heard of." Who are unbelievers? What are their peculiar privileges? When, where, and by whom were such privileges conferred, that nobody must presume to ask them a question?

To adduce evidence of the truth of religion, in a manner comparable to what has already been done, and in books that are, or may be, in almost every one's hand, is a task far beyond my power to accomplish, even if I had nothing else to do; and this I assure you, Sir, is by no means the case. Having, therefore, neither leisure nor ability for such an undertaking, I am compelled to decline it. Even were it otherwise, I do not perceive the utility of such a measure; for if what has already been written and published on the subject, fail to convince, how can any new advocate, whatever may be his knowledge or his talents, hope to succeed? But, then, in the name of candour and of common sense, permit us to ask, wherein the evidence is deficient.

"S." "leaves it to your judgment whether they” (the Questions) "have been put together with that accuracy and precision which is requisite in such cases." Perhaps not; but I will take the liberty of suggesting for his mature consideration, the extreme improbability of their ever having been "put together" at all. If the organized and animated animal bodies of which all nature is full-immense multitudes of which were not in existence a short time ago all owe their origin to causes destitute of intelligence and design, why may not the Questions which seem to have occasioned him so much perplexity, have arisen from the printer's scattering the letters with a careless hand over the composing-stick, and these letters arranging themselves somehow or other, in a manner perfectly inexplicable, in the order in which they appeared in the Pioneer? To my simple apprehension, one supposition seems not more absurd than another.

He

says "it is assumed that there is skill and contrivance in the structure of the human eye, which is the very thing in dispute." To be sure, we all know that there must be a great deal of skill and contrivance in the construction of a clock, a watch, a telescope, or a steam engine; very few, comparatively, are equal to the task; and none without having been previously trained to it. But as to the formation of an eye, an ear, and every other part of an animal body, it is matter of every day occur.

rence, in every part of the world. How, then, can there be any remarkable skill or contrivance displayed in it? It was monstrous to assume such a point, and shows the author-if the questions really had an author-to have been wholly unacquainted with the rules and maxims of modern controversy! ·

"S." asserts, that the questions to Deists, "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." If this writer did really read the questions under the 23d and 24th heads, it is astonishing how he could make such an assertion. I maintain, that these questions evidently and palpably imply arguments in favour of the genuineness of the books which compose the New Testament, which unbelievers will find it very difficult to refute; and which yet it is incumbent on them to refute, if they would assign any thing like a solid reason for their rejection of Christianity. And I would appeal to any competent judge of reasoning in the world, whether they do not evidently imply arguments that necessarily require either an answer or a concession.

66

any

Speaking of the author of the Questions, I presume (for the pronoun "his" has no proper antecedent), question," says S. "respecting the existence of Christ, ap pears never to have entered his imagination." His "imagination" must have been very defective indeed then; or rather, he could have no "imagination," reason, or reflection at all, if so important a point as that never entered into his mind. But why attribute to him so great a degree of thoughtlessness and stupidity? Might he not have an idea that nobody would be unreasonable enough to maintain, that multitudes in every age since the commencement of the Christian era, and amongst them men of learning and inquiry, would, though they differed from each other respecting almost every thing else, have uniformly agreed, and that, by many of them, to their own detriment, in professing themselves the followers of one who never existed? Surely it was possible, at least, that he might have imbibed such a persuasion. But, as perhaps it was a defect in the process of reasoning, and as I never feel more at home than when asking questions, I must, with your permission, notwithstanding the friendly remonstrances of "S.". venture to propose a few more, on

the supposition that the reputed Founder of Christianity never existed.

(To be Concluded in our next.)

wwwww

SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

As you belong to a sect, which in this part of the country, is spoken against and reviled, and whose members are counted the bane of society, and the offscouring of all things, it must naturally be pleasing to you to know that there are individuals, who, although they have not yet publicly avowed their convictions, are firmly convinced that your religious creed is most in conformity with that revelation, which the God of heaven, through his Son Jesus Christ, promulgated to the world. For this reason, I have thought of sending you this intimation of a change which has taken place in my views of religion; and although coming from one who is unknown in the world, and whose humble situation might make it appear to many, a matter of small importance what his opinions are, yet I hope, it may afford you some consolation to know, that there are hearts which are beating in unison with yours, and longing for the time, when the One Father of universal benevolence shall be alone worshipped and loved, from the rising of the sun unto the place of his going down; and when the now despised Unitarian shall witness his creed universally acknowledged, as that which the Son of God came to declare, and as that in which the loveliness of the all-merciful Father most pre-eminently appears.

I was educated, like most of those born in this part of the world, in the Calvinistic doctrines. From my earliest years, the leading points of that soul-withering system, were taught me as irrefragable truths; to question which, or to allow the least surmise regarding them to enter my mind, or to think of examining them by reason, or even by the general tenor of the Word of God, I was taught to consider as the first step towards infidelity, and, consequently, the eternal ruin of my soul. The Assembly's Catechism I committed to memory long before I had attached a single idea to the words which I could so fluently repeat, and as my mental faculties enlarged, I was duly exercised in searching for proofs of the Catechism's doctrines from Scripture; and I was told to value this

right, which I had of judging for myself, and to pity the poor Catholic, who was obliged to renounce the glory of being a rational being, and blindly commit himself to the teaching of a fallible creature like himself. Glorying in the right of private judgment, which I fancied I enjoyed, I went on with my examination. The Catechism was offered as a useful and comprehensive compend of Scripture truth; but in fact it was my Bible, and the isolated passages quoted from the Sacred Volume, without the needless scrupulosity of inquiring what meaning the context gave them, were brought merely as a decent kind of corroboration of what were previously believed to be fundamental truths; and those parts of Scripture, which, to an unsophisticated inquirer, would have appeared utterly contradictory to these assumed truths, were either entirely overlooked, or seen through the medium of system writers -were pressed, no matter by what strained interpretation, into the same service.

I had thus lived till my twentieth year, not only without having read a single page of any writer of an opposite creed, but in the conviction that to have done so, or to have harboured the least suspicion of the erroneousness of the creed in which I had been educated, would have been exposing my eternal interests most wantonly to the temptations of the Evil One. Notwithstanding, I was taught to be grateful to Providence, that I lived in a portion of the world, and at a period of time, when I had the liberty of worshipping God according to my conscience, and with the Bible in my hand, had the power of forming my own creed therefrom, without regard to priests or councils!

I was uniformly taught, that every infant, the moment it comes into existence, is justly liable to eternal torments, as the punishment of Adam's offence, and possesses a depraved nature, which, unless it be one of the elect, will inevitably lead it to commit more and more sin, and merit still more awful punishments from its righteous Creator. Candour, however, bids me declare, that I was not taught to believe that all who die in infancy are actually lost; on the contrary, it was maintained, that a great many are saved, although it was by no means affirmed that all are saved. The modern advocates for Calvinism, seem either averse to assert broadly, that many who die in infancy suffer the penalty which their forefather incurred, although

they unequivocally maintain, that, in strict justice, they might all suffer eternal misery, and that it is of mere grace that any are rescued from this fearful fate. Another doctrine which I was taught, was, that in order to deliver the elected few from this awful condition, in which Adam's offence had placed them, it was absolutely necessary, that the second person of the Godhead should become a man, and die as an atonement; that the guilt was so enormous, that the sufferings of no being less than the eternal God could expiate it, or render the Creator propitious to his creatures. But it is needless to enlarge; suffice it to say, that I was taught, and believed all the doctrines of Calvinism, which, unfortunately, are too well known in this part of the world, to require any statement of them from

me.

The horrifying doctrine, of the eternal rejection of some, and the eternal election of others, was that which first opened my eyes to the fearful gloom of Calvinism. I was told, that the number of those who could obtain the benefit of Christ's redemption, was definitely fixed, and that none, but this chosen few, could, by all their endeavours, procure the benefit of it. I read the Bible, I found it full of declarations of the goodness of God, and of his love to his creatures. I read, "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." God is no respecter of persons," &c. I stated this to those with whom I consulted, as to my difficulties. I was told that these passages were quite true-that God was a Being perfect in moral excellence-and that he would do no wrong to his creatures-but still, that the doctrine which I was questioning, was true. In vain I told them, that it was a manifest contradiction, to assert, at the same time, that God was good, and that he punished millions of the human race for ever, on account of a crime which their forefathers committed-that if the mind had the power of discovering truth in any case, it was quite evident that both these propositions could not be true-that they were quite contradictory-and that two bodies could as easily occupy the same space at the same times as the mind assent to both of these propositions at the same time. I was told, it was a mystery-a great mystery, and I must just believe it. It was in vain that I told them, it was impossible, while I believed such a doctrine, to love God with all my. heart and soul-that I could view him in no