conclusive without revealed religion; and I think so on the principle of philosophising, which is the principle on which Christophilus conducts his argument: for in the instance of the innumerable worlds, we behold one cause is sufficient to account for their existence, and it is therefore unnecessary and unphilosophical to multiply causes. I am persuaded that without revelation this truth never could have been discovered; but, when discovered, it seems to be unsettling the principles of reasoning too much to say it cannot be proved; in fact, if this be admitted, it would invalidate all the powerful reasoning of Christophilus; for he declares at the outset that he means" to demonstrate the truth of revealed religion," on the very ground that a Deist reasons with an Atheist to prove the existence of a God.

On the fact of the Jews being the only nation of antiquity which believed in one God, Christophilus deservedly lays considerable stress; but to defeat the conclusion which would necessary follow from this circumstance, a writer of no mean talent, and who has cut a considerable figure in the general question concerning revealed religion, has had the hardihood to deny the fact altogether. This writer contrived to conjure up, with the magic stroke of his pen, whole nations who were worshippers of the one supreme God-the ancient nations of the North, the Scandinavians, the Icelanders, the Scythians, the Greeks before the time of Cecrops, that is, before they were in any degree civilized or removed from barbarism, were all pure theists in the creative imagination of "a Deist;" and but for the industry of a correspondent (J. D.) this imposition might have been palmed on the unsuspicious and uninformed reader. But "J. D." has followed "a Deist" to his source, and has brought his turgid accounts into deserved contempt, though supported by "unquestionable authority." After this, I suspect we shall hear no more of" a Deîst;" if he is prudent, he will take no notice of the two letters of J. D.

The fact then of the Jews having been the only nation of antiquity who possessed this great and enlightened truth—a knowledge of the existence of one great first cause of all things

is but more firmly established by the opposition of "a Deist." For this fact Christophilus asks a cause-he shews, that if it could be possible to adduce this truth from nature, it would require the greatest exertions of philosophy, the greatest enlightenment of science; whereas the Jews, when first they possessed this truth, were a mere wandering tribe, an untutored people. Now as the most refined and polished nations never attained to this truth-as those who pushed their inquiries the farthest into the secrets of nature, never possessed any clear and distinct notions concerning it, the presumption is, that the truth was not discoverable, at least in the then state of scien

tific information; but the circumstance of an unenlightened people soaring to this sublime truth remains unexplained, and Christophilus, in searching a cause for this phenomenon in the history of the human mind, concludes that the Deity must have revealed himself to these people, as they themselves avow.. And be it remembered, that there is nothing unreasonable in the simple idea of the Deity revealing himself to man-the Deist contending that he does so reveal himself in his works; the only difference of opinion being as to the manner of this revelation-they contending that it is done in a manner so unintelligible, that whole nations have passed away from the earth without understanding any thing about it-we, that it was made knnown in a plain and positive way, suited to the knowledge and condition of mankind.

Christophilus having assigned for the fact in dispute-a cause which appears to him the most simple, natural, and sufficient-calls upon the Deist to produce any cause for the effect, possessing these qualities in a more eminent degree-for this purpose a writer has appeared. A. B. of whom notice has already been taken, now naturally arrests our attention. This gentleman appears not at all to like the plan of the argument which Christophilus adopts in vol. ii. page 255. He asks whether it follows, that because this great truth was first enter. tained by the Jews, "that there is something super-human in it?" Not necessarily so from this mere circumstance, and if A. B. can discover any better causes for the effect than those which he calls super-human, the matter is at an end.

He goes on, "when it was ascertained that the earth was not the centre of the solar system, was it required that other men should independently make the same discovery, in order to prove that the philosopher was not divinely inspired?" Certainly not; and for this simple reason, because adequate causes can be assigned for the discovery, independent of inspiration. At last, A. B. sets off in search of a cause for the specified ef fect; and he certainly takes a safe road, making a thousand conjectures, and asserting nothing and if any one were to follow him in all his turnings and windings, and shew the absurdity of every one of his suppositions, it would be impossible to approximate to decision; for A. B. would strike out some new path, and wander on as eccentric, as erratic as before --so that till this writer fixes on some point which he means to defend, he is no fit opponent to Christophilus: and this may be the reason why he has remained unnoticed by him.

To account for the fact in question, A. B. (page 256) sets out by supposing, that Moses was a man of considerable penetration, and of a bold and enterprising character; that he might have possessed a benevolent and patriotic breast, or have

been actuated by ambitious motives; that his inquisitive mind might have led him to reflect on the absurdity of all the religious systems of his time; and, contemplating the emancipa tion of his brethren from slavery, it would be politic in him to inspire them with religious enthusiasm, in favour of that God whose immediate agent he pretended to be; and that though there might be considerable difficulties opposed to all this, yet every thing would "yield to the artful projects, the wily schemes, of a subtle and designing character."

It is really astonishing to see what absurdities some men will believe, who affect to be sceptical. This writer cannot believe that the Deity would reveal himself to his creatures, but he can believe that a base and designing character could discover this great truth-could contrive to impress on the minds of an ig, norant multitude what enlightened philosophy could never understand that a great and aspiring soul could find the gratification of its ambition in heading a hoard of degraded slaves; that a crafty hypocrite could expose hypocrisy, unmask deception, overthrow oppression, and bless a people with wise and enlightened laws against the very bias of their dispositions. I smile when I observe a writer of talent like A. B. twisting and struggling through a long chain of ridiculous suppositions, merely to get rid of a plain and easy hypothesis. The way be fore A. B. is straight and clean, and sooner then take it, he will plunge through mud and filth up to his hips; the path round the mountain is easy of ascent, and he prefers to scramble through bushes and brambles up its shaggy sides! Go on, A. B; but we will not follow thee!

I would just suggest to this writer, that if he understands any thing of the laws of internal evidence, and will but examine the history of the Jews, he will find that the notion of one God must be dated back far beyond the days of Moses, But, however, it is for the reader to judge between Christo, philus and A. B., and to determine which has assigned the most appropriate and simple cause, or causes, for the fact in dispute.

In my next, Mr. Editor, I shall conclude, subscribing myself, for the present, THE REVIEWER.

I

ON METHODIST SOCIETIES IN REPLY TO MR. MOON.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

Have neither opportunity nor inclination to enter into a controversy with Mr. Moor, respecting the rules and prac tices of the Methodist Societies; but called upon by him (page 346, in reply to mine inserted in your Magazine for June last), I send you the following:

From what has subsequently appeared from your correspondent, I am now ready to admit with him that his former remarks are preliminary, but he seems hurt at the appellation I gave to them, and suggests from his language a desire that I should give them another reading; this I have not done, being from home, but from the recollection I have it is still an opinion with me, that his remarks introducing candle, fat bacon, old nurses, &c. are vulgar and ridiculous, and nowise bearing upon the point he wished to establish.

Follies exist among most men, and Methodists have their share, 1 will allow; but the rules or laws of a body of men. are not made foolish by the folly of an individual member, neither are such laws directly reponsible.

I am willing to confess, Mr. Moor's letter has convinced me, that what I have said concerning the conduct of the Methodists towards Mr. Moor, is too liberal, nay even false; for it appears he has "fallen among thieves," and the motives of a thief towards him he robs cannot be those of friendship.

Mr. Moor, by relating two or three instances of knavery, has not proved that the rules of the Methodist societies make men knaves: most questions have two sides. Upon admitting the above not to be the case, will it be presumption in me to say that Mr. Moor is forming a conclusion upon the blackest ? With equal justice might I take the opposite, and infer, that because I have experienced several instances of kindness and. generosity from members of that society, their rules and prac-. tices are calculated, unexceptionably, to make men benevolent and good.

Mr. Moor, in his letter, contained in page 404-5, probably thinks he has contrasted and exposed the inconsistency of the Rules of the Methodist Societies with scriptare; it may be soand had he rightly performed this, he would have done well. But still it is not clear to me that he has yet proved that "numbers who attend to them must perish for want of food."

What Mr. Moor's thoughts may be, of what I once was or now am, matters not; yet still I am obliged to him for the compliment of saying I am become wiser (or words to that effect). I

admire the openness and frank manner in which Mr. Moor writes, but think that argument would do more justice to his cause than low scurrility, and weak attempts at satire.

Mr. M. is more entitled to my thanks for telling me what he is not, than for relating what he is. Merely to assert that he is a man (which I never doubted) conveys no proof whether he is a wise man or a foolish man, a good man or a bad man; that he is a man, who thinks for himself, I from the first conjectured, and am happy to see it confirmed in his own words.

I conclude by most respectfully reminding Mr. Moor that there are thousands who can put in quite as strong a claim as himself to being MEN, but there are hardly so many that can roundly assert they are virtuous men! Oxford, Sept. 1812,

JAMES GRIFFEE.

ADVICE TO A YOUNG MAN ON ENTERING INTO BUSINESS,'

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

SHOULD the following extract of a letter, which has come. into my hands, being Advice to a Young Man on entering into Business, be adjudged worthy your publication, it may afford some salutary hints to your young friends, and will oblige

A CONSTANT READER.

"I congratulate you on entering into business, and wish you all possible success; yet I cannot forbear offering a few remarks, by way of admonition, under the persuasion that it will be most cordially received by one, whose advice, when in similar circumstances, I should heartily welcome.

"You are now beginning the world as a Tradesman; there appears to me something unpleasant to an independent mind, in the very idea of trade, and particularly in its present overgrown state. Trade has now assumed a factitious shape, and calls for factitious means to support it. To an ingenuous spirit, then, it will be considered, at best, as a necessary evil; but it is not to my present purpose to treat on the principles of trade, but rather to trace its effects on the human character.

"Trade must he considered as the mean to raise the party engaged in it above dependence, and to insure the comforts and pleasures of life: when it is entered into with this view, and carried on by fair and honourable means, it is laudable; when that end is gained, it becomes superfluous, and should cease when the cause for its existence has ceased. But how opposite to these remarks is the conduct of men in trade! Look