Whately adds, "consequently all consequently all that we really indicate by the word causation, is &c." Can a word then indicate nothing but the perceptions of sense? Are there no inferences made by the mind, no suppositions, no conceptions, which a word can signify and express? Our notion of causation arises briefly thusthe sense perceives connection: the understanding infers production; and the word causation indicates both. This is just as clear, as that no one except Mr. Whately would say that he was contingent, when he meant that he was ignorant ;— and it is no use to argue farther about the meaning of a word which every body uses, and every body understands, and which nobody will ! believe to have changed its signification out of compliment to Edwards, to Hume, or even to Stew art. Nor can it be said that Mr. Whately's definitions lead to no practical bad consequences--if they were merely ingenious whims they would not have required the consideration that has now been bestowed upon them. Unhappily they produce a visible and mischievous effect upon his other opinions. "A man will often say indeed that he cannot help doing so and so, though he knows it is wrong:' but this is a figurative expression; and it is of great importance in practice, steadily to bear in mind that it is so; for no man is blamed or punished (nor could be, to any purpose) for doing what he, literally, cannot help; whereas, when he follows his inclination in doing what he knows to be wrong, the common sense of all mankind has decided, and proved by experience, that it is just, or at least expedient, to punish him. That necessity' can alone be pleaded as a justification, in which a man acts against his will." P. 96. Why is the justice of punishing a malefactor qualified in this passage by the phrase 'or at least expedient?' cause why the fellows go to dinner or to prayers, for these events are constantly connected both in time and place. REMEMBRANCER, No. 34. Because upon his own principles Mr. Whately cannot prove that it is just. If the malefactor could have acted otherwise, if he could have resisted his inclinations, his punishment is just. If not, if as Tucker and his followers, and as Edwards also and the Calvinists maintain, motives must always produce their effect, as certainly as the heavier weight pulls down the scale, punishment can only be justified upon the tyrant's plea; its expedience must be resorted to, for justice is out of the question. Ne cessity, as resulting from human co-action, implies acting against our will; but where super-human agents are under consideration, it is requisite to settle whether the will itself be free. For if it be not, we are as much enchained by the slavery resulting from an inevitable compliance with motives, as by the dungeons and manacles of the Inquisition. How little is really known of Fatalism or Calvinism, by one who imagines that they can be silenced by such argu ments as these! "When however I say that the doctrine is harmless, I mean only to those who can keep their minds stedfastly fixed on this its true interpretation; for it is very liable to be misapprehended; and the errors thus produced are most mischievous. The ges nerality of men, if told that any thing takes place necessarily, and could not have been otherwise, will be apt to consider this necessity as independent of the very circumstances which gave rise to it; and to lose sight of the equal necessity of these. Thus it is that Mahomet seems to have taught predestination to his followers; and in this sense, it appears, on some occasions they practically adhere to it; as, for instance, in neglecting to take precautions against the plague. Thus also the vulgar aniong us will be apt to say, 'If God foresees I shall be saved, I shall be, live how I may; if, that I shall not be saved, nothing I can do will avail. They will often be unable to perceive that there is just the same connection between the conditions and the end, between our own efforts and our salvation, as there would have been, had no being existed who could foresee either. It is better therefore to tell them that their salvation is contin4 K gent; which is no deceit; for in fact it is so, in the only sense in which any thing can be contingent; that is, we are ignorant respecting our final doom, except so far that we know it rests with each man to accept the offers made, or to reject them, and that each will fare accordingly." P. 100. Better to tell the vulgar that their salvation is contingent!!! For although in reality it is no such thing, yet since they will understand the word in its old sense, they will act as if their salvation were really at stake; and since as in the new sense, the proposition is true, the good folks will have no reason to complain of being deceived! We are happy to say that there is no second passage in Mr. Whately's volume so erroneous or so mischievous as this; and we heartily wish that this had never seen the light. Mr. Daniel Wilson himself does not wholly conceal what he thinks that God has commanded him to teach always and openly. And the lame and impotent conclusion of Mr. Whately's wire drawn arguments is, that every thing is fixed and fated, but that the wise must be snug, and keep their own secret that we must talk to the vulgar of contingencies, but need not believe in them ourselves. We are furnished with a very adequate description of the argument that is thus brought to a close in the following severe pas sage. "The arguments and systems which have been thus reared, remind one of the fog-hanks, which at sea so often delude the anxious mariner; he fancies himself within view of new coasts, with promonotories, and bays, and mountains distinctly discernible; but a nearer approach, and a more steady observation, prove the whole to be but an unsubstantial vapour, ready to melt away into air, and vanish for ever." P. 94. It would be unjust to conclude our remarks without adverting to the second Appendix; wherein, as well as in several parts of that on which we have already commented, are contained many just and useful observations, at variance with the errors which disfigure the passages that have been considered, but in themselves both true and weighty. A large portion of the second Ap pendix is devoted to an enquiry into the merits of Archbishop King's best known work, the Essay on the Origin of Evil. And the fallacy which prevents that Essay from ac complishing its object is briefly and neatly pointed out. We agree with Mr. Whately also in what he ob serves respecting, the mischief of such unsuccessful attempts. The doubting mind turns to them in the full expectation of being set at rest; and the higher the author's reputation the more sanguine is the reader's hope. If he finds himself disappointed, he will seldom rest satisfied with throwing aside the volume, and pronouncing it ineffectual and inconclusive-but he will think that what has not been accomplished by such an eminent theologian, is impossible; and that Christianity is encumbered with unsurmountable difficulties. How strange it is that our acute and learned annotator should fail to observe that the same remark will apply to his own endeavours to explain predestination and free-will. The Calvinist, or the calvinistically-inclined, will seldom if ever admit that they have succeeded. Mr. Whately's failure will excite prejudices against older and better expositions, and the errors which he designed to eradicate will be nourished and perpetuated by his hand. While we read the practical parts of his notes and appendices, we feel convinced that tian, who is far enough from prewe are listening to a humble Chrissuming to be wise above what is written, but when theory, and etymology, and derivative siguifications step in, the straight path is for saken, and we cannot advance a step. Why should we be compelled to give the quotations and the auswers which have been already sub 1 mitted to the reader, in the Review of a pamphlet on Predestination, which concludes with such a sentence as the following. Lastly, let the preachers of the Gos pel bear in mind that the object of that Gospel is not to explain the causes of moral evil, but to remedy its effects. Let them, after being satisfied that the Scriptures are the word of God, seek for such instruction respecting his nature and his dealings with man, as they afford *. Let them remember, themselves, and sedulously warn their flocks, that it was the craving after FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE which expel. led our first parents from Paradise; a temptation which still besets their posterity. Let them remember, that though Scripture invites enquiry into questions within the reach of our faculties, (for our Lord bids the Jews'search the Scrip tures,' to ascertain whether He were indeed the foretold Messiah,) it demands faith, implicit faith, in mysteries which it does not attempt to clear up; and insists on faith as the fundamental point of religion. Let them shun those therefore who profess, by simplifying and explaining these mysteries, to make faith easy, and thus, in ef fect, to destroy the very nature of it, considered as a duty; for there is surely no virtue in assenting to Euclid's propositions, or any thing else which can be satisfactorily and clearly demonstrated to the ander standing. Such men are in truth labouring to widen the straight gate,' that they 6 may the more readily and agreeably enter in at it; and are guilty of much the same fault with those who turn aside from it in disgust; the latter will not believe what they find it impossible to explain; the former are resolved to explain what they find themselves compelled to believe. "But let the humble and faithful mi nisters of Christ not seek to be wise above that which is written,' nor rashly un "Let us keep to Scripture and Scrip tare so understood will never lead us beyond our depth. It is only by going out of Scripture, by building theories of our own upon subjects of which we must have an imperfect knowledge, that such apparent contradictions are produced. If we set up these notions of our own as the standard of faith, and require a peremptory, assent to all the inferences which appear to flow from them, we quit the true, the revealed God, and betake ourselves to the idols of our own brain." Copleston, p. 141, dertake to justify the ways of God to man,' nor give explanations which may raise pernicious doubts in the mind of one who perceives their futility; but leaving presumptuous metaphysicians to bewilder themselves in inquiries beyond the reach of our present faculties, let them teach their flocks that the secret things belong unto the Lord their God, but the things that are revcaled belong unto them and to their children for ever, that they may do all the words of this law."" P. 125. As the result of this long article, we would only request the impartial reader to compare the effects of the Calvinistic and the Anti-calvinistic hypothesis. The Predestinarian pro. fesses to have no object so much at heart as the promotion of God's glory; and supposes that absolute decrees are more consistent with the divine Majesty than conditional foreknowledge and free-will. But which is the nobler and more exalted idea of the Deity; that like man He can only certainly foreknow what is inevitable, or that by some inconceivable perfection, of the uncreated mind, it can foresee even contingent events? That He can only govern his world by fastening causes to their effects, and thus subjecting his rational and responsible creatures to a concealed but virtual necessity; or that he gives them full permission to will and to act as they please, to hearken or to disregard, to be obedient or to rebel, to accept assistance, or to reject it, and yet by his Almighty power overrules these freeagents in such a manner that they infallibly accomplish his purposes? Which is the easier and more natural picture of perfect justice, truth, and goodness; that of a Being who invites us to perform what is impossible, and then punishes us for rejecting his offer, or that of one who never speaks to us in equivocal language, but gives what he has promised, and gives it universally and always? The questions answer themselves. In the field of reason and philosophy the Calvinist can make no stand. A few hard expressions scattered over a plain and intelli gible volume, are the only support of his creed. And upon the strength of them he is ready to contend for that fatal necessity which leads straight to Atheism; ready to ad. mit that Christianity is at variance with consciousness and common sense, ready to throw discredit upon all our holy mysteries, and to furnish the enemies of inspiration with the surest means of counteracting it. We do not question the sincerity from which this conduct proceeds, but we do question the judgment, the humility, and the wisdom. A View of the Principles and Forms of the Church of Scotland as by Law established, addressed to the Presbyterian Congregation of St. John, New Brunswick. By George Burns, D.D. Minister of St. Andrew's Church, in the City of St. John. 1817. Remarks on Dr. Burns's View of the Principles and Forms of the Presbyterian Kirk as by Law established in Scotland. By the Rev. James Milne, Fredericton, New Brunswick. 1818. Letter addressed to the Rev. James Milne, A.M. in consequence of his Remarks on Dr. Burns's View of the Principles and Forms of the Church of Scotland, as by Law established. By the Author of that Work. 1818. THE state of religion in the colonies of Great Britain is a topic of painful and melancholy reflection. The wide extent of our colonial possessions affords a singular opportunity, if it has not been providentially designed for the express purpose, of settling in foreign parts the doctrine and worship of the Christian Church in its best and most efficient form. It cannot be denied, that this important office has been neglected, and while no adequate attempts have been made to intro duce the pure faith and discipline of the Church of England, "the ne eessity of the case has palliated the intrusion of more questionable forms of Christianity, and every variety of sectarian prejudice has been tolerated and cherished, and approved. Before the dismember. ment of our transatlantic empire, the office of a bishop was unknown in America, and after the declaration of American Independence, the episcopacy was not continued without considerable difficulty and delay. Consecration however was at length obtained, both from the English and Scotch bishops, and the Episcopal Church in America now flourishes in the midst of sectarism, infidelity, and indifference under the able superintendence of its own bishops. In the West Indies there is no bishop, and the rites of an Episcopal Church are but partially and imperfectly administered: and the proceedings of the Bishop of Calcutta, which promise by their consolidating energy to realize the best hopes of those, in whose judicious zeal the Indian episcopate originated, leave too much room to regret, the long delay of this measure, which in real importance and use surpasses all the ecclesiastical proceedings of modern times. Indifference to Christian truth, and more especially to its forms, may generally be expected in the mixed population of a foreign settlement, whose absence from their proper home is occasioned by motives in which religion has no concern, and frequently commences at a period of life when religion has obtained but little influence on the understanding. Under such circum stances, men might be brought to conform with any one order of religion, but they are perplexed and unable to decide, if they have the choice of more than one. Some will withdraw themselves from every congregation, and others as readily attach themselves.to any which may open its doors to receive them: but if after a lapse of time, a ministry claiming a purer origin and a higher authority, should offer itself to their attention, too many will be disposed to resist its claims, and oppose its establishment. If it is not neces sary, why is it offered! And if it is necessary, why was it not offered at an earlier period? These will be the obvious questions of those who have grown up in long ignorance of the true nature of ecclesiastical polity, and in inattention to the forms of public worship: and what will not be the jealousies of those, whose minds have been imbued with different opinions, whose affections have been engaged to other pastors and teachers, and who have been armed with prejudices against the Church, which is the last to solicit their attention. The feelings of those, in whose minds any traces of religion have been retained are rendered hostile to episcopacy, while others who think lightly of religion have pleasure in observing the antipathies of those who call themselves Christians, and the surrounding heathen, doubting first of the form of Christianity, which they ought to embrace, are led to doubt, whether it is necessary to embrace any, and whether all may not be disputed and rejected. In this respect the Romish Church has an advantage above all Protestant Churches: she has but one mode of faith to recommend, and in her sedulous policy she provides, that if no choice be granted, no dispute shall be excited, and no want shall -be felt. blished. The desire was natural; the object was important, and not liable to exception, and it would be well if the rule of faith and discipline subscribed by any dissenting congregation could be distinctly exhibited to the members of that congregation, and the public at large. It would then be known what the sectaries do and do not profess to believe: the path of the controversialist would be levelled, and the means of protection and precaution be rendered more easy and more efficient. The method which Dr. Burns pursued was to address his hearers from the pulpit, and after some revision to commit his sentiments to the press. This method was as unexceptionable as the ostensible purpose and design; but it is not easy to maintain one set of religious opinions, without reflecting, or seeming to reflect upon those which are opposed to them; and it is certainly not possible to take a plausible view of the grounds of Presbyterianism, without some unfounded insinuations against the sounder arguments of episcopacy. Dr. Burns's attempt therefore challenged the notice of Mr. Milne, the Episcopal minister and missionary at Fredericton, who, with an extent and accuracy of information, which that remote station could hardly be expected, refuted various misrepresentations of the principles and history of episcopacy, by which Dr. Burns had laboured to sustain the cause of Presbyterian purity. This provoked a rejoinder from Dr. Burns, and called into action various passions, which the general temper of his original argument had not betrayed, and when he could not defend his positions, or refute the reasonings of his adversary, the became angry, and threatened if he had the means of reference to show the force of an attack upon› episcopacy, and gave utterance to various exceptions against the Church of England, for which he professed to entertain profound and unqua 4 |