bold assertion is made after Christophilus bad written on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (vol. ii. p. 65 and 97); and where, having enlarged upon the evidence, he says, p. 105, "to my mind the evidence on this subject is so clear and decisive, that I confess I do not see how it cah possibly be otherwise than true; and I call upon the Deist to bring me one fact so well attested and connected with such a variety of strong corroborative evidence as this is, that was ever proved to be false." And, page 533, the Reviewer of the Evidences, remarking on this particular part of the Resurrection of Jesus, says, "it would not perhaps be going too far to say that nothing has ever been better written on that subject. All who know how to appreciate the laws of evidence will esteem it a master-piece of argument, and we only feel surprised that a circumstance which occurred 1800 years ago, should admit of such overpowering evidence in its favour at this day."

Notwithstanding Christophilus had argued the fact of the resurrection, and had called only for one fact so well attested--notwithstanding the evidence appeared so strong and convincing on the subject to your correspondent, the Reviewer-Mr. B. treats it as undeserving his attention-he passes over all this evidence; and without condescending even to notice that any thing has appeared on the subject, or producing this one fact, which would settle the businesswithout attempting to answer in any way the questions put by Christophilus in so simple a form, he boldly asserts the Resurrection of Jesus to be a forgery and fraud-and the promulgators impostors, disappointed of their hopes of worldly triumph. Yet with all this unmanly conduct, Mr. B. is extremely hurt at having it described as mean, dastardly, and cowardly, and charges you with not daring to publish his arguments against Christianity.

When I wrote the notice to Mr. B. I confess I thought most meanly of his conduct; but upon a re-survey I cannot find language sufficiently strong to convey the contempt I must ever feel for a man of talent, who conducts himself in the mean, dastardly, and cowardly manner, that he has done; and nothing will alter my opinion, except he come forward and meet Christophilus on the ground proposed, and adduce more adequate causes for the facts and effects adduced by Christophilus than he himself has done, or else acknowledge that he is mistaken; and if he does not do either, every rational man must conclude that although he is convinced he cannot answer the argument in favour of Revealed Res

ligion, he has not courage or honesty sufficient to make the acknowledgment.

I shall make no comment on the other part of Mr. B's. curious epistle; his objections have been so often and so ably answered by other correspondents, that I am only astonished he is not ashamed to repeat them; and I think, Sir, you did him a great favour in withholding from public view his oft repeated and oft refuted tale, thereby saving him from merited disgrace! But since he is so anxious for it, publish his letter, and let him empty the bitter cup even to the dregsa more severe humiliation his greatest enemy need not wish him to sustain! A FRIEND TO TRUTH AND CONSISTENCY.

ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

IN looking over your Magazine for November, I met with

an article on the subject of washing of feet, by a person who assumes the title of "A Humble Enquirer after Truth," though his paper furnishes a strong presumption that he is destitute of every quality implied in the appellation. Low wit, profane banter, and contempt of those who differ from him, united with an exalted opinion of his own sagacity, seem to be the characteristics of his performance. A production which exhibits not even the semblance of reasoning, might be safely left to the sovereign contempt of every man who deserves the epithet of a Freethinking Christian; but as unthinking minds are apt to be led away by what has the appearance of a witty exposure of an opponent's absurdities, it is not improper, and to some it may prove useful, to remind them, that laughter is not reasoning, and that evidence, and not ridicule, is the test of truth.

Into the controversy which relates to the Christian rite, as some deem it, of washing each others' feet, I do not mean to enter. J. D. is, notwithstanding the sneers of your correspondent, a man of too much reflection, to hazard an opinion which he is not qualified to defend by arguments which deserve investigation. I cheerfully leave him to fight his own battles; confident that if he meets with no more

powerful enemies then this pretended "humble Enquirer," he will prove victorious.

What principally disgusted me, in the paper under notice, was the irreverent manner in which the writer speaks of religious men and religious concerns.

Could an apostle have foreseen the allusion which is made to his bodily infirmity, and the ludicrous ideas with which it is associated, would not his mind have felt an impulse of mingled pity and indignation?

Again, is the salvation of the soul, which serious believers of every denomination, deem of supreme importance, a matter of so little moment to this writer, that he feels himself justified in mentioning it with an air of levity, which becomes the hardened infidel infinitely better than the professed Christian?

Before he obtrudes himself again upon the public with an air of so much importance, let him learn not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly. When he has acquired the elements of this important science, he will feel a glow of shame in the recollection of what he has written, and will become in reality "a humble Enquirer after Truth."

Relying on your impartiality for the insertion of the above, I remain, Sir, your's, &c.

Dec. 10, 1812.

J. C. H.

MABERLY AND THE CATHOLIC LIONS."

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

INCE I sent you a few remarks upon Mr. Maberly's handbill, I find by the London Newspapers, (and no one I should presume will venture to call in question such aufhority) that the holy man has been industriously employed in perambulating the streets of London, for the purpose of disseminating his fanatical sentiments amongst the inhabibitants of that great city, marching from street to street, like a pilgrim to the Holy Land, and by distributing his beautiful dissertation on Catholic Lions endeavouring to mislead and impose upon the thoughtless and unweary. That he has been able to impose his trash upon some of us countryfolks is perhaps not too much to assert, but I do hope better things of the inhabitants of London; they are near to the seat of government, and upon various occasions have opportunities of witnessing the virtuous actions and conduct of the

enlightened members of the British Senate, advantages which we country people do not possess. By such examples they, I hope, are encouraged to do unto others as they would be done by, and to treat such a farrago of nonsense as it richly merits. This then being admitted, we need not, I presume, be under any apprehensions about our Lon don friends; having such examples before them, they have no doubt learnt to renounce the Devil and all his works, to shun the pomps and vanities of this wicked world!

But whilst I am writing, Mr. Editor, 1 am putting this question to myself, viz. What is likely to be Maberly's real motive for all this, supposing him to be a rational man? I should suspect it cannot possibly be the creed of the Roman Catholic that is so offensive to this" clergyman of the church of England." To be sure there is some little difference between the old fashioned sort of popery, and popery refined; but yet I cannot conceive the difference is of such magnitude as to make the holy man so angry about it. If he is really at war with the religious sentiments professed by the Roman Catholics, I will join him with all my heart; and although I may not be disposed to assist him in hunting down Catholic lions-if he sets out with a determination to hunt down priestcraft, wherever it may be found, I will most assuredly join him in the chase, and will continue it so long as I have a leg to stand upon; but if, on the contrary, his intention is to persecute a man because he may chance to differ from him in matters of religion, I must beg to be excused. To join in such a chase would be to me a very unpleasant task.

I conceive that man is amenable only to the Supreme Being in all concerns of this kind; and so long as his conduct in the world is found irreproachable, no human authority can possibly have any thing to do with him; even if his sentiments were as foolish as those of a man I happened to be in conversation with the other day. He absolutely as serted that he solemnly believed the Almighty had made Buonaparte an instrument in his hands (viz. had set him to work) to scourge the surrounding nations for their wickedness, but that he afterwards would punish him for doing it! Poor fellow, thinks I to myself, how unfortunate that you should have been selected out by the Deity for such a work, compelled to do thus wickedly, even to abolish the Inquisition in Spain, mock the holy Sugues in Russia, and various other acts of abomination, and then punished by the same power for doing it! a very benevolent idea certainly, and perfectly consonant with justice!!!

But, although, sentiments like these are in my opinion not only very foolish (I had almost said impious); yet so far from wishing to persecute the man who gave them utterance, my view of the matter leads me sincerely to pity him; and I would seriously recommend him in future, by all means, to make use of his reason in all matters appertaining to religion, and not despise (as many do) the noblest gift of God! Yes, reader, I am fully persuaded in my own mind, if, upon all occasions of this sort, man would make use of this invaluable gift, even when he is consulting his Bible, fanaticism would hide its head, and I should begin to hope it would soon," like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not. a wreck behind." This would indeed be a new era!

Could we but get rid of fanaticism and superstition, what a much better world this would be to live in! Men would be no longer anxious to be foremost in persecuting one another about religious opinions; the desire would be, who should be foremost in promoting acts of benevolence and virtue. I should absolutely live in hopes that mankind would then begin to learn to do as they would be done by; and that, instead of contending about matters of faith, they would endeavour to excel each other in good works. The question would not then be, "Are you an evangelical pròtestant, or are you a Catholic lion, but are you virtuous and benevolent? If so, permit me to say, you are in possession of such qualities as will most assuredly insure you that peace of mind, that even Mr. Maberly himself, I am confident, would be anxious to obtain. I remain, &c. Royston, Dec. 20, 1812.

W. H. A,

OBSERVATIONS ON THE SABBATH DAY.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

S your valuable miscellany has for its object the dissemination of free enquiry in matters of religion; if the following observations are judged to be of sufficient importance for insertion, the writer will feel grateful 'in your compliance; and at the same time flatters himself, they will also be of use to solve the doubts of some who are in the same situation as your correspondent, who has submitted for the consideration of your readers a curious case of conscience, inserted in the last number of your second volume.

Respecting the observance of a sabbath, or day of rest, I am not prepared to question its usefulness, as it tends