In a word, if definite volitions have not their causes in definite states of mind, they can be attributed to no cause distinct from the mere power of willing. But to say that the mere faculty of the will, or what would here be the same thing, the self-determining power, is the sole cause of specific vofitions, does not in reality differ from saying that a definite volition is the cause of itself. The self-determining power, in itself considered, is equally indifferent to all volitions; but by a determinate act, it is supposed to cause a specific volition; but this act is the volition itself, nor can even for a moment be conceived of as distinct from it. The self-determining power, in other words, wills this or that, because it wills it; that is, the only reason for the volition is the volition itself.

Were it necessary to reason any farther against this same self-determining power, this independent faculty, which will submit to no controul, and acknowledge no principle of action but the imperious maxim sit pro ratione voluntas, it might be objected in the first place, that its existence is a mere assumption; secondly, that the assumption is unnecessary, as the phepomena of volition are satisfactorily accounted for without it; thirdly, that the assumption is unwarrantable, as we are acquainted with nothing in the whole compass of nature which bears any analogy to such a faculty; and

Then, as in this case the power of selfmotion has nothing to do with volition, but only acts in consequence of the determination of the will or the understand ing, it may be dismissed from the controversy, as having no relation to the

matter in dispute. "But," says he, "if the act of volition be distinguished from the last judgment of the understanding, then the act of volition, or rather the beginning of action, consequent upon the last judgment of the understanding, is not determined or caused by that last judgment as the physical efficient, but only as the moral motive." If the last judgment of the understanding causes the volition, that is sufficient. By what name its operation shall be called, the Necessitarian will not be very anxious to determine. For what avails the distinction between the physical efficient, and the moral motive, if the volition in given circumstances could not be different from what it is?

fourthly, that the supposed operation of this faculty contradicts the only notions which mankind have ever formed of the connexion between cause and effect. We are, indeed, ignorant of the operation of what we term causes, but this ignorance does not diminish the force of the objection. For a definite effect, we, in fact, look for a definite cause; and every variation in the effect is always supposed to imply a proportionable variation in the cause. Let it, then, be remembered, that the subject of controversy is not the cause of volition in general, but of definite and specific volitions. Now a selfdetermining power, if it means any thing, must mean a power which, at the same time and in the same circumstances, can form either of two different or opposite volitions. But to refer a definite volition to the act of such a faculty, is, according to the only idea which we have of causation, to say that a specific volition can be formed without a cause. The sie volo of the selfdetermining power will not be a satisfactory answer to the question, how it came to be the pleasure of the will to determine as it did. The prevalence of one inclination at the very moment when it was possible by the hypothesis that another inclination should have prevailed, requires a definite cause as much as any effect in rature; or rather the supposition involves an impossibility, unless mankind have been thus far mistaken in requiring a definite cause for a definite effect. And if they have been herein mistaken, they may also have been mistaken in requiring any cause at all for that which they have denominated an effect; since the same reasoning which has led them to the notion of a cause, has led them to conceive of it as a definite energy, from which a definite result proceeds. To deny, then, that a definite cause is necessary to a definite effect, or what is the same thing, to deny that a difference in the effect implies a difference in the cause, is to call in question the very existence of a cause. The term, indeed, may be retained, but the only idea which we have of the thing is gone. And when the advocate of Liberty imagines a power which can at the same time cause either of two different volitions, he deceives himself by a mere abuse of language. A self-determining power, then, is not only gratuitousty

assumed, but involves another assumption, which sets at defiance what have hitherto been thought the most certain conclusions of the human mind.

I will now say one word respecting the moral consequences which are supposed to follow from the doctrine of Necessity. The most formidable of these is, that it annihilates the accountableness of man, and renders him an unfit subject of reward and punishment. I shall consider the difficulty as pressing entirely on the side of punishment, and shall observe, that as, according to the Necessitarian system, punishment can operate on the state of the mind, it may with the greatest propriety be applied. But if man had within him such a capricious principle as a self-determining power, the application of punishment would be improper, because it would be useless. What, indeed, has been called vindictive punishment, the doctrine of Necessity does exclude; but this, instead of being an objection to the doctrine, is one of its recommendations. Vindictive punishment, it is true, cannot be defended upon any system; but upon the principles of the Necessitarian it is manifestly and palpably absurd.

It will easily be perceived that I have not written for those who are altogether strangers to the controversy, nor for those who thoroughly understand the subject; but, as I intimated above, for those who have conceived that it cannot be thoroughly understood. And if the light in which it has now been placed shall render it more intelligible to any who have hitherto thought it obscure and intricate, my end will be answered.

E. COGAN.

P.S. I am aware that I have written much more than was necessary; but the supposed difficulty of the subject seemed to require that it should be treated somewhat at length. Otherwise the argument (like most other arguments) lies in a small compass. The Necessitarian maintains, that every volition necessarily results from the state of mind in which the volition takes place. His opponent, to set aside this proposition, contends for a selfdetermining power as the efficient cause of volition. Here a simple question presents itself. Can the mind will this or that without a certain feeling or disposition that prompts the volition?

Fact, to which even a self-determining power must bow, will answer, Certainly not. Consequently it cannot will against the state or disposition in which it is at any given time. And here, were impartial reason to decide, the controversy must end.

66

SIR,

AM no infrequent reader of the English Divines of the Latitudinarian school, of whom Tillotson may be considered as the head, and I profess myself an admirer of the author last named, whom Dr. Lardner somewhere justly quotes, under the epithets of a good man and a great preacher." But I confess there are passages in his works, and incidents in his life, which grieve me, and would puzzle me if I did not know the sad influence of dignities, possessed or expected, in political churches, upon the soundest understandings and best hearts. No lover of liberty can recollect, without a sigh, that he and Burnet tampered with the conscience of the martyred Russell, in order to bewilder him into a dying confession of the abominable doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. His "rare piece of Hobbism" is already explained on your pages, (Vol. III. p. 148,) but as he repented of that pulpit indiscretion, it ought not to be severely urged against his memory. There is a still worse instance of his yielding to the iniquity of the times, which I cannot forbear to point out. I do so, I am sure, with no wish to hurt his excellent name, but merely to shew in what manner the licentiousness of a court may infect the pulpit, even when most worthily filled, and how offensive to posterity, if not to contemporaries, are all accommodations of righteous principles to corrupt political maxims.

Tillotson's Sermon CXCVI (Svo. edition of his Works, Vol. X. p. 267) is on "Our Saviour's Ascension," preached on Ascension-day, which happened to be on the 29th of May, the church festival in celebration of Charles Ind's Restoration. After reading his

* In extenuation of Tillotson's conduct it should be remembered that he hoped, by extorting a political confession from Lord Russell that should be agreeable to

the Court, to save his life. ED.

:

text, the solemn and sublime passage, Acts i. 9-11, the Doctor began There are two occasions of this day accidentally met together, which bear some resemblance to one another; the ascension of our blessed SAVIOUR into heaven, and his exaltation in his kingdom, being crowned with glory and honour, and set on the right hand of the Majesty on high:' and the restoration of our sovereign to his just rights, and royal state and dignity here upon earth, by a miraculous providence of GOD, and as it were by a kind of resurrection from the dead"! He proceeds, "The first of these being of a more spiritual and excellent nature, shall be the subject of my present discourse, not forgetting the other in application it." He then treats

sor. But allowing this apology its full weight, what justification can be framed for such adulation from such a man as Tillotson to any prince, and much more to such a prince as Charles II., who sold his country to France, spilled the best blood which was in it, turned his palaces into stews, and as to religion lived a hypocrite and died a dishonest Catholic? Can any thing worse be found in the sermons of the Gaudens, the Allestrees, the Sheldons, the Parkers and the Souths of that age of ecclesiastical profligacy and corruption?

SIR,

late

CANTABRIGIENSIS.

Exeter,

December 8, 1819.

usual ability, seriousness and dexterity in the Scriptures, and comes at length to the application, in the conclusion of which he says, first, "Let us heartily thank God for the whole dispensation of our salvation by the incarnation and doctrine, by the holy life and meritorious death of our blessed SAVIOUR;" and secondly, "And let us likewise bless God for the wonderful restoration of his majesty to the government of these kingdoms, who, under CHRIST, is the great defender of our faith and religion; and let us pay that duty and obedience, which becomes us, to a prince whom God hath so miraculously preserved and restored; and pour out our most fervent prayers to GOD, that he would long preserve him, and protect his person from all dangers, who is the great security of our religion, and the life of all our hopes, and as truly as any prince ever was to any people, THE LIGHT OF OUR EYES AND THE BREATH OF OUR NOSTRILS; and that God would make him 'wise as an angel of GOD, to go in and out before this great people;' and grant to him, and all the people of this land, to know in this our day the things that belong to our peace, before they be hid from our eyes.'"

In a note upon this passage it is said, "Preached towards the conclusion of the reign of King Charles II." This is meant to remind the reader, that it was penned when the Protestants and Whigs were desirous of the life of that monarch, on account of the imminent danger of a Popish succes

city, having nominated me his sole executor, in trust, an honour which, though unworthy of, I cannot sufficiently appreciate, I am become, in consequence thereof, possessed of his manuscripts. It is my intention, should life and ability be granted me, with the assistance of my much-respected friend, the Rev. Thomas Jervis, to make a selection from Mr. Bretland's sermons, for the purpose of publishing two volumes; and I hope they may be ready for delivery in a few months hence.

It is probably unnecessary for me to say any thing in commendation of these Discourses, as every person who knew the author is well aware that nothing but what is of sterling value, and highly adapted to promote the cause of virtue and religion, could proceed from his pen. This is one of the objects which I have in view in publishing, and the other is to hand down to posterity the name of one who, from the extreme diffidence with which he was ever accustomed to estimate his own attainments in science, has been, comparatively, but little known in the world.

The confidence placed in me by my late venerable friend may, by some at least, be thought to require a panegyric on his talents and virtues; but this has been done already by two writers better qualified than myself, and whose opinions must have more weight; and I have the happiness to expect an extended memoir from the Rev. Mr. Mardon, of Glasgow.

It is true my knowledge of Mr. Bretland is not of a recent date,

having enjoyed the advantage of being placed under his tuition when I was very young, and from that time to the period of his death, no interruption has taken place in our friendly intercourse. Towards the latter part of his life, when any little attentions of mine were rendered more useful, I can with pleasure reflect they were always afforded him with readiness, and, I believe, they failed not to add to the comfort of declining years. The gradual decay of corporeal and mental strength, of which I was a witness, would have been more painfully felt by me had it not been accompanied with a view of the entire devotedness he manifested of himself to the will of Providence, which enabled him to bear his increasing infirmities with perfect composure, and even with a cheerfulness which was apparent in his countenance long after he breathed his last.

SIR,

W. B. KENNAWAY.

December 18, 1819.
HAVE read interest

I controversy white least takers, the in the late Numbers of the Repository respecting Divine Influences. I wish, through the medium of your pages, to request from Dr. Carpenter and H. T. some explanation of their statements. Will Dr. C., or any other of your Correspondents, favour me with the meaning of the following expressions:

God does by his immediate influence or agency, not supernatural, nor miraculous, yet immediate, afford supplies of strength," &c. (P. 618.) I wish to have the difference explained between supernatural and immediate agency, as I have always supposed them synonymous terms.

On a very attentive perusal of Dr. C.'s letter, I am led to the conclusion that the doctrine he has stated is at variance with Unitarian principles. Dr. C. will much oblige me by presenting the texts on which he founds his view of divine influence.

May I also ask H. T. to support his positions by Scripture proofs? I acknowledge his reasoning is just, but without the concurrence of the Bible, he will open the door to every sort of delusion." (P. 478.)

66

Will he tell me the difference between "God, in the exercise of his providence," leading a Heathen "to the knowledge of the gospel of Jesus,"

and "by his own immediate operation inspiring him with the knowledge of his truth"?

An insertion of this, as soon as convenient, may lead to profitable discussion, and will much oblige, AN ENQUIRER.

SIR,

HAVE read with no less pleasure than satisfaction, Dr. Carpenter's excellent Lecture on Divine Influence, and really am at a loss to know how the view he takes of this subject can be controverted by any believer in revelation. I am desirous of seeing a sermon said to have been written by Dr. Priestley on this doctrine; will any of your readers say where it may be met with?

Z. Z.

AT a time when that Christianity,

which is called " the law of the land," is identified with persecution, the following eloquent extract from a sermon by

ste Wally Mr. Coquerel, minister of

may, perhaps, be read with interest.

"It can be no illusion; whatever is really wrong is foolish and shortsighted; and of all the errors that have disgraced mankind, intolerance is the most dangerous-perhaps the most guilty,- but assuredly the most absurd. What! convince a man by violence-persuade him by main force! The stupidity which would impose a creed, can only be exceeded by the malignity which would punish its rejection. Transfer to another your powers of mind and body-lend him your emotions and your thoughtsinfuse into him your understanding— and then begin the work of conversion. My conviction of truth is an internal, inalienable possession which I cannot convey to another. I may unbosom that conviction, trace its progress, and endeavour to lead men to its conclusions, but they are as free to reject as I to adopt my system, and having no right to believe them insincere, I must bear with their incredulity-but dare not punish it. To insist on their believing as I believe, is to order them to receive no impressions but what I receive-to require, that what satisfies me shall satisfy them-that their intellect shall be a servile copy of minein a word, that they shall sacrifice to

my pride and passions the sublime faculties they (like me) have received from the Father of lights.' Yet in tolerance has been called a necessary evil. How necessary? Is not every man to answer for the talents he has received, and to be judged according to the advantages he has possessed? Will you take its consequences for its justification? Short and shameful are its triumphs. It receives no involuntary tributes, for it is a tyrant that is abandoned as soon as he hides his head. Would you be gratified with false and hollow homages, and will you dare insist on their being offered to God? Intolerance makes no real proselytes. Her most obedient slaves are hypocrites and liars. Would you have such to honour the triumphs of the religion of Jesus? Mistaken men! Study his spirit, and you will find that you are the worst of apostates. And you would invite others to follow the steps of him you call your Master, by trampling on his holy laws? The gospel will neither have slaves nor tyrants for its advocates. It is founded on the spirit of liberty. Freely as we have received from it the blessings of freedom, freely and generously we are bound to give. Let our candour, our charity, be the first proof of our faith. It is better-it is mightier than the strong arm of power."

J. B.

York, SIR, December 9, 1819. T pleasure to see

brief history of the occasion on which the sermon was delivered. It was preached at Baltimore, the capital of Maryland, and, next to New York, the largest commercial town in the United States. Some of the most respectable and opulent inhabitants of that place, went from New England, and carried with them an attachment to Congre gationalism, or Independent churchgovernment; whereas all the churches there are either Presbyterian or Episcopalian, and of course highly Ĉalvinistic and Trinitarian in their creed. Several of the ministers of our vicinity, in their journeyings to visit Washington City, and see Congress in its sessions, stopt at Baltimore. The New England inhabitants wished to hear them preach; but the Presbyterians would not, and the Episcopalians could not, invite them into their pulpits. This led the Congregationalists to unite in erecting a place of worship for themselves, and they have built a most magnificent one. They then sent to our university for a preacher, and obtained Mr. Sparks, one of the tutors, a gentleman of superior talents. At his ordination Mr. Channing's Sermon was delivered. has passed through two large editions in Baltimore, (eight hundred copies of the first, it has been said, were taken up on the day of its publication,) and two editions have been printed in Boston. It is eagerly read, and the impression which it has made, and is making, is very great."

It

On Mr. Channing's return from Baltimore, he was urged to preach at

preached at Baltimore on the 5th of May last, reprinted at Liverpool, and as I think it may be interesting to some of your readers to know the circumstances out of which it took its rise, I shall transcribe the following particulars from my friend Dr. H., of Dorchester, with which he favoured me a few weeks ago :

Of the progress of religion, of freedom of inquiry, and of literature, I could give you interesting details, but they would fill a volume rather than a letter. Some particulars you will glean from the publications that accompany this. Among them the sermon of Mr. Channing, I know will attract your first attention, because his name and fame are already familiar to you: but it is necessary to give you a

the city, for their pulpits are not open to such as he, but by distinguished individuals, who obtained for him the Medical Hall: and on the following week two meetings were held of considerable numbers, to take measures for collecting a society and erecting a house for public worship, and an invitation has been forwarded to us for a preacher; in consequence of which Mr. Ware, one of the most esteemed Boston ministers, has gone on to New York to preach, and to assist them in the furtherance of their enlightened purposes."

I have since heard that the sensation occasioned by Mr. Channing's Sermon, has raised up a powerful opponent in support of the orthodox system in Professor Stuart, of the Andover The