous as he may wish to make my question appear, yet I am so ridiculous as to tell him again that the laws of nature MUST BE KNOWN (and, as was then observed, by the laws of nature I mean the whole of the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature") before we can positively ascertain what phenomena and effects are a violation of them. I appealed to the gentleman for this information: if he cannot give it, let him be ingenuous enough to say sowithout it, his system hangs by a hair-it is a mere splendid delusion! a golden dream! a castle in the air! a palace of ice!

As the whole of the argument rests on this simple point, I am anxious to be cleatly understood; though I suppose" a Deist" was the only reader who could have mistaken my reasoning before. The gentleman would find some difficulty in simply pointing out the express and particular law of nature, which the resurrection of Jesus violated; for, let it be remembered, that the change of ordinary effects is not necessarily a violation of the laws of nature. But, to demonstrate the necessity in this argument of every law of nature being set forth, I would suppose that "a Deist" is acquainted with all the laws of nature except one-even then he could not positively infer that the resurrection of Jesus is an infraction of the laws of nature,