THEOLOGICAL THOUGHTS. thin partitions. The man who is obstinate in the disbelief of our Saviour's godhead must be, one would think, strongly tempted to reject the Scriptures, as a book big with blasphemy, since every idea descriptive of God, from his works of creation, is there expressly applied to him, unless paternity, a mere relation of order, be the distinctive idea of a God which is so far from implying any inferiority, that it proves the very reverse; for, unless only Son, and only begotten, should signify the only created (the consequence of which would be, that our Saviour is the only creature in the universe), it must follow that he is uncreated, and of the same nature with the Father." "Is there any object, upon which we can fix our eyes, that we perfectly comprehend? Do we thoroughly understand the nature of the soul and body? Yet we refuse our assent to the doctrine of the Trinity. We will not take God's word for the truth of it, because we cannot comprehend it. Daring and presumptuous man! tremble, lest a thunderbolt from heaven convince thee of the existence and power of a Trinity." Most fortunate is it for poor arians and unitarians, that this theological thinker cannot wield this dreadful weapon; we have reason to believe that it would not lie idle in his hands. We cannot close our notice of this work without producing one or two instances of the author's powers as a scriptural critic. "Christ declares that he and his Father were one, i. e. one in essence and nature, one in authority and power, and not barely one in will and consent. That this is the genuine sense of the words appears, first, From the original text, where it is not said, I and my Father are one person, in the masculine gender, but one thing, in the neuter. Now if that one thing be not the Divine Being, they cannot be one. Since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be one thing with the Father, if he be not God too."' As the disciples are said to be one, "one thing, in the neuter," with Christ and with God; they also by 347 the very same mode of reasoning may be proved to be God! In another place we are told, "The scriptures inform us, that after a stay of three days in the grave, by his almighty power, (Jesus) raised himself to life again." P. 228. he We have taken no little pains to make ourselves acquainted with the scriptures; but we never met with such information in them. Jesus is there said to have been raised by the mighty power, not of himself, but of God. The doctrine of divine influence upon the human mind is attempted to be proved in the following summary manner: "Besides these extraordinary operations of the Spirit, there are other communications of a more general nature, which are called the ordinary operations of the Spirit. These consist in causing a change and renewal of men's minds, and in affording them inward and secret assistance to become good and virtuous. St. Peter, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." It is evident that the influence of the Spirit, spoken of by St. Peer, and in many other places of Scripture, must be commos to all Christians, and cannot mean the extraordinary and miraculous communications, which were the portion of very few, and continued only for a very short time. Hence we derive this comfortable and important assurance, that the Spirit of God co-operates with our sincere endeavours after righteousness, and assists us in all our vir tuous exertions." Our readers will now, we hope, be able to form some judgement of the work, and to decide with what prospect of utility it can be used as a guide to the instructor, or an assistant to the young and the unlearned in attaining the knowledge of Scripture truth. ART. XXV. A Critical Essay on the Ninth Book of Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses. Published in Consequence of having gained the Annual Prize, instituted by the late Rev. J. Hulse, A. M. of St. John's College. By JOHN NORMAN PEARSON, Scholar of Trinity College. 8vo. pp. 140. THE ninth book of the divine legation exists only in a fragment. It was intended to explain at large "the nature and genius of the Christian dispensation, and to assign the great and principal reason of the omission of future rewards and punishments in the sanctions of the Jewish law." With what propriety, considering the very unfinished state in which it has been left by the author, this book can be made the subject of controversial remark and animadversion we think may reasonably be questioned. It has, however, been proposed at Cambridge, as matter of discussion for a prize essay, and the literary Goliath who once defied whole hosts of experienced theologians, is assailed by a stripling, who, for the first time, as we conjecture, makes trial of his prowess in theological warfare. He has however acquitted himself well; but for his future credit we wish him subjects less involved in conjecture. The positions laid down by the bishop of Gloucester, and here controverted, are the following: That the several parts of natural religion, to which alone Adam and Eve were subject previous to their entrance on the paradisaical state, were discoverable by the unassisted efforts of the human understanding, with- Some The speculations of the essayist are as unsatisfactory as the dogmas of Warburton; they are founded for the most part upon an arbitrary, and as it appears to us, a false interpretation of the ancient historical fragments which compose the early part of the book of Genesis, and supported by vague conjectures, and a misapplication of some of the reasonings of the apostle Paul. ART. XXVI. Predestination to Life: a Sermon, preached at Lee-Croft, Sheffield, April 18, 1804, before an Association of Ministers, and published by Request. To which are added, several explanatory Notes on the important Subjects of Predestination, the Origin of Moral Evil, &c. alluded to in the Sermon. By EDWARD WILLIAMS, D. D. Second Edition. 8vo. pp. 54. ART. XXVII. Remarks on a Recent IIypothesis respecting the Origin of Moral Evil; in a Series of Letters to the Rev. Dr. Williams, the Author of that Hypothesis. By WILLIAM BENNET. 8vo. pp. 103. ART. XXVIII. A Reply to "Remarks on a Recent Hypothesis, &c. by the Rev. W. Bennet." In Eight Letters to that Gentleman. By JOSEPH GILBERT. 8vo. pp. 162. ART. XXIX. Appendix to Remarks on a Recent Hypothesis respecting The Origin of Moral Evil;" occasioned by the Reply of Mr. Joseph Gilbert; in two Letters to that Gentleman: in which his improper Spirit, and gross Misrepresentations, are cxposed. By WILLIAM BENNET. Svo. pp. 37. ART. XXX. Strictures on the Origin of Moral Evil; in which the Hypothesis of the Rev. Dr. Williams is investigated. By WILLAM PARRY. 8vo. pp. $8. ART. XXXI. Animadversions on the Rev. William Parry's "Strictures on the Origin of Moral Evil;" in which the Hypothesis of the Rev. Dr. Williams is investigated. With an Appendix containing brief Strictures on the Rev. William Bennet's "Remarks" on the same Subject. By THOMAS HILL. 8vo. pp. 98. IN our critical employment, we are often rewarded for our examination of the various works which come before us, by the excellence of the matter contained in them, or by the interesting manner in which the ideas presented to us. are detailed. Not unfrequently however it happens, that we are are obliged to drag through a mass of barren controversy, without any prospect of utility, and without even present amusement to lessen the wearisomeness of our toils. We believe that a large portion of even the thinking class of readers, will not object to our classing the above series of pamphlets under this head. Dr. Williams, fecling as every believer in predestinarianism must, the difficulties of the common opinions respecting that doctrine, and not possessing that cast of mind which would have led him to receive the more extensive views of the subject afforded by the writings of profoundest of mental philoers, at the same time im pressed with the conviction that the doctrine of "predestination to life" is the doctrine of the scriptures, brought forwards a hypothesis which to him seems completely to remove all difficulties from the moral government of God, as far as it respects the existence of evil, and to reconcile the jarring opinions of predestination and free-will. This notable hypothesis he delivered in the sermon above mentitioned; and in his notes to an edition of Dr. Doddridge's lectures published under his direction. If his opinions had been confined to his sermon, or if Dr. W. had not held an important official station, as head of a dissenting academy, we suppose that they would have been limited to the Doctor's own community; and we are not aware that any injury would, by this means, have accrued to the public at large. About three years after the publication of the sermon, one of the author's calvinistical brethren, Mr. Bennet, takes up the gauntlet which the Doctor had thrown down, by stating his intention to give due attention to any one who should candidly assign reasons against his. hypothesis. The strictures of Mr. Bennet, however, are not, as it appears, thought deserving of Dr. W.'s attention; but a young writer, (we presume,) of the name of Gilbert, in in an elaborate work, takes up the Doctor's controversy; and with the fullest conviction of the truth of his hypothesis, (fuller than we should have conceived possible in any independent thinker,) attacks the opponent of it with considerable flippancy, but we must admit with some shrewdness, and great appearance, at least, of being deeply read in divines of the school of Calvin. We wish Mr. Bennet, who seems to be a very respectable thinker, though not a practised writer, had manifested less of the virulence of a controversy in reply to his petulant assailant. His title does not do him credit; and we think that his cause, as far as respects his personal opinions, would not have suffered by omitting the fol lowing conclusion of his appendix. "Such conduct, Sir, is not to be reconciled, either with candour, with justice, or with TRUTH: And be assured, after such a developement of your spirit and principles, that whatever on the present subject may issue from your disingenuous pen, will sink with me into silent contempt." We need not point out to Mr. Gilbert his consolation in the unfortunate ambiguity of the words "with me," in their present situation. The next writer in this controversy is one who has obtained considerable applause, from many, both in the establishment, and among the dissenters, for a tract on the inspiration of the New Testament. It seems that in the discharge of his official duty, (as theological tutor of an academy supported by the funds which were formerly applied to the maintenance of the well-known dissenting academy at Northampton and Daventry,) Mr. Parry found it necessary to make some animadversions on Dr. Williams's hypothesis. His views on this subject, "Were known to several of his highly esteemed friends and brethren in the ministry, who have for some years expressed a wish for their publication. In compliance with that desire, and with a hope that the discussion may be useful, he has extended his examination of the subject, to the form in which it is now submitted to the judgment and candour of the public." Mr. P.'s title is unfortunate, as he surely means strictures on some one's account of the origin of moral evil, not on the origin of moral evil itself. Passing by this verbal error, we must add that his tract does not display any profound views on this intricate subject, but such as will doubtless give great satisfaction to that class of readers who are willing to limit human knowledge to what they themselves can grasp with their present stretch of intellect, and who agree with the author in thinking," that it is not by the aid of metaphysics, in any sense, (of any kind, for no one supposes that it is by the aid of the word metaphysics,) that we can hope to determine, those questions of a moral and religious nature, on which the word of revelation is wisely silent." Though we by no means consider Mr. P. as having thrown any new light on the subject of the origin of moral evil, or as having goue himself, or conducted his readers, as far as the light of sound philosophy might have guided him in his enquiries, yet he successfully combats the obvious absurdities of the PASSIVE-POWER system of Dr. Williams. Mr. Hill is the last writer in this controversy whose tract has been handed to us. He writes like a man fully impressed with the truth of his opinions, yet without much asperity, though with considerable acuteness. In his opinion, the hy pothesis of Dr. W." so far from being dangerous or injurious in its tendency, will become, in proportion as it is examined and embraced, of the highest importance to the cause of Christian morality, and evangelical religion." He sets out with great show of science, with a series of rules and axioms of which we do not see the relevancy; and he then proceeds to give some definitions, some of which make the darkness darker. We shall present two of them to our readers; the first for the sake of an observation we have ourselves to make on the subject; the second to shew how men of good sense may deceive themselves by the use of unrefined words. "EQUITY, says Mr. Hill, page seven, is that perfection of the divine nature which gives to every one his due, and MERE EQUITY allows neither more nor less than is due.” Again, "TENDENCY implies, in general, the idea of causation. But in order to understand its precise import, the different species of tendency or causation must be considered. Causes or tendencies are either positive and physical, or negative and metaphysical: the former belong exclusively to God, and produce all the good in the universe, the latter attach only to his creatures, and are the source of all evil. Tendency to evil, in Dr. W.'s acceptation of the term, is the negative or metaphysical cause of evil; and ex. cludes every idea of what is physical and positive." Our readers will please to observe, that they owe the italics in this last definition to Mr. Hill, not to us; but they will serve to point out the obscurity of the author's ideas, and perhaps the whole together will lead them towards the conviction that he and his instructor have been caught by a set of sounding words which either mean nothing or mean nonsense. Campbell, (in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, book 11. ch. vii.) has some remarks respecting "the cause of this strange phenomenon; that even a man of discernment should write without meaning, and not be sensible that he hath no meaning; and that judicious people should read what hath been written in this way, and not discover the defect." The title of the chapter is, "What is the cause that nonsense so often escapes being detected both by the writer and by the reader?" and we invite the attention of the advocates for the passive-power system to the observations of that judicious au thor. But it is high time for us to lay Dr. Williams's hypothesis before those of our readers, who have advanced with us in our account of the controversy. The hypothesis is decidedly brought forwards in the sermon itself; but as it appears in a more complete form in the notes, we shall quote the statement of it from them. Page 42. evil is to be found in the union of two "We assert, that the origin of moral principles, neither of which considered alone partakes of a moral character. These two principles are liberty and passive power. Liberty, it is manifest, is morally neither good nor bad, but is a mere natural instrument, if I may so speak, and may be termed a natural good On the contrary, passive power is a naof which God is the author and decreer. tural evil of which God is not the author or decreer, yet morally considered is not evil. But this term, "being little understood, requires further explanation; at least it is incumbent on me to shew in what sense I use it. My design is not to vindicate the use of it by others, but I adopt it to convey a specific idea, for which I find no other word or phrase more appropriate. By "passive power," then, I mean, that which is of unavoida such, in direct opposition to the self-exble necessity found in every creature, as istence, independence, and all-sufficiensuch, in direct opposition to the self-excy of God. In other words it is that tendency to nihility, physically considered, and to defection morally considered, which of absolute necessity belongs to every dependent or created nature. That there is such a principle is self-evident, nor is it probable that any reasona ble being will ever deliberately controvert its existence. Now, it is demonstrable that this, from the definition, cannot be the object of divine decree, or of will; for it is stated to be of absolute or unavoidable necessity; besides, it is absurd to suppose that God has decreed, or pro duces, any thing the existence of which stands in direct contrariety to himself. That it is not a moral evil is plain, for the holiest creatures are subjects of it-God alone is exempt. "Let it be further observed, that the First Cause, being goodness itself, impels, whether decretively or efficiently, to good only; and of this character is even litions. Yet, when the exercise of liour being necessitated to exercise our vo berty, in itself innocent, unites with passive power, the offspring of this union is moral evil. This I am fully persuaded, is the true solution of the question, |