religion from the Jews, what crime can there be in denying a future existence ?"

It is evidently the object of the writer of this passage to make his illiterate brethren believe, that beyond the grave there is no existence; that death, in fact, is eternal sleep-a most convenient doctrine for people of the Publicola school of religion—and a task most worthy of the taskmaster. The all-wise Creator of the universe, however, has placed before us, this, to mankind, most vital question, in a very different point of view-showing us by the clearest possible evidence that there is a state of existence beyond the grave, and consequently that death is not eternal sleep.

Unless Publicola utterly repudiates the contents of the Old Testament, he must admit, that the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died, and were buried in the cave of Machpelah, eighteen hundred years before the Christian era. Now, according to the doctrine of Publicola, these three patriarchs must remain in that cave throughout all the ages of endless eternity. But what says the great Author of Publicola's being on this subject? Addressing Moses, two or three hundred years subsequent to their decease, God said, "I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: I am not the God of the dead, but of the living;" thereby intimating, in language not to be misunderstood, that those three patriarchs were not then inhabitants of the tomb, but of mansions above, holding communion with the saints in bliss, and partakers in neverending felicity.

Infidels assert that it was not God who spake to Moses, but an angel. We are told by that celebrated prophet, that the angel of the Lord appeared to him; but who was the angel of the Lord? It could not be a created angel, for he expressly tells Moses that he is the God of Abraham, &c. It could not be God the Father, for fifteen hundred years after that event, we have the assurance of One that cannot lie, that "No man hath seen the Father." The angel that spoke to Moses said, "I am the God of Abraham," &c. At another time the Lord said, "I am that I am thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." On a subsequent occasion, the Lord again addressed Moses as follows: "I am the Lord; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." From these and many more similar extracts that might be cited, it is evident that the angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses, could not be a created angel; and from the evidence furnished us by our blessed Lord himself, it

could not be God the Father: it must, therefore, have been God the Son, the Creator and Redeemer of the world, whom Publicola and his blind followers deny being more than mortal. And that it was Jesus Christ who appeared to the patriarchs, and to Moses, must be evident to all who are not wilfully blind to the great truths of the gospel.

We have just stated that the angel of the Lord revealed himself to Moses as the "I am," as 66 'Jehovah," though to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he was known only as "God Almighty.' The pages of Scripture likewise tell us that eighteen hundred years after the death of Abraham, our Saviour, in answer to a question put to him by the Jews, viz., "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" replied, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."

Jesus Christ, therefore, being the “I am,” the "I am" being "Jehovah," and "Jehovah" being "God Almighty," was the angel of the Lord who appeared unto Moses as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and who declared to Moses, as he did to the Sadducees, fifteen hundred years thereafter, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'

We

That infidels of the Publicola school will continue, as they have hitherto done, to deny the Divinity of the Redeemer, is extremely probable. But there is a very wide difference between an assertion, and the proof that that assertion is agreeable to truth. Christians assert, because we believe, that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father; and we believe, because the Old and New Testaments prove the fact beyond the possibility of doubt.

Publicola and his followers assert that Christ is not the Son of God; but instead of producing proof to support his assertion, he fulminates long tirades against Christianity and its divine Author.

When a man engaged in a religious or other controversy, exhibits a want of temper, either in his speech or writings, we may, ninety-nine times in every hundred, accept of the circumstance as a decided proof that he has discovered his argument to be unsound. Now, as the great champion of infidelity has lately been hurried into little fits of passion, bordering at times on something approaching to temporary insanity, it is natural to conclude that he is at length satisfied of the untenable nature of the ground he lately occupied; but that not perceiving very clearly how he is to extricate himself from so embarrassing a position, has resolved to attempt it à la militaire, by cutting right and left, in humble imitation of-but with infinitely less judgment or discretion

those gallant and more noble of his race, who gained for their country imperishable honours on the never-to-be-forgotten field of Waterloo.

In a late number of the "

Publicola says—

Dispatch,"

"The most divine and angelic of our species become demoniacal when they are infected with the slightest particle of superstition."

Had he substituted but one word for another, viz., infidelity for superstition, the sentence would have been true to the lifethe truest sentence he ever penned since "chance" ushered him into the world-as then the picture would have been emblematical of him who, in the Weekly "Dispatch," with the zeal of a demon, is weekly pouring into the ears of his countrymen through the columns of that paper, the accursed doctrines of infidelity, causing doubts to arise in the breasts of many, where nothing like doubt previously existed, inducing fears and harassing thoughts, and producing discontent and every species of wretchedness wherever the fatal poison has been administered. To counteract the effects of this poison, we beg the attention of our countrymen to the following remarks:

With such decisive evidence before them as the Old and New Testaments afford, respecting the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is it not surprising that men with education sufficient to enable them to read their Bible, should be so blinded by the bare assertion of any hireling writer, as to induce them to lay aside the garb of Christianity, and adopt that of the infidel? If there were any thing at all approaching to a doubt touching the Divinity of our Saviour, we should be the very first to concede the benefit of that doubt to our fellow men. But not the shadow of a doubt can for a moment remain on the mind of any man who peruses the Scriptures with due care and attention.

The followers of Publicola deny the Divinity of Christ; and assert, that as a man, Jesus was sent from God to preach righteousness for our example, but liable to sin as other men. That Christ Jesus proceeded from the presence of his Father and his God in heaven, to preach righteousness on earth to fallen man, is most true; but, although tempted in all respects as we poor mortals are, yet he was without sin.

Without entering into any lengthened detail of facts to refute the blasphemous doctrines of Publicola, respecting the Divinity of Jesus, we request attention to the following quotation from the Gospel of St. John, being the answer returned by our Lord to a question put to him by Nicodemus :-" No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son

-a passage

of man which is in heaven;" which, viewed in whatever light we may, affords the most complete testimony to the doctrine of the Redeemer's Deity. It proves beyond cavil the pre-existence of Jesus with the Father before his appearance on earth. And it proves his omnipresence, having, at the time this celebrated reply was given, heaven for his throne, and the earth for his footstool.

Now, this is no idle assertion, made at random by some selfish infidel, but by One who cannot lie. Publicola may challenge it as the assertion of a mere man-for such does he consider the blessed Saviour. In anticipation of such a step being adopted by him, we beg to submit a few more extracts from holy writ, which may possibly save Publicola the trouble of doing so.

"I am the first and the last.' "I and my Father are one." Can any thing more clearly prove the Divinity of Christ than those two short sentences? From the beginning of all time Jesus was with the Father, and not in an inferior capacity, but as the equal of the Father-the Son and the Father being one.

But should this still be insufficient to satisfy the cravings of the infidel for farther proof of our Lord's Divinity, let him attend to the following:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was," and then declare whether any thing can more clearly show that the Saviour of the human race dwelt with God the Father before creation's works were called into existence, than the passage quoted, or more satisfactorily prove that Jesus Christ cannot be a created being.

Numerous other proofs to the same effect could be adduced; but for the present those already given must suffice. In taking leave of Publicola for a month, we earnestly entreat all those who coincide in opinion with him respecting the Divinity of the Saviour, to bear in constant remembrance the answer returned by our Lord to the Jews, viz.,"Before Abraham was, I am;" for that sentence, pronounced by one who cannot lie, proves that Christ could not be mortal. As the "I am," Christ is "Jehovah;" as "Jehovah," "God Almighty;" therefore, having the same everlastingness with the Father, Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, and the all-wise and omniscient God,

"HOPE'S BRITISH MONTHLY MAGAZINE. JANUARY.-Nisbet and Co., Berners-street.

"This is the first number of a new magazine; and if we are to take it as a sample of what is to follow, there is no difficulty in prophesying that its life will be very short. It is completely a tissue of cobwebs, sprung from brainless ignorance, with a few shreds and patches of impure and filthy commonplace knowledge. Like most religious works, it exhibits a want of all principle, and a thorough inhumanity. We could establish this last assertion easily from its articles on the Corn-laws; but the task is beneath our contempt. The editor, however, rests his hope of success by making its chief article consist of a rabid attack on our distinguished correspondent Publicola, as if Publicola would honour him and elevate him into not'ce by entering into a controversy with him. The article is stupid, indiscreet, and displays gross ignorance, but what is worse in this defender of the only true religion is, that he falsifies every thing by garbling, and by positive barefaced and most gross lying. Men seem to think that religion is a license or patent for falsehoods and chicanery of every sort; and certain it is, that in theological controversies there is more of rancour, lying, and trickery than in any other. These facts have become proverbial; and the writer of this article on Publicola does not abandon one jot of his clerical knowledge; and he remembers the old parson's line in his dispute with the layman—

'One lie from us is worth ten lies from you.'

"The magazine writer expresses his astonishment that no man in Great Britain has had the moral courage to break a spear with Publicola; and forthwith, imagining himself endued with this quality more than any of his six-and-twenty millions of countrymen, he seizes a dirty reed, and fancying it a spear as large as that with which Guy of Warwick slew the dun cow, he begins to run a muck and tilt at all he meets. Hear what the hero says:

The whole country, in fact, appears panic struck with the bold bearing of the infidel chief. Even the press have been awed into submission; for, with one exception, the "Times," not one champion has it furnished to break a lance with this wholesale trader in blasphemy.'

"The Times,' we believe, repents now, as it did at the time, that it ever attacked Publicola, for it got most soundly beaten, thoroughly stripped, and turned out naked and exposed, like a tar and feathered cur; and the clergy, that blindly stimulated the corrupt journal, soon saw that their hireling was no match for his antagonist, and they

wished the contest to end, and were heartily glad when it was over. The clergy and the clergy party find it much better to be silent and to let the subject drop; and they never reason except through the medium of the Queen's devil-the Attorney-General. Our distinguished correspondent Publicola is scrupulously correct in facts, and irrefutable in argument, and the other side feel the imprudence of keeping the subject alive. But Publicola is not the champion of infidelity. He contends merely for the absolute freedom of the mind, and the right-the inherent right which all men have to be infidels if their consciences and convictions so dispose them, and this without the slightest injury to their civil rights. Were Publicola a Catholic, a Churchman, Methodist, Jew, Mahomedan, or Hindoo, he would pursue precisely the same principle, and do his utmost to protect, the innocent from the infernal rancour with which the different sects abuse, persecute, and lie against each other.

"Within the last century, throughout Europe and America, the men most illustrious for genius, learning, and science, and for moral purity and elevation of character-the men who have been the best benefactors of the human race-have been infidels. Such is the indisputable fact, let the inferences be what they may.

"One word more: Publicola cautiously and invariably avoids the subject, unless by Parliamentary or other public proceedings it becomes the legitimate object of newspaper discussion. Besides, Publicola's Letters in this respect are a useful warning to take care of your pockets. As to HOPE's religious magazine-if

'Hope tells a flattering tale,'

We may state, in the first instance, that the whole character of the review betrays the writer; and, notwithstanding his pretended pride in refusing to hold argument with us, as so greatly below his intellectual capacity, the very foulness of the language, the burning rage which it exhibits, and the gladness to get rid of all controversy, by describing us as brainless scribes, will not allow us to doubt but that we have been really noticed by Publicola, the unknown distinguished scribbler of blasphemy for the Weekly "Dispatch." What pen more fit when blackguardism is to be written?

The learned reviewer commences with a prophecy; but the prophet has made the wish the father to his prophecy of the shortness of our existence, as we doubt not

he would be right glad was his prophecy to turn out a correct one. But for his comfort,

we give him to understand that our existence will be long enough, to give him further opportunities of exercising his prophetic spirit.

He

He next tells us that our late article is a tissue of cobwebs sprung from brainless ignorance and filled with impure and filthy common-place knowledge. And yet not one of these cobwebs the writer has been able to destroy; but skulks behind the coward's plea, of his opponent not being of his own consequence, to decline the contest. This assertor of contradictions and blasphemy attempts to steer clear of all contact with us, well knowing that not one of our statements can be confuted, founded as they are on the undeniable evidence of historical fact. He tells us he is scrupulously correct in facts, and irrefutable in argument. What a champion have we to contend with! His spear, like Ithuriel's, there is no avoiding it! ought certainly to be ranked second to Jack the Giant-killer. But as to the former, his miserable trickery and garbling with fact, we have clearly exposed in his attempt to vilify the name of Christian Washington. As to his latter statement, of being irrefutable in argument, he undoubtedly is so, for he has never yet brought forward any thing in the shape of an argument when treating of religion, but the whole of his writings under that head are a tissue of-if not cobwebs, what is a great deal worse-notorious lying assertions, not one of which he can ever support when called upon to do so, but shrinks from the task, and covers his ignominy with the miserable wretched subterfuge that, his opponents are beneath his contempt.

What a pitiful character must that man be who makes lying his trade, and religion the object of his scoff and scorn! As to our filthy knowledge, we certainly did not expect such an accusation from such a quarter, the fountain of all impurity. But Satan, it is said, reproveth sin.

We are then accused of a thorough want of principle, like the rest of us who defend religion. But our consolation under this stigma is, that the writer is wholly without a particle of the feeling himself. How, then, can he judge us?

We are then convicted of being very inhuman, though in what manner our inhumanity has been exhibited, except in beating to excess such a wretched cur as himself, it

is difficult to guess. Our article on the Corn-laws he pronounces as beneath his contempt. We defy him to write one like it, equal either in talent or sound sense, notwithstanding it stands so low in his exalted imagination.

Then we are told that our hopes of success rest entirely on our attack upon him. His vanity here again induces him to imagine himself a man of vast importance; but he will find the opinion of the world not exactly to coincide with his prude notions on the point.

We are likewise not to expect to be elevated into notice through such an exalted source as a controversy with such a dignitary as himself, the English god of infidelity. We beg to assure him, that such an honour could hardly be expected for ourselves, and the information conveyed will, therefore, not cause us to shed tears of disappointment. We shall endeavour to exist without the honour of his notice at present, in the fervent hope that our humble endeavours in the cause of truth may find favour at a future period in his godship's eyes.

66

66

He then denounces the article as stupid, indiscreet, displaying gross ignorance and barefaced lying." So we are indiscreet in attacking the impostor-we are indiscreet in exposing his gross delusions-we are indiscreet in defending the "only true religion against his infidel libels-we are indiscreet altogether in attacking Publicola, the radical infidel impostor of the nineteenth century. Many will no doubt conceive us indiscreet in attacking this wholesale libeller of Christianity; but with all his assumed talent and philosophy, we fear him not. And with pen to pen-even though ours be a dirty reed" -we set him, the great champion of infidelity, at defiance; and shall never cease, while our fingers can wield a pen, and our minds indite the matter, to wage lasting war with him who so unscrupulously attempts to cut down the only hope that gladdens us, in all our troubles in this vale of tears. to the abandonment of our clerical knowledge, we see as yet no occasion for such. And as to one lie from us being worth ten from him, we suppose the reason of this is, that he has told so many, and deceived his dupes so often, that his ten lies will hardly go so far as our one, who do not make lying our profession.

As

Publicola then crows with the idea that he has silenced the "Times." The reason of such silence is, that the writers of that journal found themselves no match with Publicola in the use of the vilest Billingsgate, so they gave up a contest in which victory would only have covered them with disgrace; for it was not a trial of reason, but abuse on the part of the "Dispatch champion.

We are then enlightened by the information that Publicola contends merely for the right of conscience-that, in his opinion, signifying liberty to become infidels when one pleases; and then liberty to turn

round and hurt the feelings of their countrymen by the vilest mockery of their religious belief. Such, then, are Publicola's notions of liberty of conscience.

As to the assertion that, within the last century, the men most illustrious for their genius, learning, and science, and for moral purity and elevation of character, were infidels, it is as much deserving of belief as the base libel on Washington which we so thoroughly exposed in our last number.

We are then informed that his letters are a careful warning "to take care of our pockets." Such warning would not be at all necessary, if we knew Publicola to be in our company.

He then makes a kind of farewell speech, and in the most flattering terms, informs us that we are dunces of the first order, "every article being beneath contempt." This he gave us to understand in a former part of his review; but recollecting his own words, that one lie from him is worth nothing, he

appears to think it necessary to repeat it, in order to enforce belief.

This veracious worthy winds up by affording us a piece of information that we were really ignorant of-in fact, had not the slightest thought of, until enlightened by Publicola-viz., that we are out-and-out ultra-tory. For this piece of informationthough new to us-we do not thank him; seeing it is incorrect. We are not out-andout ultra-tory, but merely the advocates of those measures which we conceive best calculated for the promotion of the welfare of our fellow-men.

We now leave him for this month to that contempt he so richly deserves from every right thinking person; feeling assured, that in the exposure and refutation of his lies, calumnies, and blasphemies, though we may be branded like felons by him and his associates, we shall have the sincere approbation, esteem, and support, of every one whose good opinion is worth caring for.

(Continued from page 22.)

"How many improvements in reform started up to sweep away the final Reform Bill, when once Englishmen had been taught to look for good to their own inventions, not to the institutions of our ancestors!"

How delightful the recollection of the barbarisms of a past age seem to the mind of this amiable instructor of youth! How his soul glows as he dotes on the record of punishments, and penalties, and racks, and torments, enacted to fetter the mind of man! What delightful reminiscences are these to the refined and cultivated soul of the wouldbe barbarian Professor! But, thanks to God, we have had the Reformation; we have had the Reform Bill; and let the Professor tremble in his philosophic chair, when we say," On, on in the march of intellect and improvement; down with all the corrupt notions and laws of our ancestors. On, till we have a constitution which will govern for the people, and not for a party class."

The devil again!

"We renounced the devil at our baptism."

We can only express our sincere regret, that having done so, he should have unbound him again in Puseyism.

The following questions and replies we shall give, as they are certainly original. "When does the fear of God become superstition instead of religion?

"When man endeavours to propitiate him, not by the means which he has appointed, but by self-invented forms."

We perfectly agree to this, considering that the church of England has changed her worship into superstition through the use of self-invented forms.

"When did self-denial degenerate from true Christian mortification of the flesh to a vain asceticism?

"When it framed its own code of restrictions, instead of conforming to those which are appointed by the church."

When does the self-denial of the Puseyite clergy degenerate from true Christian mortification?

When they are allowed to frame their own code of restrictions as regards good eating and drinking and worldly pomp.

"When was catholicism corrupted into popery?

"When Christians lost sight of the rigid lines of truth and discipline received from the apostles, and invented creeds and a polity of their own."

When was catholicism corrupted into po

pery?