erroneous, perhaps they had better be silent about distinctions without differences." According to Rousseau, all that time is lost which might be better employed;' and where is the utility of adopting condemnatory language towards a good thing, because we cannot understand or enjoy it.

Some persons will prejudice their minds against every thing of an eristical or controversial nature. Now I admit the horrors of scurrilous disagreement are so portentous and nefarious, that they cannot be too strongly contemned; on the other hand, controversy mainrained with liberality and affectionateness of disposition is ever desirable. It prevents the true Israel of God from being lulled into lethargy within the cradle of the adversary, and enables them more readily to give to every man a reason of the hope which is in them."

My reason for dissenting from the opinion which is generally received, viz. that attributes and perfections are one and the same thing,' is founded upon a knowledge that their true import is quite distinct. The former signifying that which Jehovah is pleased to acquire to himself, in a manner consistent with every modification of his nature; the latter, that which is eternal as and essential to his own existence; and although the two words have been blended for a length of time, such a date will by no means convert the error into correctness or propriety.

The long-standing practice of sprinkling from a font is no more orthodox than it was at the time of its birth or establishment by Mark the heretic, in the second century after the resurrection of our Lord error is grown grey-headed, but it is error still; and now in the days of its senility, instead of becoming impaired as most things, it is displaying its silver locks to the world, and palming its suggestions upon their attention under the pretence of its long and unequalled experience.

The enemy of souls has made many men think, that which is old cannot be erroneous. However, it is indeed well to admit nothing from the suggestions of any one, which does not coincide with the standard of inspiration. Its doctrines should be appreciated above all other opinions. I would not contradict one hair's breadth of its contents, neither would I fashion it to answer any sinister or uncharitable motives of my own. However, the misuse of words and phrases in the defence of spiritual subjects is no more to be allowed than in any argument of a mechanical or common-place nature. I love the sentiment, that man in his innocence gloried in all the perfections of his Creator; and I consider them to have been so many mighty bulwarks of security and bliss, while he continued in the image of beauty and holiness.

Thirteenthly, saith A. B. Will you condescend to notice these plain statements made in love and affection?' I have willingly attended to his request, but cannot consider it any condescension. I would rather say, the condescension is on the part of A. B. in even

reading the article of one designated as being pleased with crude and undigested thoughts,' with vain and foolish speculations.'

I must, however, desist; thankful to A. B. for his observations; begging his attentive perusal of my imperfect remarks; and praying that the blessing of God Almighty may rest upon his spirit during his continuance in the vale of time, and in his certain passage through the dark valley of death. Then, O my God, triumphantly uphold him amid the wreck of matter, with all peacefulness of mind; guiding him under the sacred banner of thy love to the sympathetic breast of thy well-beloved Son, there sinlessly to repose and exult in the distinguishing grace that brought him to the kingdom in a state of perfect conformation to his redeeming Lord.

APPENDIX.

J. M. D.

C. T. R.'s assertion, that the attributes of Jehovah are those perfections which men in general have attributed to him ;' is tantamount to a declaration, that if men had never attributed any perfections unto Jehovah, he would never have possessed any attributes. Surely, Jehovah hath both attributes and perfections, irrespective of man's ascriptions, and would have had them had the whole creation been brought forth in a state of non-intellectuality, and consequent inability to express one single idea.

As C. T. R. has said he is unacquainted with any philosopher, or divine, or indeed with any writer, that appears to use the words when applied to the Divine Being in any other sense than the one above stated, I would refer him no further than to the Body of Divinity,' by Gill-to the learned Dr. Adam Clarke-and to the author of The Procedure, Extent, and Limits of Human Understanding;' and would beg leave to observe, that perfection and attribute do not alter their import according to the character of their application, be it to whom it may-a word is a word, one in import, whether it be attached to a finite or infinite being.

C. T. R. asks, why may not mercy be considered as equally an essential perfection of God, and yet as sovereignly extended?" I reply, it is not a matter of sovereignty with Jehovah whether he will in his works display his perfections or not. And furthermore, had one of the perfections of God of which we have any idea been wanting displayed in the creation of the first man Adam, the divine nature would have been denied. If the man had not been good, he must have been evil; if not wise, foolish; if not happy, unhappy. But no evil, foolish, or unhappy creature could Jehovah call into existence. Sovereignty saith, "I will create"-equity decides the nature of the things to be created.

If we say of a neighbour, he is merciful towards a certain object --if that certain object be involved in misery, if the neighbour have power to alleviate, and he doth not-assuredly his conduct and our affirmation are counter to each other. I should much like an instance of mercy in the heart of any being, conjoined with ability to

display it, and it yet remain unmanifested;-as well may we attempt to deprive the tide of its influent power, as to stay the effusion of benevolent assistance from the heart of a creature in whom mercy and competency to express it, are united.

Can we predicate the seed of liberality within the breast of a miser? Shall we suppose the principle of love in the heart of a slave-driver towards his embondaged vassals? Shall we prosecute the subject affirmatively, and consider a lashing hand to be the dictate of a loving heart? Can he love whom he lashes tyrannically? May we ever be delivered from that liberalism which supposes the milk of mercy to flow within the bosom of a stoic?

To say, Jehovah is essentially merciful in his nature, and sovereignly merciful in his works, is an evident contradiction;—it is to say, God is essentially God by nature, but only sovereignly so in the works of his unlimited will and power. If analyzed, it stands thus-Jehovah essentially pities and compassionates man before he is born, but sovereignly pities and compassionates him after he is born.

C. T. R. will not, I think, retain his notion of an abstract spirit, if he will take the pains, and, I will add, enjoy the pleasures of consulting the eminent works of Mr. Locke.

With these remarks, I resign the subject; if I have said any thing illiberal, or unlike a christian, I can only say, I have not wished to be personal; and if such be the case, I have shot my arrow over the house, and wounded my brother' whom I love.

J. M. D.

There are many,' said the talented Mr. Locke, who take so little care to lay by words, which in their primary notation have scarce any clear or distinct ideas which they are annexed to, that by an unpardonable negligence they familiarly use words, which the propriety of language has affixed to very important ideas, without any distinct meaning at all.' Wisdom, glory, and grace, &c, &c. are words frequent enough in every man's mouth; but if a great many of those who use them should be asked what they mean by them, they would be at a stand and not know what to answer a plain proof that though they have learned those sounds, and have them ready at their tongue's end, yet there are no determined ideas laid up in their minds which are to be expressed to others by them. Men having been accustomed from their cradles to learn words, which are easily got and retained, before they knew or had framed the complex ideas to which they were annexed, or which were to be found in the things they were thought to stand for; they usually continue to do so all their lives, and without taking the pains necessary to settle in their minds determined ideas, they use their words for such unsteady and confused notions as they have, contenting themselves with the same words other people use, as if their very sound necessarily carried with it constantly the same meaning. This, though men make a shift with in the ordinary

occurrences of life, when they find it necessary to be understood, and therefore they make signs till they are so, yet this insignificancy in their words, when they come to reason concerning either their tenets or interest, manifestly fills their discourse with abundance of empty unintelligible noise and jargon. Men take the words they find in use among their neighbours, and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixed meaning, whereby besides the ease of it they obtain this advantage, that as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that they are in the wrong; it being all one to go about to draw those men out of their mistakes who have no settled notion, as to dispossess a vagrant of his habitation who has no settled abode. This I guess to be so, and every one may observe in himself and others, whether it be or no.'

Thus much the great philosopher, whose words are the very essence of wisdom. Would that men who speak would learn the import of the words they utter, and thus escape the lash of such an eminent writer.

6

Men,' says one, do more from custom than from reason.' 'Reason,' saith Cicero, shall prevail with me more than popular opinion.' Why should a man,' saith another, ' be accounted a fool or head-strong, because he prefers his own judgment to general prejudice.'

In taking leave of the subject relative to the mercy of God which has been lately agitated in this periodical, I beg leave to trouble its readers with the true import of the word mercy, not grounded upon the mad enthusiasm of youthful vanity, not deduced from principles of prejudice or plagiarism, not borrowed from what men in general' have supposed, but broached upon a candid, impartial, and faithful consideration of its radix or root. Hebraicians inform us, that the true import of the word, hesed, which our version renders mercy, critically considered, signifies yearning of the bowels. The Greek words, eleos and oiktirmos, may be fairly rendered, pity or compas sion; the Latin word, misericordia, misery at heart. See either Clark, Parkhurst, or Zanchius, or all. In each of these renderings there is evidently an agreement, and upon their comparison they must ever be found of kindred signification.

If the bowels of a father yearn over his undutiful son, that same father pities and compassionates him, and hath his misery at heart; so also, when we declare Jehovah to be merciful, we intend in plain language to say-his bowels yearn over his estranged creatures, he pities them and compassionates them, he hath laid their misery to heart, so as to make provision for their deliverance and felicity in the constitution of his Son as the great High Priest, and in his accomplishment of every thing connected with his sacerdotal office. The question then arises-Is it essential to the nature of God to yearn over the rebellious apostate, to pity, to compassionate him, to lay his misery to heart, in the contrivance of deliverance therefrom? Surely none would answer this affirmatively, and yet the same idea is con

veyed in the declaration, God is by necessity of nature a merciful God.'

The word eleos, not only signifies pity and compassion, but also a work of pity or compassion. This forcibly suggests to the mind the idea, that no being can be merciful in the strictest sense without having shewn mercy, or having some object in view who requires it. Jehovah would have been the same perfect Being had all mankind perished, yet who would stand forward to assert him a merciful God if the whole world had been left in such a predicament; his very act of universal condemnation would deny it. No being can be merciful without the consideration of an object who may require it; and as Jehovah was Jehovah without the consideration of man either fallen or unfallen, so Jehovah cannot be essentially merciful, or in other words, he cannot pity and compassionate sinners by a necessity of

nature.

When we reflect upon the perfections of Jehovah, we should ever consider him as possessed of them without any reference to his future works of creation, and irrespective of regard unto the fallen condition of man: for had Jehovah never created an atom, and had nature never become sinful, he would have been the same divine being. Yet, in that case, over whom could his bowels have yearned? Whose misery could he have entertained at his heart? Whom could he have pitied and compassionated? The possession of all perfection does not require its manifestation; for Jehovah could not be necessitated to create an animalcule-but the possession of mercy does require its manifestation if it be conjoined with ability in its possessor; therefore, mercy cannot be an essential to Jehovah.

It may be asked, why could not Jehovah be essentially merciful if he had never displayed his mercy, as well as essentially omnipotent if he had never displayed his power? I answer, omnipotence does not involve the supposition of a being to require it, but mercy does. Remove the whole creation-imagine an universal annihilation—a second chaos-Jehovah would remain the same omnipotent; but how, in that case, could he be merciful? over whom could his bowels yearn? whom could he pity and compassionate? whose misery could he have at heart, if neither creature nor sinful creature were existing or hereafter to exist?

On these grounds, therefore, we conclude, that mercy is not essential to the nature of God-that it is no part of his essence-that his determination to possess it does not add to his personal perfection or completeness, any more than his determination to unite creature-nature to himself in the constitution of the complex person of the Son of his love. What Jehovah is by necessity of nature, that he is to himself and to all his works; and as he is neither merciful to himself nor to all his works, so he is not merciful by necessity of nature. Were Jehovah essentially merciful by nature, he would be essentially merciful in his works, in the same manner that he is essentially just in his works because he is essentially just in his nature. If the perfections of God be paralleled, or equally binding, as the scripture