their life." Now, we would ask, had these poor creatures, or could they have, any idea of what these declarations implied? Were they not, as respected the generality of them, words without a meaning? Did Mr. Bridges ascertain, or did he ask a single question with a view of ascertaining, how many of his 9413 converts were actually living, at the time of their baptism, in a state of lawless concubinage, indulging day by day, without restraint," the carnal desires of the flesh," which he made them declare that they renounced? He admits, that of the 16,000 Slaves in his parish, only 187 couple were married. In what state were the remainder of those persons living, and in what state do they still live, whom he pronounced, on their baptism, to be "regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church;" and for whom he solemnly gave thanks as such, praying "that they may lead the rest of their life according to this beginning?" Did he not know that, at the very time of their baptism, multitudes of them were leading licentious lives? Then, as to keeping God's commandments-has Sunday ceased to be the market-day in Jamaica? Has it ceased to be a day of labour to these baptised Negroes? And if we suppose these Negroes to become hereafter intelligent Christians, what must they think of their pastors, when they look back on this mockery and profanation of religious rites? Certain ly there is nothing in Mr. Bridges's alleged proof which at all invalidates the statement of Mr. Wilberforce. What may have happened since those testimonies, on which Mr. Wilberforce proceeded, were laid on the table of the House of Commons, it would be impossible to predicate. He and all who feel with him on this subject will rejoice to be assured, on good ground, that there has been any substantial change effected in respect to the religious instruction of the Slaves. In the mean time, the very delay of the Government to give Sunday to the Slaves, and equivalent time in lieu of Sunday for the cultivation of their provision grounds, until effectual provision shall have been made for the religious instruction of the Slaves (a delay for which we can see no valid reason), is a proof of itself of the correctness of Mr. Wilberforce's statement, even as it applies to the present day. And if farther proof were wanting it might be produced in abundance. We might bring forward Mr. Ellis, Mr. Barham, Sir George Rose, Mr. Stewart, Dr. Williamson, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Meabry, and many more to testify to the same point. Nay, we might bring forward, with still more effect, the Jamaica District Committee of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, of which Mr. Bridges is a member, and to the funds of which he devotes the profits of his pamphlet. That Society, at its second meeting in 1822, drew up a statement which was published in the Jamaica Royal Gazette of the 11th May in that year. "Erroneous impressions," they said, "had gone abroad relative to the purposes of the undertaking, which, if not removed, were likely to impede its success." The meeting, therefore," declared explicitly that the object of the Jamaica District Committee is to promote and facilitate the religious and moral improvement of the FREE population of the colony;" and " that the religious instruction of the slave population, though regarded as an object of the highest importance, yet being already in the hands of the Legislature, ENTERS NOT into the views of this association, except in so far as the improvement of that class may be confidently anticipated as the natural result of the increase of religious knowledge, good principles, and exemplary conduct in the castes above them." Here then we find the Committee of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, whose object, in every other part of the world, is the instruction of the vengeance was a sufficiently decisive temporal retribution, in immediate for Patriarchal sins. The case, however, utterly fails in the history of Abel, who certainly did not receive the recompense of his righteous deeds in this life. Cain, on the other hand, built up and ruled his temporal dominion. But, more than all, the knowledge, at least, of a future state of rewards and punishments is argued from the translation of Enoch, and the traditionary prophecy recorded by St. Jude of that eminent servant of God: "Behold, the Lord cometh with the thousands of his saints to execute judgment,' &c. The Bishop, necessarily pressed by these and similar difficulties, had provided, for an answer to them, the possibility of occasional revelations to the fathers; which, as a species of esoteric doctrines, these mighty hierophants kept in their own bosom, until the fulness of the time was come, and life and immortality were BROUGHT TO LIGHT by the Gospel. Even heathen inventions are urged by the Bishop to account for Jewish knowledge before that period. In reply to these sophisms, Mr. Faber is quite conclusive, and shews the true meaning of bringing to light, though, perhaps, by no very reverent transfer of the old eulogy on Newton's exposition of the known celestial motions, to the doctrinal revelations of the Son of God: Nature, and nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be, and all was light. "What need the Jews should have to fill their urns from the turbid waters of Gentile superstition, when fast by the oracle of God flowed the limpid brook of Siloa;' why they should send to inquire of Baal-Zebub the god of Accaron,' respecting the dread secrets of the central Tartarus and his own Acherusian pool, when Daniel had unequivocally taught the resurrection of the dead, some to everlast ing life and soine to everlasting contempt; what resemblance the learned prelate can discover between the noble confession of the Maccabean mother, and those fabled manes and subterranean kingdoms which among the later pagans were scarcely beCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 269. lieved by the very boys, when the head and front of her offending before the monster Antiochus was her strenuous refusal to pollute herself by conformity to the idolatrous manners of the Gentiles; all this it is passing difficult to comprehend. Bishop Warburton, hampered on every side with contradictions of his own raising, and yet determined not to adopt any mode of solution which may too roughly clash with his favourite hypothesis, resembles some strong animal, which has haply entangled itself in the perplexities of a well-fabricated net, and which by every indignant struggle to regain its freedom binds round its mighty labouring bulk the subtle meshes only more closely and more inextricably." Vol. II. pp. 51, 52, The third chapter defines the degree of knowledge, respecting a future state of retribution, possessed under the LEVITICAL dispensation. Having here traced the traditional knowledge of a future state from Abraham to the Exodus, by the clear circumstantial evidence of family descent, Mr. Faber pursues his important inquiry, in immediate company with Bishop Warburton, from that period onward to David, and from the time of David, through that of the remaining Prophets, to the arrival of the Messiah. The argument is followed up, as by the Bishop himself, both negatively an1 positively, as well from the silence of the sacred record, as from its express language. Both are adduced by the Bishop for his own support; and his lordship's application is combated by Mr. Faber. Throughout the whole of this long discussion, which in truth extends through the fourth chapter, on the true sanctions of the Law of Moses, and the fifth chapter, on the notices of a future state discoverable in the Pentateuch, our author seems to treat Bishop Warburton much as a schoolmaster of no very delicate nerves, or compassionate loving kindness, treats an made a very bad theme, or has unfortunate school-boy, who has translated into nonsense the exquisite purities of Livy or Demosthenes. Bishop Warburton's work on the Divine Legation is made, in truth, 2 S to appear what it really is, a crude, ill-ligested theory, commenced before the author had thoroughly weighed and considered his whole subject, or seen through the entire drift of his own argument; in short, an example of the complete neglect of the wise apophthegm, "Whatsoever thou takest in hand remember the end, and thou shalt not do amiss." He had the spirit of a wild projector. Every thing was to give way to a preconceived noticn, taken up in the fervour of discovery, and to be maintained with insuperable pertinacity and dogmatism. And truly it makes us ashamed to reflect, that-with such a mind, however vast and Charybdis-like its capacity for learning, yet, on the whole, so unqualified for a calm and candid and effectual search after truth-this gigantic theologue should have been permitted so long to tyrannise over the world of literature and divinity, both living and dead. His work, especially as dissected by Mr. Faber, speaks for itself; and it is certainly proved as destitute of conclusiveness as it was of conclusion, for he died before it was finished. wondering how it should have escaped detection from himself. "He deduces the total ignorance of the ancient Israelites, not from their own total silence, but from the total silence of their historians: as if it plainly followed, that they had never uttered a syllable on the subject, because their historians (for whatever reason) have not thought fit to record their words. "Can we suppose for a moment, that Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, who are acknowledged to have been well acquainted with the doctrine, never once made it a topic of conversation in their families, and never once declared it to be their grand hope and comfort in the midst of all their trials? Yet does the argument of Bishop Warburton, if fairly urged (as it ought to be) in the case of the ancient patriarchs as well as of the ancient Israelites, require us to believe, that, because Moses does not record any such language as employed fore they never did employ such language. by Abraham or his two successors, there "The whole argument, in short, is built upon the grossly fallacious presumption, that, if an historian omit to notice the doctrine of a future state when treating of any particular people, we are clearly bound to infer from his silence the total ignorance of that people respecting the doctrine in question." Vol. II. pp. 72, 73. And more than silence, the Bishop maintains, that in several cases* and vii. 9, 40. 3. Psalm vi. 6, and xxx. 9; lxxxviii. 10-12. 4. Eccles. ix. 5. 5. Is. xxxviii. 18, 19. 6. Jeremiah v. 7. And, lastly, "to make sure that God forgets the dead, as well as that the dead forget God," Psalm lxxxviii. 4, 5; “ like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou re"-After remarking on The grand principle which runs through the whole of his argument is, as we have amply seen, that a The passages referred to under this future state was the revelation of extraordinary head of the Bishop's work, the New Testament, as the sanc-koah, 2 Sam. xiv. 14. 2. Job xiv. 7—12, are,-1. The speech of the woman of Tetions of a temporal code had been of the Old. And Bishop Warburton's assuming this to be the fact, resolves either to find or to make the Old Testament silent as to the doctrine of futurity; nay, contradictory to the belief of it, and even depending for its own authority upon the exclusion of it. First then, as to silence being any proof that the doctrine was not held by the OldTestament fathers; Mr. Faber main tains, that if it were the fact that the Old Testament is silent on the point, it could be no disproval at all of their belief in the doctrine, and that In fact, the entire argument, as stated by his lordship, is built upon so palpable a fallacy, that one can scarcely refrain from memberest no more." this latter text, that it has clearly a rela tive, not an absolute character; and that God remembers them no more, merely as objects of his moral government in a state of probation; Mr. Faber thus winds up this textual discussion: "Thus it appears, that, of the several texts produced by the Bishop, one decidedly establishes the very opposite doctrine from what they were cited to establish; six, being fully capable of a different interpretation, cannot be allowed to afford any strength to his lordship's cause; and three, having been penned by writers who flourished when the the doctrine is even contradicted! On this ground Mr. Faber is very properly still stronger. "A much more serious consequence, however, than the inconsistency of an individual, flows from the interpretation given by the Bishop of others of the texts which he has produced. "In sacred history, as well as in any other history, a private person may be introduced speaking his own sentiments: and those sentiments may themselves be either right or wrong: the recording historian does not stand compromised by the bare circumstance of his having been the recorder. But, when an inspired writer speaks with his own voice, he can speak nothing but the most perfect truth: for it is a blasphemous contradiction to say, that an inspired writer can utter falsehoods. It is easy indeed to conceive, that God may not so fully inspire a prophet as that he should be able to declare the whole truth: hence, had the writers of the Old Testament been altogether silent on the doctrine of a future state, it were no impeachment of their claims to inspiration; because they might have received no commission to set forth that doctrine. But, if, instead of preserving a total silence, they come forward and unreservedly declare, while speaking in their own persons, that there is no future state; when yet we know, from the highest possible authority, that there is a future state; I am at a loss to understand, how we are to save their credit as inspired writers. Thus, when the woman of Tekoah uses an ex pression, which implies (as the Bishop thinks) her complete disbelief of a future state, the inspired historian merely records the language of an uninspired individual: but, when David or Solomon, writing under the immediate impulse of inspiration, equally declare (as the Bishop contends) that there is no future state, are we to admit or to reject their alleged declaration? If the former, what becomes of the doctrine itself? If the latter, what are we to think of their inspiration? An inspired writer may be silent on a particular doctrine; but, as an inspired writer, it is impossible that he should utter a direct falsehood. "These considerations ought to teach us much more caution than Bishop War doctrine of a future state was confessedly known, cannot be expounded as the Bishop would expound them without a glaring and manifest inconsistency." pp. 112, 113. burton has evinced, while interpreting the texts in question." pp. 96—98. The And lastly, that the evidence for the authority of Moses should depend on the exclusive sanction of temporal rewards and punishments, is equally proved to be without foundation, by considering the true nature of the Levitical dispensation, and its accompanying sanctions. The Jewish state was a Theocracy. It was a state political, of which the head was God Himself; and in which every temporality, both of laws and their sanctions, was administered by His own immediate Providence. Consequently, as such, no reference was made by it, or required to be made by it, to future rewards and punishments. sanction was complete, of temporal judgments in behalf of temporal laws and Bishop Warburton might have been right in maintaining the divinity of the Mosaic Law, from the circumstance of temporal judgments being always, under a Divine state-polity, pledged and actually introduced for the support of its own legal enactments. Other states might require futurity to clear up the unequal disposal of temporal blessings; but the Jewish state could always depend, as a state, upon the political reward flowing from political obedience. But here properly should have ended the argument of the Bishop. To deny all knowledge of futurity to the Jews, only because this knowledge was not necessary to uphold their temporal code, is to suppose that they had no other code to uphold; in truth, is to annihilate that moral and spiritual code which was as old as the creation, resting upon the primeval sanction of a future and eternal state, and intimately connected with the doctrine of redemption. Bishop Warburton confounds the ancient moralities of the older church, with the superinduced temporal polity of the Jewish; making them really and essentially the same, or exchanged at least the one for the other whereas the Apostle expressly declares, that the one was ADDED to the other; clearly intimating, that the ancient code of faith and obedience still remained to the spiritually minded Jew; whilst another scheme, a temporal and a temporary scheme, was superadded for infinitely wise purposes, and particularly "because of transgression, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made." "The moral law, being founded upon the eternal difference between right and wrong, existed, with its own peculiar sanction, long before the promulgation of the Hebrew statute-law from mount Sinai, and long before the commencement of the miraculous Theocracy of the Israelites. This law was adopted indeed into the Hebrew law, but itself was of much higher antiquity. Hence it is plain, that, whatever its original sanction was, that sanction would remain unaltered, unless it can be shewn to demonstration that it was ever formally repealed. 66 But, so far from its being possible to shew any such matter, we have the express testimony of an Apostle to the very Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. reverse. "The Law, it seems, was added. To what then was it thus made an addition? sal apostacy to the abomination of polytheism. "With respect to this view of the Patriarchal religion, I have already shewn at large both its defectiveness and its radical special object of that dispensation was to erroneousness: for I have shewn, that the declare the vital doctrine of redemption and reconciliation to God; which, even independently of direct testimony (as Bishop Warburton is well aware), involves of necessity the doctrine of a future retributory state. The Law consequently, being added to Patriarchism, was of course added to Patriarchism with all its doctrines and all its sanctions. But the doctrines of Patriarchism were not more the Divine Unity, than redemption and reconciliation to God through a promised Deliverer: and the sanction of the moral law, as existing under Patriarchism, was most assuredly not temporal rewards and punishments in this world (as the Bishop, without a shadow of evidence, has ventured nishments in another world. To these to maintain), but future rewards and pudoctrines therefore, and to this sanction, the Law was added. It revealed neither the one nor the other of them; for they had both been revealed long before the promulgation of the Law: but to the doctrines were gradually added particulars hitherto unknown; and to the sanction was added the peculiar and exclusive sanction of the Law, when viewed as the common statute-law of the Hebrew na tion, namely, temporal rewards of obedi Most certainly, as Bishop Warburton allows, to its sole legitimate predecessor, the religion of the ancient patriarchs. What then was this primeval religion? The learned prelate contends, though with The concessions alluded to in this such concessions as to the patriarchs them- passage, on the part of Bishop selves as may well be thought to endanger Warburton, to the hazard of the the whole hypothesis, that the religion, whole fabric of his own hypothesis, which subsisted between the Fall of man are, first, the occasional revelations and the delivery of the Law from mount which he allows to the ancient fathers; Sinai, was natural religion as contradis- and, next, the dawning light which tinguished from revealed religion; that he owns to have gleamed forth on its leading article was the doctrine of the Divine Unity; and that it neither knew nor the later Prophets; cases contrataught the doctrine of a future retributory dictory to his own notion that life state, the want of such a doctrine being and immortality were disclosed only supplied, as it was afterward supplied in by the Gospel, and which at other the case of the Israelites, by the constant times, when on a sudden he recolexertion of an equal or extraordinary pro- lects himself and the full extent of vidence. He argues therefore, that, when the Law is said to have been added to the his own system, meet with a flat Patriarchal religion, nothing more is asdenial from himself, as wholly inserted, than that it was added to the bare admissible on the ground of that primeval doctrine of the Divine Unity; and inconsistency. In short, it is imhe remarks, that it is described as having possible not to consider this farbeen added because of transgressions, on famed Demonstration as a jumble the ground that there had been an univer- of learned atoms, tossed backwards |