« ПретходнаНастави »
the advocates of the divine-efficiency scheme, on the word here translated " worketh in them to will, etc.," as if their views were thereby most triumphantly established. But does not the bible also speak with equal explicitness of yet another agent, who worketh (the sanie original word, svegyw) in the children of disobedience? Does Satan then by a positive, direct efficiency, create sinful volitions in men? And yet does God also create them?
We have been requested, in a note to the above letter, to answer some queries; and as the subject now naturally arises, we may as well discuss this point in our present remarks. The question which heads the list, is one which admits of different answers, according to the aspect in which it is viewed. We may take the last query, however, as rendering it somewhat less indefinite. “Is he (man dependent for the existence and the preservation of his mental powers merely, and independent as respects his choice ?" We lay out of question here the case of regeneration, in which we are agreed, that the sinner, not as a moral agent, but through his perverseness in sin, is dependent on the influence of the Holy Spirit, for all holy affections or volitions. But the question now under consideration, relates only to the requisites of moral agency ; and viewed in this light, we have no hesitation in answering it in the affirmative. But what is meant by “ power to choose independently of any influence ab extra," as it is expressed in another question? Is it meant to exclude what is sometimes called the influence of motives; or is it merely the object to exclude a divine efficiency? We wish, that our querist had put his question in a somewhat more intelligible shape. Perhaps, however, we can arrive at the desired answer, by some further considerations. For this purpose, let us refer to the question as applied to the divine mind. Has God or has he not“ the power to choose independently of any influence," that is, efficiency “ ab extra ?" or course we do not mean sustaining influence out of himself. Let our querist also answer another question. Does God ever act except in view of motives? Have motives any influence on the divine mind? Can he be truly independent ab extra, thus acting in view of motives? Must not a power, the same in kind also, act in the same manner, when once it has begun to exist? The whole question is brought within a very narrow compass. It is simply nothing more or less than this; Can God create agents, who when created and sustained, can act without his continued efficiency, literally producing their voluntary acts. We claim that he can: and that there can be no moral agency in man, unless he possess such power. We suppose the writer of the letter, with his brethren of Mendon Association, would deny such a view of man's moral agency. God can originate bis own acts in view of motives; or in other words, he acts in view of motives. So we
believe, that man can originate his own acts in view of motives; not that he determines to choose, according to the old and exploded doctrine of the self-determining power of the will. But he is created with a faculty called will, which can act without any efficiency from God, and which without any other divine aid than sustaining and preserving power, -in view of motives, invariably chooses wrong, till an influence from God, distinct from that of motives, secures a right choice. We maintain therefore, that man has the same power in kind with his Maker, being made in this respect, after the similitude of God. But Mr. Smalley prosesses for himself and brethren, to make an essential difference. "Man is a dependent, God is an independent moral agent.” Either here is a mere ambiguity of language, or a difference in kind in the power, is ascribed to man and to his Maker. We are glad to see, that the idea of mere passive power is disclaimed as absurd. But we cannot yet perceive how there can be active power in man, when a direct divine efficiency is necessary literally to create bis volitions. Active power, if it be any thing, is power adequate to act. To say then, that there is active power which cannot act without divine agency, is to say that there is power adequate to act, which is not adequate to act,-power to act which cannot act. According to our views of the subject also, under this creative agency of God, the mind of man can possess no power to act otherwise, -no adequate power to exercise any other volition, than that which God creates. Every human volition is the direct product of a divine creating energy. It takes place, by a necessity, which as truly excludes the moral agency of man, as it is excluded from non-entity.
We know, that the scripture uses the terms create and creation, in a figurative or secondary import, with reference to the moral change called regeneration. But the advocates of the divine-efficiency scheme, if we can understand them, use the terms in their literal and primary meaning; and thus maintain, that man is the agent or doer of those acts, which God creates by bis direct efficiency. But our object is not now, to determine the biblical doctrine. On that point, see Christian Spectator for December, 1835. We simply maintain, that to exhibit man as an agent or doer in those things which God creates by direct efficiency, is a philosophical absurdity.
We have long supposed, that Hopkinsian writers confound the following things in their reasonings,—the dependence of man as a sinner, on divine influence for holiness, with dependence as a moral agent; and dependence as a moral agent, with dependence as a creature, for continued existence. Because man is dependent as a sinner, for holiness, through the perverseness of his own will; nor because he is dependent as a creature, for continued being, does it follow, that he is dependent as a moral agent. And why the latter dogma,why the impossibility, that mind should act without divine agency, should be so confidently maintained, without proof, or even an attempt at proof, we are at a loss to decide. We have supposed indeed, that this doctrine has been resorted 10, as the only adequate basis of the certainty of human action. The mistake lies, in not perceiving, that the acts of the most independent agent which can be conceived, are as truly certain before they exist, as the acts of an agent who is dependent in the most absoJute sense. On this ground, while we maintain that man as a moral agent, possesses in and of himself, the power to originate bis own moral acts, we also maintain the certainty of all human action.
To conclude,—we are not satisfied, that there are no Hopkinsians, properly so called, in the Mendon Association. Dr. Emmons, we know is a member of that body, and though Mr. Smalley intimates, that the writings of Dr. Emmons may appear in some instances not to harmonize with his statements, he is very careful to express no dissent from the opinions of this distinguished divine. Let this be done,- let the Mendon Association say, that they wholly dissent from the views of Dr. Emmons, on the point in question, and it will be something to the purpose. Let Mr. Smalley say this, and we shall begin to suspect that we are in the wrong
But as the case now stands, we are only confirmed in the accuracy of our statements. We are so, by Mr. Smalley's own declarations. Correct as we deem many of the views of truth, which he has expressed, -as when he says, 'that man has all the power requisite to choice,' yet when he represents bim also as a dependent moral agent, meaning, - if he means any thing to the purpose,—that he has not power to act without divine agency to produce his acts, or as his question clearly implies, dependent "as it respects his choice;" we cannot doubt, that Mr. Sinalley holds substantially the very opinion, which we regard as objectionable. For what can be plainer than this, to wit,--if the agency of God is requisite, so far as power is concerned, to produce an act of choice in man, then man has not all the power requisite to an act of choice. Until then, it shall be shown, that man has all the power requisite to an act of choice, while he is in such a sense dependent on God, that he has not all the power requisite to an act of choice without the agency of God, we see not how, according to Mr. Smalley's own statements of man's dependence, we are required “to confess our mistake.”
VOLUME VIII.-NUMBER III.
Art. 1.–CONNECTION BETWEEN EGYPTIAN AND Jewish
Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, Jun., and on the advantages
which it offers to sucred criticism. By J. G. H. Greppo. Translated from the French by Isaac Stuart, with notes and illustrations. 8vo. Boston: 1830.
The antiquarian hails with bursts of rapture the dawn of every ray of light which promises to reveal any thing concerning the early history of nations, and bids thrice welcome to the discovery of any additional evidence that tends to clear up the doubts, or to remove the obscurity which hangs over the story of their infancy; and most gladly does the biblical critic listen to a revelation which unfolds aught of past ages; more especially when it relates to a country whose history for a long time was so intimately blended with that of the church of God, as was the Egyptian.
It has at all times been a favorite pursuit with both the antiquary and critic, to trace the coincidences in the history of primitive nations,-to mark the similarity of their customs and manners, the sameness of their religion and laws; but never, until the announcement that the indefatigable labors of Champollion and Dr. Young had resulted in the discovery of the long lost key to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, did this subject present inducements which attracted the attention of all christendom. What will be its effect on the early history of Egypt? anxiously inquired the antiquarian. What on the sacred record ? asked the christian and critic. Will the tale of these mysterious emblems confirm or contradict the details of the sacred bistory?
Nor was this lively interest felt without a cause. The triumph of the infidel over the fabulous claims of the Chinese chronology, Vol. VIII.
and the peans sung over the imaginary antiquity of the Zodiacs of Dendera and Esne, were then, as now, fresh in the minds of many living. It was not unnatural, therefore, nor irrelevant, to inquire, whether the same round was 10 be run over the record of these time-enduring monuments,—whether the same extravagant claims were to be based upon them, to be beaten down and dissipated in like manner, by a more extended research, and a more critical examination.* The result, however, has shown, that so far from invalidating any of the numerous historical relations of the bible, to the extent of which they are at all applicable, they confirm in a striking manner the statements of the sa
We have not now either time or space to enable us to enter into a history of the discovery of which we have spoken ; nor would it be within the scope of this article to enter into a detail of the particular results to which it has led. For the present we can only assure such of our readers as are not already acquainted with the fact, that the course pursued by the discoverers is certain, and the results to wbich it leads perfectly satisfactory,—that the conclusions they have drawn are such as must satisfy the severest critic. For information on this subject, we must now refer them to the work, the title of which stands at the head of our article, and which has for some time been before the public,-a work we are happy to be able to recommend for their perusal, as one from which they will derive both instruction and amusement, and which with the exception of a few points of minor consequence, is one of decided merit, and a good reference for authority. There are also various other works on the same subject, which we should be glad to see circulated among our citizens; a list of some of them we add in a note.
Bidding adieu, then, to the history of our subject, we shall plunge in medias res, and hasten to acquaint our readers with some of the advantages to be derived by biblical scholars from a study of the early Egyptian history, and more especially from that furnished us in a translation of the hieroglyphics.
* Greppo has given a very good account of the Zodiacs, in p. 2, c. 10; and for an account of the Hindoo, Indian, and Chinese chronology and astronomy, see Hist. Brit. Ind. vol. ii. c. 6. vol. iii. c. 13. 3 vols. 8vo. New-York. 1832.
+ The following contains a list of some of the most important works referred to in the text : Précis du Système, Hierog/phique, of M. Champollion, Jun.: Pantheon Egyptien : Collection des Personages Mythologiques de l'Ancienne Egypt d'Apres les Monuments : avec texte explicatif, by the same author : Materia Hierogliphica ; containing the Egyptian Pantheon, and the succession of the Pharaohs from the earliest time to the conquest of Alexander ; by G. J. Wilkinson, Esq.: 1 Monu. menti dell'Egitto e della Nubin disegnati della spedizione scientifico-literaria Toscana in Egitio ; distributi in ordine di materie interpretati ed illustrati dal Dottore Ippollito Rossellini.
The last three mentioned works are reviewed in the January number of the Foreign Quarterly Review, 1836; the last two with others in the Edinburgh Review for Feb. 1833.