ART. VII.-1. The Southern Presbyterian Review, for April, 1855. Art. IV., Bledsoe's Theodicy. 2. The Southern Presbyterian Review, for April, 1856. Art., The Theology of Dr. Bledsoe. When A Theodicy, or Vindication of the Divine Glory as Manifested in the Constitution and Government of the Moral World, was ready for publication, it had, as nearly all Southern productions have, hard work to find a publisher. After many trials and failures, it was, at last, offered to the Methodist Book Concern, of New York, by whose managers its claim to see the light of day were first seriously considered. The learned gentleman—the late accomplished and much lamented Professor M'Clintock-to whom it was submitted by the publishers for examination, told the author plainly, that he did not believe it would be in his power to recommend its publication; because, in his opinion, no one could write a work on such a subject that would sell. After having examined the work, however, he advised its publication, and the result has justified his decision. For it has passed through many editions, the first three editions having been issued within three months after its publication,—and many others have since made their appear ance. The work has, of course, run the gauntlet of criticism. This, as a general thing, has been far more favorable than was anticipated by its author. The leading idea or principle of the work, in particular, has encountered far less hostile criticism, as well as met with a far more favorable reception, than he had ventured to imagine. He was not at all surprised, however, that in certain quarters it was assailed with the heavy charge of atheism; for this sort of injustice was nothing new under the sun. Anaxagoras, the first of the Greek philosophers to rise to the sublime conception of a God, or a superintending and all-controlling mind, was not only accused of atheism, but condemned to death for the great offence. In the persecution of Anaxagoras,' says a celebrated writer, 'there is nothing but what was very natural; it occurred afterwards in the case of Socrates, and it has subsequently occurred a thousand times in the history of mankind, as the simple effect of outraged convictions. Anaxagoras attacked the religion [the superstition] of his time he was tried and condemned for his temerity.' Yet, as is now universally acknowledged, his sublime views respecting God, and the order of the universe, were infinitely more worthy of a rational being, than were the religious notions of those by whom he was tried and condemned as an atheist. 6 In like manner, although Ralph Cudworth, at his first essay, penetrated the very darkest recesses of antiquity, to strip Atheism of all its disguises, and drag up the lurking monster to conviction; yet was he also accused of atheism itself. Though few readers,' says his biographer, could follow him, the very slowest were able to unravel his secret purpose,' and 'to tell the world that he was an atheist at heart. The silly calumny was believed; the much injured author grew disgusted; his ardor slackened; and the rest and far greatest part of his immortal work never appeared.' If, then, so many illustrious men, both in ancient and in modern times, incured the charge of atheism, how could the obscure author of a Theodicy hope to escape a similar accusation? Indeed, the more profoundly he was convinced of the correctness of his views, and of their importance to the glory of God, the more confidently did he anticipate that they would be pronounced atheistical, by those whose theological convictions differed from his own. Hence, although he counted the cost, he has been delighted to find, that it has been much less than he anticipated. The Methodist Quarterly Review North, in a notice of the book, did not hesitate to pronounce it 'the best work on the Divine Government ever written.' This, after a careful examination, was the judgment of the late Professor M'Clintock. Identically the same opinion, or one equally strong, was also expressed by The Methodist Quarterly Review South; then ander the editorial management and control of the Rev. Dr. Doggett. In various other quarters, also, the secular press, as well as the periodicals of different religious denominations, both in this country and in Great Britain, have expressed opinions. of the work in the highest possible degree gratifying to the author. Nay, authors who are themselves celebrated, both in Europe and America, have corroborated the most favorableopinions of the press. For all these opinions, the author of A Theodicy is most profoundly grateful. They are, in fact, the reward, and the only reward, which he has received for the twenty long years of obscure toil, which he bestowed upon the work. There have been, on the other hand, a few adverse criticisms,. whose tone and temper are more or less violent. Now, he does not, for one moment, entertain the shadow of a complaint against the authors of these hostile criticisms, or attacks. On the contrary, he thanks them, from the bottom of his heart, for the opportunity which they have afforded him of replying to the objections against his views of God and the universe. Having barely alluded to a few of the favorable opinions of the Theodicy, as an off-set to those of an opposite character, we shall now proceed to examine, in detail, the objections that have been urged against that Vindication of the Divine Glory as Manifested in the Constitution and Government of the Moral World. Some fifteen or sixteen years ago it was, that a writer in The Methodist Quarterly Review South, delivered a broadsideagainst the work in question. The distinguished theologian, (now a bishop,) by whom that Review was then conducted, had, with nearly every eminent man in his own denomination, most warmly, not to say most enthusiastically, recommended the Theodicy; and yet he very properly admitted the said article into the pages of his periodical. It was indeed but fair and just, that the dissentient few should have a hearing in the very Review, which had so warmly recommended a work that had proved so obnoxious to them. Long has it been since the author of A Theodicy heard the thunders of that broadside. If, indeed, it had at all disturbed his equanimity, he would long since have replied to its terrible thunders. But he let them pass then; and he shall let them pass now. Not, however, because he deems them unworthy of an answer, but because he has already answered them in a paper, which he has prepared for the publishers of his Theodicy, as an introduction, or appendix to some future edition of the work. Otherwise it would be exceedingly easy, in this place, to return the fire, to silence the battery, and to spike the guns, of the adversary in question. All this, unless we are greatly mistaken, will be clearly seen, as soon as the said reply shall be published. The London Athenæum has, also, favored the world with an attack on A Theodicy. But we shall not, at present, notice this attack, for the same reason ihat we have just passed over in silence the writer in The Mtthodist Quarterly Review South. Both of these writers make themselves exceedingly merry over the supposed ignorance, presumption, and blindness of the auihor under review. But, when his reply to them shall be published, it will be seen to which side the charge of ignorance, presumption, and blindness really attaches. These facetious gentlemen were not aware, perhaps, that while they were so very merry in themselves, how great a cause of merriment they would some day be to others. In the meantime, we shall procecd to examine the two attacks in The Southern Presbyterian Review, whose titles we have placed at the head of this article. This criticism deserves especial notice for several reasons. In the first place, it is the most elaborate and bitter denunciation of the book it aims to demolish, which has yet made its appearIn the second place, the Southern Presbyterian Review, in which it occurs, is Conducted by an Association of Ministers', which censists of some, if not all, of the learned Professors in the Theological Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina.' In the third and last place, as the ministers of the Presbyterian Church are known to be equal, if not superior, in learning and ability to any in this country; so the attack endorsed and put forth by them may be supposed to exhibit the strength of the cause which it advocates. Hence, in selecting their criticism for special examination, we may hope to encounter foemen worthy of our steel. ance. We shall abstain, at present, from characterizing this attack as it seems to deserve; preferring to proceed, at once, to lay before the reader a few specimens of the writer's caution, candor, fairness, modesty, and love of truth, in order that he may judge for himself. The article begins as follows: We feel rather surprised that this book says nothing about poor, dear Servetus. It omits, also, the nasal psalms of the ancient covenanters ;says noihing about the burning of witches in New England;nothing about the grief of St. Augustine at parting with his concubine.' The writer is quite sure, however, that these things are in 'the author's heart'; and will come out yet, 'in some future edition' of his work, when his heart'shall be set up in type.' Now what had this Review, as a decent tribuual, to do with the author's heart', before it has appeared in print? What have its malignant surmises respecting the unexpressed malignity of the author's heart' to do with the great questions discussed in his Theodicy? Are they not, indeed, a low and mean appeal to the prejudices of the readers? an attempt, in the very first sentence of the attack, to cover both the author and his work with the odium theologicum? In perfect keeping with this design, is the assertion that the author displays, at times, a hot and half-frenzied antipathy to the theology of the apostle Paul;' from which the reader might infer, that the author has indulged in fierce and passionate denunciations of the doctrines of St. Paul. Nothing could possibly be farther from the truth. Indeed, no. man, whether inspired or uninspired, has ever lived, for whose character, genins, and doctrines the author entertains a more exalted and enthusiastic admiration than for those of the apostle Paul. But, then, there is, unless we are greatly mistaken, some slight difference between the great Apostle to the Gentles, and the great writer in the Presbyterian Review. This very modest gentleman may not be able to see the difference, and may, consequently, denounce every attack aimed at his theology, as hostility to the doctrines of St. Paul; but the reader will, unless we are much deceived, see the difference before we are done with the article under consideration. If the writer of the article in question, were at all like the Apostle to the Gentiles, he would, at least, show some little |