mighty void? What shining host, then, I would ask, with all their angelic strength combined, could turn the wheel stupendous of all nature, and give this vast machine its play? None! none! The Wisdom that governs and the Power that moves it, must be One and Infinite.

That the doctrine of the Divine Unity commends itself to sound reason, and the general acceptance of mankind, is another argument in its favour. Notwithstanding the numerous Gods of the heathen, they have generally had one superiour to the rest-one Jupiter-one Almighty Thunderer, to whom all other Gods were subject. And Deists, who reject revelation, but who nevertheless admit a God, admit but one. Indeed, it is particularly worthy of remark, that all who admit an infinite God, admit but oneand evidently for the reason, that the admission of more than one infinite Being, would be an absurdity. The doctrine of one infinite God, then, is consonant with sound reason; and Sceptics, who profess to make reason their guide, should therefore renounce their Scepticism, and believe in him.

But if there is an infinite God, his glory is not to be shared by others; for there is no comparison between finite and Infinite. No finite Gods can therefore be consistently admitted by those who admit an infinite One. All finite creatures are as nothing in comparison with him, and instead of having any claim to the homage due to the Deity, do themselves owe him homage-from the highest archangel that sweeps the immortal lyre, down to the veriest infant that can lisp his holy Name.

These are the evidences deducible from reason, to say nothing of revelation, which I would assign, for the belief in one, and but one God. And, whatever some on our own side of the question may hold on the subject, I believe, that

there is sufficient evidence in reason and nature to teach the heathen the existence and attributes of the Deity; which leaves them inexcusable for their ignorance of the same. But inasmuch as they are ignorant, revelation becomes necessary; which God grants when and where he sees to be on the whole for the best.

ORIGEN BACHELER.

TO ORIGEN BACHELER.

LETTER VIII.

May 7, 1831. You must be sadly at a loss for a ground of accusation against "the integrity and moral principle of Sceptics and their leaders," when you impugn such sentiments as those in the first paragraph of my last letter. I adhere to these sentiments. I have risked my reputation and what little fortune I possess, by an open expression of heterodoxy ; but I do not, and never shall, urge others (more especially fathers of families dependent on public opinion for their children's daily bread) to follow my example. If they deliberately choose to follow it, good and well; if not, I excuse their silence. And if my so excusing it is to be charged against me as a crime, so be it. One article more or less in the long list which orthodoxy prefers against me, will not much signify.

As to your assertion that there are "instances innumerable of Sceptics becoming from conviction zealous advocates of Christianity," it will probably be found upon strict enquiry, that nine-tenths of the list are just such instances as that you unluckily stumbled on, touching the conversion of the editor of "Priestcraft Exposed."*

* See letter from a Lockport correspondent on this subject, given as Note B. in the Appendix.

As to the cause and effect argument, I leave our readers to judge between us. They cannot fail to perceive, that your assertion that there is a second unseen link, called God, to go back to, and no more, is of the same value and cogency as any other mere assertion.

You say that you are no optimist. The optimist, you maintain, "makes all evil virtually good," while you "allow some of it to be absolutely bad, but make it an inseparable part of the best system." If this be a distinction, Sir, it is one without a difference. No one in his senses, optimist or not, will say murder is positively, in itself, good. No optimist says so. He only says, just as you say, that it is a necessary part of an ineffably wise plan. No man, therefore, not absolutely crazy, can be more of an optimist than you.

And this ineffably wise plan, part of which consists in the cold-blooded, deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of heathen women and children, what is its great object? You tell us. "The glory of God," an object which you think we are "extremely prone to overlook."

"Twould be much more to the credit of your God, Sir, if you too would overlook it. What! the Great Parent's first object is, not the happiness of his children, but the idle gratification of himself! He brings human beings into existence, and then neglects their welfare, to gratify his own paltry hankering after incense! You say you cannot suppose I intend to blaspheme; neither will I suppose the intention, then, in your case.

But if the idle term have a meaning, is it not applicable here? What being so contemptible, so utterly heartless, as an earthly parent, who gives birth to sentient creatures, and then causes or permits them to live in wretchedness, with a view to his own glory! What human creature so worthless, as the father who should form a

plan of life for his offspring, of which endless misery were a constituent part, while its chief object were the gratification of his own grovelling passion for flattery? Would not he be a Monster who should consent to reap personal glory from the field of human misery, and feel compensated for the never-ceasing groans of torture his system embraces, by the adulatory hallelujahs that are thrown into the opposite scale? And a being so weak, so vain, so heartlessly selfish, so utterly dead to the commonest feelings of virtue and common sense, you would have us believe the Great Parent to be!

I prefer, Sir, to be an orphan in the Universe, to acknowledge no parent, to depend on myself alone-far, far rather than to imagine for myself such a Father! What do I say? I prefer it? Let me not talk of mere preference. If there be a curse beyond all other curses, it is to believe one's self the offspring of a Being who thus outrages every generous feeling, and tramples on every parental responsibility. If any duty be sacred, it is that of a parent to give, to the utmost extent of his ability, happiness to his child. And shall a desire to display "his holiness in the punishment of sin and his mercy in its pardon" absolve him from this bounden duty? The dumb brutes are less selfish than this; the very sheep will turn to defend her lamb from the dog, and sacrifice, not an idle ambition, but her life, to save her offspring. If a Great, Omnipotent Parent gave us existence, his first, his most sacred duty is, to make the existence he gave a happy one. No Being can divest himself of a responsibility thus voluntarily assumed, or atone for a breach of duty by a love of praise.

I am no Deist, Sir, and shall leave the Deist to resolve, as he may, Epicurus' dilemma. The only God I ever could imagine, since I came to years of discretion, was one of limited power. If such there be, he has kept me in