whoever, therefore, uniformly exerts himself to remove ignorance and folly, must expect but little, in return besides calumny and abuse. Such, Mr. Editor, appears in various instances to be the treatment given to the Freethinking Christians. The time was when they used to pray and sing in public like other folks, but the spirit of inquiry was roused in their minds, and when they searched the New Testament to discover the authority for public worship, in order that they might be able to give to every man who required it of them a good and sufficient reason for practising it, to their utter astonishment they found none; and what could they do in this dilemma? They had always been habituated to public social worship, and we all know that it is not the most agreeable task to give up old habits and customs, particularly when they are sanctioned by general practice, for new ones, which are likely to meet with nothing but derision and contempt. But they had declared that they would be governed by the New Testament-that whatever was there clearly enjoined as a Christian institution or practice they would conform to, and whatever was omitted they would likewise omit, regardless of the agreement or disagreement which such conduct might produce with the general actions or opinions of men; and having made this determination, when they found that the New Testament had no authority for public social worship, what alternative had they to be consistent? Why, surely, none but rejecting it; and this they manfully did, in obedience to their judgments, notwithstanding the repugnance of their own feelings and the probable contumely that would ensue. And what construction has been put upon this, by those

"Who hate the excellence they will not reach ?"

A very unjust one truly, but at the same time a very natural one. "The Freethinking Christians (say they) will soon be Atheists; they have already given up all ideas of worship, and their next step will be to give up all ideas of a God." "O ye of little faith, and of understanding too, that can reason in this way, how many times must ye be told that light is not darkness nor darkness light; or how often is it to be rung into your ears before you will comprehend, that it does not follow because a man rejects falsehood that he must necessarily reject truth; that it does not follow because he surveys with indignation and disgust the dark pile of corruption, that he cannot therefore admire the beautiful and sublime fabric of Christianity; or that because he will not worship the great parent of the universe in the temple of idolatry, he cannot worship him in the temple of truth. Surely, a man can do one thing without doing another, or believe what he thinks

to be true without being obliged to accede to that which he knows to be false. He may reject public worship because it is not authorised by the New Testament, and because it is calculated to make hypocrites; but he may believe in the propriety of private worship, because it is expressly enjoined in the New Testament, and is calculated to mend the heart. Such I conceive to be the sentiments of the Freethinking Christians: they regard public social worship as an institution not to be found in the New Testament, and as they profess to be guided by that book, if it is not therein contained, they have nothing to do but to reject it as not belonging to Christianity. But private worship, or more properly private prayer (for it is to that I would now wish to bend my attention) is clearly authorised and appointed in the New Testament; for Jesus, when speaking to his disciples concerning prayer, gives them the following directions-" and when thou prayest, be not like the hypocrites, who love to continue praying in the synagogues and at the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men; verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But when thou prayest, go into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret, will reward thee openly."

Here is a command given by Jesus to his disciples, the substance of which is, that when they prayed they should not pray in public, where they might be seen by men, but they should retire to some place in private, and there ask of their father whatsoever they needed. If this be not in the first instance a prohibition of public prayer, and in the second an enjoinment of private prayer, I confess I should be glad to know what it is. That it implies the latter, I have never yet heard disputed; let us then endeavour to trace the operations which it is likely to have upon the human mind, and the probable advantage that may result from its practice. We well know how difficult it is for the mind to acquire such an ascendancy over the passions as to regulate them invariably by the principle of virtue ; and we have too many instances upon record, of the brightest geniuses being buried in the gulf of dissipation, which, if they had been well regulated, would have shone in the sphere of excellence as stars of the first magnitude. How pitiable is the condition of such men, and how valuable must be every system that is calculated to assist in saving them from the vortex of oblivion, and bearing them up to the proud pinacle of virtuous fame! They lose themselves for want of system-they have no guide-none to whom they can apply for direction-and being thus at sea without pilot, compass, or chart, how can they do otherwise than, strike upon danger, if danger is in their way?

But let us suppose them under the influence of the Christian religion let us suppose that they are convinced that there is a God who delights in virtue and benevolence-that every thing in existence is under his compleat controul-that he regards his creatures as his own children, and that in proportion as they are virtuous or vicious so he rewards and punishes, or apparently discards-that to those who are good or desirous of being so, and who place in him a full and entire confidence, he will listen, and comply with all their requests, so long as they are consonant with justice and propriety; let us suppose a man with these ideas, and at the close of the day ere he sinks as it were into a state of temporary death, surveying his past actions and motives, and in the language of mind thus addressing his great and best friend-"Father, I thank thee for the many pleasures thou hast bestowed upon me this day; forgive me the errors 1 have fallen into, and if any one hath acted towards me otherwise than he ought to have done, be thou my witness that 1 harbour no rancour in my boson against him; but as thou hast so often and so kindly forgiven my faults, so do I forgive him, and intreat that thou wilt return him good for evil. Assist me in removing from my disposition every thing that has the least appearance of evil, and in forming my character to every thing that is good and excellent. If it please thee, prosper me in the sphere of life in which lam placed, and give me the means of alleviating the sufferings of my fellow-creatures; but if prosperity will lessen my virtue, or retard me in the pursuit of excellence, rather let me be in indigence and poverty, and enjoy the smile of thy approbation. In these, however, as in every other circumstance of my life, whether it be pleasing or painful

"Great cause of all effects, thy will be done!"

Is it possible, I would ask, for a man thus daily to hold communion with his Maker, and when he rises in the morning, refreshed by repose, to return thanks for the additional favour, and to request his guidance and protection throughout the ensuing day; and when the day is closed again to repeat the survey of his actions, and to hold a fresh communication with his God? Is it possible for a man to do this, and yet continue to be a vicious man? 1 cannot believe it; it is not in the human mind to withstand such repeated impressions of the deformity of vice, as must be made on it when it daily goes into the presence of a being to supplicate his protection, and is at the same time conscious of having wilfully violated his laws. Either his vicious practices will be discontinued, or shame and remorse will soon prompt him to relinquish the privilege of

addressing his Maker, being conscious that he is under the mask of a guilty hypocrisy which he cannot conceal.

If such be the effect of private prayer, why need we make further enquiry as to its utility or importance? It is indeed true, that it cannot make any alteration in the will of the Deity, because in his wisdom he has no doubt determined on every circumstance or event that is necessary to take place in order to compleat his grand design, and nothing can alter his determination; but what then? are we to conclude because we cannot alter the will of the Deity, who has already resolved on doing the best that can be done for us, that therefore we ought not to thank him for what he has already done, and entreat a continuance of his favours? This would be a selfish conclusion indeed; it would be like a child saying to its parent, if 1 thought I could get anything more from you by thanking you for what you have done, or by requesting still the favour of your benefits, I would do so; but as I know you have fully resolved on doing all the good for me you can, and as I know nothing can alter that resolution, where can be the necessity of thanking you, or entreating you to do that which you have already determined to do? So then, because we cannot obtain more by it, that which we have received, or may in future receive, is deserving of no regard! Surely this reasoning must proceed from ingratitude, and from a want of that benevolent disposition, whose effects we daily and hourly experience. What if the Deity has determined on the line of conduct he will pursue, was it not a voluntary determination? May he not alter it if he pleases? Is not every benefit we receive from him a purely free gift? If so, then it has an equal claim to our gratitude, whether it proceed from the resolution of a moment, or come as a link in that great chain of determination whose beginning and conclusion is known only to the Supreme.

It will probably be asked, what effect can prayer have upon the Deity, or what good can it do him? Why none, truly; nor was it ever intended that it should. We cannot increase the happiness of God, neither can we affect his disposition, or change his mind. Why then should we pray to him? I answer, first because he has ordained it; and, secondly, because it is calculated to produce the happiest effects on the mind of man; reminding him of his entire dependence on the bounty of Providence, it will check his pride, and teach him humility; by exercising a grateful disposition, it will banish all selfishness, and teach him to be thankfully content with his lot; and by frequently looking at the bright excellence of the God of nature, it will shew him the true contrast between vice and virtue, and stimulate him to imitate that which appears to be

so lovely. If these advantages are not sufficient to recom
mend private devotion, tell me the virtue that has a better plea.
O! how delightful 'tis to bend the mind
To thee, Dear Parent of our life and bliss,
To thank thee for thy kind paternal care,
To tell thee of our ev'ry joy and grief,
To claim thy blessing on our future way;
And then, encourag'd by thy love divine,
To sink contented into sleep and thee.

Kingsland Road, April 12, 1812.

I

TIMOTHEUS.

THE CHARACTER OF MOSES VINDICATED.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

AM not desirous of suspecting the integrity of any man in matters of religion, but I think the conduct of the Deists is quite sufficient to rouse suspicion. After all the arguments that have been used by Christophilus and others in defence of revealed religion, it would highly become them manfully to assign equivalent causes for all the effects that have been adduced. Instead of engaging in endless skirmishes, let them rally their forces, and, by incontrovertible evidence, produce causes for effects, or acknowledge that effects are without a cause in this particular. If they would act thus we should have hope; but no, when all the trifling objections are ans wered which they have brought, they retire to their oracle for more, to wrest the authenticity of the whole Bible.

Your correspondent D. T. in the last number of your Magazine, introduces the exploded argument of Thomas Paine respecting the character of Moses (Numb. xii. 3), and is pleased to rest the authencity of the Pentateuch on this detached passage; saying, "Now the advocates for the books of Moses may take which side they please, for both sides are against them. If Moses was the author, the books are without credit ; and if he was not the author, the books are without authority." If this could be admitted as an axiom, I venture to say there could be no writing of antiquity handed down to us which would deserve the least credit, because they are all exposed to the enmity of designing men, and therefore liable to interpolations.

Again, it does not follow, if Moses did not write the whole, that he is not the author, because he that founds a system is the author of that system, though he employs another to complete that which he had begun. Look at a watch that goes through thirty or forty different hands previous to its completion, and yet the whole is referred to the primary cause, viz. the watchmaker. This is so evident, that it will answer to every work