am attempting is, to show that it is so contrary to common sense, that if a man should act as if he believed it, he would be deemed deranged. And now I put the question to your honesty, do you not allow that if you found a man really believing new and curious contrivances to be the effect of chance, and acting and talking on this assumption, you would think him a lunatic? Suppose, for example, some curious contrivance were presented, and he should honestly and seriously assert that it was formed by chance atoms of matter that happened to stick together in that form, and you should perceive him planning and acting on the supposition that every thing else was the result of mere chance, would not you, would not every rational man say he was without common sense?

I ask then, how can it be rational to assume a theory in religion and act upon it, which if you act upon it in any other matter proves you a fool? Is not the risk of eternal happiness of as much importance as the business and pleasures of a few years? If it is folly to risk small matters on such a theory, is it not surpassing folly to venture on its truth your all, and for eternity? For what proof have you that you shall not live forever and be forever capable of suffering? Did any man, ever bring a single iota of proof to establish this? And if you cannot prove it by the slightest shade of evidence, then there is infinite risk in taking the unsafe side. It seems then that you are venturing the eternal happiness of a future existence on the

truth of a theory that you could not act on in any other matter without proving yourself deranged.

My friend, I here leave the matter to your candor, to your honesty, and to that love of truth which you claim. Your friend, &c.

MY DEAR SIR,

LETTER III.

I am not necessarily involved in the difficulty, for which you make such good natured allowance, of charging those who hold your sentiments with being devoid of common sense. It is only that portion of those who, holding your opinions, really attempt to act on their principles, that fairly come under this implication.

There is a class of minds, of which I consider Robert Owen and Fanny Wright as specimens, who, while wanting in that fine mental balance called common sense, are supplied with a large amount of enthusiasm. Such a combination, if united with a contemplative turn of mind and lively imagination, often leads to that mysticism whose votaries reside in a world of imagination and feeling. But when united to an active and fearless temperament, and under certain influences, it tends to that practical Atheism, which is exhibited in the projects and visionary efforts of Owen and Fanny Wright.

But such sort of sceptical men as you, who have common sense enough to preserve you from acting upon your principles, become such in various ways. I know one man who became a universal sceptic, from the mere love of argument, and a sort of contrariness that always made him take the wrong side in every debate. He thus formed such a habit of sophistical reasoning, and was so perpetually warring against the laws of evidence and belief, that finally his mind was unloosed from all moorings, afloat on the wide sea, without chart, compass, or helm. I have known another arrive at scepticism in this manner. Brought up by pious parents, in one of the strictest sects of religionists, he was taught a long system of doctrines and philosophy, which he received on trust, without inquiry or rational investigation. Possessing a bold, inquiring, and active mind, when withdrawn from parental influence, his faith was questioned, and he began to examine its foundation.

When thrown upon defence, he found himself without ammunition, without skill and without weapons, for all had been left at home, except the badge of a sect that always provokes attacks. He found his religious faith entangled with a philosophy at war with common sense, and unable to discriminate, in attempting to disenthral his mind from some things really false and unreasonable, he threw aside also some fundamental truth. had clearness of vision to detect the necessary connection of this truth with another, and this also

He

he cast away. Unguided, fearless and charmed with liberty, he still proceeded until all was thrown off, and as he supposed, he stood in perfect liberty, accountable neither to God or man.

Other men have been made Atheists by the united force of strong passions, urging on to unlawful indulgence, and a sensitive conscience tormenting them in this course, while they sought as a relief, the destruction of all principles of right and wrong, and all belief of accountability and a fu

ture state.

Were your own mental history written, perhaps it would partially embrace all these causes. You were educated strictly in the faith and morality of your parents; you took your creed simply on trust, without any knowledge of the evidences on which it rests; you were thrown among sceptical men enough to hear their specious arguments, and at the same time among religious persons of rather inferior abilities, with whom you took the wrong side in debate, and reasoned yourself farther and farther from the truth. With a fearless and independent mind, you frankly avowed your sentiments, till you were committed as an opposer of religion, and then all the pride of committed opinion and party spirit urged you on. At the same time, conscience reproached you, and there remained some lingering fears of future retributions, urging you on to more strenuous efforts to relieve your mind, and now you are—what you are.

Here, my friend, I have presented the fairest side of this downward, and what I hold to be guilty