would suffer such a spirit to reside near his throne? Yet to deny the existence of such a being is considered, in what is termed the religious world, a species of Atheism, as though the belief in a Devil and the belief in a God were necessarily connected, and depended on similar evidence; but "all nature cries aloud there is a God;" not any thing in nature declares there is a Devil. Our observation and daily experience prove that man is a sinner, but neither observation or experience prove that he sins by the temptation of the Devil. A man, therefore, with abundance of satisfactory arguments and weighty reasons for his belief in a God, cannot be able to discover any to countenance the popular notions, of an invisible being called the Devil.

Who that considers the character of God as powerful, just, and good, governing all things after the counsel of his own will, can possibly suppose that he would permit a being to exist in avowed hostility to his government, whose grand object is to counteract the benevolent intentions of the Creator towards his creatures, to make them sin, and thereby to bring them into condemnation. The powers attributed to the Devil, and by means of which he is rendered capable of effecting his purposes, are such as to render caution against his designs, or resistance to them, utterly impossible; for we are told he is invisible; that he suggests evil thoughts, by means of which he prompts us to perform every thing which is inju rious to our neighbour and ourselves; and that this he has the liberty of doing, when he pleases and where he pleases. Now I would ask any rational man, what he would think of that father who should caution his children against breaking his commands, and should threaten them with chastisement if they did-yet should admit and impower a person to reside in his family, whom he should know possessed the most malignant intentions towards that family; and to whom he should give the power of assuming the most secret as well as the most fascinating manners to bring about his diabolical intentions? Surely every man would answer, such a father was both unwise and unjust. But if the existence of a Devil be a fact, then is the character of God subject to much greater reflections; for if we consider creation as the family of God; that God, the Father of that family, has commanded "Thou shalt do no murder-thou shalt not steal," &c. yet that he has permitted a superior being to man-one whose sole object is to draw man from his duty, to take up his abode in his family-has endowed this wicked being with the faculties of invisibility and immortality; that he can neither be seen or destroyed; at the same time if he chuses to shew himself he can do it without fear of attack, being subject to different laws,

and having the power to assume the most pleasing forms, and if detected to vanish when he pleases; that also by means of these powers he can imperceptibly suggest or instil into the minds of men, the most wicked and abominable thoughts, even to breaking the commands of God.

Surely, surely! Mr. Editor, the Maker ofheaven and earththe God in whom we live and move, and have our being-that kind Parent who causes his sun to shine, and rains descend on the evil and the good, cannot! will not-endow a being, possessed of a mind fraught with malice against his creation, with miraculous powers, such as are ascribed to the Devilby means of which he is enabled to deter man from obeying the commands of his Creator, and impelling him to break them, thereby rendering him obnoxious to punishment. In other words, this doctrine represents God as giving commands, and threatening a breach of them with condemnation, and at the same time endowing a being with every necessary power (and powers of that description against which it is impossible for man to be on his guard), to compel men to break those commands, and become subject to condemnation. But our God delighteth not in the misery of his creatures-punishment is his strange work; therefore the doctrine of Devilism is a libel on the character of the Most High.

The injurious tendency of this doctrine on the minds of its believers must not pass unnoticed-the man who has injured society by his wicked conduct, instead of being taught to search for the cause in his own mind, is taught to refer all bis base actions from himself to the Devil. Thus the man against whom a bill of indictment is found for murder or robbery, is said to have been moved to commit those acts" by the instigation of the Devil." If a man entertain wicked thoughts, it is the Devil suggests them; if his passions overcome his reason, it is the Devil's fault; and if his reason, getting the better of his feelings, prompt him to investigate some favourite dogmas, he is soon driven from his design, by the priest telling him it is the workings of the enemy. The enthusiast spends one half of his time in imaginary combats with the Devil, and the other half in praying for deliverance from his supposed attacks; children are alarmed at the approach of night, lest they should see the Devil; and many an old woman has escaped from a white cat or black dog, as though she knew the Devil assumed those forms. This doctrine then obscures the mind, renders it servile and timid, prevents man from searching into the secret springs from whence his actions flow, rendering him callous to the calls of virtue and reason, and compleatly indifferent to the principle of morality-damping all enquiry, and rendering him a passive machine, to be

acted upon at pleasure by a being of a superior order, whom he never saw, and with whose mode of acting he is perfectly unacquainted. To one set of men only is this doctrine beneficial, and to this order of men it most probably owes its origin-I mean priests, or preachers!

They, sweet gentles! have engaged the Devil in their cause, and it matters little to what sect or party they belong, for the leaders of most sects and parties seem to agree in making this gentleman their attorney-general. If you doubt the dogmas of catholicism, the Devil will receive you and hand you over to his imps, to be boiled, roasted, or fried, at pleasure; if you disbelieve the creeds of the Protestant church, you are to be eternally damned, and the Devil will execute the sentence; if you go to a Calvin or a Luther, a Whitfield or a Wesley, they, good souls, call every man who differs from them hereticks, and the Devil always punishes hereticks-so that the priests proclaim their doctrines and form their creeds, and the Devil prosecutes and punishes all that do not most cordially believe and subscribe to them. To these gentlemen then we may consider the Devil as a bosom friend-as one with whom they can enter into sweet converse-as the very life and spirit of the order and certainly I can only plead the general good in endeavouring to rob them of a supporter, whose congeniality of disposition must have rendered him a most pleasant and agreeable companion.

But on what evidence does this doctrine rest? That there is evil in the world no one will deny; but it is only evil as it respects the immediate effects it has on man-not evil as connected with the general plan of a wise and benevolent Creator; that man is a sinner no one can dispute, but it does not require a Devil to account for it. The introduction of sin I know is attributed to the Devil; but I would ask the advocates of this doctrine, to whom they attribute the introduction of sin into the regions of bliss, previous to the transgression of this fallen chief? The scriptures inform us, and reason sanctions the idea," that out of the heart proceed murders, &c. and that a man when he is tempted is neither tempted by God nor Devil; but that when he is tempted he is drawn aside of his own lusts, &c." In short, which ever way I look at the doctrine, I am equally at a loss to discover any evidence in either the natural or moral world to support this doctrine; and this leads me to the bulwark on which the believers in a Devil principally rest their cause, viz. the scriptures. In these books it is said the existence of a Devil is revealed, and also his attributes, but all revelation has the good of man in view-tending to his improvement, and leading to the pursuit of happiness by the road of virtue. Here, let me ask, how a revelation of the existence and attributes of the Devil does

this? But even in the scriptures, the times and modes of tempting man are nowhere specifically laid down; neither the means of resisting his suggestions or warding off his attacks; no, not even the cabalistical words used by priests, " in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," are prescribed as a remedy for souls tempted by Satan! But all we can say is, that the word Devil and Satan are to be found in the book called the Bible; as such in my next 1 will endeavour to set them in their true point of view. I remain, your's, &c.

CRITO.

REVIEW OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES IN MR. BELSHAM'S 66 RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE ASSERTED AND DEFENDED;" WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THAT GENTLEMAN'S CHARACTER.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

EVERY publication connected with religious liberty must

be of the first importance to the friends of the toleration act; in this respect Mr. Belsham's pamphlet is of peculiar interest, in bringing to our view the wording of this celebrated act, by which it appears that Dissenters are not so strongly guarded in the letter of the law as they imagined. By the words of the act the civil officers are "impowered" and "required" to administer the oaths, &c. upon application by dis senting teachers. Thus that law which was considered as commanding is in truth but discretionary; and the security of religious liberty is left to the choice of the magistrate and the enlightenment and moderation of the times.

In the course of Mr. B's. argument we find some most extraordinary passages-passages that contain principles which are immutable, and which no sophistry can overturn; and yet these passages are in such direct opposition to this gentleman's conduct as a preacher, and a hired teacher of Christianity, that upon reading them we are confounded-we are lost in amaze ment when we recollect who the writer is. Had he studied to expose his own character, his success could not have been more complete, as the following extracts will shew; from which we are necessitated to form either a weak opinion of his mind (which I am by no means inclined to do), or else conclude that his principle of action is the opposite of that admirable qualification commonly known by the name of honesty.

In the fourteenth page, we read as follows:-" If indeed religion consisted of a series of subtle and abtruse propositions, which nonę but men of superior understand

ing and learned education could comprehend, the nature and evidences of which can only be understood by those who devote their whole time to close investigation-unlearned persons, who are almost entirely occupied in secular employments, must be content to believe and act as their spiritual superiors should direct. But the fact is otherwise. Religion is a plain, simple, intelligible doctrine. It consists in the love of God and our neighbour, and in the practice of virtue founded upon the expectation of a future life. All who are capable of performing the duties, may also understand the obligations of religion, and the Christian doctrine is so clearly revealed in the New Tes tament, that no HONEST inquirer can greatly mistake."

If this is the fact, and I most heartily join issue in declaring such to be the case, let Mr. Belsham take the consequence of his own declaration-that the understanding and practice of religion requires but a virtuous and honest mind, the priestly office vanishes away, and its place is supplied by free inquirers, examining for themselves, thinking for themselves, and acting for themselves! What a glorious revolution this would bring about in the circumstances of man, and how ardently to be wished for by the REAL reformist and true Christian! Mr. B. has compleatly committed the question on his side, and given up the last vestige of an argument in support of a distinct order of men set apart to teach Christianity; for let it be observed that the thinking and scriptural Unitarians only defend the practice on the ground of expediency and utility. But here it must be pretty clear that the utility and expediency lies all on the other side, and it is highly expedient for every one to enquire for themselves into this "plain, simple, intelligible doctrine" that is "so clearly revealed in the New Testament." Page 23.-"The right of private judgment is inherent in the rational accountable constitution of man," &c. "If a man has a right to judge of the truth of a doctrine, he has equally a right to judge of its importance; he acts a virtuous or benevolent part in adapting whatever he may judge to be the best and most efficacious means of making it known to and causing it to be received by others." "He has therefore a right, and it is his IMPERATIVE DUTY, whether by instruction, or catechism, or conversation, or CONFERENCE, or DEBATE, public or private, whether by writing or by printing and publishing-or by public preaching or teaching from house to house-or by holding forth in the market-place, the fields or the highways-whether men will hear or whether they will forbear, to promulgate what he believes to be essential or highly important truth, and to protest against what in his estimation is pernicious error."

The whole of this extract speaks so loud that comment is 3 c

VOL. II.