132 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
him into a comer; but there is the outlet ,—an outlet, I mean. Others 
may discern other outlets :. I see that prochronism is one, and there I 
creep out, and betake myself to my refuge, the Word of the unlying 
God. 
It has been charged against my hook that it makes God a “ Deus 
quidam deceptor that I represent God as telling a lie. Ear he it from 
me ! He cannot he tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. 
There would he some plausibility in the charge if I had represented God 
as giving no information on creation except in the things created. But 
He has given it fully and explicitly, in his Word. Parrhasius might 
have been called a deceiver when he painted a curtain with such per¬ 
fection of art that his rival thought it real; hut would you have charged 
him with falsehood if he had affixed to it this label in legible charac¬ 
ters—“ I have produced this effect by laying paint upon canvass’’ ? I 
might, perhaps, make another sort of reply to this charge, in full con¬ 
formity with Scripture; but I fear it would be little palatable to many, 
and I forbear. 
I am not so simple as to suppose that the arguments which I have 
essayed to bring forward in this communication will meet with general 
concurrence. The world, whether called “ Christian” or called “ Hea¬ 
then,” knows nothing, and cares nothing, about the glory of Christ. 
But I solemnly appeal to real Christians; to those who have received 
eternal life in the Son, and who know that they have received it; to 
those who have been “ called into partnership (eh Koivwviav) with Jesus 
Christ our Lordto those who are joint-heirs with Him of the coming 
glory. I appeal to them, and beseech them to reconsider how far they 
can consent to accept scientific conclusions—at best but the deductions 
of reason from the evidences of sense—whose tendency is to dethrone 
the Lord Christ as Head of Creation, and to give the lie to the Bevelation 
of God. 
I remain, Gentlemen, 
Yours very respectfully, 
P. H. Gosse, E. B. S. 
[We publish the above answer to Mr. J. Beete Jukes’ letter (vide 
page 106) without comment, reserving our judgment on both letters, 
with which we will conclude this subject, until our next Humber.— 
Eds. H. H. R.] 
