religion can never forget that England is the cradle of his sect, and that he rubs a sponge over all the crimes he found there." He replies, "The author does not know that England is the cradle of natural religion; but he knows that England was not his cradle. He is not of the same religious sentiments as an Englishman, any more than an Englishman who speaks of physical effects he found in France, is not of the same religion as the French. He is not a follower of natural religion; but wishes that his critic was a follower of natural logic."
These are the principal objections levelled against our author, on this head, from which our reader will sufficiently see on what trifling, what puerile arguments this charge of Deism is founded. He concludes however this article, with a defence of the the religion of nature, and such a defence as every rational Christian must undoubtedly approve.
"Before I conclude this first part, I am tempted to make one objection against him who has made so many; but he has so
