assert it? The errors which the Methodists entertain I wish to see opposed, but as men I do and must respect them.

With your permission, Sir, I demand from Mr. Moor a performance of the task he has pledged to you and the public, or the reasons of his silence. Your's, &c.

Gracechurch Street, May 6, 1812.

JAMES GRIFFEE.

DOUBTS ON THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

YOU!

SIR,

1

OUR Correspondent Christophilus, it seems, has done Mr. Paine the honour to raise him to a high priesthood, merely to have the greater gratification in knocking him down; for my part I am inclined to doubt if Mr. Paine has not shewn more good sense in admitting a future state of existence, even on the bare possibility of the thing, than those who so positively insist upon it on the slender evidence they are able to adduce and I must confess, L cannot see that after this he is forced to believe that God actually did all the wicked and ridiculous things related of him, merely because it was possible, or because he had the power.

Your correspondent admits that Christianity is pure Deism, but with advantages which could not possibly be derived from the study of nature; and what these advantages are, we colfrom his apostrophe to Christ (page 186).

"His death was a confirmation of his sincerity; his resurrection (being the reward of his virtues) confirmed his mission; it brought life and immortality to light; it stamped with the seal of divine authority all his doctrines; and it held forth to us the important truth that we should live again. By the glo rious reward conferred on his inimitable excellence, is clearly evinced that there is a God who delights in virtue !"

Christ's sincerity need not be doubted; neither need we doubt the sincerity of many others who have died martyrs even to absurd and ridiculous doctrines..

I must confess myself totally at a loss to conceive how the many sufferings, death, and resurrection of one man, can give us greater than all other assurance" that there is a God who delights in virtue."

If such was to be the general reward of the virtuous, we must unhappily acknowledge that there have been no virtuous men on earth since Christ-not even his own disciples; for none have experienced a similar resurrection: though many suffering saints indeed have seemed to believe their very suf

ferings themselves a mark of Divine favour, and consequently gloried in the severest torments. But if this instance was only an exception from a general rule, it proves nothing-but an exception.

Again, I am unable to comprehend, supposing that Christ did die, and afterwards did rise again, and walk about with the same body and that likewise with the same body he did ascend up into heaven-how does all this "bring life and immortality to light, and hold forth to us that we shall live again?"

We have pretty good reason to believe that we shall not rise again with this our body; that we shall not with it walk again on earth; and that with it we shall not ascend into heaven.More of this hereafter.

Vol. 1. p. 225. Speaking on inspiration, your correspondent produces a disputed text to prove that scripture lays claim to having been written by inspiration only in some particular cases; and that Peter says they are those parts which are prophetical other men may, perhaps, with equal truth, say that other parts were inspired. Thus, at best, it is difficult to discover which parts we are, and which we are not, to consider as of divine origin; and a secret door is opened for the escape of the pious defenders of these divine writings, when pressed hard upon any point which may be shewn to be even unworthy of man to write; they have only to exclaim, “Ob, that is not one of the passages which were inspired!"

"All other parts of the scripture (except only those where the powers of the human mind were incompetent to the task) were written by fallible men, and come under the same cri terion as any other books of equal importance and antiquity." On being pressed hard upon this criterion, no doubt a subterfuge would be found, in saying we have no books of equal importance and antiquity; but I must say I do not expect any such paltry expedients to be used against reason in this dis

cussion.

This inspiration and revelation is one of the grand pillars onwhich your correspondent builds his strong hold; the curious architecture of which 1 apprehend is something similar to that which Samson so easily tumbled down. If I pull this prop away, what will become of his edifice? This part of the subject will, therefore, claim my early attention; for the present 1 shall make only a few observations.

According to your correspondent's criterion, many more passages in the scripture than he seems fully aware of, must be accounted to have been written by inspiration. It is beyond the power of the human mind to know that it was God who set the rainbow in the heavens on a particular occasion, to

VOL. II.

commemorate his repentance, and as a sign of his determination on future forbearance.

That the flame in the bush was God-that the pillar of fire, and the pillar of smoke,, which attended upon the Jews, was God-that it was God with whom Moses wrestled by the way in the inn (by the way Moses makes very free with God, and conjures him up on all occasions; no juggler had ever so obe. dient a familiar a spirit). Now if Moses, or any other man, tells us what we must totally disbelieve, unless we admit that God himself dictated what he said what is there that should influence us in preference of the latter?

In all such cases let us ask common sense :-Is it more probable that the omnipotent God, the great governor of innumerable worlds, could descend and thus degrade himself, than that a cunning leader should deceive an ignorant horde of vagrants?

Nearly every sentence that Moses utters is a horrid blas phemy against the most high God.-2 Peter i. 21. The words are, "For the prophecy came not of old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Now this any man might say, it is still only the ipse dixit of Peter; and Peter being a fallible man, might be mistaken, as on a close investigation I think he will be found in this instance.

Pages 225 and 227. Christophilus makes a curious concluclusion on the subject of the creation, as selected in the two first chapters of Genesis. "Doubtful and difficult as that account appears; and though it may be admitted to be merely an oral tradition, which descended from father to son until Moses or some other person wrote it down in a book; yet it is very probable that it was revealed to that same author by the Deity!"

Independent of this incoherence, suppose the account was not known before it was written, and it to have been first writ ten by Moses as it is reputed-what is your correspondent's reason for believing it to have been revealed by the Deity?Why truly because it relates occurrences which no man could possibly know, without being told by God himself.

Christophilus chuses to call them important truths-it is cer tainly an important subject; but I would be glad to know if the same reasons which convince him that they are truths, are not sufficient of themselves to prove the facts without suppos ing Moses to have been inspired to write them.

Let us never forget that it is very easy for any man to write an account of what never happened.

A wise man may have written good laws, without any direct inspiration or interference of the Deity; therefore it is quite

unnecessary to enforce a belief that the authors of the four books next after Genesis wrote under any such influence.

I have pleasure in saying that Christophilus and I are of the same opinion with respect to conscience.

Pages 228 and 229.-As to the haughty prophets, who, pre-tending to divine missions, reproved kings and rulers, I shall be under the necessity of making free with some of their mightinesses; and may, perhaps, find occasion to shew Christophilus, that the judgments they denounced did not "always follow the neglect of their advice;" neither were "their prophecies always verified:" and this even from the Bible ac count, from which we must suppose every care has been taken to exclude all such instances as did not escape the notice of those who compiled these histories.

Christophilus says, "Jesus professed a design of uniting in one family all the worshippers of the one living and true God, and his apostles evidently acted on the same wise principle."

Now if Jesus was commissioned by God to execute a particular purpose, we must not for a moment admit the possibi lity of a failure; yet it is notorious that since the introduc tion of Christianity, the number of different families of worshippers has been increased to an amazing extent. I have seen enumerated more than half-a-hundred of those alone who style themselves Christians; and your little family, which in my humble opinion approaches the nearest to perfection, was not included. The inference is obvious!

Here I shall close my observations on your correspondent's two preliminary essays; and if I am permitted to trouble you in continuation, shall, in my next, state my doubts of his direct evidence; but I have so much to say on so copious a subject, that more than one sheet of paper will be required. Meanwhile, I remain, &c.

March 23, 1812.

IGNORATIUS.

Loose and declamatory as this letter appears to us, we give it insertion, as it professes to be merely a preliminary essay; but in his next letter, which he promises shall meet the direct evidences of Christophilus, we expect he will produce adequate causes for the facts and effects there adduced, otherwise we cannot insert any further letter from him on the subject, as our object is not skirmishing; but close combat.-EDITOR.

ON A REVELATION.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

N

SIR,

I support of an opinion advanced by the very able and un answered Christophilus, in his " Evidences of Christianity," I request the favour of the insertion of the following extract in your next number; and which those gentlemen, who maintain that a revelation was unnecessary, and that the contemplation alone of nature is sufficient to prove the existence of the Deity, would do well seriously to consider.

"Amidst all the opposition made to the apostles; amidst all the reproach, with which they were loaded, and all the perse cution they endured; it does not appear that a divine revelation was ever considered as superfluous and useless; the suf ficiency of human reason, for the purposes of religion and morality, was not once pleaded against them. Christ crucified was indeed to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but they did not deny the want of assistance from hea ven. The objection is in fact of very modern date; and has been insisted on solely by those who own reason has been enlightened by the revelation they oppose who were furnished by the religion itself with the arms they would use for its des 'truction.

"This seems to have arisen from errors, which, however im portant, are neither unnatural nor unfrequent. The funda mental truths of religion were taught us so early, that we can not recollect the time when they were unknown to us; and our faculties are so fitted for their reception, that we fancy we were able to have discovered them. They are so adapted to our nature and situation, that we suppose them either self-evident or so obvious that no man could overlook them. The moral precepts of the gospel are found, upon examination, to be perfectly equitable in themselves, and excellently adapted to the purposes of human life; and this discovery of their equity and aptitude has been mistaken for the discovery of the precepts themselves. Perhaps men confound memory with invention, and do not distinguish between what they have learnt from instruction, and what they have attained by investigation; perhaps, too, vanity inclines them to ascribe to their own sagacity, what they have been taught by revelation; and when they trace in the creation the proofs of the existence and power of the Creator, whom scripture or tradition has announced, they fancy they have discovered by their own reason and observation, what their own reason and observation have only confirmed. It is one thing to perceive the truth of a proposition when sug