tongue is so well furnished to plead the cause of almighty love, languishing without the precincts of Messiah's reign, an alien from Israel's commonwealth, and without the hope, the well-grounded hope which Christianity inspires, I feel myself impelled to offer you some reflections on the difficulties which prevent your entrance into the kingdom.

From a careful analysis of your letter, now lying before me, the following appear to be the stumbling blocks in your way :

1. The variety of religious creeds, and the discordant and often contradictory materials of which they are composed.

2. The too narrow and exclusive foundation of the Christian scheme itself, compared with the divine philanthropy developed in all the creation and providence of the Almighty Creator and Benefactor of

our race.

3. The Mosaic account of creation assigns not to man an object suited to his constitution, alike worthy of him and his Maker; nor does it suitably explain many phenomena in the animal and vegetable creation.

These, sir, if I mistake not, are the foci of your difficulties and embarrassments; these the generic heads of the chapters of objections which have hitherto prevented your cordial acquiescence in the mission and redemption of Jesus of Nazareth. In attending to these, I think it possible to meet all that you have alleged in the very ample, perspicuous, and elegant exhibition which you have given of them in the document before me.

On your first objection allow me to tender you the following

answer:

1. The gospel and its counterfeits must always be regarded as two things, wholly and essentially different; else we shall imagine that any objection which lies against the abuses of Christianity, or the spurious and counterfeit gospels, lies against the gospel itself. This admission, I presume, I am not more prompt to require, than you to concede.

2. The false gospels, corruptions, and apostacy, of which you justly complain, so far from being an argument, or relevant objection, against its divine original, is a confirmation of it; inasmuch as these defections are distinctly described and fully delineated by the Apostles themselves. Some of them, moreover, required that Christianity, in some shape, should become the religion of the Roman Empire before they could exist. Now, that a religion, which, at first, and during the whole lives of the original witnesses, was universally hated and persecuted, should in so short a time, be elevated to the imperial throne, was so contrary to all antecedent events-so contrary to universal experience—that it could be known only to men guided by a Spirit to whom nothing is hid. That the Apostles were able in twenty years

from the crucifixion of the Messiah, to describe a man of sin, whose very existence required the establishment of a corruption of Christianity on the imperial throne, is just as miraculous as that a virgin should be the mother of the Saviour of the world, or that Jesus should have been raised from the dead.

3. That Christianity should be liable to such abuses, can afford no objection to its high pretensions; because there is no gift of the Creator which is not liable to similar abuses; and if anything was bestowed on man which he could not abuse, it would be of no moral use to him -for he cannot use that which he cannot abuse. Where there can be no vice, there can be no virtue.

4. Neither can the differences which exist about the meaning or design of any part of the divine communication, furnish a just objection to it; because there is no science, no useful art, concerning which there have not been, and may not again be, differences of opinion. Men have not as yet agreed about the best theory of a plough, nor any of the more common implements of husbandry. Nor are the learned professions more united in the theory and practice of law and physic, than are the various sectarian doctors of corrupted Christianity. But who infers from hence, that there is no truth in any science, art, or profession-no truth in law, physic, or theology, shocks all com

mon sense.

5. Although, as you say, reason and the great interests of mankind seem to require but one religion, capable of embracing the whole human race," it is nevertheless true that no communication can be offered to our race which will secure unity of sentiment, feeling, faith, or opinion in those which are addressed. The sun, moon, and stars, those celestial preachers-and the ten thousand voices of the four seasons of the year, with every diurnal revolution of the earth, are unable to teach one and the same lesson to the Persian and the Scythian, to the Syrian and the Egyptian. With that volume which is supposed capable of teaching "natural religion," before the eyes of all nations, whence has it happened that the sun, moon, stars-light, fire, air, winds, water, oceans, seas, rivers, and mountains-men, renowned for both virtue and vice-departed heroes-beasts, birds, fishes, insects, reptiles-trees, shrubs, and plants-minerals and metals— jewels, and the stones of the street—have been deified and adored by nations, families, individuals, from north to south, from east to west, where the volume of nature has been the only guide! Christianity, notwithstanding its numerous abuses, has done infinitely more than all the religions of all ages to give unity of sentiment, faith, and morals to the millions which profess it, than could ever have been found in all the generations of men previous to its introduction.

6. That the Christian religiou should, in almost two thousand years,

have degenerated in such a world, (a world in heart and life opposed to the purity of its precepts, and to the justice, mercy, and benevolence which it inculcates,) is not more strange than that the human race, originally from one (stock, should now be multiplied into different races. Taking features and complexion into the account, may we not say that the fair European-the deep yellow Mongolian, or Asiatic -the copper-coloured Indian, or American-the deep brown Malay, found in Malacca and the islands of the Pacific-and the jet black African,-constitute five distinct races of men. If nature itself has been unable to resist the invasions of soil, climate, and various circumstances, why should it appear so marvellous, that, after traversing three quarters of the world, Christianity should have changed its visage, and have lost some of its original features? It would be as fairly in the power of logic to prove that God did not create man, because of these varieties and circumstantial differences in the race, as that he is not the author of the gospel, because of all these sectarian discrepancies of which you complain.

7. But the preceding remarks are submitted upon other grounds than the real merits of the case; for the truth is, the gospel of Jesus Christ is no more chargeable with these sects, than is General Washington with the late "Ordinance" of South Carolina, or with the wars of Bonaparte. They all stand condemned before the tribunal of Jesus and the Holy Twelve.

Your remarks, then, my dear sir, on the pretensions of these sects, and on their arrogant, illiberal, and denouncing proceedings, justly lie at their respective doors; and it is neither in my power, nor in theirs, to remove them. Not one of them can plead Not Guilty of the allegata, and sustain their plea in the presence of the Bible and right reason. But I beg you to consider-how unreasonable, how contrary to your whole course of action in the great affairs of this life, how illogical it would be for you to object against the gospel of Jesus, because of the follies and phrensy of sectarians in this cloudy and dark day--because of their contradictory theories, annunciations and denunciations; when you cannot put your hand to the plough, to the shuttle, to the helm-when you cannot decide a single question of law or evidence of physics or metaphysics-or apply for any relief to any art, science, or profession, unless you break through all the entangle ments which you have ingeniously woven around yourself in reference to the gospel of God. You must make nothing of this chapter of objections in reference to every other subject; or you must fold your arms in perfect supineness; neither presuming to eat, drink, sleep, or labour in any profession, because there may be many a curious question stated, many a new theory broached, which it is not yet in the power of all science and ingenuity satisfactorily to confront, nullify, or

oppose. I am, after many years pondering on the infinite subjects of creation, providence, and redemption, more and more deeply impressed with the conviction that we have fewer rational difficulties to encounter, less puzzling theories to explode, less formidable objections to surmount, in bowing to the divine mission and authority of the Messiah the Lord of life, than in deciding upon the best form of civil government, the best code of laws, the best theory of disease and cure, or the nature of the physical constitution of man. But in our next we shall go more fully into the merits of your difficulties. Meanwhile, accept the assurance of my high consideration and respect.

FAMILY CULTURE.

A. C.

CONVERSATIONS AT THE CARLTON HOUSE. No. XXI.

GENESIS X X., XXI.

Olympas. ABRAHAM, we learn from this section of ancient history, went south after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why, think you, Edward ?

Edward. I presume he was desirous of getting out of the sight of the Heaven-stricken city: for it would seem that Abraham's residence was but a short distance from the plains of Jordan.

Olympas. It is not improbable. Whither went he, James ?

James. To Gerar.

Olympas. What people, Reuben, inhabited Gerar?

Reuben. Philistines. This Gerar being a city of the Rocky Arabia, and having a Palestine king, it is likely the inhabitants were chiefly Philistines.

Thomas. It seems that Abraham was still as timid as before he had the vision of angels. He fears for his life, and repeats the former equivocation, saying "Sarah is my sister."

Olympas. Sarah's great beauty, it appears, was a great trouble to Abraham in that age of polygamy. What sort of character, William, was the king of Gerar?

William. Abimelech, king of the city of Gerar, was a very just and righteous man: for he could lay his hand upon his heart and say, " In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands have I done this ?"

Edward. And the Lord attests his character by saying, "Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart.

Olympas. It would then appear that Abimelech's intention of making Sarah a second wife was, in that age, quite honourable. It seems not to have impaired his character with God or man. Yet to prevent the completion of his designs, a special affliction had befallen him.

Eliza. Was it not cowardice that occasioned this equivocation? Olympas. It would, indeed, be a very natural inference. It seems that Abraham and Sarah had made a covenant before this time that they were to pass off each other in all strange cities as brother and sister.

It certainly, however, had its origin in a conviction and anticipation of detriment or danger to Abraham's person. But was it not the truth, Eliza?

Eliza. Yes, Abraham explained the matter to Abimelech as though it were perfectly true and correct-" She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother." Still it was only a part of the truth; and, according to Mrs. Opie's volume on lying, being calculated to suppress a part of the truth, and to make a false impression, it constituted a sinful equivocation.

Olympas. So Abimelech seems to have regarded it. He said to Abraham, "There have been done deeds to me that ought not to be done." Yet when we hear Abraham again, we cannot but sympathise with his weakness-"Because," says he, "I thought that the fear of God was not in this place, and they will slay me for my wife's sake." "And yet, indeed," adds he, "she is my sister." &c. Now as this seems to have satisfied Abimelech, it ought to satisfy us; yet I would not have you think that Abraham acted in this matter as he ought to have done, believing in God as he did. I would also have you notice the peculiar acceptation of the word prophet as intimated by the Lord on this occasion. Read verse seventh, Susan.

Susan. "Now, therefore, restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee and thou shalt live."

Olympas. What seems to be the meaning of the word prophet here?

Thomas. You formerly taught us that the primary acceptation of the original word was to pray, intercede, or speak to God for men; and that in process of time it meant to speak out by impulse, extemporaneously; and ultimately it means to foretell-because those who conversed most with God could best interpret his will to men.

Olympas. True; and this being the first time the word prophet is found in the Sacred Writings, we may expect the primitive meaning to be more apparent here than afterwards. But is it not worthy of notice that God in a vision prompts Abimelech to engage Abraham to pray for him, and to use the argument-Abraham is a man of prayer-a prophet-one who intercedes with God? This admirably suits his character, as appears from his importunity for Sodom and Gomorrah. It is a hard thing for God to deny the prayer of such a man as Abraham. Had Abraham, Eliza, formed a just opinion of the inhabitants of Gerar?

Eliza. Very far from it, as the sequel shows; for not only king Abimelech was a good man, but he so represents his nation; saying, "Wilt thou slay also a righteous nation ?"

Olympas. Good men sometimes think the elect are very few. Elijah thought on one occasion that he was left alone. And here Abraham said, "Surely the fear of God is not in this place." Yet here was a righteous nation; and there were seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal. How did Abimelech requite and reprove Abraham and Sarah, Reuben?

Reuben. He gave him a thousand shekels to buy a veil for Sarah : so I heard you once interpret these words.

Olympas. Not exactly my son: yet that is substantially the meaning.