SECTION III. Containing remarks upon the second section of the Essay, concerning the Standard of Moral and Theological Truth. p. 24-31. We agree with Mr. A. that all questions in theology and morals, are to be decided by "the reasoning faculty of man," properly disciplined and duly exercised, and "the volume of revelation." But, with respect to reason, we should think Mr. A. assigns it quite too narrow a sphere, in the investigation of divine truth. He says, "In regard to Revelation, there are but two points, in respect to which the reason of man is called to exercise itself." Now, instead of two, we should think there are as many as six points, upon which reason may be properly exercised, in regard to Revelation. It belongs to reason: 1. To examine and weigh the evidences of Divine Revelation. 2. To investigate its true meaning: 3. To collect and arrange in a system, the doctrines, which Revelation teaches, and the duties, which it enjoins. and 4. To show the consistency of those doctrines precepts, with each other, and with the nature and relations of things, or the dictates of sound philosophy; and thus to answer the ob jections of scepticks and hereticks against them. 5. To draw inferences from the positions of the sacred writers, for "doctrine, and instruction in righteousness." And, 6. To make application of the truths and precepts of scripture, to the consciences and hearts of men, for their "reproof and correction." We are happy to have no material objection to the rule of interpreting the scriptures, laid down by Mr. A. p. 26. "The plain, most nattural, and obvious sense, which, considering the nature of language and the scope of the writer, would most readily offer itself to the mind of a sober. judicious and upright inquirer after truth, is the true sense." This rule is considered cor. rect, as far as it goes. We should suppose, however, that the situation in which a writer was placed, the occasion on which he wrote, the views and apprehensions of the persons whom he addressed, and the manners and customs of the people among whom he lived, might be taken into consideration, as well as "the nature of language and the scope of the writer," in order to ascertain his meaning. With a few remarks upon one or two instances of Mr. A.'s application of his rule of interpretation, we shall dismiss this section. Mr. A. applies his rule, first to the "reasoning" of Dr. Clark; and, secondly, to the "opinion" of Dr. Emmons. According to his rule, he considers the metaphysical argument of Dr. Clark, to prove the Unity of God, as false; because it contradicts the testimony of the scriptures, "that God ex ists in Fr, Son, and Holy Ghost." But, how Dr. Clark's argument contradicts this testim ay of scripture. is not seen. Dr. C.'s con clusion is that God must be one, simple, infinite, absolutely united essence." This conclusion Trinitarians do not hesitate to admit, and think it not at all inconsistent with the scriptural doctrine of "a distinction of persons in the Godhead." I it be absurd to say, that the Godhead comprises Three co-equal Persons, in One, simple. undivided Essence, then there is no avoiding either Unitarianism on the one hand, or Tritheism on the other. Dr. Emmons in his sermon on Rom. vii. 18, has expressed" the opinion, that sinful and holy affections cannot co-exist in the human mind." "But, says Mr. A. although the reasoning. by which this theory seems to be defended, does not admit of being oyerthrown by an opposite course of abstract arguments, yet we reduce it to absurdity and falsehood, by a very easy process; it is contrary to what is written." The process by which he supports this high charge of absurdity and falsehood, is simply to set down three passages of scripture. without note or comment. This is an easy process truly. If such processes were deemed conclusive, a mere novice. who has a concordance. might, in a few hours, explode the opinions of all the Doctors in the world. But let us attend to the texts in Mr. A.'s brief process. It would have been ingenuous, if he had not only quoted these texts but offered some reasons against the explanations, which Dr. Emmons gives of them. But this, perhaps, might have led him into "ab. stract reasoning," in which he has lost "all confidence," and by which he had acknowledged, the Doctor's "theory does not admit of being overthrown." The two passages first quoted by Mr A. follow Dr. Emmons' text, in the same chapter. On these, the Doctor thus comments: "Here the apostle tells us, that he had good affections sometimes, and then he really desired and intended to do good; but yet he did not fulfil his resolutions. The reason was, that when the time came in which he intended to do certain good deeds, evil affections were present with him and prevented him from doing the duties which he had previously resolved to do. His bad affections prevented his having good affections. For, if his good affections had continued, nothing could have prevented him from performing what he had intended to perform. According to his own account of the exercises of his heart, his good exercises excluded baḍ ones, and his bad affections excluded good ones." Sermons, vol. 1, p. 338. The other passage. I. John iii. 9. is incidentally brought into view by the Doctor. in answering an objection. Upon this he observes in substance that if it proves any thing to the purpose for which it is brought, it proves too much. It proves, that when once the good seed is sown in the heart. it remains and produces nothing but good fruit. But all acknowledge, that saints are in a state of imperfection. Hence he concludes that this text supports the very sentiment. which it is supposed to refute. "If he that is born of God |