for if he was required to believe in any religion, it was the religion of the Quakers-"my father being of the Quaker profeffion, it was my good fortune to have an exceeding good moral education," (Age of Reafon, P. 37,) and, therefore, "it is not improbable" that he had no religious education at all. These gentlemen farther fpeak of Paine's "elaborate demonftration of the being of a God," and obferve that "as far as this pamphlet goes to establish religion as founded in nature, it can have no bad effect; fince it is not unusual for Infidels in Revelation to think themfelves juftified in renouncing all religion, and in regarding themselves as exempted from its obligations, when it is manifeft that Revelation is but a part of the broad bafts on which religion refts, and that, though by taking it away, virtue lofes an able friend, the is not left entirely without an advocate." (Ib. P. 397.) Now, mark the infinuations and fentiments of these Theifts in plain intelligible language. A man may disbelieve the fcriptures, (be an Infidel in Revelation,) yet not renounce his religion; a man may difbelieve the fcriptures, (be an Infidel in Revelation,) yet confider himself bound by (not exempted from) its obligations!!! These Deifts ftate that it is manifeft that Revelation is but a part, (a fmall part we suppose,) of the broad bafis on which religion refts; on the contrary we affirm, and all Christians muft affirm, that Revelation is the rock of our falvation, of all pure and undefiled religion; that it is the cornerfone, the fole bafis and foundation, of religion; that whoever takes away Revelation from religion is an Infidel and Heretic, and the faith is not in him; and that, by taking away Revelation from religion, the foundation of virtue is annihilated. The Editors of the Critical Review ftate that "there are paffages in T. Paine's pamphlet, which do honour to his religious feelings;" (VOL. XII. P. 77) they obferve that the following obfervations of the author are judicious: "Revelation is the communication of fomething, which the perfon, to whom that thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or feen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or feen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it. As we are always defirous of the greateft precifion poffible in language, by Deift we mean a believer in a firft caufe having rejected Revelation; by Theift, a believer in a first cause, ignorant of Revelation. "Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to any thing done upan earth, of which man is himself the actor or the witnefs; and, confequently, all the hiftorical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compafs of the word Revelation, and therefore is not the word of God." P. II. They declare this is very true; and Mr. Paine ought to have feen that it relieves the liberal Chriftian from the neceffity of defending much of what he has attacked." (Ib. r. 79.) This is liberality with a vengeance; but we afk these critics whether this verfe is true Ο δε παράκλητος, το πνεύμα το άγιον, ὃ πέμψει ο πατήρ εν τω ονόματι με, εκείνος υμας διδάξει παντα, και υπομνήσει υμας πάντα, α ειπόν υμιν. 7oan. xiv. 16. It was one peculiar office of the Holy Spirit to recall to the remembrance of the Apoftles the things which they had heard, the things to which they had been witneffes, for human memory being imperfect, the waanλтos, in our tranflation Comforter, though it might, with great propriety and precision, be rendered the Reminder, revealed to them the whole truth, took away the darkness in which past events were enveloped, and Revelation, like arcxahutus, is only taking away a covering. But these liberal Reviewers perfectly coincide in opinion with this ignorant and prefumptuous fcribbler, that "all the hiftorical parts of the Bible is not within the meaning and compafs of the word Revelation," and, confequently, that the Pentateuch of Mofes, and the gofpels of the Evangelifts, are of little authority. But, to prevent the poffibility of their being misunderstood, they ftate," that many FIRM Christians would have no objection to the following statement of what is called the Mofaic account of the Creation (Ib. P. 79): As to the account of the creation, with which the book of Genefis, opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Ifraelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country, they put it at the head of their history, without telling, as it is most probable they did not know, how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens, fhews it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly. It is nobody that fpeaks. It is nobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither firft, fecond, nor third perfon. It has every criterion of being a tradition. It has no voucher. Mofes does not take it upon himfelf by introducing it with the formality that he ufes on other occafions, fuch as that of saying, The Lord fpake unto Mofes, Jaying. P. 12. to To fuch falfe furmifes we fhall answer hereafter. For the prefent we shall only obferve of thefe Critical Reviewers, who who are femi-chriftians, when compared with the Analytical conductors of irreligious trafh, that they here take an opportunity of avowing themfelves UNITARIANS, as the following extract abundantly proves : "We will only fay, in general, that the author, takes his idea of Chriftianity from the high Calvinift and Trinitarian fchemes, and that a believer of the Unitarian clafs, not receiving the immaculate conception, nor the inspiration of the narrative part of fcripture, nor the agency of Satan, nor the doctrine of the atonement, would find, that to him, half the book did not require an anfwer." Ibid. P. 80. We ask whether unbelievers in the doctrines peculiarly Chrif tian can be Chriftians, or are thefe proper judges of pure religion and found doctrines in a Christian country? (To be continued.) SIR, TO THE EDITOR. Edinburgh, June 26, 1799. N the laft number of the Anti-Jacobin Review I obferve a very extraordinary paragraph at the end of your Review, of Mr. Ranken's Effay on the Importance of Religious Establishments. That paragraph contains two affertions totally unfounded; and, as they relate to me, and implicate my character, I muft require you to contradict them in the fame public manner in which you have brought them forward. This you will not hesitate to do if you defire to maintain any regard for truth, or even the appearance of it, in your publication. You have afferted, that there is a fect now forming in Scotland, at the head of which I am, for the avowed purpose of fapping the foundation of the Prefbyterian church as established by law. You have alfo faid, that zeal against establishments has prompted me to fell my eftate. Thefe affertions, Sir, are both abfolutely falfe, and either your credulity has been impofed upon, or you have been led to utter thefe flanderous calumnies from fome improper motive. The public, whom you have mifled, muft, however, be undeceived and, although you have no title to any confeffion from me, I now inform you, that while I ufe the liberty of every British fubject, to judge for myfelf in matters of religion, fo far from avowing it, I never entertained, in my mind, the most distant idea of fapping the foundation of the established church; and that it was not for this purpose I fold my estate. So much as to what you have taken upon yourself to affert refpecting me. I fhall add nothing upon your want of candour, in bringing forward, in large letters, with a flight refutation, if fo it may be called, a calumny as falfe as thofe alluded to above, which Profeffor Robifon, without knowing it to be fuch, put into his book, and afterwards, as you must have heard, publicly contradicted in the newspapers. I must request you to infert this letter in your next number, and thus, at least, fhew yourself as ready to vindicate where you have injured, and to retract where you have been fo misled, as to cenfure and make public what you conceive to be reprehenfible. I am, Sir, &c. ROBERT HALDANE. BY thus publishing Mr. Haldane's letter, we have, in part, com plied with his request; but before we contradict the affertions of which he complains, we beg leave to ftate to him, and to the public, the evidence by which, as he chooses to exprefs it, our credulity has been imposed upon. He complains of only two affertions as impli cating his character; but in the paragraph to which he objects, there are three affertions, which, as they certainly relate to him, we shall confider feparately, both to convince him, that our regard for truth is equal to his own, and to fatisfy our readers that we are not quite fo credulous as he wishes them to fuppofe. Our first affertion was, that "a fect is juft now forming in Scotland for the avowed purpose of fapping the foundation of the Prefby: terian church as established by law. For the truth of this, we might appeal to the paftoral admonition, ordained by the laft General Affembly to be read in all the parish churches in Scotland; and even to the feeble, and we must have leave to add, impertinent, answers made to that truly Christian address, by the Secretary, and other members of the Society, for propagating the Gospel at Home. we will not avail ourselves of this evidence, because it was not before us when we wrote our Review. The evidence which, though it did not impofe upon our credulity, compelled our affent, and directed our conduct, will be feen in the following history of that Review. Early in the month of April, one of our corps received from a Clergyman of the church of Scotland, (not any Clergyman in Glafgow,) a copy of Mr. Ranken's Efay on the Importance of Religious Establishments, together with a letter, giving a pretty full account of the proceedings of the Society for propagating the Gospel at Home! The very title affumed by this fociety appeared ominous; our correfpondent's letter reprefented its proceedings as dangerous; and to con vince us that his reprefentation was fair, he fent to us the Journal of a Tour through the Northern Counties of Scotland and the Orkney les, in Autumn, 1797, by JA. HALDANE, J. AIKMAN, and J. RATE, whom he affirmed to be three members of the fociety. Now thefe gentlemen, in the introduction to their Journal, repre fent the diftinétion between Clergymen and Laymen, which is retained in the church of Scotland, as Popish; the difcipline of that church as unfcriptural; the mode of providing for the maintenance of her Clergy as improper; and, in the Journal itfelf, they affirm, that almost all the Clergy in the Northern Counties preach doctrines directi directly contrary to the gospel of Chrift! Thus, when treating of laypreaching, they fay, "We ufe the term lay-preaching, not becaufe we acknowledge a Popish distinction, but because the term is generally ufed and understood." Again, "We do not find in Scripture, that a license to preach the Gofpel is neceffary, and, when conducted in the ordinary way, (i. e. in the way of the church of Scotland, fee Pp. 9 and 10,) we maintain that it is completely unfcriptural. In P. 14 they compare the church of Scotland to the church of Rome, in the diftant ages, prior to the reformation; and affirm, that lay-preaching was not then more neceffary than "at prefent, when the Gofpel of Jefus is almost unknown in many parts of the country, and little better than heathen morality fubftituted for the doctrines of Chrift." Nay, in P. 22, they compare the established clergy to the Scribes and Pha rifees; and themselves, not indeed in gifts and graces, but in the rectitude of their conduct, to CHRIST and his APOSTLES!!! We have faid, that Meffrs. Haldane, Aikman, and Rate, have represented the mode of providing for the established clergy, in Scotland, as improper; and this we muft prove, for they have not faid fo in direct terms, as they have directly cenfured the doctrine and conduct of thofe clergy. In P. 19 of their precious introduction, they thus exprefs themselves :-"We are far from meaning to infinuate, that Minifters ought not to receive a liberal fupport. To this they are entitled, when their flock can afford it ;" and again-" One great evil which arifes from the opinion that Minifters muft live in a style fuperior to that of their hearers, is, that when people are very poor, they cannot afford a ftipend which is thought fufficient fuitably to maintain a paftor." We appeal to our readers-we appeal even to Mr. Haldane himfelf, whether thefe expreffions do not obviously imply that Clergymen ought to be fupported by their hearers; but it is known to all who know any thing, that the clergy of Scotland are not fupported by their hearers; and, therefore, it follows, that, in the opinion of our three itinerants, the mode in which thefe clergy are really fupported is an improper mode. Nor, is this the wort effect of fuch language; for it is calculated to mislead the ignorant multitude, and to make them believe that they are, by law, compelled to fupport a fet of Minifters, whofe doctrines our miffionaries have taught them to abhor; whilst the truth is, that thefe Minifters live upon a portion of the tythes, their own eftate, which for, at least, eight hundred years, has not been the property either of the farmer or the landlord, That Meff. Ja. Haldane, Aikman, and Rate, have taught the people of Scotland to abhor the doctrine of their parith ministers, is apparent from their Journal; - "On the Lord's Day, July the 16th, we preached, (fay they,) in the morning, at eight o'clock, in the market-place, to upwards of 200 people. Went to church, and heard fermon. The minister preached from 1 John, iii. 8. The fermon did not appear to us glad tidings to finners. The object of it was to fhew, that the fon of God came into the world to inftruct and enable men to defroy the works of the devil. Ile reprefented the goipel as a contract between God |