of his knowledge of nature and of Christianity, I have no disposition to dispute. If, however, he wishes to disseminate that knowledge, I am humbly of opinion, that it would be done to better purpose by being stated in plain instructive language, than by referring to "masterly treatises, which have been published in defence of natural and revealed religion." It is rather too much to expect, that any effort should be made to combat the elaborate reasonings of Bentley, Derham, Whiston, Ray, Clarke, Fenelon, or Paley, in the pages of the Christian Pioneer. The subjects referred to, however, weighty as they are, might be introduced by degrees, commencing with first principles, and proceeding gradually to whatever conclusions may be necessary; but I cannot see the propriety of preferring queries to this method of discussion, especially under the circumstances already mentioned, of their coming from the wrong quarter.

As to the Questions themselves, I leave it to your judgment, whether they have been put together with that accuracy and precision which is requisite in such cases. They are generally couched, so as to involve a petitio principii. For example, the first Question to Atheists, is given in these terms: "Is there not incomparably more skill and contrivance in the structure of the human eye, than in the formation of a telescope?" Now, it is here assumed, that there is skill and contrivance in the structure of the human eye (which is the very thing in dispute); and it is only asked, if there be not MORE than in the formation of a telescope. Were an infidel to ask a believer whether Jesus Christ or Mahomet was the greatest impostor, the Christian might justly reply, that the question was impertinent, since he did not look upon Jesus as an impostor at all. If we intend any benefit to our opponents, by propounding questions to them, we ought, at least, to state them so as that they should be entitled to the admission, that they were fairly stated.

A number of the Questions to Deists, too, seem to be little else than a circle of errors. They take for granted the genuineness and truth of what is called the Gospel history, and then infer the sincerity of the Apostles, and, by consequence, the truth of all that is recorded in their name. Any question respecting the existence of Christ, appears never to have entered his imagination. This is all along assumed. In Question 9, it is likewise assumed,

that a man was restored to his sight, who had been born blind-that the man himself had been examined and reexamined that his parents were questioned that the miracle had been investigated immediately after it was performed, and so forth; and then it is asked, “What more could be done to detect the imposition, if there had been any? and what motive could either the man or his parents have to assert such falsehoods?" Again, Question 10, very simply asks, "How could that disciple be mistaken with respect to the person of his Master, who saw in his hands, after his resurrection, the print of the nails by which he had been fixed to the cross, and thrust his hand into the side which had been pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier?" But how is it possible for an unbeliever to answer such questions, otherwise than by saying, that they are ridiculous? What idea can "R." have formed of the rationality of a Deist, who should admit a statement of occurrences as correct, and yet refuse his assent to the consequences? or who should grant the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and have nothing to hang a doubt upon, but the incompetency of Thomas's testimony?

Most of your Correspondent's other Questions, exhibit a similar character with those just mentioned. It passes my comprehension, indeed, to conceive what could be seriously meant by them. Let him give us his reasons for believing in the existence of a Deity; and, if they stand secure against the scrutiny of the Atheist, let him show the necessity of a revelation to mankind, and afterwards enter upon the internal, or, if he chooses, the historical evidences of that revelation, and we shall be better able to perceive the connection and force of his arguments, than by putting questions which have little or no bearing upon the precise points at issue between the parties. As the religious man has something to, teach, he ought to leave questions to those whom he intends to convince by his doctrines.

Should "R." think of favouring your readers with any of his arguments on any of the important topics connected with his first series of questions, I pledge myself, should my services be acceptable, to meet them with honest and fair opposition, or with a candid submission to their rectitude. I have no interest to serve in contending for my opinions. Truth alone is the object I have in view, and

it is but fair to allow, that it is also the object of yourself and correspondents. You will not, then, think it unreasonable, if I should solicit "R." to come forward with something in the shape of affirmation accompanied with proof.

In conclusion, permit me to observe, that were I disposed to attempt answering the queries as they now stand, I should, as a preliminary step, request definitions of the words "skill" and " contrivance," so that, if your correspondent be averse to what I have here proposed, he may signify his intention to continue, or rather, to commence the discussion by defining his terms.

GLASGOW, 23d Oct. 1829.

S.

On Ignorance of the Scriptures, in its relation to Unbelief.

-πλανασθε, μη ειδότες τας γραφάσ.

In this Essay, it is not designed to call in question the general knowledge and talents of a class of writers that have opposed themselves to the pretensions of Christianity. The cause of Revelation would be ill served by any such attempt. I shall aim, however, at a point of great importance in the Deistical controversy: I am desirous of showing that Scriptural learning has not been cultivated by these persons; that here they are lamentably deficient; and that the deficiency is betrayed by many, if not by most, of their favourite charges against the Bible.

The unbeliever overlooks many strong presumptions in behalf of revealed religion, which are afforded by this volume.

He overlooks that strict undesigned agreement of the Scriptures with the history and manners of the age, and with the customs, the language, the taste, the character, of the countries, whither we refer them, which might serve to rescue these writings from the imputation of having been framed in any other spot, or at any later date. He overlooks various instances of artlessness, candour, and honesty, in the writers.

In particular, he overlooks that accordance of the Evan

Note.-Erratum, Vol iv. p. 53, line 7 and 8 from the bottom; place these references after the word "criticism," in the second note.

Line 12 from the bottom, for "expositions," read "exposition."

gelists with each other, which, taken in connection with the minute and unimportant dissonances found in their histories, would prevent or repel the suspicion, that they conspired to impose a fraud upon the world.

The numerous marks of consistency and nature discoverable in those histories, as well as in the engaging narrative left by Luke, of the Acts of the Apostles, he totally overlooks.

Not less does he disregard those references to facts which are interwoven with the letters of Paul, and which, assuredly could not have been made by the author, or have passed without dispute by the readers, had not the facts existed.

He is inattentive to that coincidence of these Epistles with each other, and with Luke's second history, which, from the very nature of it, has been ably represented in the light of an independent and a weighty argument for the divinity of the Gospel.*

In like manner, he overlooks the evidence to the same effect, arising from a patient investigation of the moral feelings and character of Jesus Christ, as he is described by the Evangelists-and from the way in which our Lord and his Apostles proposed their claims.

That, too, he overlooks which rests upon a careful examination and comparison of recorded prophecy with the events in which it is alleged to have been fulfilled.

Equally does he overlook the appeal that has frequently been urged in behalf of Revelation, to numerous facts which the Scriptures present, and to many instances of conduct there recorded; an appeal which it is not possible to make with success in the case of the Koran of the Mahommedans, and of the pretended sacred books of Zoroaster and of the Brahmins.

While the unbeliever neglects those arguments for revealed religion, which a just acquaintance with the Bible would supply, against this volume he advances objections built on an inadequate and erroneous conception of their style, their allusions, and the nature of their contents.

Thus, he makes no allowance for the conciseness, the spirit, and the boldness that distinguish the language in

* See Paley's Hora Paulina; the most original of that valuable writer's productions, and one of the noblest contributions ever made to sacred literature. Dr. Hartley, "on the truth of the Christian Religion," Prop. 25, just glances at the argument.

which the books of the Old Testament were composed, and which occasion many passages in them to be viewed by unreflecting and uncandid readers, as destitute of meaning, propriety, and order.

He marks not the difference between figurative and literal expressions; often receiving as metaphorical what is literal, and yet more frequently as literal what is metaphorical; and forgetting that those representations of the Divine perfections, character, government, and measures, which he is pleased to censure, are the lofty but significant images of Eastern poetry.

Nor is he only inobservant of the structure, genius, and simplicity of the Hebrew language, and of the properties of the poetry of the Jews; he also fails to discriminate between real history and the pictures of scenes in vision; objecting against the one what can with no reason be objected against the other.

He does not interpret obscure and apparently unintelligible phrases, by the same or the like phrases occurring elsewhere: and he detaches passages from the connection in which they respectively stand, and then insists on the falsehood, or absurdity, or danger of the doctrines which he supposes them to inculcate.

This is not all: he demands perfect correctness and elegance of expression, regular and minute narratives, elaborate and refined treatises of truth and duty, from men who, as a clearer knowledge of their productions might convince him, wrote in the current language of their country, who made no pretensions to exactness of composition, were memorialists rather than historians, and attempted nothing more than to give such a concise and satisfactory account of facts as might lead their readers to admit the Messiahship of Jesus.

Hence the unbeliever loses sight of the maxim, that silence is not of necessity contradiction, or variation a denial.

He considers not that every age and country has some peculiarity of customs, so that estimating those mentioned in the Scriptures by his own ideas of beauty and fitness, he frequently complains, where, in truth, there is nothing concerning which to complain, except it be his own want of thought and knowledge.

In fine, he is regardless of the fact, that the history contained in the Scriptures is the history of human beings;