MONTHLY RETIEAV OF MTEBATURE. 385 



that those nations which have not been visited by the light of Christianity, 

 are still as ignorant of the Deity as ever? Does Dr. Fellowes for a moment 

 suppose that the various Pagan nations throughout the world are at this 

 present time one whit more enlightened as to the existence and attributes of 

 the Supreme Being than they were some thousand 3'ears ago ? We hold that 

 there is not an instance in the history of the world in which either indivi- 

 duals or nations attained to a knowledge of the Deity without the aid of the 

 Mosaic or Christian dispensation. 



In many of Dr. Fellowes's objections to a system of mere creeds and forms 

 we perfectly concur. We believe that the worst consequences have in many 

 instances resulted from them. But Dr. Fellowes has no right to conclude, 

 that, because his objections apply to one or two particular classes of Chris- 

 tians, they may be extended to all religious denominations. He has no right 

 to assume that, because the tendency of one particular system is to raise 

 the priest on the ruins of one's intellectual independence, all other systems 

 have the same inevitable tendency. The system of Dissent in this country has 

 no such tendency. It is one of its leading principles that men are to reject 

 all human creeds, and to apply their minds to the investigation of the truth, 

 without regard either to priests or to any other merely human authorities. It 

 does more; it tells its disciples that they are not to take the truth of the 

 scriptures or the divine origin of Christianity for granted, but that the most 

 rigid enquiry into the claims of the Bible is first to be instituted, and it is only 

 when the individual has come to the conclusion that it is an emanation from 

 the Divine mind that it exacts a belief in those of its doctrines which are 

 above, not contrary to, man's unassisted reason. 



Dr. Fellowes misconceives the nature of Christianity when he supposes it 

 consists in observing a certain day, or going to a certain church, or repeating 

 certain words. In what part of the Scriptures does Dr. Fellowes find any 

 thing which sanctions this view of Christianity ? If men draw erroneous con- 

 clusions from Christianity, that is their own fault ; the blame does not attach 

 to it. 



It is equally unfair to represent the believers in Christianity as being reli- 

 gious only on one day (Sunday) of the week. Christians know that they are 

 bound to be religious every day of the week, and every hour of the day, in 

 their individual capacity. It is only in their collective capacity that they con- 

 ceive it is their duty to be publicly devout on the Sabbath day. 



May we ask Dr. Fellowes what is the religion of the Universe } and what 

 are the truths it teaches ? If he will not answer the question, we will. It is 

 no specific religion at all. It teaches no particular truths. Can Dr. Fellowes 

 point us out any two nations unacquainted with Christianity which have ar- 

 rived at the same convictions even as to the Deity himself? Has not every 

 heathen nation a plurality of deities ? Do not most of them worship, as deities, 

 the works of their own hands ? And have not only different nations different 

 deities, but do not the different individuals of the same nation worship different 

 imaginary deities ? 



The sentiment which pervades the volume from the beginning to the end is, 

 that God can be known only by his works. We maintain, on the contrary, 

 that he can be known only by his word; and we moreover hold that Dr. Fel- 

 lowes could never, but for the aid of the Scriptures, have arrived at that sys- 

 tem of faith — pure Theism — of which he boasts. This wc know to be an un- 

 disputed, because an indisputable fact, that the history of the world affords no 

 instance of an individual attaining to the knowledge of one true God by his 

 own unassisted reason, or, as Dr. Fellowes would say, by the religion of the 

 Universe, or the works of the Deity. 



That Dr. Fellowes is a sincere enquirer after truth we have not a moment's 

 doubt. That he is a deep thinker and eloquent writer the volume before us, as 

 well as his former works, bears testimony; but he has come to conclusions 

 for which he assigns no reason that will bear a moment's examination. We 

 regret that the late hour at which the work reached us will not allow us to 

 advert at greater 'length to the dangerous positions the work contains. 



