is rectitude itself), to allow the entrance and the continuance of that seeming foil to the loveliness of his works.

on this inextricable subject; will enjoy a most refined amusement (but attended, I think, with no feasible solution of the difficulty immediately in point), by perusing the second part of that concise, elegant, judicious, and faithful sketch of antique philosophy, entitled, A Discourse upon the Theology and Mythology of the Ancients. Written by the Chevalier Ramsay: an author, who, though in my opinion, extremely fanciful and erroneous on some metaphysical questions; yet deserves to be loved and admired as one of the most ingenious, polite, candid, and entertaining reasoners, that ever added the enchantments of beauty to the dignity of virtue and to the riches of learning.

But still our utmost investigations leave us precisely where they began. We know scarce any of the views, which induced uncreated goodness to ordain (for, where infinity of knowledge and power and of wisdom unite in the permitter, I see no very great difference between permitting and ordaining) the introgression, or, more properly, the intromission, of evil. For my own part, I can, with unrepining cheerfulness, give God credit (and that to all eternity, should it be his pleasure to require me) for doing every thing well.

"I know but this, that he is good,

And that myself am blind."

Can any body bring the matter to a more satisfactory issue? Si non, hoc utere mecum.

For

It might have been happy for that fine, but too excursive Theorist, D. Conyers Middleton, if he had not, with more rashness than good speed, endeavoured to overleap that boundary, which God himself has fixed, to the present extent of human knowledge. Were we even to grant the doctor his favourite hypothesis, viz. that the whole Mosaic account of the fall is merely allegorical; the origin of evil would still remain as dark, and as deep at the bottom of the well, as ever. to what does this boasted allegory amount? Dr. Middleton shall give it us, in his own words (Works, Quarto. Vol. II. p. 149). "By Adam, we are to understand reason, or the mind of man. By Eve, the flesh, or outward senses. By the serpent, lust, or pleasure. In which allegory, we see clearly explained the true causes of man's fall and degeneracy: that, as soon as his mind, through the weakness and treachery of his senses, became captivated and seduced by the allurements of lust and pleasure, he was driven by God out of Paradise, i. e. lost and forfeited the happiness and prosperity, which he had enjoyed in his innocence."

With all the respect due to so very superior a pen, I would offer an observation or two on this passage.-1. If Adam, and Eve, and

Arminianism (which represents moral and natural evil as entering and as reigning in defiance and contrariety to the will and wish and endeavours of the Divine Being) coincides so patly with the Manichæan dream of two almighty conflicting principles, who reign in spite of each other, and catch as catch can; that I really wonder at the reversed mo

the serpent, and the trees of knowledge and of life, and the very paradise where they grew, were all allegorical (i. e. fabulous and unreal); might not an atheist suppose, with equal reason, that the adorable Creator, whom this same history terms God, is as allegorical a being as the rest?—2. If the fall itself, as related in scripture, be no more than a piece of moral fiction: what security have we, that the scriptural account of redemption, is not equally fictitious? Indeed, where is the necessity, or so much as the propriety, and reasonableness, of imagining, that an allegorical ruin requires more than an allegorical restoration ?- -3. Among a multitude of other objections, which clog the wheel of this unsatisfactory scheme, the following is one; that the difficulty of accounting for the rise of evil, still subsists in all its primitive and impenetrable obscurity. For, (1.) How came the "allurements of lust and pleasure," to exist at all? especially, in a state of absolute innocency?—(2.) How came man's "outward senses" to be so very easy of access, as to fly open, like the doors of an enchanted castle, at almost the first appearance of this said gigantic lady, called "Allurement?"—(3.) How came the human mind to yield itself so tame a "captive" to those seducing senses? Not to ask, (4.) Why the senses themselves were originally indued with that" weakness, and treachery," and power of "seduction," which the doctor so freely places to their account?-I think myself warranted to conclude, that this masterly allegorizer has not "clearly explained," nor so much as thrown the least glimmering of explanation upon, "the true causes of man's fall and degeneracy." What then do we gain by reading Moses through the doctor's allegoric spectacles? So far from gaining, we lose the little we had. The man who pulls down my house, and builds me a better in its place, deserves my thanks. But the man who takes down my dwelling, under pretence that it is not sufficiently ample and elegant for a person of my dignity to inhabit; and, after all this parade, leaves me to sleep in the open air, unsheltered by any roof at all, does me a material injury. When infidels can raise a more commodious fabric (i. e. propose a more unexceptionable system of principles), than that the Bible presents us with; we will cheerfully remove from our old house. But, until then, let those gentlemen sleep sub dio by themselves.

desty of those free-willers, who are for shifting off the charge of Manichæism, from themselves, to other folks.

Nay, were I disposed to make the most of my argument, I might add, and very fairly too, That the old Manichæism, was a gentle impiety, and a slender absurdity; when contrasted with the modern Arminian improvements on that system. For, which is worse? To assert the existence of two independent beings, and no more; or, to assert the existence of about one hundred and fifty millions of independent beings, all living at one time, and most of them waging successful war on the designs of him that made them?

Moreover, if so very minute a crumb of the creation, as this terraqueous planet, which we at present occupy, can furnish out such a formidable army of independent principles (i. e. of self-determiners: in which number, infants and children themselves must be virtually included, which will swell the catalogue with about seventy millions more); the aggregate number of independent and possibly-conflicting agents, contained in the universe at large, may exceed the powers of all the angels in heaven to compute. But, even confining ourselves to our own world; it will follow, that Arminian Manichæism exceeds the paltry oriental duality, at the immense rate of 150,000,000 to 2! And this, at the very lowest and most favourable computation, i. e. without taking infants into the account; and without reckoning the adult self-determiners of past generations, nor of those generations which are yet to

come.

Poor Manes! with how excellent a grace do Arminians call thee a heretic! And, above all, such Arminians (whereof Mr. John Wesley is one) as agree with thee, in believing the attainability of sinless perfection here below: or, to use the good old Manichæan phrase, who assert that the evil principle

may be totally separated from man in the present life!

"Oh, but Manes held necessity also." But what sort of necessity? Such a necessity as a child would be under, if the Dragon of Wantley was pulling him by one arm, and Moore of Moore-hall by the other. Christianity and philosophy have nothing to do with this necessity, except to laugh at it.

4. Mr. Wesley seems much displeased with a brace of gentlemen, whose names he has not communicated to the public; but who appear, from his account of them, to be in no very fair way toward sinless perfection.

One of these, we are told, delivered his mind to this effect! "I frequently feel tempers, and speak many words, and do many actions, which I do not approve of. But I cannot avoid it. They result, whether I will or no, from the vibrations of my brain, together with the motion of my blood, and the flow of my animal spirits. But these are not in my own power. I cannot help them. They are independent on my choice." Thus far, I totally agree with the gentleman unknown. Every one of his premises is true. But the conclusion limps most miserably. Which conclusion (if Mr. Wesley have represented it fairly) is this: "Therefore I cannot apprehend myself to be a sinner." And pray, what does the gentleman apprehend himself to be? A saint, I presume. Should this tract ever fall into his hands, let me intreat him to cry mightily to God, for that supernatural influence of grace, which alone is able to convince him of his sinnership; to bring him to Christ; and to save him from the evil effects, which must otherwise continue to result from "the vibrations of his brain, the motion of his blood, and the flow of his animal spirits."

The other anonymous gentleman, according to Mr. Wesley's history of him, believes the omnipotence, but doubts the wisdom, and flatly denies the

VOL. VI.

H

goodness of God. From the peculiar complexion of this creed, I should have imagined that its compiler had picked up the two last articles of it at the Foundery but Mr. Wesley precludes this surmise, by giving us to understand, that the gentleman is not a free-willer. For thus the creed goes on: "All the evil in the world is owing to God. I can ascribe it to no other cause. I cannot blame that cur for barking or biting: it is his nature: and he did not make himself. I feel wrong tempers in myself. But that is not my fault: for I cannot help it. It is my nature. And I could not prevent my having this nature neither can I change it."

No man in the world is more prone to put things in people's mouths, which they never said, or thought of, than Mr. J. W. I therefore lay very little stress on the testimony, which supports the authenticity of this creed. It may be genuine. But it is more probable, that it was forged, and dressed up for the occasion.

However, I will bestow a few concise annotations on this confession of faith, be it real, or be it fictitious.

"All the evil in the world is owing to God." Nothing can be more false. For, as the great and good (a) Mr. Edwards observes, "It would be strange

(a) Viz. the late Rev. Mr. Jonathan Edwards, of North America. Whose Enquiry into the Freedom of the Will is a book which God has made the instrument of more deep and extensive usefulness (especially among Deists, and persons of science), than almost any other modern publication I know of. If such of my readers as have not yet met with it, wish to see the Arminian sophistry totally unravelled and defeated; let them add that excellent performance to their literary treasures. A more nervous chain of reasoning it would be extremely difficult to find, in the English language. Consequently, it is not one of those treatises that can be run through in a hurry. It must be read deliberately, and weighed with attention: else, you will lose half the strength of the connection.A spruce Maccaroni was boasting one day, that he had the most happy genius in the world. Every thing, said he, is easy to me. People call Euclid's Elements a hard book: but I read it yesterday, from begin