former. So little appearance is there of any con, genial principles existing between them,

Speaking of the Christian system again, he observes" It yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud." Much beiter reasoning and philosophy than any he has exhibited in his book, have been industriously employed to abolish Christianity, for near two thousand years; and it yet remains unimpaired, and I think we may rest secure that it never will be abolished. The best reasoners and most eminent philosophers, always have been, and still are on its side; and in the same degree as genuine reason and philosophy improve, Christianity will acquire increasing credit and influence.

Having mentioned the morality preached by Jesus Christ, he says-"Similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Creek philosophers, many years before," &c. As to what Confucius preached, I know very little, and suspect our author to be much in the same predicament. "It is asserted by the missionaries of the Franciscan and Dominican orders, that he was wholly unacquainted with, or purposely neglected, the doctrine of a future life, and that in his moral system he paid little regard to religion."* Whether this be true or not, I pretend not to say. We may as rationally believe

History of Philosophy.

them, as any others who had an opportunity of knowing his doctrines. If it be as they report, then his system differed from that of Jesus Christ, in the most necessary and fundamental points; and I have no doubt that it did. We can very

confidently say, that no similar system of morality was ever preached before Christ, nor has been since.

The following particulars distinguish his system from every other, ever published. It made the belief of his being the promised Messiah and Saviour, an essential article of obedience to the will of God. It rested the whole of its authenticity on the necessity of his death, as a true expiatory sacrifice; and his resurrection, after his death, as an infallible testimony of the validity of his sufferings, to atone for the sins of men. He enforced it, as supreme lawgiver of the world, who had, in himself, the absolute right of giving laws to the universe. He urged the motives to obey his commands, entirely from regard to another world. The motives he proposed were rewards and punishments, which were entirely at his own dispensing. One of the most solemn and influential was, that he should be the final judge, in determining the state of mankind, in another world, according as they had obeyed his commands, or neglected them. Another important article in his system, was, that his subjects, or disciples, should

depend on his promises, with an implicit confidence in all circumstances. All these particulars were essential points of morality in his system; and no founder of any other religion has ever been so extravagant and presumptuous, as to form any system on similar principles. What systems of Greek philosophers he refers to, as similar to that of Christ, I do not know; as he has been prudent enough not to mention any of them. They have all of them very essential and evident defects, which it would be easy to shew, if necessary. But, we can as easily give him implicit confidence in this particular, as in any other.

ARTEMAS.

Kemarks on the Age of Keason, No. XVIII.

PASSING by many things which this man has said respecting the Bible, that equally expose his ignorance, indelicacy and irreligion, I shall next take notice of a sentence in which he appears to have made his strongest effort against it, and at which he might very well have stopped. "When we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executious, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a Demon, than the word of God. It is an history of wickedness that

has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest every thing that is cruel." P. 39.

From this it appears, that the subject in the scripture history which has most provoked his detestation, is the cruelty contained in it; the rest we may suppose he can bear with. But, either he is entirely ignorant of what constitutes the chief merit and excellence of history, or his extreme sensibility has most egregiously over ruled his judgment and betrayed him into an opinion of the sacred history, which completely exposes him to the derision of every competent judge of such subjects.

But, before examining the merit of this violent censure, I cannot avoid remarking, that it is not a little surprizing how a man, who affects so high a degree of sensibility, should have allowed himself to say so many bitter things against the Bible, knowing it must be extremely disagreeable and offensive to every person attached to that divine book. Had he reflected but a moment, before he wrote it, he must have been convinced that it was not possible for him to hold the history of the Bible in greater detestation, than every serious Christian must hold such a sentence, from whatever principle it was dictated.

Pray, what sort of an history would he have had the sacred writers give us? A true one, or a

false? A just picture of the people and ages to which there histories extend; or a fine, pleasing one of things that never existed? The last might very well serve to amuse light and volatile minds, who prefer fiction to reality; but could not afford the least satisfaction to men desirious of knowing the true state of mankind in the early ages of the world. The very things he mentions to the discredit of the sacred history, must, to every man of discernment, appear to be the strongest marks of its authenticity and utility.

The sacred historians have not only given us the most unquestionable proofs of their fidelity in relating facts, but of their accurate knowledge of the characters, customs and manners, trade and commence, religion and government, and principal personages and transactions of the different nations and ages comprized within the limits of their histories. And, if any thing beyond their internal evidence can be required to strengthen their credibility, it is aboundantly afforued by the most authentic profane histories that have traced the same times and people with them; of which circumstace no man tolerably acquainted with history can be ignorant.

What are the most celebrated histories in the world, but records of the mistakes, violence, treacheries, ambition, oppression, cruelties and miseries of mankind? What but accounts of these forms