tuated immortals learn that the God whom the Christian adores possesses power sufficient to the continuance of their existence, and justice adequate to the punishment of their crimes.

On the other hand, observe the life and death of the Christian. Buoyed by the prospect of immortality, he sustains affliction with manly fortitude. No changes of situation can affect a mind at peace; and when death approaches, it is the hour of triumph: then he lifts up his head in assurance that his redemption is come. Like the mariner, who, after being tossed in a tempestuous sea, has brought his vessel to the desired haven, he looks back on the perils of his voyage, and smiles at the tempest that rides triumphant on the ocean.

Adieu, my friend: remember that there is one in the universe on whom the light will never dawn, nor the evening close, without a prayer for you. Pray for yourself, and forget not your

CAROLINE.

LETTER III.

"A CHRISTIAN is the highest style of man.
And is there who the blessed cross wipes off,
As a foul blot, from his dishonour'd brow ?—
If angels tremble, 'tis at such a sight."

WELL, dear Julia, how does the portrait of natural religion please you? Methinks I almost hear you exclaim, in the language of the poet, "A Deity believed is joy begun.

A Deity adored is joy advanced.
A Deity beloved is joy matured."

Admitting the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul, the principal objections to the Christian system vanish; but that we may trace the arch-fiend Infidelity through all his winding avenues, and secret lurking-places, we will endeavour to exhibit a few of the evidences of the divine veracity of that volume in which the Christian reads his title to immortality. We need not go beyond the volume itself for evidences of its authenticity.

The concatenated chain that runs through it, which unfolding, link by link, discloses the Messiah, is a sufficient testimony of its divine origin. Dimly shadowed forth in types and

figures, under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, the Sun of Righteousness at length arises in all the splendour of the Gospel. To invalidate the Mosaic history, it is necessary that we produce some other account of the early ages of the world: but where shall we find such a chronicle? The Chinese, it is said, pretend to date their origin some thousands of years before the Mosaic history of creation; but from their imperfect method of computing time, it is impossible to estimate their accounts with any degree of exactness; and of late they have been proved to be altogether fabulous.

Profane history corroborates many events recorded in the sacred volume, and we have as much reason to believe the historical part of the Old Testament as we have to credit the histories of Greece and Rome. We have as much reason to believe that there was such a person as Moses, as that there was a Homer; and even modern infidels, who call the Bible the forgery of latter ages, would esteem it a solecism in literature, to doubt the identity of the Iliad or Odyssey. If the books of Moses were written by him, let his character determine their veracity. The history of this great personage is somewhat extraordinary, and affords many useful reflections. The circumstance of

his infantile preservation and subsequent education forcibly display the particular providence of God. Though, as the son of Pharaoh's daughter, he might have aspired to the regency of Egypt, yet such was the patriotic fervour of his heart, that he voluntarily chose to share the sufferings of the captive Hebrews.

If you are not already acquainted with the interesting circumstances of his story, I recommend it to your perusal, in assurance that it will afford you more real advantage than a whole library of novels. You will there see the providence of God, exerted in behalf of his afflicted people. What, but a firm reliance on the protection of a superintending Providence, could inspire Moses with confidence to face the Monarch of Egypt, and demand the liberation of captive Israel? Why did not the impious tyrant immolate the victim of his wrath, by whose agency so many calamities had fallen on the land? He might have avenged the death of his first-born, by the death of all Israel: but no; the arm of flesh was too short; he was at last constrained, by repeated calamities, to “let the people go." Now, Moses was either a good, or a bad man; if the former, he would not have imposed fiction for truth, nor have palmed upon posterity a mere fabrication for real history.

If the latter, he would not have framed a code of laws enjoining a strict observance of every virtue. One would suppose, if he were an ambitious hypocrite, and impostor, that he would have enacted laws to aggrandize himself: but so far from this, he was actuated by the most perfect disinterestedness, and could even plead with God, rather than the rebellious Israelites should perish, that he might be blotted from the book of remembrance as a ruler of the Hebrews.

The character of Moses being established, it follows that his narrations may be depended upon as strictly true, and as such entitled to full credence; but the question arises, "How do we know that Moses wrote the books attributed to him? Are they not the fabrication of modern priestcraft?" I answer, by asking in my turn, How do we know that Homer wrote the Iliad? How are we convinced that Euripides was a tragic poet? How are we morally certain that Leonidas fell at the straits of Thermopyla ? Is it not possible, that what are generally received as the writings of the ancients are modern forgeries? The classic scholar will answer indignantly, No; they carry in themselves the evidence of their authenticity. Nothing in modern composition can equal their