ments of soldiers shew a disposition to oppose them. We are firmly of opinion, that if ever a formidable insurrection takes place in this country amongst the inhabitants, so that the military can see themselves secure in joining it, they are quite ready to do it. It is not to be expected that men, in such a state of subordination and discipline as the military of this country are, should risk their lives to no purpose to support every little mob or squabble that occurs. It is well, and satisfactorily known to us, that the Foot Guards are fully alive to the real state of the country, as much so, as those troops who joined Quirago, in Spain, were to the state of that country. The insurrection in Spain almost amounted to a miracle, to think that 2000 soldiers, at the most, should revolutionize the country without the aid or support of the inhabitants. We say without the aid of the inhabitants, because no where did the inhabitants move, unless the military preceded them. Even admitting that all the causes of the late disturbance in the Guards, consisted in the discontinuation of a few indulgences, or extra allowances, to which they had been accustomed, what must we expect in the course of a year or two, when their pay must fall into arrear for want of a sufficient revenue. It is well known that the troops in London, particularly the Horse Guards, have been of late pampered and caressed, like the Prætorian Guards at Rome were in the decline of that empire. The soldiers begin to feel that the government has no support from the good wishes of the people, and is entirely dependent on their sabres and bayonets-they will consequently grow insolent, and very soon shew the government that they are independent of it, because the people will be ever ready to receive them with open arms. This has been the common downfall of all governments that have sought protection from an army, to keep down the people, in a state of want and wretchedness. This must be the fate of the English government, if it continues to be what it is at present; and the time cannot be far distant, when that downfall must inevitably occur, as the sure effect of past, and present causes.

EDITOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN.

"This meddling priest longs to be found a fool."

My dear Sir,

What impression has been made on the mind of Mr. Horne by your comments upon his "Deism Refuted!" I have not, nor am I at present at all anxious to be informed: but I am truly rejoiced to find that you have undertaken the drudgery of exposing the folly, ignorance, and stupidity of those teachers of Christianity, who still persist in representing the Bible as a revelation from Deity. No sense of shame, it appears, will ever reach the minds of these beings, for the impostures they daily practise on their fellow-men. Actuated solely by motives the most mercenary, those narrow miuded, interested bigots, and slaves to self, so far from seeking the edification or happiness of those by whom their talents and usefulness are so much overrated, as well as overpaid, that all their despicable arts and lying inventions are brought into action for the express purpose of keeping up old superstitions and prejudices, and thereby perpetuating, with impunity, their plunder and impositions.

I trust, my dear Sir, that nothing will induce you to relax in your praiseworthy exertions in the endeavour to enlighten the minds of your countrymen; and to show them in all their contemptibility, contradiction, absurdity, and deformity, those writings which are said to be direct communications from infinite wisdom, purity, and benevolence.

Whatever may be said of the inutility of such a line of conduct on your part, or on that of any other individual, in thus endeavouring to soften the prejudices of our Christian brethren, and to release them from the cruel bonds of priest craft and fanaticism, or however superfluous and unnecessary expositions of, and comments upon, these writings, may be considered by those who are fortunately too enlightened and free from superstitious fears to be imposed upon by them, or by the doctrines founded upon them, yet I cannot refrain from entertaining a contrary opinion; because, if we are to suppose that correct notions of the Deity and of his attributes, as well as of our duty to each other, are at all essential to the happiness and well-being of society, and that incorrect notions of either tend to have an opposite effect, surely it becomes an imperative duty on our part to use every effort, and to employ every means that pure adoration of omnipotence, infinite wisdom, and benevolence, and love of our neigh

bour can dictate, in order to impress such correct notions on the minds of our fellow-men; and if any preconceived opinions are entertained by them, derogatory to the sacred character of the one, or inimical to the interests and well-being of the other; and these opinions are imbibed through priestcraft, and those obscene and immoral writing, which impute to the great Creator of the universe conduct and actions, of which the most infamous and abandoned villain would blush to be thought guilty; and which writings are affirmed by priests to contain the revealed will of that great and good Being to all men, through all ages of the world: ought not he, who is thoroughly convinced of the gross fallacy of such declarations to expose in every possible way the scandalous motives and infamous duplicity of those beings, the pests and scourges of the earth, who propagate and encourage such opinious? Ought he not, in fact, to believe that silence, under such circumstances, would be highly criminal? unless, indeed, it be supposed either that all who profess Christianity are not sincere, but that all are actuated by motives of a selfish, mercenary nature; or, that being sincere, they will each one read attentively, and compare and judge for himself correctly and unprejudicially.

It is not the interest of priests to enlighten the minds of mankind. They never have done, nor will they ever attempt to do so. Whatever improvements have taken place in matters of a religious nature, the people have ever taken the lead, and priests have been the last to follow them, "They love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.”

Those who have been paid, too well paid, for instruction, and who ought to have been prompt, as well as enabled to instruct, have ever been the instructed: those who have been looked up to as guides have ever been the guided; those who have been cherished as ministers of heavenly love and harbingers of glad tidings, have ever been found disseminators of discord, and messengers of ill will to mankind; those who have been believed to be commissioned from above to preach charity, holiness, forbearance, and peace, have ever been the forenest to yclep the war whoop of bloodshed, of persecution, and death!

The cruelty, malignity, and rapacity of the generality of these men can only be equalled by their pride, insolence, and effrontery:

"So proud, that should they meet
The twelve apostles in the street,
They'd turn their nose up at them all,
And drive their Saviour from the wall."

Not content with persisting in their errors, and endeavouring to impose them on mankind, they do not hesitate to reply to statements that ought at least to command their silence, and to contradict facts that should cause them to shrink within themselves as the meanest and most despicable of the human race. That these men will ever be

found the enemies of those who endeavour to promulgate opinions contrary to their own, has been fully manifested in their unmanly and dastardly conduct towards you, my dear Sir, and of which I myself have had pretty convincing proofs since the recent publication of a work of mine, entitled "An Apology for Deism, or a Candid Review of the modern popular system of Christianity;" and although I have used no other arguments to disprove their doctrines than those contained in what they term the inspired writing; yet it has been urged by them that my reasoning, though plausible, is fallacious, though scriptural, it is inconsistent! This is pretty good and candid reasoning for a priest; but what will he not say or do to serve his purposes, to fulfil his wishes? Influenced solely by self love and ambition, he is ready to sacrifice every principle of honour, integrity, and humanity at their shrines; and although he may frequently be heard to declaim most strenuously against the pharasaical tribe of former times for their extortions, hypocrisy, persecutions, and hardness of heart; yet is he equally extortionate, hypocritical, vindictive, and unrelenting. Who will say that men who can oppress and plunder the poor, who can spurn at reformation and persecute its supporters in the present day, would not have done the same had they been the cotemporaries of Jesus? Who will not believe that they would have been equally eager in investigating the murderers of Christ, and in encouraging the persecutors of his followers; nay, that they themselves would have undertaken, like Pilate of old, though from very different motives, the degrading offices of judge and of executioner? Has not the characteristic of the priest, and especially of the christian priest, been the same at all times, and in all places? Has he not ever been

"A bold frontless man! that impudently dares,

To blend religion with the worst of crimes!
And sacrilegiously usurp that name,

To cover frauds, and justify oppression !"

But to return to the gentleman already before us; I would request him candidly to state, if he still persist in the belief that the Bible is a revelation from Deity, whether he approves of the commentaries which his brethren have made upon its contents. Such for instance as where it is said, that the scape-goat is a type of Christ. Now I would seriously ask Mr. Horne, admitting he approves the commentary made on this chapter, why the scape-goat is considered more typical of Christ than the one that was sacrificed? To the believer in the doctrine of atonement it must be attended with very great difficulties, for by this it appears, that the sins of the people instead of being washed away, still remain on the head of the goat in the wilderness or rather in explaining the figure, they yet rest on the Vol. III. No. 11.

head of Christ in heaven. But perhaps Mr. Horne is prepared to tell tis, that both goats are representatives of Christ, one as his humau, the other as his divine nature. Which then of the two is it that is figurative of the divine, and which of the human nature? And of whom is the fit man figurative that was to lead the goat into the wil derness? For my own part I should conceive that no man could be considered a fit man to lead the Deity into a wilderness, although Christians may please to represent him under the figure of a goat with all their sins upon his head !!! In reply, however, to the former question, as Unitarians are willing to evade as much as possible the disgusting declaration, that Almighty God suffered and died,. it will, no doubt, be urged that the scape-goat represents the divinity, and the one slain for a burnt offering--the humanity of Christ, What! do then the advocates of the doctrines of atonement make this concession? Are they really willing to rest all their hopes of a future life and eternal happiness upon the sufferings and death of a man? Have they not at all times declared in the most solemn and positive manner, that no sacrifice less than that of Deity could take away their sins and give them life and iminortality? Do they not daily, and almost hourly endeavour to impress the belief, that this was the sole purpose for which God the Son made his appearance upon earth? And, indeed, if Almighty God did really and truly descend from heaven and reside amongst men in the person of Christ, for what other purpose was it that he did so? Was it to show his weakness to declare his dependence, or to be the sport and ridicule of lawyers, the vilified, insulted, and persecuted of bigots, hypocrites, and priests!

Another commentary that I would submit to Mr. Horne's notice is, that in which it is said, "That Christ's kingdom shall be a sanctuary in the days when seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." Every one knows what the Scripture phraseology of a woman being called by a man's name, that her reproach may be taken away signifies. And there is no doubt that the commentators intended it to be understood that the sanctuary was to be a sanctuary of seraglios; and this idea seems to be greatly strengthened by the commentaries made upon the truly chaste and highly figurative Songs of Solomon, when the church that is, the Christian church is represented as the favoured she amongst threescore queens, fourscore concubines, and virgins without number! That the church, however, was not amongst the queens, we may gather from the description she is made to give of herself:-"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look, not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me; my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept." Here, then, so far from being amongst the queens she represents herself as a