will hear the unbelieving libertines in apparent concert with those raving declaimers, flily complimenting the established clergy upon their defertion from the primitive evangelical standard, and profefling, as openly as themselves, an unbelief of its fundamental doctrines.

The declared rebels against the laws of God, ordained to regulate their conduct, indignant now at the statutes enacted by a wife government, to restrain their exorbitances in practice and discourse, appear like a torrent partially confined, impelled to break forth in another direction. Their infults are the more open and daring against the divine majefty. In these they madly fancy they may, with prefent impunity, indulge their utmost licence. Be at all times prepared to meet and refift the boldest attacks of thefe traitors, alike to an earthly and heavenly fovereign. May your clerical profeffion, the cause of humanity and of facred truth, with a firm truft in Almighty fuccour at your call, infpirit, and give fuccefs to all your loyal and pious endeavours. That you may properly discharge your duty, in oppofing thefe dreaded foes to our excellent establishment, be careful to acquire firft an exact idea of their distinct, yet often, strangely, blended characters."

This is properly followed by a "Distinct View of Modern Infidelity, and of Antinomian Methodism;"-fubjects which cannot be too closely and minutely confidered by Clergymen at the prefent moment, when infidelity and fanaticifm appear to be advancing paffibus æquis.

I am, gentlemen,

Your humble fervant,

ΧΦ.

[Note. We concur with our correfpondent in his opinion and recommendation of Dr. Duncan's very judicious and feafonable publication; and we hope that the admonitions of this venerable Divine, will have abundant effect upon thofe to whom they are particularly addreffed. It was our intention to have reviewed this excellent pamphlet, but the infertion of the above letter, with this note, now renders it unneceffary.]

I

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

REQUEST the favour of you to infert the following letter in your very valuable Mifcellany.

Rempftone, Nov. 11, 1802.

REV. SIR,

I am, gentlemen,

Your's, &c.

TO THE REV. DR. PALEY,

E. PEARSON.

IT having repeatedly fallen to my lot to animadvert on fome parts of your "Principles of Moral and Political Philofophy," the publication, which formed the foundation of your well-deferved fame, I feel an inclination to exprefs to you the fatisfaction, which I have experienced, in the perufal of your late production on Natural Theology. No employment can be more proper for a human being, than to contemplate the Creator in his works, to "look through nature up to nature's God," and thence to derive thofe fentiments, which are adapted both to ennoble his mind and to regulate his conduct; and in this employment, I doubt not, you will be the means of engaging thousands, who would otherwise have never been either difpofed of able to engage in it. If there be any thing further

on

1

294

Rev. E. Pearfon, to the Rev. Dr. Paley.

pe

on the fubject, which I should have wished for, it is, that you had carried on your obfervations from the material to the intellectual world, and afforded us, in addition to the chapter on inftincts, a chapter on the faculties of the human mind, as being the most exprefs image here difcernable of the Divine Nature. Where, however, we have received fo much, there is but little reafon to complain of not having received more. From the rufal of your book, those might well fuppofe, who do not know the contrary, that you had bent on it the whole force of your mind, and that the ftudies of your life had been directed with a particular view to its fubject. By your happy mode of illuftration, you have unveiled the face of nature, disclosed a vast variety of those wondrous beauties, to which the generality of men are blind, or which, at leaft, they are negligent of referring to an intelligent caufe, and thus powerfully aflifted in driving atheifm to take refuge in the lowest regions of ignorance or folly. I am happy also in obferving, that you have provided a caution, and I hope it will prove a fufficient one, againft the danger, which is fuppofed, not perhaps without reafon, to be attendant on the fludy of Natural Religion; I mean, that of fo refting in the conclufions derived from it, as to render the mind leis fenfible of the neceflity, and lefs attentive to the evidences, of Revelation. This, if we may judge from the experience of the prefent age, is the common fault of philofophic minds; though it is doubtlefs more peculiarly fo, where, as in Roman Catholic countries, Chriftianity is not prefented to acceptance in its original purity. This, therefore, is a fault, against which the ftudent, who is invited to furvey the works of nature with a philofophic eye, can fcarcely be too ftrictly guarded. Amidft his admiration of thofe works, he fhould frequently be reminded, that there are many difficulties concerning man, if not concerning all the fenfible inhabitants of our globe (involving, of course, difficulties concerning the moral attributes of the Deity) which can only be explained, as they are explained in Scripture, by confidering him as a fallen creature.

66

In one of my little publications, fpeaking of the books on the fubject of Natural Religion, which I thought adapted to the use of students in the Univerfity, after mentioning, with approbation, "Dr. Samuel Clarke's Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God," and the firft part of Bishop Butler's Analogy," I stated, that additional affiftance in this branch of study might be expected from the appearance, fhould it ever take place, of that work of Dr. Balguy, of which his excellent treatise on Divine Benevolence was fuppofed to be a harbinger, as well as fpecimen. It has fince been discovered, that the expectations, which may have been formed, of affiftance from that work, are not likely to be gratified. I am the more happy, therefore, in reflecting, that you have fo amply contributed to make amends for the difappointment, and furnished a work on the fame subject, to which our academic youth may be referred with so much fafety and advantage.

Thinking as I do, and wifhing for the fupport of your authority in what I take to be the cause of truth, there is fcarcely any thing, which I have more at heart, than that you would, if the state of your health fhould permit, take a calm review of thofe pofitions advanced by you in morality and politics, which have excited a pretty extenfive, not to fay general, disapprobation. If I might be permitted to affume the office of an adviser, or to be confidered in any degree as the guardian and promoter of your fame, I fhould take the liberty of fuggefting, that fome of the greatest

men

men have increased their reputation by retracting erroneous opinions. If Auguftin had not written his retractations, his character would not have ftood fo high as it now does. My hope and belief is, that if, on examination, you should find yourfelf in fimilar circumftances with Auguftin, you would have the greatnefs of mind to follow his example. But, be the event in this matter as it may, you have attained to no ordinary rank in the republic of letters, and you retire from your literary labours with the glory, me judice, of having written one of the best books on one of the nobleft fubjects, that can employ the mind of man. I am, Rev. Sir, with the greateft refpect, Your well-wither and obedient fervant, E. PEARSON,

Rempftone, Nov. 11, 1802.

I

REMARKS ON THE NATIONAL TITLE.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

HAVE often wondered, that no one, at least to my knowledge, has noticed that folecism in fpeech, now fanctioned by a folemn act of the Legiflature, which is contained in the national title, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." It is evident, that, according to the idiom of the English language, and indeed of any language, it ought to be the "United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. When the term united

is prefixed to the word kingdom in the fingular number, it gives the idea of a nation, which was before divided against itself, reftored to peace and harmony; not of two diftinct nations united under one legiflative autho rity. The fame objection holds with refpect to the ecclefiaftical title, the "United Church of England and Ireland." The circumftance of their being united, makes them to be one church for the time to come; (and I hope that time will extend to the latest generations,) but it is not in the power, even of enchantment to make them to have been but one church in times paft. The reafon of ufing the fingular number rather than the plural, in these cafes, probably was, that the famenefs of authority, intereft, &c. which was intended to be established and fecured by the union, might be more fully expreffed; but, fince this is fufficiently expreffed by the term united, as in the inftances of the "United States," and the "United Provinces," I do not fee the neceffity, nor, confequently, the juftification, of infringing so much on the laws of our language. I obferve, and not without a fecret fatisfaction, that the habitual sense of propriety often leads people to fay and write, " United Kingdoms," and "United Churches ;" but I never observe it without withing, that, in doing fo, they were not compelled to speak and write in oppofition to legiflative authority. The purity of our language is a matter not beneath the notice of our rulers; and I am not without the hope, that it may ftill be thought worth while to correct this anomaly. If there fhould be found no inclination to make the propofed alteration, or the opportunity of making it fhould now be irrecoverably past, it remains to be feen, whether an act of parliament can effect a greater change in the English language, than the power of Auguftus was able to do in the Roman. I am, gentlemen, your's, &c.

Rempftone, Nov. 15, 1802,

E. PEARSON.

AN

AN ESSAY UPON THE NATURE OF FAITH.

T HE human mind is capable of ACQUIRING knowledge in feveral ways by thofe powers which God has vouchfafed unto it: it can alfo RECEIVE information of different kinds, i. e. fuch knowledge as is communicated from other intelligent beings, or is derived from analogical reasoning. The knowledge which men ACQUIRE, is, and must be certain. It arifes from the operation of our own faculties, and is wholly owing to the voluntary exertion of our own powers, and if these can deceive us, truth muft be unattainable. But the knowledge we receive by information from others, or from analogical reasoning, cannot in the common courfe of things be certain. We do not, we cannot fee that invariable connexion between the ideas, which is neceffary to eftablith certain truth: we only fuppofe from probable evidence that there is fuch a connexion; that is, we do not depend upon certain knowledge, but upon probable faith for our poffeffion of truth.

By faith then, we mean only the simple affent of the mind to fuch propofitions, as are grounded, either upon the mere affirmation of those who advance them, or, upon the deductions of analogical reafoning: all we can do to fecure ourselves from error with respect to the firft, is to ascertain the credibility of those through whofe teftimony we receive this fort of information; just as all we can do to fecure ourselves from error with respect to the fecond, is to afcertain the nature and extent of that analogy upon which our faith is to be built.

As certainty then is the natural, and neceffary confequence of intuition, of demonftration, and of the full and fair evidence of fenfe; fo different degrees of probability are the natural, but noi the neceffary confequences of faith, whether the information received by it, arifes from human testimony, or from the deductions of analogical reasoning. And juft as certainty is the natural confequence of intuition, of demonftration, and alfo of the full and fair evidence of our fenfes, fo different degrees of probability, of confidence, reliance, and truft, in proportion, are the natural, but not the neceffary confequences of faith. Faith is a jtate of the underfianding,-confidence, reliance, and truft, are difpofitions of mind. Faith is no more confidence, reliance, and truft, than intuition, or demonstration, or the full and fair evidence of fenfe is certainty, yet one is the appointed way to the other; and God has fo conftituted the human mind, that knowledge, however received, fhall be able to excite or change our various difpofitions.

It muft, however, be obferved, that if the fimilarity between the objects upon which analogical reafoning is founded fails, no conclufion can be drawn; and if the words by which information is intended to be conveyed, are unintelligible, fuch information is nothing; it is mere words-no faith can be built upon it: you may just as well fuppofe that you can believe abracadabra, or barbara celavent daniferio baralipton. But it is one thing to believe that certain perfons fpeak truth, and quite a different thing to believe the truth so spoken. The Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, who heard the Apoftles fpeak the Cretan and Arabian tongues, might believe that they spoke truth; the Cretans and Arabians alone could believe the truth fo ipoken. And why fo?-Why, because they underftood the word fpoken, i.e. they comprehended the meaning of what was faid in their own tongue. He that fpeaketh unintelligible words, fo far Speaketh an unknown tongue; for as St. Paul fays, no man understandeth

him. What then are we to think of Mr. Kett, who (in his History the interpreter of Prophecy, edit. i. vol. iii. p. 14-or edit. ii. vol. ii. p. 129) thinks men may be called upon, i. e. be under moral obligations to believe what they cannot comprehend. Men may, to be fure, be called upon to affent, to negative propofitions, but then they do not affent to what they do not comprehend, but to what they clearly do, namely, to this propofition, that they are utterly ignorant abct the matter in queftion. He who affents to a negative propofition, only decks his own ignorance: for the defign of negative propofitions is, hot to hew what a thing is, but what it is not: and this any one can compchend.

When then it is affirmed that faith is the gift of God, if it is meant, that the information conveyed to us the gofpel, and the evidence of the truth of this information is the gift of God, the affertion is undoubtedly true; and it is no lefs true that this gift is beftowed upon ALL who attend to this information, and to the evidence there is for the truth of it. For attention of mind is as requifite to difcover truth, as directing the eyes to any object is requifite to difcern fuch object. But if it is meant that the difpofition of mind, which we call reliance, or truft, or confidence, is the neceffary effect of a divine agency, (to ufe Dr. Dodderidge's words) and which agency has no refpect to, or connexion with the information which we can receive from Scripture, but is wholly independent of fuch information, being a miraculous gift; (and fuch are all gifts which are reftrained to particular perfons) then does fuch a necefjury effect deftroy all moral agency, which confifts in a FREE, though it may not be, uninfluenced operation of our various powers, (for by moral beings, we understand beings capable of being influenced by moral motives,) and makes the objects of it mère machines but fuch agents are utterly incapable of that blefling which our Lord attributes to those who have not SEEN, and yet have believed: who have received His gofpel not WITHOUT any evidence at all, but upon fuch as is far less than the evidence of fenfe.

But if this reliance, truft, and confidence, are not neceffary effects of a divine agency, or miraculous gift, then may thefe difpofitions be just as well expected from the natural and ufual effects, attending the operation of our perceptive powers, and arifing from the information received by the action of thefe powers. For we cannot conceive how any difpofitions can be excited in our minds, but through the customary effects of appropriate knowledge: and fo the Scripture reprefents this matter: for thus, the love of God in men is confidered as the effect of our being made acquainted with his love to us. Not that we loved God, but that he (FIRST) loved

us, 1 John iv. 10, 19.

APPENDIX TO THE ESSAY UPON THE NATURE OF FAITH.

THE writers of the New Tefiament, though infpired, ufe their words. just as common writers do; that is, they use them in a variety of fenfes, and leave their readers to collect the particular fenfe in each paffage, juft as men collect the fenfes of words in any other writings. A test it may be of the reader's attention, difcernment, and integrity, or fairness of mind, that is, of freedom from prejudice. Accordingly.

They ufe the word FAITH in a variety of fenfes.

1. It fometimes fignifies that firm reliance, and affured confidence in God, to which, in the times of the Apoftles, the power of working miraVol. III. Churchm, Mag. Nov. 1802.

PP

cles