tinue to be introduced into the adjacent colonies of other states. From the slave trade carried on upon the Western coast of Africa, we now turn to that which prevails on the East coast, and particularly between the islands of Mauritius and Madagascar. The lowest computation makes the number of new slaves imported in the single month of June 1819, into the Mauritius, to exceed 700! and the persons directly engaged, or otherwise interested, in this inhuman traffic (comprising a great part of the population of the island), were said to have increased in activity and daring beyond all former precedent. On one occasion a military guard, consisting of a corporal and four men, conveying to a place of safe custody 110 Blacks whom they had seized immediately on being landed, were attacked by a body of men, who rushed on them from a wood; the greater number of the Negroes were rescued, only twenty-four remaining in the possession of the soldiers. In the scuffle one or two of the assailants were wounded; but, as has been too usual in this island, all the offenders escaped punishment: indeed, the soldiers were even declared to have acted illegally in presuming to seize these Negroes. In the beginning of July 1819, a vessel was taken by one of the boats belonging to the Liverpool frigate, from which 200 Blacks or more had just been landed; of these a certain number were marched during the night through Port Louis, escorted by a body of armed men, consisting of Creoles, Whites, and Blacks: they were spoken with, yet they were not then, nor have they since been seized. In another instance, eight slaves who had been seized were found to be all Malays; and from their testimony it appeared, that their village had been surprised and burnt by the crew of Le Voyageur; and the brutal treatment they represented the women to have CHRIST. OBSERV, No. 233. received during the passage is too shocking for description. A warrant was issued against the master of the vessel; but though he returned to the Mauritins, it was not executed, nor had any farther notice been taken either of him or of any other of the persons implicated in this transaction. These and other circumstances had induced the acting Governor of the island to issue a proclamation, declaring his intention of enforcing the penalties of the law against all who should be found guilty of such practices. (To be continued.) To the Editor of the Christian Observer. MATHEMATICAL studies, it has been often said, prepare the mind for scepticism in religion. If however such be the fact, it may serve to strengthen our conviction of the existence of that fatal distemper of the soul which can convert the most salutary things into poison; for no science perhaps is more adapted to confirm our belief in the truth of Christianity than that of mathematics, when cultivated with a proper disposition of mind. It is calculated to humble us, by making us sensible of the contracted range of our imagination and judgment; by shewing us how little we know, how little we can comprehend, and how erroneous oftentimes are the conclusions to which à priori speculations would lead us. In studying the mathematics, passions and feelings and prejudices are excluded: there is nothing to excite hope, or gratify desire; nothing to be gained or to be lost. Whether the system of Ptolemy or that of Newton be the true one, our actual situation is the same; our rule of life is not altered; we are not personally interested in the event. And yet even here, when there is no temptation 2 R to be dissatisfied with truth, or to be afraid to avow it (as, often unhappily, is the case in matters of religion), many things occur, at which we cannot but wonder, and for which we can give no reason; nay, we are perhaps sometimes disposed to think, that had we the power to effect any alterations which might appear to us expedient, the arrangements of nature could be rendered far more regular, and its machinery less complicated. For instance: The earth, in shape a spheroid, describes an ellipse round the sun, with an irregular motion, in three hundred and sixty-five days and a fraction. The attraction of the sun and moon, acting upon the earth, occasions a precession of the equinoxes, and the motion of that precession is not uniform. The ecliptic cuts the equator; nay the angle of obliquity is not constant, but is always diminishing. It were easy to add various other seeming defects. "Why," it might be said, "is not every thing regular? Why is there this variation, this want of order, this apparent caprice? Why are not the properties of matter so contrived that the earth may be a sphere, that it may move in the simplicity of a circular orbit; that its motion may be uniform; that it may complete its revolution in an entire number of days without an additional fraction; that it may be undisturbed in its course by the action of the moon? Why has its axis this gradual cone-describing motion on its centre? Why must its poles be oblique to the plane in which it moves?" Who will not confess the rashness and arrogance of such objections, and of our attempting to give an opinion respecting the propriety of the plan approved by the Creator, while our judgment is in its present feeble state, and our knowledge of the system of the universe, and of the adaptation of its parts, is even more. limited than that of the fly in the fable, who saw fit to find fault with the architectural proportions of one of the noblest buildings in the world. Apply this confession to religion how little do we know of the ways of God, and how unequal are our faculties to judge of what we do know! Shall we then presume to say, Why was man allowed to fall? Why did not God forgive sin without an atonement? Why could not an atonement be made without the Son of God stooping to human nature and submitting to a painful death? Why did not God, instead of separating the Jews as a peculiar people to preserve the true religion, reveal his will at once to the whole world? Why is the truth of Christianity allowed to rest so much on historical evidence rather than the sensible perception of miracles; on moral rather than direct mathematical demonstration*? "If the Gospel were written on the sun," said Paine," it would be believed by all." To these and similar suggestions of unbelief, how striking is the answer of the Apostle: "Nay but, oh man! who art thou that repliest against God?" Besides the objections arising from the difficulties of revelation, a second species of objections may be answered from the same analogy; for we may extend our argument to a defence of those mysteries which have been said to involve contradictions and impossibilities. How can the Divine Being exist in three Persons? How can God and man be one Christ? How can God be the Creator of all things and not the author of evil? How can he "will not the death of a sinner," and yet punish him with everlasting death? How can God be omniscient, and yet man a free agent? To these questions it will be time enough to reply when we are in-. formed how many apparently contradictory propositions in science and of those above in mathematics, may perhaps admit of a probable answer: there are some, however, which cannot be answered. * Many of these questions in religion, are reconciled; how, for example, space can be proved ever divisible, and yet it be proved that no straight Jine can be drawn from the tangent point dividing the space between the circumference of a circle and a line touching it; how again two lines, the assymptotes of curves for instance, may be always drawing nearer to each other, yet never meet, with many other illustrations. If persons would but consider this analogy, if they would but apply something of the same temper and calm judgment to religion which they do not refuse to science, there would be but few objectors to the truths of the Bible. But their passions are brought into play: they fear lest the Gospel should be true; they hate the light, their heart is not inclined to spiritual duties, and therefore they approach the examination of the Scriptures with prejudice; they decide superficially, and turn away in disgust. The conclusions of Newton are implicitly believed, because the arguments which prove their truth are sound. The nature of those conclusions makes no difference in our belief; we acknowledge them whatever they may turn out to be; be they difficult, mysterious, incomprehensible, seemingly contradictory, it matters not, -they are proved *. Their pecu• I should add, however, that Christianity does not require us to believe any thing absurd or contradictory: its most incomprehensible doctrines are not opposed to reason, nor are they in reality more calculated to awaken just incredulity than many demonstrable propositions of human science. liarity may indeed make us more particular and cautious in examining the proof; but if we detect no error there, we acquiesce in the truth of the proposition. What would be said to that man, who, instead of sifting the proofs on which these propositions are built, and beginning with the demolition of the premises, should commence with asserting the falsity of the conclusion from some à priori conception of his own fancy, and then proceed, by the help of this assumption of error in the conclusion, to overthrow the reasonings on which it is founded? Yet this very thing is done daily with the Bible. Men begin at the wrong end of the scale of reasoning; and having refuted, as they conceive, a doctrine by arguments resting on the basis of preconceived ideas, they proceed up the ladder and arrive at once at the portentous determination, that all the proofs which have been advanced in support of that doctrine, and the book which contains an avowal of that doctrine, must be erroneous. It is in this spirit they lay down the unphilosophical axiom, that “a true religion can have no mysteries;" and then infer either that Christianity is not a true religion, because it contains mysteries-or that it contains no mysteries, because it is a true religion. Nothing can be more illogical, more unworthy of a person of science than such conclusions; but where the passions of men are roused, and their interests concerned, little regard is paid to consistency or impartiality. A. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. PAMPHLETS ON THE PETERBO- seven Questious, we wish our readers to keep in mind the real bearings of we have included in the Review," Episcopal Innovation or the Test of Modern Orthodoxy," London, 1820. pp. 120.— Some other pamphlets relating to the controversy have been published since the discussion. We are not, they will recollect, animadverting upon the private sentiments of a member of the Episcopal Bench: we are not calling the Bishop of Peterborough to the bar of the public, to answer for himself in what manner he reconciles his personal sentiments with those of the Church of England; or how it is, that professing doctrines which, as we have seen already, and shall see yet more fully in the sequel, are substantially, and often literally and verbally, opposed to the declarations of her established for mularies, he can yet subscribe her appointed tests of doctrine, and accept of her dignities and emoluments. All this might, indeed, be very fair matter of discussion, as it respects a public and responsible functionary; but this is not the immediate bearing of the present discussion. We are not inquiring how it is that the Bishop of Peterborough, with the views contained in his Questions, and some other of his writings, can consent to remain in communion with the Church of England; but we are inquiring, how it is that he can have thought himself justified in excluding from the ministerial office in that church all who differ from him-all who accept literally and grammatically what he is constrained to accept at best cum grano salis—all who really love and would zealously labour to defend those very parts of our established formularies, which, if these Eighty-seven Questions are right, ought to be greatly modified, if not wholly expunged! We are not asking, for example, how it is, if he believes that the unmitigated doctrine of mankind having departed "as far as possible" from original righteousness be a tenet calculated "to destroy all sense of virtue or moral goodness," that his lordship can himself as an individual conscientiously eat the bread of a church which maintains this tenet; but we are asking how it is that he we began our review, which, therefore, could not be included in it. can venture, as a public officer in that church, to make a belief in this tenet a bar to the admission of clergymen into his diocese. If his lordship thinks the Homilies, or certain parts of them, unwholesome, which the church pronounces "wholesome," he may have a private method of reconciling the apparent difficulty thence arising to his own conscience; but it is somewhat too much to inflict the censure of bad churchmanship on all who are not such expert casuists as himself; nay, to reject from his diocese, and to refuse holy orders to those who think the church right, and the episcopal interpreter wrong. The world may perhaps make some excuse for an individual who, for weighty reasons, strains matters a little to reconcile his mind to statements which he does not cordially approve, by giving them such an ingenious explanation as will decently justify his subscription; but to substitute his own ingenious and farfetched gloss in the place of the original statement; and to condemn the enemies of the convenient but questionable comment as enemies to the unsophisticated text, is an assumption of power of no ordinary kind. We do not say that it is not highly politic thus to commence the attack where most persons, similarly circumstanced, would have been content to confine themselves to a feeble defence; we do not say that it is not wise to assume the office of a prosecutor, instead of pleading at the bar as a culprit ; but we believe that few persons, in a case so glaring as the present, could have commanded nerve enough for the enterprise. The portion of the Peterborough Questions which we examined in our last Number contains the chapters on Redemption, Original Sin, Free Will, and Justification. These are mainly preparatory to the fifth chapter, "On Everlasting Salvation," which closes the general train of argument that had been weaving throughout the foregoing chap ters; for afterwards his lordship proceeds to several comparatively detached topics. Those of our readers who wish to see the ingenious construction of the whole fabric will do well to refer back to our last Number, in order to connect the former chapters with that "On Everlasting Salvation," which we are now about to consider. The first question in this chapter takes up for its principal datum the conclusion which had been elicited -in what way the reader has already seen in the last question of the former chapter, that "justification" is "admission into covenant with God." In an ordinary sermon this definition might perhaps have been assented to without much inconvenience; but where it is intended to be made the basis of such sweeping conclusions as follow in this chapter, it is necessary, especially when we advert to the way in which these queries are drawn up, to look a little more cautiously at his lordship's real meaning. wilder the whole question. If his lordship's defenders think this remark either unjust or uncandid, let them try the experiment, whether if they take the term "justification," or any one of its alleged synonimes, it will bear them through the whole. of these questions. The scriptural and the Church of England synonime for justification is "being accounted righteous before God." Let them substitute this phrase wherever his lordship employs what he contends are its synonimes, and it will be immediately evident that the process would convert many of the questions into complete nonsense. For The fact, in short, will be found to be that the expressions which his lordship uses as synonimous, and professes to prove to be such, are in reality not synonimous, and often are very far from being so. example, "Is not our justification," asks his lordship in the preceding chapter," our admission to the Christian covenant?" Supposing this to be answered in the affirmative, as it must be if the examination is to proceed, the succeeding question, which is the first in the chapter under consideration, begins, "Though we are justified or admitted into covenant with God, &c." But these two expressions "justified" and "admitted into covenant with God," which are here taken as synonimous, do not in reality import exactly the same idea. "Justification" refers to the mere act of God in pardoning us, and accounting us righteous for the sake of Christ; but God's admitting us into covenant implies something more. Such a survey of the ground is the more necessary, as his lordship must have perceived that the single word "justified" would not solve all the phenomena of the present "hypothesis;" and that, if used exclusively, it would have given an opportunity to an opponent to quote passages from the Scriptures and the formularies of the church, where this word is employed, to the great disturbance of his lordship's system. The writings of the reformers are more specific and lucid on the subject of justification than on almost any other. This was doubt less owing to their controversies with the Papists, who asserted bold-" ly what his lordship's system seems necessarily to imply the merit of human works. But the expression "admission into covenant with God" was not so obviously exposed to this formidable and direct resistance; and from its convenient application either to faith, or justification, or baptism, was peculiarly calculated to be "Justification," say the Homilies, is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we receive of him;" (Homily of Salvation, part 2.): but is something mutual; and no persons more frequently speak of "the terms and conditions of our baptismal cove " a covenant" nant" than those who agree in doctrine with the Bishop of Peterborough. His lordship's synonimes, therefore, recoil equally upon the Scriptures, the Homi lies, and himself. |