assume an uncommon air of confidence, that calls for a moderate degree of correction.

In your last number you resume the reviewing Sir W. Drummond's (Edipus Judaicus, and not unfrequently reprehend the ideas advanced by him. Your animadversions in the number preceding, relative to his astrological definitions of Jacob's blessing his sons, &c. I think judicious; and wonder much a gentleman of Sir W. D.'s research and understanding could adopt such extravagant notions, &c. but when we come to consider doctrines deducible from the scriptures, and generally imbibed by Christians, I cannot but be very much of his way of thinking. In page 506, you triumphantly ask, from whence Sir W. D. derives the word TRIUNE? I as boldly ask you, was Sir W. D. charging you, the Freethinking Christians, with holding the absurd doctrine comprehended in that word? Is he not rather addressing the Christian world generally, seven-eighths of whom pertinaciously contend for its soundness and verity? Sir, you will excuse my freedom; but it would seem you do not know your friends from your foes. Is not the use he makes of that word a burlesque upon it? and are not your exertions expressly tending to the same object? In p. 508 you say, Sir W. Drummond trembles with horror "that the destruction of the Canaanites was perpetrated by the express command of God;" and presently after you say, "for our own part we profess to believe THAT AN EVENT NEVER YET OCCURRED UPON THIS EARTH, WHICH WAS NOT PERPETRATED BY THE EXPRESS COMMAND OF GOD!" You astonish me above measure, and confound me about your principles. FREETHINKING you maintain with a witness-the liberty you give yourselves is like the liberty of a school-boy's kite, which, having broken the string, is free to go wherever the wind impels it, but in all probability to its own destruction. If such your sentiment be correct, the sentiment of the existence of an evil spirit or devil may much more easily be dispensed with than I was heretofore aware-God and devil being blended in one person! To reason upon such opinions really appears to me a waste of time; I will therefore simply only ask-can the same fountain send forth sweet water and bitter? can God and Belial assimilate? or is there any affinity between light and darkness, &c.? As, however, you mainly contend for what you denominate " REVEALED RELIGION," meaning the scriptures abstractedly, respecting which, my opinion is, they are simply, so many books, written by various authors, in various situations of life, and in

1

various ages of the world; and from thence containing clashing sentiments, a mixture of good and bad, of correct and incorrect opinions; so I am thinking it may assist in converting many to your above new adduced doctrine, (viz. that the depravities of men, their circumvention, carnage, and destruction, one of another, of countless variety, is perpetrated by the express command of God,) if you would give us a satisfactory elucidation of that scripture, where an evil spirit in heaven tenders his services to fabricate a lie, and is accepted of. See second book of Chronicles, chap. xviii. 20, 21.

Furthermore, as I hold my opinion or belief of some value and importance, at least to myself, I am not very ready to surrender it without a valuable consideration; therefore, Sir, were you or any other gentleman to ask me for my assent on insufficient evidence, I feel reluctant, and humbly take the freedom of asking for more or better evidence-a liberty which, if more generally adopted, would, I conceive, conduce to great good-and less "pinning of faith upon other persons' sleeves." And as, Sir your general reading and marked attachment to the scriptures, as "revealed religion," has doubtless furnished you with clearer ideas than possess, so I respectfully request, and should be singularly gratified, if you, Sir, or some of your well-informed correspondents, would assist me to reconcile and understand two different reports of one event, related by two authors of equal authority; one recorded in the 24th chapter of the second book of Samuel, and the other in the 21st chapter of the 1st book of Chronicles, viz.

2 Samuel xxiv. 1.

1 Chronicles, xxi. 1. And again the anger of the Lord And Satan stood up against was kindled against Israel, and Israel, and provoked David he moved David to say, go, number number Israel. Israel and Judah.

to

But Lery and Benjamin counted

all the land, they came to Jerusa- he not among them: for the king's lem, &c. word was abominable to Joab.

And Joab gave up the sum of And Joab gave the sum of the the number of the people unto the number of the people unto David. king; and there was in Israel And all they of Israel were 1,100,000

*Query. What was he angry about? was he got into a peevish humour, wanted to gratify it, but had no pretence, and therefore devised this way in order to create one? Irreverence towards God is the furthest from my thoughts, but the mistakes and dogmas of fallible men are fairly open to comment: this unity of God and Satan are brave texts for your theory.

800,000 valient men that drew the men that drew sword; and Judah sword; and the men of Judah was 470,000 men that drew sword.. were 500,000.

10.

And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said, I have sinned greatly, &c.

13.

Had Levy and Benjamin been counted in this number 270,000 more than the other account had been vastly increased.

1 and 8.

And God was displeased with this thing, therefore he smote Israel. And David said unto God, I have siuned,* * &c.

11 and 12.

So Gad came to David, and told So Gad came to David, and said him, and said unto him, shall seven unto him, Thus saith the Lord, years of famine come unto thee in chuse thee, either three years of thy land; or wilt thou flee three famine, or three months to be desmonths before thine enemies, while troyed before thy foes, while that they pursue thee; or that there be the sword of thy enemies overthree days pestilence in thy landtaketh thee, or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, &c.

&c.

16.

And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite.

17.

And David spake unto the Lord, &c. Lo, I have sinned and done wickedly, but these sheep what have they done? let thy hand, I pray thee, be against me, &c.

24.

15.

And the king said unto Araunah, And king David said to Ornan, but I will surely buy it of thee at a nay, but I will verily buy it for price neither will I offer burnt the full price: for I will not take offerings unto the Lord my God of that which is thine for the Lord, that which doth cost me nothing.nor offer burnt offerings without So David bought the threshing cost. So David gave to Ornan for floor, and the oxen, for fifty shekels the place 600 shekels of gold by of silver. weight.

The distinction here of price is profusely dissimilar, and I can no more reconcile them than some of the other matters re

The sin is not so obvious as to make such severity manifestly just: that God can take away life without rendering us a reason, is fully allowed, and that a deadly disease took place may readily be supposed to have occurred: that which 1,object to is the POSITIVE REASON 25signed by the different authors, totally unworthy of a just, wise, and benignant Being, as God doubtless is.

+ David in this business seems to have acted in a manner greatly to his credit; both as a just man and gracious king, his reasoning is cogent and correct. Even deity itself, according to Ezekiel, (though here acting contrarily) promulgstes it." The soul that sinneth, it shall die." xviii. 4.

lated herein; for if fifty shekels ofsilver equalled fifty ounces," the sum would be under £20, but the 600 shekels of gold would exceed £2400! It matters but little, the time bere spoken of exceeds 5000 years; the relative prices of gold and silver having nearly retained the same proportion to each other all that we have to do, or can do, is to attend to the evidences and probability of the account, and receive the one that is the most feasible, but making due allowance for the wild ideas and extravagant imaginations of authors, and their probability of flattery when writing about KINGS: as to believe both the accounts argues a capacity of believ ing, violating common sense; and instead of having any merit, is replete with folly. Indeed I cannot but consider the term the WORD OF GOD," as applied to all the parts of the scriptures, as IMPOSITION itself! and very many of the authors do not even pretend to any such thing as inspiration, why should we make manacles for ourselves, as if we preferred bondage to freedom.

Paddington, Nov. 8, 1813.

Your's, &c.

as

POOR NABOTH.

REFLECTIONS ON SCRIPTURE HISTORY.— ESSAY IV.

THER

HERE is something singularly interesting in the situation of Cain-what has he done? He has (exclaim) at once a hundred voices)-he has committed murder; nay, more, he has slaiz his brother! It may perhaps be neces. sary for the safety of individuals, and the repose of society, that crime should be deprecated, and that the sinner should be separated from his brethren, for the purposes at once of self-amendment and example; but what is man that he should boast against his fellow? what is there in our nature that can justify us in saying of another, be thou ashamed, thou art a wretch unworthy of pity, whose crimes do not deserve forgiveness? Let us look into our own hearts-let us remember what we have been-let us think on what we are! Of the man reduced below his nature by a continued series of degrading vices we will not speak, for such was not the man whose fortunes and whose failings we are now contemplating. Cain probably was young his temper was certainly impetuous-he lived in the infancy of the world-he was uninstructed, he was uniformed -he knew there was a God-a being who had made him! To gain the approbation and the favour of that God appears to have been the object of his wishes he fails, and why ?

Judging from the event, we may safely suppose it was because his passions were unsubdued, his feelings undirected -he sought for happiness, but he found it not; because ignorance, the parent of every error and of every crime, led him into paths where it was not to be found; he looked around, and behold his brother Abel was prosperous. Perhaps he loved his brother, bat his brother was prosperous -his brother's offering was accepted; while he was in adversity, and to his offering "the Lord had no respect." His feelings, the best of us may imagine, the wisest of us may commiserate; for "Cain was very wroth, and his countenance was dejected-need we describe the rest? the anguish of passion? the fever of envy and of disappointment? He forgets his duty-he forgets every sentiment of propriety-that he forgets his brother is not wonderful, for he remembers not himself. "And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." What a moment of horror! of despair! How happy is the peaceful Abel compared with his surviving guilty brother! At that moment he hears the voice of God. Terror seizes on him; with the cowardice naturally attendant upon guilt, and the ignorance which ever must accompany it, he evades the enquiry made of himwhere Abel is, he says, he knows not; then, mustering up, as it were, a bravado of courage, he adds, “Am I my brother's keeper?" But it is vain-vain as the endeavours of us all to conceal our inmost sins from the eyes of him who seeth in darkness, and to whom there is nothing hidden or unknown. His crime is declared in all its magnitude-the very earth, that has opened to receive his brother's blood, cries out against him, and his God declares "a fugitive and a vagabond shall thou be in the land." With feelings of inexpressible anguish he meditates upon his sentence; he is to be driven from the land; from that land which God has honoured with his presence-he is to wander to and fro, alone and solitary, upon the earth; or if he meets a fellow-creature, can he hope for his assistance? No, he has killed his brother, and must himself expect to die; "for it will come to pass (he cries) that every one that findeth me. will slay me!" What situation could be more dreadful, what could better justify his exclamation, "my punishment is greater than I can bear." It is in this point of view we have said that "there is something singularly interesting in the situation of Cain." How useless, nay, frequently how cruel, appears punishment when the crime