he should come there upon such a business," and as rudely asked, "were there no boys in his own connection?" Utterly confounded by the shock which this reception had given to his nerves, the gentleman had begun to grope his way from the holy threshold, when his Reverence added, "you can, indeed, keep the boy longer; if you have his consent; but he has a sister at the same school, and you may be assured that if you retain him, she shall likewise immediately quit, and may also go amongst the Dissenters!"

Query. Which was most in a want of a guide-the learned doctor or the applicant?

By giving the preceding a corner in any of your pages, you will much oblige a constant reader and well-wisher, Mare Street, Hackney.

C.B.

REVIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY ON THE EVIDENCES OF IN THE FREETHINKING CHRISTIANS'

CHRISTIANITY

MAGAZINE.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

ELDOM has the question of the Truth of Christianity

undergone a more ample discussion than in your invalua ble Magazine, and perhaps no publication, avowedly Christian, has ever before afforded so fair an opportunity to the dispu tants on both sides, to defend their respective systems. You, Sir, have set an honourable example of free enquiry, by presenting to the world, in the same pages, an exhibition of talent and argument exerted for and against the Christian religion; convinced that if that system be true, the permission of its enemies to examine or oppose it, is, in reality, as beneficial to the cause, as the attempts of its friends to support it by law and violence have proved injurious.

These reflections have suggested themselves to my mind, on going through the whole of the controversy as it has appeared in your Magazine; and, with your permission, I purpose presenting your readers with a review of the argument, claiming the privilege of offering occasional strictures on the writers who have taken the leading part in the discussion.

The foremost of this description in favour of Christianity is your correspondent Christophilus. This writer commences his operations by throwing off all the cumbersome dogmas and absurdities of orthodoxy-thus, by making the religion of Jesus a reasonable service, he does away at once with that fund for wit and ridicule, which the general representations of Christianity have afforded to the sceptic. The fault with the advo

cates of revelation has usually been, that they have had too much to defend; not so with Christophilus-he undertakes to support nothing but Christianity, pure and simple as its great teacher left it; and in the spirit of this system he considers there is nothing to which the Deist can object; " for (says he, page 182, vol. i.) it is in fact pure Deism, with such advantages as Deism, without revelation, never can possess ; for what is Christianity but the religion of nature, simplified and elucidated so as to meet and suit the circumstances and ability of the meanest capacity, and rendered truly valuable by furnishing a clue and evidence for the belief of a future state of existence ?"

Mr. Paine expresses his religious belief in the following terms-"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy." Now to this creed Christophilus can add AMEN ; So that the Christian can unite with the Deist in the general principles of religion-both equally believing in the existence of one God, in his justice and goodness, in the necessity of virtue and morality, to the happiness of man, and in a state of bliss beyond the grave. On the latter article, it is true, Deists are divided among themselves; but of those who do not believe in a future state of existence, it may be said, at least they would wish for some condition of enjoyment beyond the short compass of human life, though they consider futurity to be involved in doubt and obscurity. And here the language of one of your Deistical correspondents may be quoted to the pointI wish, Mr. Editor, in common with my brethren of mankind, to learn our future destiny; but this wish-this ardent desire -in the view of enlightened reason, constitutes no proof that I ever shall.”

The Christian and the Deist agreeing then in the general principles of religion, the point at issue between them is simply this has the Deity ever revealed to his creature man these principles of religion, in any other way than is supposed to be conveyed by his works, and in what we behold of the ordinary operations of nature? The affirmative of this is taken by the Christians; and to prove that the Deity did reveal in an extraordinary manner these principles of religion, which it is acknowledged it is important for man to know, certain ancient records are put in as evidence, consisting principally of history, poetry, and epistles-these records have been col lected together into a book known by the name of the Biblein this miscellaneous work is to be found the history of a people, to whom it is assumed the Deity revealed himself their origin,

customs, manners, policy, virtues, vices, and ignorance, are detailed in a manner totally different from the spirit of impos ture-their poetry and songs, which exhibit some of the finest specimens of composition, have all a reference to a supposed divine communication-and the original letters, written by dif ferent persons, are replete with the soundest maxims of morality, avowedly derived from the source of revelation, contain evident allusions to and arguments concerning this revelation; and it appears that the writers of these letters endured privation, hardships, and even death, in support of some of the most material facts connected with this revelation. But in the regular course of human affairs, it has happened that this book has become corrupted, partly by design, and partly from the ignorance of translators; and the difficulty of conveying the spirit of a dead language into a living one-an ill acquaintance with the figures of speech, and the characteristic phraseology used by the oriental writers-a blind and senseless veneration toward these writings, in supposing them to have been dictated by supernatural power-the carelessness and ignorance of the majority of readers of works of this description-together with a variety of other causes which might be enumerated, have made it appear to the Deist, that these records have in them so much that is puerile, ridiculous, and inconsistent, with the character of God, that they reject their evidence altogether.

In such a mass of matter as this book presents, viewed as it generally is through so wrong a medium, and existing under such disadvantageous circumstances, it is not surprising that a variety of difficulties should be raised, and objections started against it; and, to answer all the objections which the ingenuity and ignorance of man have framed, would require a term of life much longer than is usually allotted to mortals. Christophilus had observed this, and wishing to do some good before he left this world, has adopted a different method in dis cussing the evidences of revealed religion : accordingly he has brushed away all the forcible and all the weak objections at once-all the argument and all the quibbling against this bookand on a very simple principle of reasoning attempts to prove the truth of revealed religion, without assuming the truth of the book-whilst the credibility of the book at the same time follows as a consequence.

The argument may be termed philosophical-facts are ad duced, the existence of which is acknowledged on all hands; for these facts adequate causes are required, to account for their existence, on the principle of every effect requiring a cause, and of not adducing more causes than are necessary to the production of the effect; and the object of Christophilus is to shew, that for these acknowledged facts and effects, no other

causes can be assigned but such as imply the truth of revela tion; accordingly he calls upon the Deist either to admit the truth of revelation, or to produce any better cause for the given effects. Than this mode of managing the controversy, nothing can be more simple, nothing more fair. I come into my kitchen, which is extremely hot-I observe in it a large fire, and immediately say the heat is occasioned by the fire-No! (says the kitchen maid), it is not the fire, indeed, Sir, that makes the place so hot!"-" Well, Molly, what is it then?" would be the natural question; and if Molly could not tell, I, who had always observed that fire produced heat, and had often felt that a good fire in winter made my study warm, should still be disposed to think Molly's fire the real cause of the heat, at least till she assigned some better one!

Plain and natural as is this process of the mind in forming its opinions, yet a correspondent (A. B. vol. ii. page 217) has thought fit to object to it, and on this circumstance the friend to revealed religion may perhaps congratulate himself. He will suspect that A. B. knew well the irresistible application of the principle, if it was once admitted, and therefore thought it advisable to shake it in the very commencement of the discussion; but be assured, A. B., the principle remains unshaken : and if thou wert to unite thy logic to the tongue of my Molly, I should remain unconvinced of my mistake. I might take an extra pinch of snuff to be sure, or the scullion might pin a dish-clout to the tail of thy coat, for shewing so much learning in the kitchen.

A. B. beats about this principle on which Christophilus conducts the argument with a good deal of debonair. He talks of our "finite knowledge, the short-sightedness of our nature, the properties of matter," and so on: but A. B. need not be alarmed; Christophilus does not pretend to prove his point to mathematical demonstration; he does not suppose that his principle is infallible, but he thinks it the best that fallible men can adopt. Christophilus may possibly be mistaken in some of the causes he assigns to effects; he only means to say, that when such and such causes appear the most suitable, the most appropriate, the most commensurate to the effects, he must consider them the real causes of such effects, till you find others more suitable, more appropriate, and more

commensurate.

The first paper of the evidences of revealed religion is occupied in noticing a variety of observations by the author of the Age of Reason, in defining what Christianity is, stating the merits of the question, and laying down the principles on which the writer intended to discuss it. The second exhibits a very masterly treatise on the various books which compose the

Bible, and the light in which they are to be regarded. Nothing can be better calculated to silence all the little captious objections which have been brought against the scriptures, than the view which Christophilus takes of the subject.

In one sentence of this paper, I presume, with deference, to differ from the writer. After stating, that it is a point of little consequence whether the book of Genesis was written by Moses or not, whether traditionary or not, he observes, "I must contend, that whether Genesis was written by Moses or any other person, or however the account may have been confused or added to, that the probability is strongly on the side that these important truths were revealed to the writer by the Deity, in a way suited to the apprehension of the people for whom they were written." Now for myself I am disposed to think that no revelation took place in the mind of the writer, because I cannot conceive any necessity for such revelation, the Jews having believed the important truths contained in this book (Genesis) long before it was written; so that the book itself is not to be considered a revelation of these important truths,' but a declaration of thein, and a history of the way in which they had been revealed to mankind. From inattention to this distinction may difficulties arise, and this has perhaps given occasion to the quibbling on this paragraph in the Evidences' by a writer whose signature is M. W. C. (vol. i. page 493) and who was taken to task by "an Observer," p. 578.

.

The first fact which Christophilus adduces is, that the Jews were the only nation of antiquity who believed in the existence of but one God-though in introducing the argument he appears to me to carry one point of objection against the Deist rather too far; and I mention all the defective parts of the argument, because I consider the principle which Christophilus has adopted in his Evidences to be of the most conclusive kind, and his papers on the whole to exhibit a masterpiece of reasoning. Christophilus considers the ground on which the Deist attempts to prove the existence of one great first cause to be vague and uncertain without revelation, and states that were he an Atheist, though he would admit that every effect must have a cause, yet he would deny the Deist's conclusion that there was only one first cause in creation. “It is true (says he) I see a house, and determine there must have been a builder; 1 see two or more houses, and there may have been as many builders. Carry on this reasoning-that I behold a world, and there must have been a God to create it; but there are many worlds, and each world may have had an individual first cause, from any thing I can gather from the book of nature, or from this mode of reasoning without revealed religion." Now I candidly confess that I think the argument of the Deist perfectly 3 Q

VOL. II.