camp with respect to the sufficiency of natural Theology, unhelped by revelation.  By three of the four Christian authors just quoted, the design argument is treated with all the contempt it merits.  Faber says, ’evident design must needs imply a designer,’ and that ’evident design shines out in every part of the universe.’  But he also tells us ’we reason exclusively, if with the Deist we thence infer the existence of one and only one Supreme Designer.’  By Gillespie and M’Neil, the same truth is told in other words.  By Chalmers and Watson we are assured that, natural proof of a God there is none, and our trust must be placed solely in revelation; while Brougham, another Immense Being worshipper, declares that revelation derives its chief support from natural Theology, without which it has ‘no other basis than vague tradition.’

Now, Atheists agree with Lord Brougham as to the traditionary basis of Scripture; and as they also agree with Chalmers and Watson with respect to their being no natural proof of a God, they stand acquitted to their own consciences of ‘wilful deafness’ and ‘obstinate blindness,’ in rejecting as inadequate the evidence that ‘God is’ drawn either from Nature, Revelation, or both.

It was long a Protestant custom to taunt Roman Catholics with being divided among themselves as regards topics vitally important, and to draw from the fact of such division an argument for making Scripture the only ‘rule of faith and manners.’  Chillingworth said, ’there are Popes against Popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves—­a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age.  Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found.  No tradition but only of scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ; or that in such an age it was not in.  In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build on. [70:1] And after reading this should ‘any considering man’ be anxious to know something about the Scripture on which alone he is to build, he cannot do better than dip into Dr. Watt’s book on the right use of Reason, where we are told ’every learned (Scripture) critic has his own hypothesis, and if the common text be not favourable to his views a various lection shall be made authentic.  The text must be supposed to be defective or redundant, and the sense of it shall be literal or metaphorical according as it best supports his own scheme.  Whole chapters or books shall be added or left out of the sacred canon, or be turned into parables by this influence.  Luther knew not well how to reconcile the epistle of St. James to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and so he could not allow it to be divine.  The Papists bring all their Apocrypha into their Bible, and stamp divinity upon it, for they can fancy purgatory is there, and they find prayers for the dead.  But they leave out the second commandment because it forbids the worship of images.  Others suppose the Mosaic history of the creation, and the fall of man, to be oriental ornaments, or a mere allegory, because the literal sense of those three chapters of Genesis, do not agree with their theories.