QUARTERLY

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW.

JUNE, 1825.

Literæ Sacræ; or the Doctrines of Moral Philosophy and Scriptural Christianity compared, in a Series of Letters. 8vo. pp. 832. 9s. Longman. 1825.

WE may gather from several hints thrown out by the anonymous author of these letters, that he is a member of the Church of England, and moreover a sincere man, pressing forward with laudable zeal towards the high mark of perfectibility, to which he conceives human nature may attain, even in this mortal state. His object in writing partakes of the good feeling involved in the character we have described. A friend, it seems, had been unwillingly disturbed by the specious and daring manner in which sceptical objections had been urged "against the authority of that book on which our most hallowed anticipations depend;" and this uneasiness had been increased by the want of unanimity apparent among Christians themselves. With this inducement our author ventures upon the benevolent task of re-establishing his wandering faith on a more certain basis; and prosecutes his design in the present work: "as I know," says he, "of none who exactly speak my sentiments on the subjects upon which you ask for information, I will attempt to express them myself." Of the ability or the weakness, the principles or the prejudices of this friend we know as little as we do of the author himself; but we would suggest, as a hint in the outset, to the latter, and to many other well-meaning champions of the Christian faith, that it is neither judicious nor just, to tax every individual whose mind labours under the lamentable darkness of scepticism, with being the gratuitous wilful promoter of his own ruin-in consequence of a disinclination" to subdue the pride of human intellect, and to eradicate that undue sense of its own powers, which is one

VOL. II. NO. III.

B

of the most formidable obstacles that can be opposed to the reception of Divine truth.".

That proud and prejudiced sceptics exist, is a truth as undeniable as that foul exhalations occasionally deform the loveliest scenes of nature; but that there are other men not unwilling to humble their minds before sound, legitimate, and to them conclusive reasoning, is also a truth, which few, who have at all mixed with the more enlightened circles of society, can deny. Many there are who doubt because they cannot be convinced; and some, we fear, have their doubt increased and confirmed by the injudicious treatment of those to whom they have revealed their disquietude-persons who are desirous to receive the truth, and who would cast themselves before their Maker, as (unfortunately for themselves) before an unknown God, with the sincere and humble prayer, "Lord, help thou mine unbelief." In our dealings, therefore, with sceptics, let us remember, at least, that there may be these two classes; that in the human mind, to use the words of the very author before us as illustrating our remarks," from the different lights in which the understanding of men, while clouded in this flesh, must look upon the same subject, there will be different degrees of apprehension and widely different states of knowledge." Had all advocates for Christianity acted under this conviction, we feel confident that so many would not have been cut off from every hope of receiving the truth; complaining with too much reason, that when they sought for argument they were assailed with reproach, and accused of feelings and dispositions which had not a shadow of existence in their bosoms.

We are the more inclined to offer these remarks, because we perceive a little tendency to self-sufficiency in this otherwise respectable writer. We have praised him, because we think him in a very great degree entitled to praise ; but he must excuse us, if, as candid reviewers, we presume to observe that he is occasionally somewhat too positive in opinions upon which the best men are far from agreed. Plunging at once into some of the most subtile mazes of metaphysical enquiry, he there comports himself as if possessed of Ariadne's clue; he reasons with an unbecoming confidence in opposition to a host who might justly be called the giants of their day; and speaks as if he alone, in the nineteenth century, had received certain intimation of the truth, and might be consulted by his doubting friend as an infallible oracle respecting certain holy mysteries, which it is possible the very angels themselves may have desired to look into in vain. Before passing sentence on such men as Newton, Locke, and Paley, he should have recalled to mind the words

of his friend who spoke of them as possessing "intellectual powers, which were to his as Jupiter to a glow-worm." It may also fairly admit of a doubt, how far the cause of religion is promoted by that indiscriminate rejection of the use of reason, and jealous hostility against the powers of the mind, which are implied in many of the common place recommendations of humility, and prostration of intellect (we do not like the term) with which the pages of some writers so frequently abound.

Our readers would not thank us for entering at large upon an elaborate discussion of the real bearings and proper meaning of pride and humility. Suffice it, therefore, to say, that in our opinion, the humility enjoined by our Saviour, true Christian humility, is essentially different from that to which we now allude; and partakes of many qualities inseparable from the free use of every mental talent bestowed on us by an Almighty hand, when we were made rational free-agents, and capable of discerning the Deity in his works of nature and of grace. We know not, in fact, a more powerful instrument of which the sneering sceptic may avail himself, than a collection of those phrases which, construe them however favourably, insinuate that enquiry is objectionable. "It is reasonable," (says one of our ablest writers,) "to think that as the mind is a nobler work and of a higher order than the body, even more of the wisdom and skill of the Divine architect hath been employed in its structure, and it is by the proper culture of those powers, the seeds of which are implanted in our minds, that we are capable. of all those improvements in intellectuals, in taste and morals, which exalt and dignify human nature."

1

The field of revelation and the noble subjects connected with it, will, we maintain, when duly cultivated by these powers, produce fruits of finer quality, than such as spring from a confined, and, what may be called, a mere textuary faith. Where in fact shall we find defenders of our creed, by whom the real arguments of infidels are confuted, but amongst Christians of the most enlarged minds and most expanded views. It is a due encouragement of the best powers of the mind, which can alone enable us to proceed satisfactorily in an useful direction, animating our exertions, gratifying that curiosity which it is not only reasonable but praiseworthy to indulge, conducting us upwards to those eminences whence, as from another Pisgah, the eye and heart may wander over the vast and beautiful regions of divine truth.

We shall now proceed to a review of the main objects of the work before us. And first it is asserted, that without the light of revelation, man must naturally be ignorant of the Being and

Will of a Deity. The author's position is, that there being but two ways by which we can, of ourselves, arrive at the knowledge of the existence and attributes of a God, viz. by the light of nature and abstract reasoning, neither has led or can lead to the discovery; and that therefore it is only by the actual revelation of God himself, that we can have a knowledge of his existence. To such a point indeed does he push this argument, as to assert further, that "so far from the design of creation proving the existence of a God; before God reveals it to us, we cannot even know that there is such a design." P. 29. He defends this position by shewing that there is in the human mind a general inaptitude for religious impressions, instancing the conduct of the Israelites, ever prone to depart from the service of God: an argument, in our opinion, proving nothing more than that they were an obstinate, wilful, stiff-necked generation-the just and accurate character invariably given of them in Scripture. But this affects not the question itself, which we conceive to be at once answered by an appeal to the senses; by looking up to "the heavens above, and the earth beneath." It is the firmament that sheweth God's handy works. These are the glorious tokens of His existence. Thus "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead." With these evidences before us, from constant observation, and the corroborating testimony of St. Paul, we see not how such an assertion can be defended for a moment, as that which forms the title of our author's first letter, that "the existence of the Deity has never been demonstrated by argument drawn from nature;" P. 13.-or that, according to the superscription of the second," the existence of the Deity has never been demonstrated by abstract reasoning." P. 23.

The author's next position involves a nicer question, upon, which although much has been said, yet much remains to be said, without, we fear, any certainty of coming to a decisive conclusion: viz, that the Will of God being revealed, man, through. the corrupted powers of his heart, is naturally unable to obey that Will, and therefore sins of course and of necessity. In connection with this intricate question, appears another equally if not more intricate, respecting the nature and effect of morality upon our conduct and disposition. It is obvious that before this question can be fairly met, it would be extremely desirable that the parties concerned should have come to something like accurate agreement respecting the real meaning attached to the word; for we cannot help suspecting, that on this, as well as on many other points, controversies have originated,

in a great degree, from an unwillingness to attach a definite meaning to certain terms and opinions. Our author indeed seems aware of this, notwithstanding the (we had almost said) unwarrantable stress he lays upon his own conclusions.

"Moral philosophy," to use his words, "is still in such a state of confusion, arising from the want of distinct views and understanding on the part of its teachers. Unfortunately for mankind, by a looseness of thought on this momentous subject, all distinction between morals and religion become confused." P. 90.

In furtherance of his view, he sets out with assailing morality as the root of all evil, and one of the most insidious enemies opposed to religion.

"Morality, so far from being religion, or a part of religion, is opposed to it, and is only an apologetic name for that life and conduct, in which men walk in the world whilst they are far off from God, aliens and strangers to his love, and ignorant of the TRUTH as it is in Christ Jesus, p. 123.. It would, therefore, be wisdom to remove the doctrine of morals from the reach of the people, as sedulously as we would remove the means of personal destruction from the hands of the thoughtless and designing." P. 132.

....

With such overcharged representations of the moral code, the reader must not be surprised that names of high note, which we have been accustomed to regard with respect and deference, should be treated lightly; and that the writings of our Butlers, Lockes, and Paleys should be considered dangerous in the hands of Christian readers. Hartley has indeed borne testimony in favour of the moral sense," as an immediate guide, appearing with the authority of a judge; and also of one who knows the heart, and, by consequence, claiming to be God's vicegerent; that being generated chiefly by piety, benevolence, and rational self-interest, all which are explicit guides of life in deliberate actions." (Hartley on Man, vol. ii. p. 237.) Butler has asserted, that a moral faculty does exist, interwoven in our nature; whether called conscience, moral reason, moral sense, or divine reason,-whether considered as a sentiment of the understanding, or as a perception of the heart,-or, which seems the truth, as including both. "That God has given a rule whereby men should govern themselves, I think there is nobody so brutish as to deny, (says Locke, ch. 28. § 8.) a law which he has set to the actions of men, whether promulgated to them by the light of nature or the voice of revelation." Upon which our author observes," Locke was not the first who thus lowered religion; but from the extended influence of his writings,