in my opponent's last letter, goes for just nothing at all. That the Israelites were commanded by God to do as they did, is one object of this discussion to show. But they were not commanded, Deut. xx. 12, 13, to slaughter all their enemies. By reading the two preceding verses, it will be seen, that they were first to offer peace, which, if accepted by those to whom it was offered, was to preserve them from slaughter. But certain cities which the Israelites were themselves to inhabit, were to be utterly destroyed, that they might not be contaminated with the infernal abominations of their heathen inhabitants; to which contamination they would have been exposed, had they intermingled with them. Why God does not now command a similar course in relation to the heathen of this day, he best knows. For aught that we finite creatures know to the contrary, he sees good reasons under existing circumstances for adopting a different method. This much however I would say that the cruel and abominable rites of the heathen; their infanticide, their cannibalism, their human sacrifices, and their obscenities and impurities, ought not to be tolerated by their rulers ; and that, if any cause under heaven, without the express command of God, would justify the interference of one nation with the internal concerns of another, Christendom would be justified in sending her legions to the East, and terminating those vile and accursed practices by force. That the Israelites, therefore, did not tolerate the barbarous rites of the Canaanites when they took possession of the country, is a circumstance altogether in their favour. And as to the servitude, and the everlasting servitude of the Canaanites, this is no argument for the slavery of Africans a day or a moment. It is no reason that we should enslave Africans, because God saw fit to direct the Jews, under their peculiar circumstances, to make the

Canaanites their servants. Nor is the mere record of this or any other fact in history, any reason for its imitation. With regard to witchcraft I would say, that no witch ought to live. Now, Sir, prove that the Salem sufferers were witches, and I stand ready to justify the course pursued toward them. But if they were not witches, then there was no sanction in the Bible for their execution, even on the supposition that this Jewish law is obligatory on us, which would remain to be considered; for that does not say, Thou shalt not suffer an imaginary witch to live. But by the way, please to inform me what branch of modern knowledge tells us, that witchcraft can have no existence; for I must confess that I believe in the 22nd Chap. of Exodus, as fully as ever Cotton Mather did. I have no notion of conceding one half of the Bible for the sake of defending the other. I believe there were witches and demoniacs in Bible days, whether there are any now

or not.

It is truly comical to see how some men attempt to avoid difficulties by non-committal. Propose a subject for consideration, and up they jump upon the fence, leaving the opposing sides to contest it as they can; and prepared to jump whithersoever victory inclines. The interests of a world, yea, the eternal destiny of our race, may hang suspended on its decision; it troubles not them. For aught they care, it may go undecided. They, prudent souls, are not going to venture themselves where the bullets fly, and the bayonets gleam, and the swords brandish. Not they. They leave others to fight the battle; and when the one side gets pushed, O! they don't belong to that side. Should the tide turn, and the other side get pushed, why, they don't belong to that side. And when the conflict is over and the victory won, with the greatest selfcomplacency in the world they exclaim, We are not of the

defeated party. No, nor of the victorious one either, it might be answered. They had not the courage to enter the lists at all. And less honourable is their course, than that of either of the belligerent parties. The latter contend for important objects, and, defeated or victorious, manifest therein a becoming interest. Whereas, they of the fence would sooner see heaven and earth come together, than not escape with whole skins. This, Sir, is precisely the case of the individual who perches himself upon the moral fence between Theism and Atheism. Let the Theis* press him with the absurdities of Atheism, and he will instantly reply, I am not an Atheist. Let the Atheist then assail him, and he as readily answers, I am not a Theist. Well, Sir, be nothing then and welcome, and for once take the consequences; for, know thou assuredly, that 'tis the most indefensible of all positions. The man that takes his station between two armies, runs the risk of getting peppered by both. Prepare then, Sir, for the fate merited by all fence men, and stand, if thou canst, the cross-fire of Christianity and Atheism.

Well then,

The fence man says, he believes no way. he does not believe the truth; for there is a God, or there is not. He therefore is in fault in believing no way; for he ought to believe the truth in so important and practical a case as this, whether he has any belief in relation to lunar monsters or not. Nor does he merely do wrong in forbearing to believe, but he acts very unreasonably. It is not supposable, that, in a case like the one before us, the evidences on each side are equal, or that there are no evidences. If the universe was created by God, it does of course exhibit traces of transcendant wisdom: if uncreated, no such traces. It is therefore but for a man to open his eyes, to be able to form an opinion the one way or the other; and surely he who will not do this, is but poorly

entitled to the name of a Free Inquirer, or a reasonable man. Besides, he certainly cannot be the loser by taking sides; for there is no possibility of his being right where he is. This he knows, and is therefore inexcusable for remaining there. Whereas, by changing his position, he would stand some chance of becoming right. He would take one step toward it at least, in that he would then begin to exercise his reason. So much for the peculiar difficulties of the man of the fence. But he is not to be let off with this; for he has the burthen both of Theism and Atheism to bear besides. He says he does not deny a God, that is, a finite one. Very well. Then he does. not deny the absurdity of the existence of a Being able to roll the wheels of nature, but unable to kill a flea! Then he does not deny the propriety of the destruction of cities by the God of the earthquake and the volcano, and consequently gets involved after all in the dilemma of the Deist, which he fain would avoid. Take we him next on another tack. He does not, he says, deny Atheism. Well then, he does not deny its absurdities: viz. that the wheels of nature roll themselves; that all possible appearances of intelligence are produced by non-intelligence; that men, and animals, and vegetables, make themselves; and that the world is eternal, contrary to demonstration. In fine, he has to father all the difficulties of Theism, all the absurdities of Atheism, and all the nonsense of Nothingarianism. If he is satisfied with this position, let him keep his station; but let him not think to escape the Deist's dilemma, in objecting to the God of the Bible, and not to the God of nature.

Now, Sir, it is not to be taken for granted, that the wars of the Israelites were wrong. It must first be proved, that the God who destroys cities by the convulsions of nature, did not command those wars. Leaving therefore

these wars out of the account till this is proved, I ask seriously if the condition of Palestine was not incalculably improved by its change of masters. Was it not an improvement to stop human sacrifices? to abolish idolatry? to check sodomy? to overthrow all manner of cruelties and impurities? Suppose the Jews themselves occasionally fell into some of those very sins. Still, when they did so, God punished them, and they repented and reformed. Surely this was far, far preferable to keeping on in those abominable courses, as the Canaanites did.

I have not yet admitted that the Bible is obscene. When the Old Testament was written, many things which appear obscene to us, were by no means so considered in those days of primitive simplicity. But really, that an individual who in this refined age scouts marriage, recommends the keeping of mistresses, (for what else is placement,) and publishes the means of avoiding the natural consequence of sexual intercourse, should affect to have his modesty put to the blush by the artless and primitive style of the Bible, is distressing in the extreme. I had not indeed read "Moral Physiology" in course when I wrote my last letter; but I had seen it, and had noticed therein what I consider demoralizing and obscene. Since then, I have examined it more, and I pronounce it without hesitation to be one of the most abominable works of the day. It is not necessary to read it through, to sce whether it is so or not. A few passages would be sufficient to show this, and to put the community, but especially females who have any regard for their reputation, on their guard against it. And yet, the individual who sends such trash into the world, can make up a terrible face at the ancient simplicity of the Bible!

It is conceded, I perceive, that we are, in some respects, considerably in advance of the nations of antiquity in