ture premises; and, if the latter, whether they be fairly and accurately made? In this examination, we do not hesitate to say that Mr. Belsham will afford the reader considerable assistance. If all who peruse his Review do not on every point think with him, they must allow that he is clear in argument, liberal in conception and expression, and sincerely desirous of appreciating the value of Mr. Wilberforce's book, as a delineation of Christianity. Mr. Belsham has scarcely exhibited Mr. W.'s system, when he suspects that this gentleman will be ready to disown the likeness; for Mr. B. is of opinion that he and others of a similar belief seldom regard their system in a comprehensive view, or pursue their principles to their just or necessary consequences.' How far this may be true or false, we have no inclination to inquire. In reviewing this Review, the great question is, Has Mr. Wilberforce, in the first instance, fairly pourtrayed the Christian doctrine? and when he sets out with asserting that the Gospel speaks of men " as naturally in a state in which they are unable to will or to do rightly," does he either use the language or express the sentiment of Christ concerning us? Certainly he does not use the language of Jesus. This " natural inability in men to think or do rightly" is Mr. W.'s inference from our Saviour's representation of sinners:-but what is Christ's representation? It figuratively describes them as sick, or as lost, in the sense of erring or straying, as sheep are known to do. The one phrase conveys the idea of their being morally diseased, and therefore requiring a moral physician; the other represents them as having deviated from the path of duty, but as capable of being reclaimed. These words cannot, by any fair construction, be interpreted to prove that Jesus considered men as naturally incapable of thinking and acting rightly. They assert all that is necessary to justify our Saviour's benevolent interposition, -all that is necessary as a basis for the great scheme of the Gospel, namely, that mankind are in a vitiated state, and require the aid of the great mental healer. This is indeed the fact: but more than this, Jesus by his language does not seem to be solicitous of establishing. Why, then, should we wish to establish more? Why make it " a peculiar doctrine" of Christianity, that it proposes to instruct and form, on the model of pure virtue and piety, a race of beings naturally incapable of right sentiments or right conduct? In our apprehension, this is undesignedly to libel the Christian religion :-it is representing it as attempting an impossibility. Mr. Wilberforce, we are persuaded, had no idea of this kind: but we must lament that, with all his natural good sense, he was not led to the obvious and (in this connection) important distinction between inability as the effect of disease, and natural inability. Of the former, it is rational and kind to attempt the removal; - of the latter, it is ridiculous. We send the physician to the sick person, but not to the dead corpse. We are ashamed to take up so much space with mere truisms: but when so many difficulties are to be obviated by so plain a statement, and when so much depends on the accurate commencement of the investigation, we trust that we shall be pardoned. The Gospel, while it asserts the prevalence of sin among men, does, by the very ery nature of its exhortations, virtually assert the possibility of their recovery to righteousness; or that this moral disorder is not without remedy. It simply states that sin exists, and that sin may be cured: but it no where speaks, in the language of Mr. W., of our being "tainted to the very core." It neither invites us to investigate " the origin of evil" according to the Calvinists; nor to decide, with Mr. Belsham's rational Christians, 'that a limited quantity of evil, both natural and moral, was necessary to the production of the greatest quantity of good.' We may "reason high," like Milton's devils, "and find no end in wandering mazes lost :" but let us not implicate the religion of Jesus in these metaphysical researches, nor denominate our ingenious conclusions "the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel," and represent them as " lying at the root of all true religion." Against the radical corruption of human nature, so strenuously maintained by Mr. W. " as eminently the basis and ground-work of Christianity," Mr. B. strongly protests. I hesitate not to say that whoever affirms this, impeaches the character of his Maker, and traduces his works.'-' No axiom can be more self-evident than this, that if God be just, he cannot make men naturally corrupt and vicious, and then condemn them to eternal misery for being so.' Mr. B. denies that vice on the whole predominates over virtue; and, after an able analysis of character, as the sum total of habits,' he concludes that there may be a considerable preponderance of virtues even in characters justly estimated as vicious; and likewise that the quantity of virtue in the world may far exceed that of vice, though the number of virtuous characters may be less than that of vicious ones.' He farther adds: We hear more of the vices of men than of their virtues: and why? Because virtue is the ordinary state of things, and no notice is taken of it: vice is a deviation from the accustomed order, and therefore it is remarked and recorded.' The The whole of what Mr. B. has advanced on this topic merits attention. He is, however, highly speculative, and in one place seems to admit something of a Purgatory: see p. 42. Adhering to the principle with which we commenced this article, we confess ourselves more inclined to adopt Mr. Belsham's notions concerning the Devil, than those of Mr. Wilberforce. The former has so neatly expressed our own ideas on the subject, that we cannot do better than employ his words. • Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever explicitly declare that they themselves admitted the philosophy which governed the language of the country in which they lived; much less do they profess to teach it as of divine authority. They leave the mythology of evil spirits, like many other popular opinions and prejudices, in the same state in which they found it, to be corrected in the course of time by the principles which they taught, and by the growing good sense of mankind. The fact is, that they neither positively affirm nor authoritatively contradict the existence and agency of an evil spirit; but express themselves on this subject exactly as the rest of their cotemporaries did.' Happily for us, there is no evidence from reason to prove that any spirit, good or evil, shares with the Supreme in the government of the universe; nor do the Scriptures, carefully studied and rightly understood, authorize any such unphilosophical and mischievous opinion. A more serious objection to Mr. W. is made by Mr. B. viz. that, in stating "his scripture doctrine" concerning Christ, he does not employ the express language of the New Testament. Respecting the personality of the Holy Spirit, Mr. B. refers to Dr. Lardner's celebrated Letter on the Logos, and the first postscript annexed. It is in vol. XI. of the edition of his works published 1788; and, as affording a very clear explanation of the words the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, as used in the Scriptures, it is worthy of a very attentive perusal. Lardner has very justly been styled the Prince of modern divines. He has not only established the credibility of the New Testament, but has elucidated its important system. Mr. B. denies that the influence of the Spirit on the mind for moral purposes is a doctrine of the Scripture. The agency, (he says,) which they admit, extends to evil as well as to good; "it hardens the heart of Pharoah," as well as " opens that of Lydia," and therefore it is a general, and not a particular influence.' On the subject of love to Christ, Christian writers and preachers have expressed and continue to express themselves very strangely and inconsiderately. Dr. Watts, in his Lyric Poems, has this very objectionable stanza: Here the gratitude and respect which we owe to Christ are converted into a passion, and the Christian is compared to the romantic lover in Ariosto. Mr. Wilberforce, though not quite so reprehensible, is not sufficiently guarded and correct; and the strictures of his Reviewer ought not to be disregarded either by himself or his readers. Care ought to be taken not to lay too much stress on feelings, and on a mechanical glow of the passions in religion. No two men can be more at variance on the terms of acceptance with God, than Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Belsham. In opposition to the principles laid down by the former, the latter asserts that not a single word, no, not even a trace, or a shadow of them, is to be found in the Christian scriptures;' and he clearly demonstrates that Mr. W.'s view of what he calls the "grand peculiarities" of the Gospel are exhibited in language which is not authorized by the New Testament. Mr. B. does not content himself with maintaining that what Mr. W. honours with the title of "the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel" derive no countenance from the Christian scriptures: but, in opposition to Mr. W., he denies also their practical value. Happy (says he) had it been if they had never been invented, and thrice happy when they shall be totally for. : gotten.' Confined as our limits are, it is impossible for us to discuss, even in the most summary way, all the points on which Mr. B. combats Mr. Wilberforce. We cannot, however, refrain from noticing that, among what will be deemed singular doctrines, and which must shock the minds of many serious Christians, our author contends, in several parts of these letters, that a Sabbath day makes no part of Christianity; asserting that, 'to a true Christian, every day is a Sabbath, every place a temple, and every action of life an act of devotion.' As the doctrines of the Scriptures must rest on their meaning, pains should be taken accurately to ascertain the precise power of the words and phrases used by the sacred writers. This Mr. Belsham has endeavoured to do; and he offers also the following observation on the Scriptures in general; which, if admitted, will destroy the force of Mr. Paine's objection to them. • The Scriptures contain a faithful and credible account of the Christian doctrine, which is the true word of God: but they are not themselves the word of God, nor do they ever assume that title: and : it is highly improper to speak of them as such, as it leads inattentive readers to suppose they were written under a plenary inspiration, to which they make no pretension; and as such expressions expose Christianity unnecessarily to the cavils of unbelievers.' P. 19. The object of Christianity being the extirpation of sin, and the training of man to holiness as essential to his ultimate designation, that of everlasting happiness, Mr. B. notices Mr. Wilberforce's attempt to distinguish between Christianity and religious morality; and he properly objects to it, as tending to generate indifference towards religious and moral practice. He does not suspect Mr. W. of any intention of this kind; but he laments that his expressions are not, as they surely ought to have been, more guarded. He proceeds: • By christianity as distinct from religion and mere morality, Mr. Wprobably means the doctrines of the christian religion, (p. 8.) "There are (says he) some few facts, and perhaps some leading doctrines and principles of which they cannot be wholly ignorant, but of the consequences and relations, and practicaluses of these, they have few ideas, or none at all." • I shall not now stay to inquire what the consequences, relations and practical uses of christian doctrines and principles are as distinct from religion and morality, but only observe, that if Mr. W. means to affirm that men professing christianity are in general ignorant of its fundamental principles, he is greatly mistaken. These are obvious to the meanest capacity, and no person who is capable of reading the scriptures can doubt that the chief doctrine of Christ and his apostles is, that the virtuous shall rise to happiness, and the vicious to suffering, how little soever their conduct may be governed by a regard to these important principles. But if he means by christianity what he is pleased to call its peculiar doctrines, such as original depravity, atonement, and the like, which constitute no part of the christianity of the new testament, it is not much to be re. gretted, that christians are either totally ignorant of these doctrines, or that professing to believe them they pay little practical attention to them.' Christians of Mr. B.'s persuasion being often accused by their adversaries of not paying due respect to scriptural authority, the writer takes the first opportunity of stating the different methods in which the advocates for popular systems, and rational Christians, express their veneration for the New Tes tament. • Popular writers testify their regard for the scriptures, by asserting or assuming their plenary inspiration-by calling them indiscriminately the word of God-by quoting text upon text without regard to connection, without proper explanation, without any allowance, for figurative language, or jewish phraseology, and without any attempt to ascertain the genuineness of disputed passages; citing detached sentences, as inspired apophthegms, relying with full confi 8 dence |