do this, is to annex a copy of verses, which some how or other, came into my hands, by way of a marginal note.* The ancient Jews must have had notions something like those contained in the note below, when they first proposed to themselves to bring about the last grand theological revolution. They must have seen that their God was not explainable, that he could not be brought into any tangible shape; they therefore set themselves about connecting him with humanity. And this, at that period, was no very difficult task; for if it could be believed for 1500 years, that a being who could live in a box, created every object that the eye can behold, out of nothing, how easy it was, and how readily it must have been believed, that he could overshadow a woman, and beget a son!

A god of flesh and blood, body, parts and passions, was now set up as an object of worship: whilst the throne of Heaven was divided by three equal in command, equal in power, and equal in wisdom. This celestial triumvirate, it is believed, now governs and regulates the affairs of mankind. How we are governed, and -provided for, let the poor, half-starved mechanics and labourers of this very religious country say. But they have said, and are still saying in petitions, not to the throne of the Gods, but to their fellow-men, that through bad government they are deprived of the common necessaries of life; that they are poor, comfortless, and degraded while their rulers loll in their gilded chariots, fare sumptuously every day, and put on gorgeous apparel, the produce of those whom they neglect and despise.

Now, my good Friend, although I have used great freedom in discussing my subject, I am not an Atheist. I believe there is a God some where; and though I have not been able to discover him, somebody else may. Mr. Beard may; he is learned and eloquent. Tozer, who was neither, and Johannah Southcote, had

You ask me, WHAT IS GOD? and I,

Am nowise puzzled to reply.
My inward lights so clearly shine,
That heavenly things I can define,
And can, though but a finite creature,
Tell what is God, and what is nature;
Whatever can be seen, and felt,
Whatever can be heard and smelt,
Whatever can be tasted, and
All that the mind can understand,
All that our wisdom can conceive,
All that in which we can believe,
All o'er which fancy ever trod,
Is Nature. All besides is God!
This solves at once the mighty riddle,

And breaks the metaphysic-fiddle,

On which the priest performs so clever,

And settles What is God for ever.

An Atheist is a Theist. The only difference between them is the position of

the letter a in the cognomen.-R. C.

*

almost made a God, or a God's second son, in spite of the thou sand-eyed printing-press. No wonder, then, that the Grecians made Gods so easily before that almost omnipotent engine came into existence. By the bye, why is not the printing press deified? If the thing is not immortal itself, it can and does give immortality to man. The printing-press, in the hands of Homer, would have been a God indeed; before such a God, as Homer would have made of it, even Jove himself would have shrunk into a nut-shell.

I wait with anxious solicitude the arrival of Christmas, hoping that Mr. Beard will not be long after the holidays before he publishes his true God! It ought to be dated the God of 1827. He will come just in time to assist the New Parliament in relieving the working-people of England from their intolerable burdens. Till then, the principle by which the vast machinery of the universe is kept in motion, and its motions regnlated, is my God.*

Meantime, I remain, dear Friend,

Your faithful,

ALLEN DAVENPORT...

What is that principle? or why is it a principle ?R. C. «

ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE REALITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

To the Editor of "The Republican."

AFTER mature reflection and the exercise of the reasoning powers have divested the mind of the infantine prejudices of a Christian education, and the doctrines with which the mind had been impressed are shewn to be false, there will naturally arise an enquiry of an historical character-Who or which was the person denominated Jesus Christ? And we find, in fact, that conformably to what I have said above, the question, whether Christ be a fictitious character, or whether there really existed such a real person, has engaged the attention of sceptical philosophers, both of France and England, for many years past. Some contend, that Jesus Christ is wholly a fictitious being-representing, in the metaphorical language of the East, which the Greeks copied, the labours of the Sun: while others consider him to have been a real person, of a mystical character, who learned in Egypt the doctrines which he preached in Judea-in short, a Galilean carpenter's son, highly gifted with mysticism, with an Egyptian

education, of which he availed himself after the celebrated flight of Mary and Joseph into that country to avoid the wrath of Herod. For it is certain, whichever way we explain the problem of Christ's character, that both his doctrines, and the ceremonies afterwards adopted by the Church, were of Egyptian and Grecian origin, and agreed in many particulars with the religious observances of the Roman and Greek polytheists, which originated in astronomical emblems, misunderstood by the vulgar at a subsequent and less learned period. The learned researches of Dupuis, of Volney, and of Drummond, not to mention Jamblicus, and the Roman historians and mythologists, have not yet settled this question. The Christian history, which is another name for the History of the Catholic Church of Rome, cannot be authenticated much higher than the time of St. Cyprian. The Gospels were then in the hands of the priests of a Church which appears for some few years before to have had an organized existence; and a concerted plan seems to have been adopted of destroying three out of the seven then existing Gospels, and of keeping and canonizing four. Now, the same Councils of the Church who did this, might also have fabricated, or, at all events, much interpolated the written accounts of Christ. Previous to this period, however, that is, previous to the second age of the Church, we have collateral accounts of the Christians by Tacitus, Pliny, and other profane historians, but they do not sufficiently characterize Christ. Now, as I am collecting evidence on this subject, I shall be obliged to any of your many learned readers who will point out to me, through the medium of "The Republican," what early writers have actually mentioned Christ himself. My authorities already collected are insufficient to establish his real existence, in opposition to the opinion and arguments of Dupuis, in his Origine des tous les Cultes. While, on the other hand, they are enough to render that opinion doubtful, and to shake the argument on which it is founded, by its extensively learned but fanciful author. A pamphlet, entitled Who was the Father of Jesus Christ, was published some years ago at Norwich, by a Mr. Taylor, a believer in God Almighty, of that city, and who belonged nominally to the Unitarian junto-but it contained very little argument, and as it presumed that Jesus Christ had a Father, it proceeded on the postulatum of his real existence, which is the present subject of dispute. Your's, &c.

Nov. 14, 1826.

$0. 0.

TO HERBERT MARSH, BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH.

MOST REVEREND SIR,

YOUR literary attainments are well known to be very great; you are not only well versed in the Classics, like your brethren, but you are distinguished for a thorough knowledge of the German language. On the memorable trial of the late Queen, you gave a proof that you were acquainted with the niceties and delicacies of that language, by your skilful examination of the German chambermaid.

But, if I mistake not, you wrote many years ago, a famous book in German, to demonstrate the wisdom and necessity of the war against French liberty; a mad and wicked war; the bitter fruits of which, the people of this country. have long been tasting! Do not imagine that I am going to criticise on that work-I shall merely observe that as you were an ardent promoter of that war, your countrymen may, probably, soon think it reasonable, that you should participate with them in its ruinous consequences.

My object at present is, however, not to criminate you for your conduct on either of these occasions. I adduce those circumstances to shew that you, a Bishop of the Church of England, (as by law established) possess a thorough knowledge of the German language. It may, therefore, be taken for granted that you have looked, at least, into the German protestant Bible, if you have not read it through. Now you could not read the two first verses in it, without perceiving that it differs from the English version and that circumstance would, doubtless, induce you to proceed further in the perusal of it, when you would find that there is scarcely a chapter to be met with, wherein two verses agree. In the beginning of our English Bible, it is said :-"the earth was without form and void.". In the German, it is " desolate and void." In some places there is no sort of affinity between the two readings: in others, the variation is in different degrees until we come to the directly opposite. It is not for me

to decide which is the genuine Bible of the two; but of this I am certain, both cannot be so. Then how is it, most Reverend Sir, that you, who are so competent to the task, have not furnished the Germans with a correct Bible, if theirs be wrong; or, if right, why have you not given your countrymen one that corresponds with it? You surely will not contend that it is immaterial whether we have a true or false translation of the original.

I do humbly opine that you would have been much better employed in settling this point, (and it would have been more to your honour as a Christian minister) than in exciting people to war and bloodshed.

There are several thousand places in our Bible, which differ from the German; and I am ready to furnish any bookseller with all the different readings, for a reasonable consideration. Our translation in the time of James the First, seems to have been a nice job. It is related that it was confided to fifty-six of the most learned men of both universities, and occupied three years in the completion. When it was completed it was submitted to another deputation of learned men, who spent nine months in the revision, receiving each thirty pounds a week for their trouble! after all, it seems to be a miserable translation, for it contains many sentences, particularly in the book of Job, which have no meaning at all.

How mortified the poor Wesleyan Methodist would be, after proving his doctrine of "perfection" by the English translation of that book, to find his proof completely nullified by the German one." Job was a perfect and upright man," says the English; but according to the German he was "a plain upright man." I will just give you another instance to shew how beautifully these two protestant Bibles harmonize:~

1

Chap. vii. ver. 4, English," When I lie down, I say, when shall I rise and the night be gone? And I am full of blessings to and fro unto the dawning day."

German. "When I lay down, I said, when shall I arise? And then I reckoned when it would be evening, for I was a fright to every one, till it became dark."

It will require, I think, not only clerical but episcopal ingenuity to reconcile these two readings. I have said above that there are sentences in our Bible without meaning, I therefore quote two instances to verify my assertion :——

Job chap. vi. ver. 16. "Which are blackish by reason of ice, and wherein the snow is hid."

The German says:-" They that are afraid of rime, upon them will the snow fall." This is quite intelligible.

Second, ver. 29. "Return, I pray you, let it not be iniquity: yea, return again, my righteousness is in it."

*

Which in German is:-" Answer what is right: my answer will still be right." This is sense again.

It would be encroaching too much on the pages of "The Republican" to adduce any further instances of this sort, and I therefore desist. The above are quite sufficient, I imagine, to rouse the attention of Protestants.

There is another subject which is very puzzling, and which I hope your Lordship will elucidate. In England, to the astonishment of foreigners the strict observance of Sunday is rigidly enforced. It is said to be the height of wickedness to neglect it; and this doctrine is confirmed by the dying speeches of those Christian philosophers whose career is terminated by the gallows, unless their speeches are fabricated. "Oh, beware of Sabbath