THE GREAT OSAGE MISSION FAMILY.

This family consists of twentyfive adults, five of whom are unmarried ladies, and sixteen children. The missionaries have been assembled from nine different states in our union. On their way from New York to Osage river, on the Missouri, they spent about five days in the city of Philadelphia, and renewed our zeal in the missionary cause. We cannot but feel a livelier interest in this family than we should have done, had we never seen their faces in the flesh; and we bless God, therefore, for what our eyes have seen, and our ears heard, of their devotion to the cause of our Redeemer among the heathen. The public prints have given so full an account of the design and progress of this mission, that we shall only add, that the agents of the United Foreign Missionary Society, Robert Ralston and Alexander Henry, esquires, received, while the family tarried with us, in cash, the following sums: viz. From the Second Presbyte

rian Church, a collection 140 52

-Rev. Mr. Bramin, of Rowley, preached the sermon-Rev. Dr. Thayer, of Lancaster, made the consecrating prayer-Rev. Dr. Puffer, of Berlin, delivered the charge -Rev. Mr. Clark, of Rutland, made an address to the people-Rev. Mr. Shedd, of Acton, gave the right hand of fellowship and the Rev. Mr. Cotton made the concluding prayer.

At an ordination holden in St. Michael's Church, in Bristol (R.I.), on Lord's day, March 4th, the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, of Boston, and Rev. Silas Blaisdell, of New Hampshire, were admitted by the Right Rev. Bishop Griswold, to the holy order of deacons.

At West Newbury, (Mass.) on Wednesday, the 7th of March, was ordained, the Rev. Mr. Demond, over West Parish. Rev. Mr. Perry, of Bradford, read proceedings of council-introductory prayer by Rev. Mr. Bramin, of Rowley-sermon by Rev. Mr. Fay, of Charlestown, from Romans x. 1-consecrating prayer by Rev. Mr. Miltimore, of Newbury-charge by Rev. Mr. Allen, of Bradford-right hand of fellowship by Rev. Mr. Dennis, of Topsfield-concluding prayer by Rev. Dr. Parish.

Besides sundry goods well calculated for the establishment, the value of which cannot be accurately given, but certainly exceeding

ORDINATIONS.

800 00

$1744 01

On the 28th of February last, Mr. John Boardman was ordained over the Congregational Church and Society in West Boylston (Mass.). The venerable Dr. Sumner presided on the occasion-Rev. Mr. Briggs, of Boxford, offered the first prayer

Communications.

FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

On the Nature of Virtue.

As almost every part of our knowledge involves some questions, which are beyond the reach of our powers, the great practical wisdom of the philosopher consists in directing his inquiries to their proper objects.

The schoolmen discovered per+ haps as much acuteness and ingenuity, as any other class of writers. But the powers of their minds were wasted, and dissipated, upon subtle and unintelligible questions, which are now, almost universally, considered as beyond the comprehension of the human intellect.

They were equally mistaken

Metaphysics, consisting for the most part of useless speculations or unfounded theories, had fallen into some degree of discredit, when the incomparable Dr. Reid established it firmly upon the principles of common sense, and sound reasoning.

Nothwithstanding these noble examples, many still discover a strong propensity to form theories, and to engage in speculations beyond the reach of the human powers. When this spirit extends itself to religious subjects, it becomes exceedingly dangerous. An inquirer of this de

phizing. These ingenious men, supposing that they could discover the mysteries of nature by abstract speculation and syllogistic reasoning, disdained to submit to the labour of collecting facts, by observation and experiment.

In opposition to these erroneous views about the nature and object of our investigations, Bacon and Newton introduced a more rational philosophy. They clearly understood that the only proper business of the student of nature, is to observe its phenomena, and to ascertain its general laws.

In the same manner, the illustrious reformers, abandoning the jargon, and sophistry, of the middle ages, poured a pure and salutary VOL. I.

the simplicity of revealed truth. Hence we are presented with a number of novel, and unscriptural theories, about the universal system-about the foundation and nature of virtue-about the powers of moral agents-about the essence of holiness and sin; and many others.

These remarks are sufficient to show the duty, and the wisdom, of adhering to the simple truth, as it is revealed in the word of God; of suspecting, nay of rejecting, without hesitation, every system of theology, the first principles of which, instead of resting on the infallible truth of God, have no other support than some doubtful, or demonstrably erroneous, metaphysical arguments.

True philosophy is always favour

T

LEL

able to Christianity, and to the genuine doctrines of Christianity. It has a tendency to repress that arrogant and impious boldness, which would lead us to doubt or reject every thing which we cannot fully comprehend. It disarms the infidel and the sceptic of those weapons, which to ignorance appeared so formidable. It shows that the clearest dictates of reason, and the soberest conclusions drawn from our observation of the works and providence of God, are perfectly accordant with the dictates of inspiration. But that which has most commonly usurped the name and the honours of philosophy, has obscured and perverted the plain and simple truths of the gospel.

"Christian philosophers," says a late writer, "labour with vast ingenuity and mighty zeal, so to pare down and fashion the gospel of Christ, as that it shall harmonize with their self-invented systems."

These remarks are applicable to the different theories, invented by philosophers to explain the nature of virtue. I shall however confine myself in this essay, to the consideration of a theory of virtue adopted and defended by several writers in our own country.

The theory to which I allude makes virtue to consist primarily, and essentially, in disinterested benevolence, or in love to being in general. The illustrious president Edwards, expresses his doctrine on this subject, in the following language. "The primary object of virtuous love is being simply considered, or that true virtue primarily consists, not in love to any particular beings, because of their virtue or beauty, nor in gratitude because they love us; but in a propensity and union of heart to being simply considered, exciting absolute benevolence (if I may so call it) to being in general,"*

"Holiness," says Dr. Hopkins,

* The Nature of True Virtue, p. 131.

"is in the holy scriptures reduced to one simple principle, love; and made to consist wholly in this: by which is evidently meant disinterested good will to being in general, capable of happiness, with all that affection necessarily included in this."t

"The primary object," remarks Dr. Emmons, "of true benevolence is being simply considered, or a mere capacity of enjoying happiness or suffering pain. It necessarily embraces God and all sensitive natures." "It is therefore the nature of true benevolence to run parallel with universal being, whether uncreated or created, whether rational or irrational, whether holy or unholy."+

From the extracts which have been given, it appears that, according to these writers, virtue consists primarily in love to being in general; to being simply considered; without any regard to moral character or common nature, or the relation which the individual bears to us, except that he belongs equally with ourselves to the same great system of universal being.

I. Respecting this theory we may observe, that the language in which it is expressed is rather obscure and indefinite. All the objects existing in nature are individuals. There is nothing in the universe corresponding to the terms being in general. In the use of this phraseology our ideas terminate upon the mere words, except we transfer thoughts from the general terms to an individual included under those terms, and then the object of our thoughts is particular.

our

If therefore in using the expression "being in general," our conceptions do not extend beyond the mere words; it is manifestly vain to place virtue in loving, or in having a disposition to love, mere words.

II. President Edwards observes, † System, p. 351, vol. i. + Sermon I

that "the first object of a virtuous benevolence is being simply consi

dered."

Upon this I would remark, that we can form no conception of "being simply considered." It is altogether beyond our power to separate from any individual all his natural and moral qualities, and relations, and to conceive of mere abstract existence. We can talk and reason about one quality of an object, distinct from its other qualities, whilst we judge it impossible for them to exist separately. Thus we can reason about the extension, without considering the colour, of an object; but we cannot conceive of an extended substance, without attaching some colour to it.

In the same manner, we may talk and reason about "being simply considered," without taking into consideration qualities and relations; but it is impossible to form any conception of a being corresponding to our reasoning.

But as our affections are founded, not upon reasoning, but upon a distinct knowledge and conception of their object, it follows that love to being simply considered, cannot

exist.

III. Were it even possible to have any knowledge of mere abstract existence, of "being simply considered," without any qualities either good or bad; and without any connexion with us, even the most remote, except that of belonging to the same great system of the universe, I apprehend such a being could not be the object either of love or hatred.

But if we were capable of exercising benevolent affection towards such an object, it would not be virtuous, because God has nowhere required us to love being in general, or being simply considered. The first and great commandment of the law, is to love God, not the being of God abstractly considered, for of such a God we have no knowledge.

But we are required to love God, because he is a being of infinite, eternal and unchangeable perfection; because he is our creator, preserver and benefactor; because he has revealed himself not only as holy, just and true, but as boundless in mercy, and unchangeable in love, to all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The second commandment is to love our neighbour as ourselves; not the mere abstract being of our neighbour, for this is absurd; but our neighbour, possessing all the common qualities and properties of human nature.

God has implanted certain affections and dispositions in our nature, such as the natural and social affections, which it is our duty, in obedience to the command of God, and in subordination to his glory, to cultivate and exercise. These original principles of our nature are not eradicated by divine grace, much less are they superseded by a more enlarged and undistinguishing love to being in general; but they are sanctified and made the means of glorifying God, and promoting the happiness of men.

President Edwards remarks that virtue has an "ultimate propensity to the highest good of being in general." It is very evident, that if the "highest good of being in general," were made the motive, and the rule, of virtuous conduct, all virtue would soon be banished from the world. If the highest good of being in general were made the immediate object of pursuit, and men were left to infer the means of its accomplishment "from a calculation and comparison of remote effects, we may venture to affirm, that there would not be enough of virtue left in the world to hold society together." Those writers whose doctrines we are considering, accordingly disavow those pestiferous consequences which were so eagerly

* Stewart's Elements, vol. ii. p. 462.

embraced by Godwin and Hume, and in some degree by Dr. Paley. Although they contend, that the highest good of being in general is the ultimate object of all virtue; and some of them assert that the sole reason why any action is virtuous is because it has a tendency to promote the good of the whole; yet they deny that utility is or can be a rule of conduct to us.

This arises from the fact, that the human mind is too limited to determine whether an action would be useful on the whole, or not. They have recourse, therefore, to the word of God, as the only rule of

mind are not capable of any emotions so infinitely different in degree.

"2. Since our views of the extent of the universe are capable of perpetual enlargement, admitting the sum of existence is ever the same, we must return back at each step to diminish the strength of particular affections, or they will become disproportionate; and consequently on these principles, vicious; so that the balance must be continually fluctuating by the weights being taken out of one scale and put into the other.

"3. If virtue consists exclusive

of the whole will be most effectually promoted by practising those private and relative duties which the scriptures enjoin.

Now, is not this really abandoning their own system? Is it not an acknowledgment that virtue, upon their principles, is an impossibility? Is it not an admission, that although all virtue primarily consists in love to being in general, yet from the necessary imperfection of our knowledge, human virtue consists in something very different?—in the exercise of affections, and the performance of duties, which necessarily regard a more private circle -a very limited range of objects.

IV. President Edwards remarks, that "that being who has most of being, or has the greatest share of existence, will have the greatest share of the propensity and benevolent affection of the heart."

To this there are several objections, some of which I will state in the language of the Rev. Robert Hall, of England.

"1. That virtue on these principles is an utter impossibility: for the system of being comprehending the Great Supreme is infinite; and therefore to maintain the proper proportion, the force of particular attachment must be infinitely less than the passion for the general good; but the limits of the human

attachment to the general good, the particular affections are to every purpose of virtue useless and even pernicious: for their immediate, nay their necessary tendency, is to attract to their objects a proportion of attention which far exceeds their comparative value in the general scale.

"To allege that the general good is promoted by them will be of no advantage to the defence of this system, but the contrary, by confessing that a greater sum of happiness is attained by a deviation from, than an attachment to its principles; unless its advocates mean by the love of being in general, the same as the private affections, which is to confound all the distinctions of language, as well as the operations of the mind."

To these very acute and excellent remarks, it may b 'be proper to add, that if the "benevolent affections of the heart" are to be proportioned to quantity of being, or "share of existence," then it becomes necessary to ascertain with perfect accuracy the "share of existence" possessed by each individual, before we can know what proportion of our affection to bestow upon him. But how is this to be done? Who shall furnish us with a

* Sermon on Modern Infidelity, p. 57.