tilling influence of knowledge, that he must draw the interest of his narratives. Not great occasions, but great truths, must make his heroes. It may be that the task of drawing attention to these calmer compositions may be much greater than to those replete with incident and catastrophe. But if the history of any individual is matter of curiosity and of gratification to his successors on the stage of life, chiefly because it may stand connected with the past progress or the future triumphs of truth and piety, then, though much of the excitement, and all the romantic air, may be wanting, yet assuredly the same great and cardinal qualities remain to interest the heart, to feed hope, to gratify benevolent sympathies, and to awaken happy anticipations. The cause of truth and of human improvement lives through all ages, and retains the same attractions to all that love the one and labour for the other; and no species of composition can be either more pleasing, instructive, or useful, than that of evangelical biography. Without entering into any lengthened discussion upon the article before us, we intend to say at once, we have seen no life of any modern minister of the Gospel, which contains ampler or better materials for instructive review, or pleasing and encouraging anticipation in reference to the general interests of the Redeemer's kingdom; and yet, speaking generally, the narrative and the episodical disquisitions into which the writer is drawn by his subject, rather respect the cause of abstract truth, than the visible and direct advancement of Christianity. We are far from thinking the work less interesting on this account; to us it is more so. It is an erroneous estimate which would disparage or pass over, or not assign to the highest rank, the character and labours of the diligent tutor and the

christian author. These are the men who may be justly called the intellectual and moral miners for mankind; the under-ground workmen, who procure, and refine, and bring up to light, or stamp and make current, the very medium or material of intellectual commerce. And in estimating either the worth or influence of such characters, there must be brought into account the direct influence of their learning, labours, and opinions, first upon the immediate objects of their tuition, and then, through the enlarging circles which these individuals are destined to fill at their entrance into life, as well as the works which, through the medium of the press, may go forth to affect still wider circles, and to give impulses in directions the most distant and unseen.

It cannot be doubted that Dr. Williams deserved, on many accounts, a full and distinct biography. Few men among Dissenters, or any other class of the community, have filled important stations with more respectability and honour, or with more satisfaction to those immediately and most deeply concerned. And certainly for the inestimable qualities of piety, gentleness, and zeal, Dr. W.'s name will stand second to that of no man of modern times. It is not necessary that we should offer any abstract, which would of necessity be brief, of the life of this excellent and eminent individual, as a lengthened Memoir was published in our Magazine for April, May, and June 1821, from the pen of a gentleman well acquainted with the subject, and qualified to do it justice. But, instead, may be allowed to indulge in a few general and cursory remarks upon the merits of this volume, as containing a review of the literary and theological labours of the eminent individual, who is its subject.

we

In the first place, we think the well-earned reputation of Dr.

Williams is to be chiefly rested upon the very able and successful manner in which he discharged the office of tutor. Few men have been more happily useful to the church of Christ in this highly important and interesting department of exertion. We ground this statement upon the fact, that he not only secured the affectionate esteem and veneration of his pupils in a high degree; but sent forth a race of men distinguished by those sober and moderate views, and animated with that pure and apostolic zeal, which are of vital importance in the christian minister. We have long remarked, that the students of Dr. W. had almost uniformly a character of their own: among students they were sui generis: and this character, we must say, was evidently formed under the influence which the Doctor had acquired over them, and that it moreover embraced all the most essential qualities of the able minister of Jesus Christ. Though mostly plain men-we mean without the affectation either of fine manners, or fine scholarship-they evinced a profound respect for sound doctrine, a highly respectable acquaintance with sacred literature, and a large measure of devotedness to their work. In short, they were, speaking generally, distinguished ornaments to the academy, and an honour to their tutor; and many of them are, at the present moment, eminent blessings to numerous congregations in various parts of England. We think Dr. W.'s habits, acquisitions, dispositions, and above all, his devotional spirit eminently qualified him for the work of tuition, and that the success attending his exertions for so many years, is an ample voucher for the ability with which he fulfilled that office.

To all that Mr. Gilbert has written upon this branch of his subject, we feel persuaded the religious public will most cheer

fully assent. We could with pleasure extract largely from that part of the memoir which relates to Dr. Williams's tutorship and general character; but shall content ourselves with one admirable passage, which contains much in little space.

"His piety was most pure and ardent, though unobstrusive and unaffected. It consisted not at all of superstitious forms and abstinences, but was fed by habitual meditation and prayer, and by occasional seas seasons of special self-examination and humiliation before God. He seemed constantly to breathe devotion, and his prayers were in nothing so much remarkable, as in their fulness, fervency, and depth of adoration. On such occasions he seemed to go as far as man could, in abhorring sin, annihilating self, and glorifying God. The word of God, with every part of which he was perfectly familiar, was still his constant study; and perceiving as he did the harmony of its doctrines, his mind was unembarrassed, and his heart invigorated by its holy sentiments. Religion was to him not so much duty as enjoy. ment. Devoted more than many to abstruse thinking, and possessing a ceaseless thirst after knowledge, yet his devotion viewed every thing in its relation to human was not injured by his studies; for he obligation and divine claims. Such was the habitual temperament of his spirit, that all his investigations were practically religious. They led him the more clearly that all good, and only good, proceeds to see, and the more impressively to feel," from God, but that evil is exclusively from the creature; of which the result was, a more lowly disesteem of himself, a more exalted admiration of divine grace, and a more glowing delight in the God of his salvation. In the divine laws and sanctions, in the procedure of providence, and the general government of creatures, he recognized nothing unbefitting just conceptions of Deity, nothing capricious, nothing unsanctioned by obvious principles of equity, while every where in the work of redemption and human recovery, beheld, with enraptured admiration, displays of unutterable benevolence, wisdom,'

he

power, and mercy. The expiatory efficacy of the Saviour's sacrificial offering, and the renovating influence of the Spirit, were subjects the dearest to his heart, the source of unfailing peace in his soul, and the spring of lively anticipations for the life to come. It may be said truly that he delighted himself in the Lord, and that

he had the desire of his heart.'

"Though he possessed little of what is,

in a sense far too confined, especially denominated genius, his intellectual power

was great, and peculiarly active. He was not a man of fiction, but of reality; delighting not in excursions of fancy, but in the investigation of truth. He loved to pursue nature through the amplest range of her inumerable works, tracing with sedulous and dutiful admiration, the footsteps of his God; but in the creations of man, he felt little comparative interest. For the moral sentiment, the chaste satire, and the devotional sublime, of the poet, he had a feeling heart and a kindred taste; but for the airy, the ideal, the descriptive, for the qualities which commonly captivate and entrance, he possessed not responsive emotions. He had imagination enough to illustrate by apt comparibut not so to adorn his composition, as to inspire it with life and action. He could not abstract the mind of his reader from personal consciousness, call up scenes before the eye at pleasure, or make whomsoever he would, follow the bidding of his imagery; but he could instruct the willing learner, and lead forth the attentive mind to a noble maturity of judgment. They who sought repose from doubt, and solid ground to stand on amidst the fluctuations of time, and the approaching realities of eternity, could not commit themselves amongst men, to a safer or more skilful guide."—pp. 529–531.

son,

As an author, Dr. W.'s character, like that of most other men who have written largely, has partaken of various fortune. He has had one share at least of success in nearly all his publications -they have been extensively read, pretty fully examined by wise and pious men, and they may be now said to have settled down into that rank they are likely to maintain; and we shall, therefore, express most frankly our opinion of their general merits; yet in doing so, we shall not forget the respect due to the character of so excellent an individual, nor the duty which we owe to our readers and the cause of sacred truth.

Of his work on the Baptismal Controversy, we think highly, and agree with Mr. G., that its merits have not been fully appreciated. This may be accounted for by several reasons-it is too large, and readers are tired before they get half through. Secondly, there is much less disposition among Pædobaptists to study this ques

tion, than among Baptists; it is not with us, as it is with the Antipadobaptists-the nucleus of the denomination-the sine quâ non of distinction from others, and the exclusive bond of union among themselves. In the next place, the book is so crammed with references, and so full of matter, and all of all relief, that few readers have of it so dull and heavy, and void courage to encounter so formidable a task and we believe, though the work is chiefly adapted to ministerial reading, there is not a large number of these, who have fairly gone through it. We agree, however, with Mr. G., in thinking it a work of very respectable merit. The dissertation which the review of it has here called forth, containing a condensed view of the productions both of Booth and Williams in this controversy, with many explanations and supplementary reasonings, is certainly one of the ablest sections of the present volume, and appears to us to possess as much, if not more merit than the original treatise on which it is a comment. It occupies 80 pages, and will be read by persons interested in the controversy with great pleasure. Perhaps, however, in a work of biography, it is chargeable with stepping rather beyond the fair limits of the undertaking, and assumes occasionally the aspect of a distinct and original essay.

Dr. Williams's notoriety, if not his reputation, has been connected in a great degree with his theory on the introduction of moral evil, of which we shall speak hereafter. But his chief and most valuable publication is certainly his Essay on Equity and Sovereignty. Apart from the peculiarities of his hypothesis on moral evil, which deform this work in several parts, we think it a very able and valuable performance, though we are not disposed to subscribe to Mr. G.'s assertion, that it is "second to no

human composition on the subject of scientific theology." We think it has certainly thrown some light upon difficult points of the divine government; and there are perhaps few works, if any, which place the sublime subject of divine sovereignty in a clearer light: yet it is far from being complete, and is chargeable throughout with a tone of far too much confidence in the proposed solutions of perplexing difficulties. In short, we think that the worthy author sometimes lost himself (and no wonder) amidst scholastic terms and metaphysical subtleties, though from the former he magnanimously shook himself after the first edition; and that his expositor has by no means succeeded in his attempts to clear certain points of Dr. W.'s sentiments from formidable objections. As a composition it is heavy in the extreme, and can set up no claim either to elegance of diction or compactness and cleverness of reasoning. It cannot, however, be read by students without benefit; and, with the exceptions we have made to the taint which it derives from the Doctor's favourite hypothesis, it may fairly be said to be his chief work. It will certainly survive most of his other original productions, and possibly has already exerted some considerable degree of beneficial influence on the opinions of theologians.

But we have reserved to ourselves little space for one remaining subject of some importance, and on which it is necessary we should offer an opinion though it must be in opposition to the views both of the worthy Doctor and his biographer. A large portion of the claim set up on behalf of Dr. W.'s reputation is founded upon his publications of various kinds, relative to the introduction of moral evil.

Mr. G. comes forward in this work as the expositor and defender of the views of his late friend-and we must assign him

the praise of having written very ably in explanation;-but after all, we are satisfied that Dr. W.'s views upon this subject are unsusceptible of rational defencethat they are thoroughly worthless-that whatever degree of attention they at first excited, and whatever favourable impression was then made, they are now almost universally exploded, and that out of the immediate circle of Dr. W.'s pupils and friends, there is scarcely to be found a single divine, capable of pronouncing upon the theory, that does not view it as both erroneous in point of fact, false in reasoning, and utterly abortive as an attempt at metaphysical analysis. It explains nothingremoves no difficulty-brings us no nearer to satisfaction-but leaves us under heavier bonds and deeper darkness than those in which it found us. With the phraseology in which it is explained we will not now contend; but with the philosophy of the whole theory, if we understand it, we honestly declare that we have settled warfare. The theory is, that human liberty of will, in connexion with passive power, (that is, the absence of power, no power, the negation of power,) produced necessarily moral evil-that is, disobedience to the divine will: thus, the creature having no claim upon the Creator for any thing beyond mere equity, and this not including any thing beyond the bestowment of intelligence, will, and other natural faculties; and there being in all created existences a natural tendency to nihility and to defection, that support being withdrawn, which had before been granted, liberty and passive power necessarily and inevitably generated moral evil. Now the insuperable objection to this theory is, that even if it be allowed that the creature had such a tendency to nihility, considered. apart and without the support of the Creator, it could not be equi

:

table in the Creator to deal with that creature as if it had in its nature no such defect; that is, to require that a creature which he has made inevitably tending to nihility, should never fall into nihility that would be requiring that a being he has made necessarily mortal should never die. In other and plainer language, it would be demanding an impossibility, and cannot be entertained for a moment, even as a possible supposition in reference to God. This being, however, the analogy on the one side of which Dr. W.'s monstrous hypothesis has grown, we shall assume it as the simple foundation of another analogy, which, on the other side of it, completely overthrows all his speculation. He says, "Passive power is that tendency to nihility, physically considered, and to defection, morally considered, which of absolute necessity belongs to every dependent or created nature.""The continued perfection of any creature must be owing to such continued acts of God as cannot be claimed in equity."" Now if it would not be equitable in the Almighty to expect that a creature, whose tendency to nihility is necessary, should be immortal, is it not equally so, to require of one whose natural and inevitable tendency, morally considered, is to defection, should preserve its state of moral perfection? and can an equitable God punish for the operation of tendencies of his own bestowment, or for that defect or passive power, or name it what you will, which was the inseparable attendant of a created and dependent nature, and in the existence of which the will of that creature could not be concerned, or in any degree influential to restrain or counteract it; a tendency to moral defection

* Sermon on Predestination, notes to Doddridge's Works, vol. iv.

which did not follow or accom pany any previous delinquency, but which actually preceded it, and appertained to the being simply as a creature? If, as Dr. W. states, the preservation of creatures from nihility is owing to continued, acts of divine support, that divine support itself is as necessary a condition of their existence, and of their accountableness for that existence, as can well be conceived; and in supposition of its withdrawment, it appears to us it would be capricious and absurd to require the creature to continue in the same state as during the period of its bestowment. So we are inclined to infer, that all those conditions, supports, or endowments, which were essential first of all to accountableness, must in equity be continued, or the accountableness which arises out of them must vanish with them. The whole hypothesis is, we humbly conceive, explained and refuted thus:-I create a stone with a power, (call it plus or minus,) a power of gravitation. By an act of sovereignty I hold up that stone, contrary to its natural tendency downward; and I say to it, now your natural tendency is downward, but as an act of my sovereign power I hold you up; but when I withdraw that hand which holds you up, I expect you to maintain your place, not to yield to your natural power of gravitation, and I shall be justly incensed at your fall. The sum and substance of this is, man was free to fall but not to stand. Dr. W. talks of gracious and sovereign supports, but the scriptures afford no reason to think that any thing was withdrawn which had been previously enjoyed. Dr. W. thought that the principle of teudency to defection, naturally and morally considered as inseparable from the creature, so self-evident, that " no reasonable being would éver deliberately controvert it."