But errors of opinion, on conftitutional points, fhall never be fuffered by us to pafs unnoticed, efpecially when committed by lawyers, who ought to understand the nature of our go-, vernment, at leaft, though they may not be qualified to write books of biography with tafte or judgement. In P. 207 the Obferver cenfures Mr. Juftice Hyde for faying, upon the trial of Harrison, one of the regicides, "that the King was above the two Houfes, that the laws were made by him, and not by them by their confenting, but they were his laws."-"What unconftitutional language for a lawyer," exclaims our ancient Member, "efpecially as he was a Judge!" He then proceeds to give his own idea upon the point, which, we venture to fay, no judge nor lawyer can poflibly approve; and he tells us, by way of explanation, that Judge Hyde feems to have confounded the King's legislative with his executive power; by virtue of the latter, indeed, he acts fole and independent, but in that character only." He quetes Blackstone's Commentaries (VOL. 1. 154, 155,) for this latter fentence: we know this paffage, and think none but the ancient Member could fwallow fuch abfurdity. Blackftone grofsly misleads ftudents, in fuggefting to them, that the King acts folely and independently in any cafe whatfoever; he as much needs the advice of his Privy Council, and Officers of State, in executing the law, as that of his Parliament in making it; he is above all thofe who advife him, whether in Parliament or out of it, though, by law, he cannot act without their advice; he is Sovereign, and they are his fubjects and not his equals, in any fenfe of the word, however affembled, in Parliament, or out of it. Mr. Justice, Hyde, therefore, understood the nature of our government. better than the Obferver; and, if he be not fatisfied with our judgement, we refer him to his colleagues, the other Members of the Inner Temple; among the reft, to Mr. HORNE TOOKE himfelf, who, it must be owned, in fome of his writings, has expreffed more found fentiments on the fundamentals of our Monarchy than men deemed better affected, and who call themselves conftitutional lawyers.

ART. VI. Six Effays upon Theological (to which are added, Two upon Moral) Subjects. By Thomas Ludlam, A. M. Rector of Fofton, Leicestershire. 8vo. Pp. 129. Rivingtons, London. 1798.

'N Mr. Ludlam's Four Effays, where the Methodism of Mr. Robinfon's "Scripture Characters," was very jully expofed, we obferved the clear and accurate reafoner, though

we difapproved, in feveral inftances, the warmth of the controverfialist. That Mr. Robinson's book was well intentioned, we entertained not a doubt, although we perceived, with Mr. Ludlam, the unfoundnefs of many of its principles. But we were not altogether pleased with our author's manner of treating a very fincere friend to chriftianity.

The fame obfervations may be extended to the Effays before us; the diftinguishing character of which is, precifion and perfpicuity; but which are often difgraced by the farcaftic Ineer that feems to indicate a confcioufnefs of fuperiority over men of first-rate genius, talents, and learning.

The fubjects of thefe Effays are as follow:-"The Scripture Signification of the Word Truth."-" The Nature of Revelation."-"The Curfe mentioned Gal. ch. iii. v. 13."— "The Divine Nature."-" The Mode of Reafoning adopted in Dr. Knox's Chriftian Philofophy."-" The Effects of the Fall." The Difference between the Powers and Difpofitions of the Human Mind."-" The Nature and Grounds of Moral Obligation."

It cannot be expected that we fhould accompany Mr. Ludlam in all his reafonings, or minutely confider every topic of difcuffion.

If we detach from their contexts fuch paffages as may justify our preceding remarks, both on the abilities and the temper of the Effayift, our readers will be enabled to form a tolerable judgement of the nature and merits of the publication.

In his first Effay, where we meet with much acuteness of remark, our author might have fpared the following sarcasm: "God expects not that mere affirmation fhould pafs for truth, though modern divines feem to do fo."-[Dr. Knox.] There is a want of eafe in the language of thefe effays, particularly the first, which is repulfively ftiff and formal. Petulance of animadverfion is, doubtlefs, inexcufable; but feverity of cenfure may, in many cafes, be admitted; perhaps, in the cafe of Dr. Hawker, of Plymouth, whofe enthusiasm and fanaticism are unexampled, among the regular clergy of this country. The divided and uncertain opinions of expofitors, (fays Mr. L.) are what the celebrated Dr. Hawker fagaciously thinks he can eafily and perfectly obviate by a device fo fubtle, it muft certainly be his own." In P. 16 of his Effays on the Divinity of Chrift, he fays, "He is free to confefs that he pays no regard to the divided and uncertain opinions of the whole body of commentators; it is the unalterable doctrine of fcripture, which is to be the guide of his and our faith." Wonderful! For do not all thefe divided and uncertain commentators, profefs to follow the faine guide? And, are not

their profeffions as deferving of regard as the doctor's? Unlefs he choose to fay with the Pope, that he is infallible. This ingenious rule for attaining the true fenfe of scripture, puts us in mind of Zachary Fungus's rule for attaining the true art of fencing, whereby you may fight a duel with perfect fafety. Zachary pays no regard to the divided and uncertain opinions of the whole body of teachers of this art; the obfervation of one short and fimple rule is, he fays, alone fufficient. It is only, "to take care to kill your adverfary, and not to be killed yourfelf." This extract is from the fecond effay. The third presents us with some observations on fincere obedience, which we highly approve.

There is no doubt but Mr. Venn is greatly mistaken, when he intimates in his New Duty of Man,* that fincerity has been falfely adopted into our divinity, as the gracious intention of the new covenant, in oppofition to the law of perfect obedience. And when Dr. Hawker, in a long note in his Effay upon the Holy Spirit, defies any one to find fincerity in the New Teftament, he difcovers more of the over-weening pride of the Polemic, than the humility and diffidence of the Christian.

"Whatever fuch writers may affirm, (fays Mr. L.) who, because they do not find the name, cannot fee the thing, unless we choose to believe Dr. Hawker and Mr. Venn, in preference to St. John and St. Paul, we muft affirm, that perfect obedience is not the condition of the New Covenant; fo far from it, that the great defign of the Covenant of Grace is to remove the difficulty, and foften the rigour of the Law of Works. For the New Covenant admits of a defective obedience, or, what amounts to the fame thing, it provides a remedy for fin, by holding out forgiveness through the blood of Jefus, to repenting and believing finners. The Law of Works, or of Nature, do not allow of repentance, as alone available to the remiffion of fins. Nothing is faid in the first, nothing can be collected from the fecond, to fhew that it is fo.'

Very much akin to this is that affertion of Mr. Wilberforce, that chriftianity hath not moderated the requifitions of God's law; (that is, his Law of Works,) nor mitigated the rigour of its demands, nor relaxed the feverity of divine juftice, upon account of human weakness. Because Mr. W. does. not find exprefs allowances of imperfect conduct, he concludes. the ftrictness of the Law of Works, ftill remains in oppofition

* Preface, P. 10.

Edit. 2.

to

to the declaration of the apoftle. Mr. W. did not confider, "that no law can permit à violation of, that is, a deviation from, its commands; for then repentance would not be neceffary, because a permitted violation is no violation at all." But the establisher of fuch law may not only appoint what penalties he thinks proper to the violation of his laws; he may, alfo, remit thefe penalties to what degree, or upon what conditions, he thinks fit. Mercy, from the nature of it, is, and must be, a favour; it cannot be founded upon right, for could offenders claim exemption from punishment, grace would be no more grace." Thefe are fenfible remarks, and worth all the abftract reasoning that is to be found in this little volume. The fourth Effay ftands foremost in point of compofition. The concluding part of it is peculiarly eloquent.

The fifth, containing remarks on Dr. Knox's Christian Philofophy, is, in our opinion, neither juft in its principles, nor candid in its ftrictures. "The Doctor, who is a divine to be fure, because he is D. D. and a claffic, without doubt, because he is a schoolmafter, has endeavoured to add the authority of St. Paul to his own." "Unfortunately, St. Paul is no dealer in uselefs nor infignificant propofitions."-"The Doctor had a fyftem to maintain, and then adieu to fenfe, meaning, context, connection, grammar, and fometimes to common honefty." A moft illiberal infinuation! The flippancy, with which Mr. L. (a few pages afterwards) criticizes Soame Jennings, is by no means ferviceable to the cause he would fupport,

The fixth Effay is a theological difquifition which merits an attentive perufal.

The two concluding Effays are upon moral fubjects; in the latter of which, Dr. Paley's Notion of the Moral Senfe, advanced in his Lectures upon Morality, is fully considered.

The propenfity in fome writers to dwell upon elementary and verbal diftinctions we have always difapproved; efpecially when religion was the fubject of their confideration: and Mr. Ludlam's fondnefs for definition* compels us to obferve, that chriftianity was not revealed to man fo much for the purpofe of exercifing his understanding, as of influencing his affections, and regulating his conduc.

In the laft Effay, Mr. L. accufes Dr, Paley, and Dr. Johnfon too, of a want of precifion in their ideas. In his preface, p. 4, "Dr. P. quotes Dr. Johnfon," (fays Mr. Ludlam,) affirming that when the obligations of morality are taught, the fanétions of chriftianity fhould never be forgotten; becaufe, by attending to thefe fanctions, we shall fee morality and chriftianity giving luftre to each other. For thus, religion will appear to be the voice of reafon, and morality the will of God."

"By

ART. VII. Remarks on the Eaftern Origination of Mankind, and of the Arts of cultivated Life. By Granville Penn, Efq. F. S. A. 4to. Pp. 32.

THIS

"HIS is a feparate publication of a difcourfe that had before appeared in The Oriental Collections. The objec of it is, to enquire into the true fenfe of the paffage in Gene:- «And fis, ch, xi. ver. 2. which our tranflators give thus it came to pass, as they journeyed FROM THE EAST, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.' The difficulty has been to reconcile this journeying from the Eaft to Shinar, with the fact of Noah and his family being lodged in the ark, on mount Ararat, in Armenia; from which, and its vicinity, where he and his defcendants, no doubt, settled, the journey would be towards the South, and rather from the Weft than from the East. The whole of this controversy turns upon the fenfe that belongs to the Hebrew word fome, among whom are our tranflators, fuppofe it fignifies from the Eaft, others, that it fignifies equally to the East. Mr. Penn contends, upon a comparison of other paffages, and the collateral authority of the Chaldee paraphrafe, that it has another meaning, which is the true one, in this paffage. He

"By morality," (obferves Mr. L.) "we mean the will of God, as far as it can be collected from the nature and courfe of his works. By religion, we mean the will of God, as far as it is made known to Revelation informs us by revelation, that is, by fupernatural means.

us of many facts, and informs us of the confequences or effects of thefe facts-effects which no human reafon could difcover. Such facts are those of the incarnation, crucifixion, and refurrection of Jefus. The confequences or effects of thefe facts, are the various benefits men may receive from this wonderful difpenfation. This, I take it, is Chriftianity. Are we then to fay that morality gives ftrength and luftre to the atonement of our Lord, to the forgiveness of our fins, which we receive through faith in his blood? And, are we to affert, that this atonement of our Lord, this forgiveness of fins, &c. &c. appear to be the voice of reafon ?"

But refolve the morality and chriftianity" of Johnson and Paley, into the inoral virtues and the christian graces, and then ask whether the moral virtues and the chriftian graces may not give strength and luftre to each other? We may affert even the doctrines of the atonement and forgiveness of fins, to be the voice of reason, if we recollect that Socrates, perceiving the relation between the creature and the Creator, and fenfible of the perfection of the one, and the depravity of the other, deduced, from reafon itself, the neceflity of fome revelation, to reconcile man to himself and to his God.

fays,