[His sister S. had some doves, which she highly valued. They were destroyed during his absence, and being informed of the loss, he wrote in the following manner.] Ar Social Villa, once there dwelt Of doves a fair collection; There might you see at noontide hour A happy family they were, The setting sun at evening throws The sunbeams gay, that fancy gives, And leave us dark as night. The flower that's sweetest to the eye No hand on earth can turn aside The unerring shaft of fate; The winning air, and gentle grace And thus the subjects of my lay Mine is a light and playful song Suffice to say those doves are gone- A man, whose life is vanishing, The following was written with a pencil. Yet a little while and every breast that is warm with hope, and busy Keview of New The Testimony of Natural Theology to Christianity: By Thomas Gisborne, M. A. Philadelphia, 1818. pp. 271. WE formerly called the attention of our readers to an Essay, by Dr. Brown, "On the existence of a Supreme Creator, possessed of infinite power, wisdom and goodness." We had occasion to call in question the validity of some of his arguments, and the accuracy of at least one of his conclusions. Like Paley, and several other modern philosophers, Dr. Brown has attempted to prove from reason, applied to the works of God, that the Supreme Being is possessed of infinite goodness and benevolence. A simple delight in happiness, and a desire and determination to produce it in the greatest possible degree, in the created universe, they seem to consider as the sum and essence of moral perfection in God-they endeavour to shew that happiness is the great and only ultimate end of his works. We expressed our dissatisfaction with the arguments drawn from the works of God, to establish such a conclusion. So far as contrivance and design are seen in the objects of nature, so far as means are discerned, adapted to an end, happiness does not appear to be the only ultimate end thus effected by design, nor does the greatest possible happiness of man in this world, seem to be intended by his Maker. We now proceed to state, that the doctrine which is thus in vain attempted to be established by reason, is not clearly taught in revelation. It is a refinement in the speculations of modern philosophers with design, shall drop into the cold and silent grave. The eye that reads this page shall be closed in darkness, and the hand that writes it, shall crumble into dust. Publications. and theologians, and had they succeeded in clearly establishing it from a consideration of the works of God, there would have appeared a discrep ancy at least, between his works and his word. The fact is, the natural and moral evil which exist to so great an extent in the world, will never fail to perplex the reasonings of men who are ignorant of revelation, or who reject its authenticity; and we conceive it to be highly improper and dangerous for those who possess the superi our light of the Gospel, and acknowledge its authority, to descend to the level of heathenism, and amuse and bewilder themselves by groping about in the glimmering furnished by nature's light, and forming such conjectures as unassisted reason must form concerning the origin of those things that are seen, and the character and designs of their author. When a believer in revelation thus accustoms himself to such conclusions as unassisted reason can form, they become the views which actually and habitually occupy his mind. Instead of being filled with the glorious light of the Gospel, his mind is gradually shrouded in the darkness of Paganism. Instead of possessing the love, and joy, and ardour of affection which christianity inspires, with its peculiar revelation, his heart is cold and joyless. He begins even to doubt all those · truths, which his reason does not discover, and forgets that revelation stands on its own independent ground of testimony, and is supported only by the speculations of Moral Philosophy. We should never forget the difference between truths which we should est of the ancient philosophers, were never able to discover the theory of the planetary motions, nor even the three general laws of motion, pertain ing to all bodies; and yet now since the discoveries of Copernicus, and Kepler, and Newton, persons of far infe rior capacities, and even youth can see such evidence of their truth, that an individual cannot be found who presumes to deny them. The scriptures do that for us, in Natural The ofogy, which Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, do for the student of Natural Philosophy. The truth is presented to us, and with distinct evidence also, and we have nothing to do, but remark the exact coincidence between these truths and the phenomena and subjects with which we are surrounded. To ask whether these objects and phenomena would suggest these truths, to our mind with satisfactory evidence, were we ignorant of revelation, and to refuse an assent to them until this question can be settled, would be far more absurd and presumptuous, than for a student of natural science, obstinately to reject the lights of former discoveries, in the determination of believing nothing which he could not have himself discovered; we say more, because his belief must finally depend on the evidence of those phenomena, while revelation is attended with its own peculiar evidence. The schools of Moral Philosophy have been called hot-beds of Infidelity. They certainly have had a fatal tendency towards scepticism, in regard to all the peculiar doctrines and precepts of the Gospel. The natural tendency of any science, cultivated with enthusiasm, is to lead its devoted admirer to attempt the explanation of all kindred subjects by the principles of his own favourite science. Now as revelation embraces all the truths and duties of natural religion and morality, together with ma ny others, an exclusive attention given to the former, and an investigation of the principles in our moral constitution on which they rest, almost necessarily produces indifference, or doubt, in regard to the peculiarities of revelation. It is not only dangerous but unphilosophical, in a believer in the word of God, thus to separate Moral Philosophy from Revelation; for as they rest separately on independent grounds, there arises a powerful argument in favour of both from a comparison of their principles with each other. Mr. Gisborne, in the work before us, views natural and revealed religion in their connection, and attempts to shew the Testimony of Natural Theology to Christianity.' The design of the work, as indicated by the title, is such, as from the preceding observations it will be concluded that we approve. The execution of it is not uniformly agreeable to the principles which we have just advanced. Indeed we do not know an author, who has treated of the testimony of natural religion, and of the course of nature to christianity, in an unexceptionable manner, except Bishop Butler, in his "Analogy." This book stands as a model for all succeeding authors, who write with a similar design. The author of that celebrated work does not attempt to prove by analogy the truth of revelation, or even, of natural religion. He takes the truth of these for granted, as having been often established by others on independent grounds, and shews the analogy between them, and between the principles of both, and the facts exhibited in the course of nature. He applies his arguments to refute the objections, which are brought against revealed religion, by showing that they have the same force against the conclusions of natural religion, and in fact are as much opposed to the actual course of nature as to either. The force of the argument, when thus used defensively, is irresistible, even infidels themselves being judges; while to the candid enquirer after truth, these analogies af ford no inconsiderable presumption also in favor of religion. Gisborne, in the work before us, has endeavoured to conform his arguments, not to those of Butler, but to those of Paley and others, who have demonstrated the Being and some of the Perfections of God, from the design manifest in his works. He wishes to prove that some of the fundamental and peculiar doctrines of christianity, would be suggested, and not only suggested but proved, to the candid enquirer after truth, if such an one might be found, who was ignorant of the Bible, or rejected its revelation. Now there is a presumption against the argument as thus stated, on the very face of it. Many of the ancient philosophers, were men of acute and cultivated understandings, who turned the whole force of their genius to the investigation of this very subject the character and designs of God, as manifested in his works. But did any of them ever discover the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, from an examination of nature? Do these doctrines seem ever to have been even suggested to their minds? How much less ascertained and proved !— Did our Saviour and his apostles ever intimate that the peculiar doctrines of christianity, which they taught, were discoverable by unassisted human reason? They declare indeed, that the existence, power, and wisdom of God, are clearly seen in the things which he has made; but if the fallen character and lost condition of man,his prospects in eternity, the mercy and grace of God, had been clearly seen, what necessity was there of a revelation to teach them? We do not deny that when suggested by revelation, their correspondence with the actual state and course of things around us, affords a presumption of the truth. When they are authoritatively taught in the scriptures, the believer finds his conviction of the truth confirmed and strengthened, by their universal agreement with facts; but how faint and unsteady must be the light thrown on them by nature, is evident on reflect ing that even those things which the apostle says may be known of God, being clearly seen by the things which he hath made, were obscurely apprehended, by the ancients, and mingled with many and gross errors, from which the best and wisest were unable to separate them. We the more regret that our author has attempted to prove the doctrines of revelation from the designs exhibited in the works of God, as it leads him to lay an undue stress on many of his arguments, and throws an air of doubt and inconclusiveness over all his deductions. His arguments appear to himself satisfactory, because he was previously convinced of the truth which they confirmed. He forgets that his reader, if destitute of this previous conviction, will cer tainly deny his conclusions, and also be disgusted, and form, probably, a contemptuous idea of all the arguments by which revelation can be supported, and of the reasoning powers of those who assent to it. We remark once more, that by thus considering the facts in nature by themselves, and enquiring what inferences unassisted reason can draw from them, he loses, as we before intimated, a powerful argument in regard to their purpose, from a comparison of them with the declarations of God's word. Most of the facts adduced are too much insulated to form a conclusive argument from design. A stone is thrown,' says the Infidel, and after it has struck some object, you infer that the person who cast it, intended to hit that very object where is the proof?' But if that person declared previously, what object he was aiming at, and the stone strikes it, who can doubt the design? Such is the conclusion drawn from comparing the declarations of the word of God, concerning the intentions of its author, with the insulated and corresponding facts observed in his works. In more complicated instances of contrivance, such as are adduced by Paley, the design is mani fest without a declaration; but it may be doubted whether many, if any such instances can be found, from which the peculiar doctrines of christianity can be inferred. Mr. Gisborne has far too just views of reasoning, to adhere consistently to his own plan. He begins by undertaking to prove, that to a Deist, some of the doctrines of the Gospel, might be suggested, accompanied with satisfactory evidence from a consideration of facts in nature. He afterwards supposes, that if these doctrines were proposed to him as taught in revelation, his investigation would lead him to adopt themselves, though they would not suggest them to his thoughts. In other parts of his investigation,he merely considers the support these facts yield to revealed truth, which is their proper use; and even so far departs from his original design, as to consider the facts and traditions which confirm the historical statements of the Old Testa ment. Mr. Gisborne seems to condemn with great justness, some part of his own reasonings. lence: the hat tual exercise of all and of each of these excellencies in the government of the universe; correspondent and operative approbation of each created being invested with moral agency, who acts in willing accordance with these excellen cies; and correspondent and operative disapprobation of each, who acts in wil ling contrariety to any of them."-p. 8. This is perhaps as good a definition of the holiness of God, as could be expressed in the language of Moral Philosophy, or be formed, in reference to its illustration in his works. We observe, however, that it wants something of the emphasis, which is given to the same attribute of God in his Word, and in those miraculous interpositions there recorded, by which it was manifested. The exhibitions of God on Mount Sinai, to his chosen people, and in vision, to the prophet Isaiah, when he saw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up'-surrounded by seraphims, who veiled their faces, crying, 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory' were fitted to impress the idea of the holiness of God, and to call forth corresponding emotions in his creatures. A scriptural view of the holiness of God, is beautifully and forcibly exhibited by a living author, to whose work we have in a former number called the attention of our readers. "Were we asked to define this holiness, we should feel that we were not giving to the term its full significancy, by saying that it merely consisted in the absolute perfection of all the It is moral virtues of the Divinity. a term, which in the appropriate force of it, denotes contrast or sepa"It does not signify the ration." moral perfection of his character, taken absolutely. It signifies this perfection in relation to its opposite. When we look to the holiness of the Divine character, we look to it in its aspect of lofty separation from all that can either taint or debase it. We look to its irreconcilable variance with sin. We look to the inaccessible height at which it stands above all the possible acquirements of cre58 "Speculation is apt to be not unfortuAnd few nate merely, but irrational. speculators have been less fortunate, or less rational, than those who, casting aside the communications which the Scriptures impart concerning the origin of evil, undertake to account for it themselves."p. 155. Having extended our general remarks on the work before us, to so great a length, we shall proceed to lay the arguments and conclusions of the author before our readers, in the manner in which we should have been pleased to have seen them exhibited by himself. His first and great object is to prove the Holiness of God, from his works. In doing this he considers himself as taking up the subject of Natural Theology, where it was left by Doct. Paley. He thus defines the attribute of Holiness as ascribed to the Deity. "I understand by that attribute, the possession in perfection of justice, truth, mercy, purity, and every other moral excelVol. 3.-No. VIII. |