صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

one

of Job, wherein his Lordship steps out of his way, in order tą fall upon

of the best writers, and one of the best men this coun: try has to boast of.-But our Readers shall judge for themselves,

The author of A Free and Candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Principles, &c. having asked this question, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the Jewish oeconomy? Dr. Lowth, in the second edition of his Prelections, concerning the sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, answers thus : Ad quæftionem respondetur: sub ceconomia Patriarcharum; in familiis, et fub dominatu Abrahami, Melchizedechi, Jobi, cæterorumque. Ingruente idololatria divinitus evocabatur ex Chaldæa Abrahamus; eum in finem, ut fieret pater gentis, quæ ab aliis omnibus divisa, verum Deum coleret, publicum proponeret exemplum puræ regionis, contraque cultum vanorum numinum testimonium perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in sua familia principa tum exercentis proprium officium et munus in idololatriam animadvertere? Nonne Melchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis in suis tribubus principum, qui veri Dei cognitionem et cultum in communi fere gentium circumyicinarum defectione adhuc retinebant, cavere, ne sui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obstinatos et rebelles, et sceleris contagionem propagantes, supplicio afficere ? —Supplementum ad primam prælectionum editionem : Addit. Editionis secundæ, p. 312.'

· This is so pleasant an answer, says his Lordship, and fa little needing the masterly hand of the Examiner to correct, that a few strictures, in a cursory note, will be more than sufficient to do the business.

']. The examiner, to prove, I suppose, that the book of Jub was a dramatic work, written long after the time of the Patriarch, asks, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the Jewish oeconomy? The professor answers, It was punished under the Jobean economy. And he advances nothing without proof. Does not Job himself say, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be purised by the Junye? The Examiner replies, that the Joh who says this, is an airy fantom, raised for other purposes than to lay down the law for the Patriarchal times. The Professor maintains that they are all asles, with ears as long as Father Harduin's, who cannot see that this is the true and genuine old Job.-In good time. Sub judice lis eft: And while it is so, I am afraid the learned Profesor begs the question; when, to prove that idolatry was punished by the magistrate, out of the land of Judea, he afirms that king Job punished it. If he say, he does not rest his affertion on this passage of the book of Job alone, but on the sacred records, from whence he concludes that those civil magistrates, Abraham and Melchisedec, punilhed idolatry ; I shall own he acts fairly, in putting them all upon the Lame footing; and on what ground that stands, we shall now fee.

fame

2. The Examiner fays,.. Where was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the Jewish economy? A question equivalent to this, -" Where was idolatry punished by the civil magistrate on the established laws of the state, but in Judea ?” TO which, the Profesor replies, “ It was punished by all the Patriarchal monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and king Melchisedec.”

Of a noble race was Shenkin. But here not one, fave the last, had so much as a nominal title to civil magistracy: And this last drops as it were, from the clouds, with out lineage or parentage ;. fo that, tho' of divine, yet certainly not a monarch of the true ftamp, by hereditary right. The critic therefore fails in his first point, which is, finding out civil magiftrates to do his hierarchical drudgery:

3. But let us admit our Profesor's right of investiture, to confer this high office, and then see how he proves, that these his lieges punished the crime of idolatry by civil punishment. Abraham, and the Patriarchs his descendants, come first under confideration. What! (says he) was not Abraham, exercising the sovereignty in his own family, to punish idolatry? Hobbes, is I believe, the only one (fave our Professor) who holds that ¢ Abraham had a right to prescribe to his family what religion they should be of, to tell them what was the word of God, and to punish those who countenanced any doctrine which he had forbidden.” Leviath. chap. 40.-But God speaking of Abraham, fays, I know that he will command his children and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And Hobbes and our Professor, I suppose, regard this declaration as a clear proof of the divine doctrine of restraint in matters of religion ; especially when interpreted by their darling text of --force them to enter in. On the contrary, those who have been bred up in the principles of toleration, hold it to be a mere teltimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abraham's pious and parental care to instruct his family in the law of God. And it is well, it can go for no more, or I should fear the learned Professor would have brought in Ifaac as a backslider to idolatry , and his Father's laying him on the sacrifical pile, as a kind of Auto de fe.'

We cannot help observing here, that his Lordship joins Hobbes and Dr. Lowth together, with much the fa ne propriety as Lord Bolingbroke does atheists and divines. This is not the only instance, however, wherein he exposes himself by introducing Hobbes, who seems to be a favourite author with him. Mr. Pope, in his epologue to the Satires, says,

Let modeft Foster, if he will, excell
Ten Metropolitans in preaching well.

« This This confirms an obfervation, says the annotator, whichi Mr. Hobbes made long ago, that there be very few bishops that alt

Sermont so well, as divers presbyterians and fanatic preachers can do. Hift. of Civ. Wars.

Now, in the name of candor and common sense, how could the amiable Foster's excelling ten Metropolitans in preaching well, confirm this observation of Hobbes ? Is acting a fermon the fame thing with preaching well? What would Mr. Pope have faid to such a note; the absurdity of which is nearly equal to its malignity? Had Foster, though a poor diffenting teacher, written in defence of the Divine Legation, and paid his court to the Author in the fame strains of adulation that Dr. Brown, and some other worshippers have done, his many virtues would then have been not only allowed, but most amply displayed. But having no such claim to favour, and having besides the misfortune of being a dissenter, the Annotator could not bear to see such a compliment paid him by so celebrated a poet; and has therefore meanly endeavoured, without any manner of provocation, to represent him as a fanatic, who had no other merit but that of atting a sermon well. The only effect, however, which this feeble, this malevolent attempt has produced, is to expose the annotator to the censure of every candid reader: Foster's reputation-rests on too solid a foundation to be thaken by the fou! blasts of such envious, narrow-minded critics, and Pope's compliment to him remains in full force. We now return to what Our Author fays of Dr: Lowth,

Melchifedec's story is a short one; he is juft brought into the scene to bless Abraham in his return from conquest. This promises but ill. Had this King and Priest of Salem been brought in cursing, it had had a better appearance: for, I think, punishment for opinions, which generally ends in a fagot, always begins with a curse. But we may be misled by a wrong trandation. The Hebrew word to bless, signifies likewise to curse, and, under the management of an intolerant priest, good things casily run into their contraries. What follows, is his taking fythes from Abraham. Nor will this serve our purpose, unless we interpret these tythes into fines for non-conformity; and then, by the blessing, we can easily understand absolution. We have féen much stranger things done with the Hebrew verity. If this be not allowed, I do not see how we can elicite fire and fagot from this adventure ; for I think there is no infeparable connection between tythes and perfecution, but in the ideas of a Quaker, And so much for king Melchifedec,

• But the learned Profeffor, who has been hardily brought up in the keen atmosphere of wholesome severities, and early taught to distinguish between de facto and de jure, thought it needless to enquire into falls, when he was secure of the right. And,

therefore,

therefore, only slightly and superciliously asks, “ What? was not Abraham, by his very princely office; to punish idolatry? Were not Melchifedec and Job, and all the heads of cribes to do the fame?” Why, no: and it is well for religion that they were not. It is for its honour that such a set of persecuting patriarchs is no where to be found, but in a poetical Preléction."

- Though we are almost ftrangers to Dr. Lowth's perfon, yet from what we have heard from many of his intimate acquaintance, we are fully perfuaded that no man has a more hearty abhorrence of intolerant principles than he has ; his Lordship's endeavour, therefore, to make him appear as an enemy, to toleration, is, to say, nothing of its malice, truly, ridiculous. But it is really pleasant to hear this haughty Dictator in the republic of letters talk of persecution and intolerant principles. If pouring contempt * upon the most respectable writers, when they prefume to differ from him in matters of ever so small importance, and imputing principles to them which their hearts abhor, be not perfecution, we know not what is. He is himself therefore, in this respect, one of the greatest persecutors now living, and by the terrors, not of his learning, but of his illiberal spirit, prevents many modest persons, from writing upon those subjects which he has discuffed with so decisive and magisterial an air. Matters indeed are come to that pass, that it is incumbent on every generous friend to letters and free enquiry to repel the infults of this haughty Prelate, not in order to teach him humility, for this, we are fenfible, surpaffes all human power ; but to reduce him, if poffible, to some degree of decency and good manners:

( When Truth or Virtue an affront endures,

" Th' affront is mine, my friend, and should be yours.' Since writing the above, looking, by mere accident, into the View of Lord Bolingbroke's Philosophy, we find that the appendix, to the fifth book, in the new edition of the Divine Legation, is franscribed, almoft verbatim, from the said View, Lett. IV.

Another instance of his contemptuous manner of speaking of even the most respectable personages in the republic of letters, may be seen in his 5th Vol. (po 152) now before us: where, having occasion to mention the troly worthy and very learned Dr. Leland, (author of some excellent defences of the Christian religion, against the Deits) he says, ' - In this, the Difenter, Leland, as I remember, in some of his things, seems much to triumph' Were the Diffenter, Leiand, capable of retarning such language, and should say the Prelate, Warburton, in fome of bir shings,” hould we not be apt to think that the Diffenter expressed himself in very ungendeman-like terms?

Conclusione

Conclusion of Dr. Whytt's Observations on the Nature, Causes, and

Cure of those Disorders which are commonly called Nervous, Hypse chondriac, or Hysteric. See the Review for laft Month.

HE seventh chapter, which treats of the general cure of T

these diseases, extends to above a hundred pages; and indeed could not well be reduced into a smaller compals, by a Writer who had confidered them in all their variety of symptoms, in different subjects and circumstances, and annexed many useful and illustrating cases on the occasion. It must certainly have coft our Author much attention, and have exercised his judgment not a little, to make all the practical and necessary di. ftinctions it contains. As he generally directs much the same remedies, and varies the regimen of different constitutions, and under different symptoms, in nearly the same manner which the beft medical writers and phyficians have done, we shall not give a regular, however abstracted, detail of this excellent chapter ; but rather select a few such observations and reflections from its as appeared the newest to us, and most engaged our attention.

Having observed that the intentions in the cure of nervous, disorders may be reduced, i. to the lessening or removing the predisposing causes; and 2. to the removing or correcting the general and particular occasional causes, specified in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters,--he proceeds to particularize his own practice in fulfilling these intentions, in a long succession of pages, with several notes, and some cases are included both in these and in the text. His modest supposition, p. 344, 345, that chalybeate medicines in a flate of dissolution do not seem to enter into the blood (which he supports by an experiment and a consequent dissection of Dr. Wright's) may appear new to many; though from this experiment, and its event, he very rationally insers p. 345 If sal martis and other preparations of iron do not enter the blood, it is obvious, they must produce their effects folely by the strengthening the stomach and intestines : whence not only the digestion of the aliment will be better performed, bút by means of that remarkable sympathy which subsists between the alimentary canal and the whole system, a greater degree of vigour will be communicated to every part of the body : for there is nothing more certain, than that we feel ourselves either vigorous and healthful, or feeble and fickly, as the nerves of the stomach and bowels are in a found, or an infirm ftate.'

For the efficacy of the cold bath in many subjects of these discases, he refers in general to Sir John Floyer's treatise on cold bathing, which efficacy he has found confirmed in several lax female patients of his own. Under the article of Exercise, he

gives

« السابقةمتابعة »