sess the means), who have the common feelings of humanity, and enjoy the advantages of civilized society. To those men who may have objections to unite with us in our benevolent pursuits, on account of our religious principles, we would strongly recommend the adoption of a similar plan in their own circles; for where the work is extended, even without our junction, we shall honestly say, "We do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." We would advise religious bodies and others in the country, to institute similar societies, which appears to us practicable in almost every neighbourhood; for the smallest individual subscription, when combined with a number of others, may form a fund capable of lessening the distresses of their surrounding poor. From persons in both town and country, who may be desirous of joining with us in our earnest endeavours, we shall be glad to receive the smallest subscription, at the same time reminding them to consult their circumstances, and on no account give more than they can afford, as there is often more pure benevolence in the widow's mite, than the most splendid gift thrown into the treasury. Being anxious not to detain your readers any longer, from a perusal of the following regulations, I shall only wish that they may experience as much pleasure in the pe rusal as that originally felt by London, Feb. 9, 1813. A SUBSCRIBER. REGULATIONS OF THE BENEVOLENT SOCIETY. 1. That a Benevolent Society be instituted, for the relief of the poor of all denominations. 2. That none of the members of the Church meeting at this place be permitted, on any account, to participate in the relief to be afford ed by the Society. 3. That subscriptions to the fund be open to all persons desirous of aiding so laudable an institution, whether members of the Church or not. 4. That the subscriptions be from one penny per week and upwards, and that a Treasurer be appointed to receive the same, and a Secretary to keep an account of the receipts and disbursements. 5. That the Society meet every Sunday evening at seven o'clock, when subscribers are invited to attend. 6. That at this meeting a short Lecture on Benevolence be de livered by one of the junior members of the Church. 7. That eight visitors be appointed from the junior members of the Church, who shall convey the sum allotted, and give such advice and instruction to the persons visited, as the case shall seem to require. both, placing one in the margin, and the other in the text; thus leaving the reader at liberty to adopt either, both of which in their apprehension, stood nearly on the same authority. On this very account, the marginal readings are essential to our version; and I have found, on collating many of them with the originals, that those in the margin are to be preferred to those in the text, in the proportion of at least eight to ten." Thus far Dr. Clarke. People of England, what say you to this? I told you I would disclose a scene of iniquity, yea of vile hypocrisy, from bishops, priests, and deacons ! I have kept my word; truly you may adopt the language of Isaiah, saying, "from the uttermost parts of the land have we heard songs, even glory to the [Bible Society]; but 1 said my leanness, my Jeanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously." Like Solomon's harlot, the society flatter with their words, with their fair speeches they cause the simple to yield; with the flattering of their lips they force them to contribute; subscriptions are increased, counterfeit Bibles are distributed, as the genuine authorized version! To assist in the deception is the whim of the day; and the man is unchristianized that dares to oppose. What care I in displaying hypocrisy I will use my pen yea I will lift up my voice as a trumpet, shewing the priests their transgressions, and the people who encourage them, their sins. Respecting my inferences from the above statement, some perhaps may object, saying, had the charge of ig norance been brought against the above, we could not have said much against it, but to brand it with hypocrisy is going too far; for hypocrisy supposes a man acting against his knowledge for sinister ends; and this we cannot think of the British and Foreign Bible Society, men of the greatest respectability, and filling the most exalted stations, both in the state and the church. I answer, I object to the plea of ignorance in their defence, for the very statement here given from Dr. Clarke proves the contrary; besides, numbers of its leading members have made the Bible (one must suppose) the chief study of their lives, and it is not likely they should remain ignorant of the his tory of that book, especially as it regards its credibility, purity, and correction. Unless they are governed by hypocrisy, thinking religion a trade, and that man the most prudent who makes the most of it, how can we account for their condemning, yea sending to hell by wholesale, those persons who are the firmest believers of the truths of that very book they are pretending to circulate? For instance, ask any one of the leading men of that so ciety, whether amongst the established sect, or Dissenters from that establishment, if they would admit to their communion, a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the only guide in Christianity; that God the Father has no equal, no associate; that Jesus is the son of God by adoption, and the son of man by nature, though he says, that the Father is the only true God, and that he himself is the son of man; that all the power he possessed was derived from the Father, though he himself says, "I can of mine own self do nothing." People of England, these are plain tales; judge you who are most worthy of credit-those who deal in plain matter of fact, or those who defend themselves by the impenetrable shield of mystery, tradition, and fiction. In my next I shall attempt a display of the real causes, why these honourable men have made choice of the authorized version, though they do not exhibit it, rather than exert themselves in laying before the public such a translation, as would prove worthy an enlightened age, from the authentic sources of Kennicott, De Rossi, and Griesbach. Wishing success to your valuable work, I subscribe my. self, Wilts, Feb. 17, 1813. DETECTOR. EXTRACTS FROM A PORT-FOLIO. PHILOSOPHY AND REVELATION. Whatever may be said to the contrary, it does not appear that men derived much advantage from the instructions of the most enlightened philosophers witness the deplorable state in which the nations by whom philosophy was most cultivated were, with regard both to religion and manners, before the publication of the gospel. It was reserved for twelve men of the dregs of the people, and of a nation which Athens and Rome considered as barbarous, to effect in the world a reformation which philosophy had never attempted, and deemed impossible. If men had had for apostles only Socrates, and the philosophers of different sects proceeding from his school, the world would still have been what it was formerly. In the midst of the profoundest dark ness, some men, a little less blind than the vulgar, and often more vicious, had a glimpse of a small number of truths, which served as food for their pride, and exercise for their tongues, rather than as a rule for their conduct. Some considered every thing as problematical, even the existence of a God, and the principles of morality; others, raving at vice, dishonored virtue, and affronted public decency. Some performed virtuous actions, but from fanaticism and self love! Many concealed, and badly concealed, under the philosophical cloak, some abominations which now we dare not name. The most enlightened, through want of zeal for the truths with which they were best acquainted, and besides not being able to support them but by some force, if the author were an ignorant and unlettered man, or if he were placed in circumstances unfavourable to getting at all the opinions; but to a writer like the author of Ecce Homo, who has raked together all the absurdities of the Jewish Talmud, the spurious gospels and epistles, and the ancient fathers, I can allow of no excuse; for he proves to me that he wanted neither industry talent, or means, when it suited his purpose, and the same industry and means ought to have been used on the other side; which, if he had done, he must have known that those chapters had been rejected by many Christians as forgeries; and, as an honest man, he would have examined and stated it, and if the evidence of their being such was sufficient, he would then never have adduced them as arguments against Christianity. On the other hand, after examining the evidence brought against their genuineness, if he had considered it incomplete, it was his business, as an honest man, to prove its insufficiency, before he made use of them as an evidence that Christianity was false; but so far from acting in this manly way, he ransacks all the writings of the darkest ages, and forms them in battle array, while the opinions of more enlightened men, written in a more enlightened age, are not thought worthy of notice; and he argues from the absurdity of these chapters against Christianity, as though they had never been disputed. Let, then, the " Friend to Truth" apply his own remark, before quoted, respecting "controverted points," to these arguments, and I am fully persuaded he must join with your speaker in declaring the writer of Ecce Homo to have acted like a dishonest and unprincipled man; not because the author has ridiculed them, or has not treated them as forgeries, because he might not be convinced they were such, but because he did not state that, while he considered and treated them as genuine, there were numbers of learned and enlightened men professing Christianity, who had taken some pains to prove they were forgeries, and who had entirely disclaimed them as belonging to the New Testament, and as having any thing to do with the question, whether Christianity was true or false ! The "Friend to Truth" calls upon Christophilus "to devote his attention" to this book, and thinks" his time would not be mis-spent" in so doing. This depends on opinion, and could Christophilus see it in the same light as this writer, he would probably think the same, for he says (page 57) "for myself, I can say that I have read it, and it ap pears to me as fair an examination as the author could, con VOL. III. sistent with his ideas, present to the world." Now, Sir, I have the pleasure of knowing the mind of Christophilus upon the subject, which entirely agrees with my own, which is, that a less fair examination of the subject, or one more dishonest and disengenuous, could not have been presented to the world. I know also, that the speaker has read the work again, and that he has a still more contemptible opinion of the honesty and principle of the author than he had. before; but as it respects Christophilus, I do conceive he would be wasting his time in attempting an answer to such a work, as he has thrown down a gauntlet of defiance to all Deists, or pretended Deists, which none have dared fairly to take up; and consequently, till they have so done, they have no claim on him to meet them in their absurd and rambling warfare. But if the "Friend to Truth" wishes to prove the author of Ecce Homo to be an honest man, and a fair combatant of Christianity, let him lend the author Christophilus's letters on revealed religion, and call on him to answer the questions there proposed to Deists. If he will do this fairly, and without evasion, I will engage for Christophilus that he will come forward with pleasure to meet this opposer of Christianity, and answer all his fair objections; till then, I think the Deists or even Christians have no claim on him to use his pen in answer to any one. He has written, and requires an answer; let it be given, and the question shall be fairly tried. But the "Friend to Truth" objects to a letter in your last number, and says, "Unfortunately, we cannot even in the present day express our sentiments on religion as on any other topic; but there is something extremely unjust in branding those men with base and opprobrious epithets (as was the case in your last number) who go farther than ourselves, or dare express their opinions in an open and undisguised manner. Opinion should not be restrained, and it is impolitic to attempt it, by usuing scurrilous language to any man, especially on religious subjects-which ought to be left as free as the air we breathe,' and open to the remarks of all parties, provided they do not offend good manners!" Now, Sir, the letter he refers to, is, I suppose, one addressed to Mr. Burdon, wherein his character is properly and justly stigmatized; not because he is one of those who go, as this writer would insinuate, "farther than ourselves, or dare express their opinions in an open and undisguised manner;" but because he has made bold assertions, which, when called upon to support, he either evades, shuf |