I could enlarge with pleasure on this subject, did not the want of time prescribe limits to my pen. Enough, I trust, is said to convince W. C. and your readers, that his reasoning will not apply with the same force against all the advocates for the Lord's Supper.

On reading his note (pape 120) I had some objections arise in my mind to one of his assertions. I don't mean to object to what he says against the "parson factory," or of the priests with their trumpets-nor do I intend to object at this time to the argument he advances against the Lord's Supper; but I have some doubt if all be true which he has asserted. He says, “ take a view of Jesus extended on the cross, &c." uttering forth a prayer to God for his "real murderers." This assertion, to me, appears not well founded; my objections may be seen in the following questions, viz.

66

The Jews were addressed by the Apostles indiscriminately, as having killed the prince of life, and murdered the just one. Does this prove them to be individually guilty, any more than when Peter tells them "I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers;" proves them to be individually ig norant and innnocent ?

Is it not clear that the Roman soldiers, who were only doing their duty in the execution of Jesus, and the rabble who attended at his crucifixion, but who were ignorant of the real character of Christ, were not his real murderers?

Is it not equally clear that it is the unmerciful priests and certain others who saw the works, and knew the character of Jesus, and who though they thought him to be innocent yet sought his life, that we may judge to be his real murderers?

Supposing there were some persons present at the crucifixion of Jesus who had no murderous design againt him, and who though ignorant of the character of Christ, yet insulted and railed on him, might not such, though not particularly dis criminated by Jesus, be the objects for whom he asked for giveness, rather than the malicious unmerciful priests?

Is it not contrary to the rules of divine revelation to suppose that" real murderers" are fit objects of forgiveness, or that there are any promises in the sacred scriptures which warrant such characters to expect it?

Can any person be the "real murderer" of another, without designing and pursuing means to take away his life unjustly? Is it possible for a person to possess such a murdering dispo sition and design without knowing it?

Is it probable in the instance before us, for Jesus to be mistaken in the character for whom he prayed, when he said, "for they know not what they do ;" or that his forgiving disposition led him to pray his heavenly father to go out of his prescribed

method of forgiving sin in behalf of those who were his murder

ers ?

If repentance he necessary to qualify persons to receive the forgiveness of sins, is it not an ill-judged compliment paid to the compassion of Jesus, that in the agonies of his cruel death he sought forgiveness for his "real murderers," who were destitute of that qualification, and whom he knew must be condemned by the law of God?

In a word, is it not easy to conceive of a character, which is not that of a murderer, in whose behalf the compassionate Jesus thus interceded; or are we bound to believe this memorable petition was for his "real murderers ?"

If W. C. thinks proper to support the assertion, I shall be pleased to see an answer to the above, free from error and absurdity, which will oblige your constant reader, Cranbrook, May 16, 1812.

J. D.

REMARKS ON THE EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

WHEN we survey the various objects in creation, and reflect upon their origin, we not only conceive there must have been a cause, but, from the ideas we have of objects and their makers, we conceive also, that this cause must have been an entity: and hence it is we personify the Deity. From a parity of reasoning we likewise derive the inference of the unity of godhead; for if we were to suppose a plurality of gods-if, because we can discover many worlds, we were to suppose as many individual first causes-other ideas would necessarily associate themselves. We might suppose the possibility of jealousy, contention, and many of the extravagances of poetical romance, which would subvert that idea of omnipotence and government, which otherwise we attach to the nature of God. Thus, though the express image, or nature, of the person of our Maker, is not demonstrable to the senses of man, whether he be infidel or believer; yet the idea of one God being so congenial to the conceptions of our enlightened mind, and seeing that nature does not oppose it, we are perfectly justified in adopting the conclusion.

This sublime notion, then, which men so much admire, is said to have been derived from the Jews. Be it so-and for my own part, knowing that it must have originated somewhere, I will honour the Jew as willingly as I would the most renowned Gentile. But because it was entertained first by them, does it follow that there is something super-human in

it? Is it necessary, that systems should spring up spontaneously in every corner to prove that they are not of divine origin? 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? If we trace discoveries and inventions up to their beginning, we shall find, I think, that most of them have sprung from individuals; and that sometimes mere chance, as it were, has given to obscure persons the means of making discoveries which the most profound philosophers never would arrive at, or of which perhaps they never thought.

:

But it is said the Jews were an ignorant people and it is thought to be unlikely that they, without having more than natural means, should establish a system which appears to be an immediate approximation to the standard of reason and truth: and at the same time their learned neighbours should continue bigotted in the most extravagant forms of idolatry. I must confess that ignorance seems little calculated to effect this; but if the Jews, as a people, were in a state of ignorance, it does not appear that the supposed author of the system was an illiterate man. It is generally thought, I believe, that Moses was a man possessed of considerable abilities, being naturally quick and discerning, and having had an education which brought to maturity the powers of his mind. It is likewise probable that he was a bold and enterprizing character, endowed with a mind capable of conceiving vast projects, and possessing a spirit adequate to the undertaking of them; and if any depen dence can be placed upon the history of the Jews, as given in the Old Testament, he was placed in circumstances eminently calculated to move the compassion of a benevolent and patriotic breast, or to instigate the fire of an ambitious and aspiring soul. He was one of a race of men, whose prejudices and peculiarities had already marked them out as a separate people; but whose misfortunes had reduced them to the lowest possible state of servility and degradation: and was he actuated by philanthropic and paternal affection, to reflect that he had rescued his friends from the iron grasp of tyrranny and oppression, would be the richest enjoyment his generous heart could desire: or did he yield to the influence of views less laudable, a thousand anticipations might combine to spur him on to the ar duous undertaking,

The inquisitive disposition of Moses might lead him to the examination of the various religious institutions which came within his knowledge; and it is probable that his discriminating mind would be struck with the glaring absurdities, with which these' deplorable systems abounded. And if he were

but little more than an ordinary observer of the propensities, the foibles, and the prejudices of human nature, he would not be ignorant of the influence of religion on the mind of man; nor would he fail to discern some of the effects produced by it. He would perceive the blind perseverance of the bigot-he would see the desperate fury of the fanatic-he would see that the weak, the timid man-the pusillanimous, the inglorious character-the base, the survile wretch-that even these, when intoxicated with religious zeal, would dare to act the part of warriors, and hazard their very existence to support an ideal phantom and consequently, when meditating the emancipation of his brethren, and viewing the means to be employed, he would find that he could not have a more formidable auxiliary than religious enthusiasm; and more espe cially if the minds of his countrymen were prepossessed in favour of a system in which himself was considered the immediate agent, and the only person that could avert the judgments, deal out the mercy, and distribute the favour of his God. We will suppose, then, that Moses, seeing and deploring the monstrous errors of the day, would determine upon a system of religion, which would be better suited to his peculiar ideas than any he had met with; and, finding that if this system was established, it would greatly tend to promote his political views, that he would endeavour to effect that change in the sentiments and views of his countrymen, which would be necessary to its reception.

There would, no doubt, be considerable difficulties attend the accomplishing of this object. To remove, immediately, the long-standing, the confirmed prejudices of this ignorant tribe, would be no easy matter: for most likely their pride in themselves, and their veneration for their ancestors, were too great to allow them to suppose that they were deceived. But, notwithstanding, there would be no obstacle that would not be surmounted without the necessity of a divine revelation. There would be no difficulties that would not yield to the art. ful projects, the wily schemes, of a subtle and designing character; none that would not give way to the cunning measures which Moses had recourse to. He found that all which could be directed to the reasoning powers of the minds of these men, would be inadequate to the effects which he wanted to see produced, and therefore he must have recourse to stratagems.. Accordingly he commences a series, by pretending to be upon the most intimate footing with his God. He can retire and converse with this Divine Being in the most familiar manner; is made acquainted with his intentions; is informed of the nature and design of what is to take place, and is commissioned to give instruction and laws to his fellow men. And as well

to give a little colouring to the thing, and obviate the suspicion which might attach, if only one was concerned in the business, as to have the assistance of an adept in the practices of legerdemain; he employs the crafty Aaron to make known these things to the gaping multitude. This person informs them that the God of Moses, is the LORD JEHOVAH; the life of all that moveth; the beginning and the end of all things; High and Mighty; great above every other God; Lord for evermore and, that moreover, he is not a strange God; for he hath commanded Moses to tell the people of Isarel, saying, "I, the Lord Jehovah, am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; yea 1 am your own God, and I have seen your affliction, and am come down to deliver you. I have, it is true, thought proper to change my name; and likewise I shall henceforth require an observance of such laws as hitherto ye have not known ; but marvel not, I AM THAT I AM. If ye will hearken unto the voice of my servant Moses; if ye keep the commandments which he will give you, and obey the statutes which he shall ordain, then shall ye see what I will do for you-I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, unto a good and large land, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; and I will overthrow them that rise up against thee: yea my wrath shall consume them as stubble, for I am a man of war, and I have sworn it, saith the Lord."

This mode of proceeding would, as it appears to me, be well suited to the ends which Moses had in view. It would feed the superstition of this deluded people; it would sharpen their groveling appetites, and call their dormant spirits into action, at the same time that it would silently and certainly establish his system, and lay the ground-work for his future project. A people thus circumstanced-holding the strongest faith in the tutelar governance of their God, absolutely believing him superior to every other God, and being assured that he had pledged himself to lead them to the highest sensual enjoyments, that their debased minds could conceive-would necessarily be subject to strong sensations. The most lively anticipations would originate--the most ardent desires prevail-expectation would be on the tip-toe, and their migration, or flight, seeming to be a kind of earnest of what had been promised-seeming to be one step towards those pleasures which they were looking at-they would, no doubt, ascribe it to the mighty workings of JEHOVAH, and exclaim, "who is like unto Israel's God?"

Thus might a foundation be laid, on which, by means perfectly natural, by a succession of duplicity and fraud on the one hand, and ignorance and credulity on the other, might be reared the stupenduous fabric-Judaism and Christianity.