Religious error generally receives its distinguishing features from the literary character of the age: and an age which abounds with sciolists is very fertile in sceptics. For it has been always found that the effect of superficial knowledge is rather to unsettle, of profound knowledge to confirm, belief in Revelation; as was well observed by that mighty master in philosophy, Bacon, who says, “a little philosophy inclines us to atheism, and a great deal of philosophy carries us back to religion.” And the reason of this is obvious; there are certain difficulties of every subject which lie upon, or nearly at, the surface; slight labour and research, therefore, put the enquirer in possession of little more than those difficulties; whilst if the spirit of patient and accurate investigation had carried him further, he would have found them gradually disappear before the light of truth breaking by degrees upon his mind, and leading him to just and certain conclusions, drawn from a long series of proofs. Now the present age appears to be characterized by a wide diffusion of elementary knowledge amongst all classes of society; by a preference of an extensive, though necessarily superficial, acquaintance with general literature and the elements of modern science, to an accurate and profound knowledge of a few leading branches of study; and by a tendency to elevate the pursuit of physical above that of moral and religious truth. From the proposition laid down, of the ordinary effects of superficial knowledge upon the mind in the investigation of religious truth, we should conclude, that such a system of popular instruction is calculated to indispose towards the full reception of a Divine Revelation; that the mind, either bewildered by a variety of pursuits, or dissatisfied by diversity of opinions, will consider all knowledge uncertain, and all theories unsatisfactory; or influenced by that intellectual pride and presumption which are amongst the most bitter fruits of defective knowledge, deem itself competent to decide summarily upon whatever passes under its observation. For if it has been found—as it has been too often found—that minds, otherwise highly gifted, but destitute of religious principles, when long accustomed to demonstration, are apt to underrate the value of moral proof; and when long familiar with natural causes, sometimes forget the great Architect, who formed and put in motion our globe; sometimes forget the great First Cause, which gave nature her powers and properties, and now preserves and directs them to a beneficial end: what must we expect when far inferior minds, without mental discipline and profound knowledge, those happy results of laborious and patient study; but with vanity flattered by appeals made to its judgment, and with pride fostered by the acquisition of a poor modicum of science, deem themselves competent not merely to decide upon the most difficult questions of government and legislation, but upon the