that though a man, with refpect to fome certain article of his conduct, may be conscious of no wrong, it may be very proper for him, nevertheless, to confefs his guilt refpecting that very article, before the throne of heaven.

This critic afferts, that in my pamphlet there is little novelty of argument. Now, with all just deference to his great reading, I am ftill difpofed to imagine, that although others have pointed out numerous immoralities contained in the holy books, yet the inftances which I infifted upon are, at least fome of them, new. Generally speaking, the difcourfes of the founder of chriftianity have been supposed to exhibit nothing but the pureft and most

perfect morality. Whether they are all worthy of fuch an eulogy, I would request any ferious and intelligent man to decide, after he has read my ftrictures upon two diftinguished parables: which remarks I believe to be abfolutely new; and if well-founded (as I am fatisfied they are), they are of great moment.

I do not pretend that the argument is new, by which I have attempted to fhew, and have, I think, fhewn, that if we admit the doctrine taught both by the disciples of Chrift and by Christ himself concerning the Supreme Existence, we muft admit the Supreme to be (however horrible the idea) not a good Being, but the very reverfe. To this argument, however, I am particularly defirous

of

of engaging the attention of liberal chriftians: because they have oppofed a fimilar one to the doctrine of Calvin. Mine is opposed to that of Chrift; who, though a perfonage justly revered for the purity of his intentions and the ardour of his be nevolence, feems, relative to the grand fubject of DEITY, not to have comprehended the full import of what he himself taught.

The following argument is, I believe, a new one. I have argued that the pretenfions of christianity to a heavenly and miraculous origin can have no juft foundation, because it has failed in respect of its object. Its object is allowed to have been the reformation of the world. Now the world has not been reformed.

Moreover,

Moreover, whereas fome of the ableft champions of christianity, are the ftrenuous advocates of free inquiry, and have even given us to understand that the spirit of the christian religion is a liberal fpirit, and friendly to philofophical investigation; I, on the contrary, have advanced fomewhat which I think is new, in order to fhew that the fpirit of this religion is a flavish spirit, and hoftile to intellectual improvement.

But what is the spirit of our notable critic? He, like fome other men, has the goodness to permit us to think for ourselves. Nevertheless, he infinuates that, at least, it is queftionable whether a man fhould be left at liberty to publish his thoughts. And yet he, like other confiftent people,

6

people, is, I dare fay, for a free press; and most probably would not hesitate to concede-That the proper mean of eliciting truth is free dif cuffion.

As my Apology was neither advertised nor fold, and only distributed among friends and acquaintance, I did not expect that any periodical critic would honour it with his notice. If, however, the authorif ed Reviewer in the Monthly Magazine fhould beftow any attention upon it; in that cafe, it feemed to me impoffible that I fhould meet with any other than the most liberal treatment. How much liberality. is exhibited in the paffage above cited let the reader judge; and, if this preface fhould come into the