and fully declared and fettled. May we not perceive this in perurfing the works of the great Tillotson, whose name is so justly here mentioned as one among others who did honour to the feventeenth century? Confiderations of which kind may tend to convince us that it is improper and unreasonable for any men to form a set of propofitions on difputable topics to which others should be obliged to yield at least an outward confent.

But to return to the Writer, who dwells with pleasure on the above-mentioned period, and afks, Were we to fix on a particular æra, when all political and theological principles were afcertained with fufficient precifion, when all effential errors were excluded from the theories of learning, religion, and government, fhould we err, in taking for our model the fettlement that followed the revolution? Shall we not attain to perfection in fcience, policy, and religion, in proportion as we revert to the maxims of that epoch? which, diftinguished by a true philosophy, and a state of society refined without luxury, establifhed a free government without faction, uncorrupted, un.ncumbered; a Proteftant church, with a full toleration, free from the infults of popery, herefy, and deifm.' But our Author laments that this pure and happy settlement did not long continue in this ideal perfection, and that in many refpects, it is to be feared, we have been degenerating ever fince And now we are brought to our own times, on which Mr. Apthorpe enters, with a difpofition, while he cenfures, to give the full allowance of praife. He begins with the ftate of learning.

It fhould feem, fays he, that as the laft was the age of reafon and judgment, the eighteenth century is the age of science, of method, and of memory. Like rich heirs, we are contented with collecting and accumulating the fruits of our fathers induftry, without being folicitous to augment or improve them. That invention is not our characteriftic, might be thewn, were it not fomewhat invidious, from an induction of particulars. Poetic invention expired with Milton, and with Dryden, and was fucceeded by harmony and correctnefs. This is eafily accounted for. When philofophy and fcience are in a state of maturity, poetry declines. The former furnifh the materials of erudition, and exercise the judgment. The latter, the spontaneous produce of a rich imagination, withers with too much culture; and always degenerates, from that period, when its genuine enthufiafm is reftrained by art and criticifm.-Among the causes of the decline of poetic genius, we might affign that anxious diligence, with which our beft poets fhun that rich fource of fublime and delightful imagery, which flows from the facred fountain of religion.-In philology, the prefent age has given accuracy and fplendour to the immortal productions of antiquity yet, is it an ill-grounded apprehenfion that ancient

literature

literature is rather the ornament of our libraries, than the accomplishment of our minds? and that it has been fupplanted by the modifh productions, which are daily read and forgotten?

The eclectic philofophy, both natural and moral, hath happily taken place of the fectarian, and is cultivated with affiduity. Yet the philofophy of Bacon, Locke, and Newton, has not perhaps received any great acceffions, beyond what may be deduced from the writings of those most eminent of men. If in aught we are originals, it feems to be in the mechanic arts, and in some phyfical difcoveries.

In dogmatic theology, and in ethics, it may be doubted whether we have made coufiderable advances. Our chief glory is in the elaborate defence and confirmation of the gospel against the inroads of deifm. In the interpretation of fcripture, philology and criticism have almoft excluded the doctrinal and devout investigation of the fublime and spiritual sense of the infpired writers. If I am not much mistaken, the Oriental and Jewish literature (especially of Philo, Jofephus, and the early Fathers) is more applicable to the ftyle and fentiment of the Old and New Teftament, than thofe parellelisms which have been fo industriously collected from Greek and Roman authors.

Thus,' adds this Writer, with a freedom which perhaps is fomewhat cenfurable, I have ftated our improvements and defects in science. We or our fucceffors may happily avail ourfelves of paft inventions; fo as to combine the diftinct merits of the fixteenth and feventeenth centuries with thofe which give luftre to our own.' He goes on to ftate fome obstacles to our improvement, and the caufes of modern infidelity, which, fays he, is the great bar to all advancement of human happinefs.' Among these he reckons the neglect of folid literature, and thus proceeds:

• We are deemed a learned nation, and the age itfelf is generally addicted to letters.-Literature is amazingly cultivated by immenfe multitudes of writers as well as readers. Yet in general the aim of the former feems to be to furnish the latter with a fugitive amufement. The chief recommendation of books confifts in their dreffing up in a pleafing form fuch parts of a subject as admit of embellishment, and too often prefenting under those flowers the poifon of afps.

Many parts of science, much in fashion, have no connection with revealed religion. Pure mathematics and experimental phyfics, induce principles and modes of reafoning, which feem favourable to the investigation of abstract truth, yet in narrow minds are repugnant to that moral evidence which we allege for the certainty of revelation. Even the argument from prophecy, though as ftrictly demonftrative as any geometrical procefs, would not convince an unbeliever addicted to mathe

matical

matical reasoning; though the greateft of mathematicians felt and taught the demonftration that refults from it. A minute mathematician, if prejudiced against revelation, would rank the argument from prophecy in the clafs of probabilities, perhaps of enthufiafms, and embarrass the proofs it affords with endless uncertainties while plain reafon perceives intuitively, that a great number of ancient and circumftantial predictions are proved by their completion to come from God. Those who undervalue moral evidence, fall into fcepticifm, the fashionable maJady, which infects all, who, pretending to be above vulgar minds, renounce that common fenfe which is the bafis of truth.

The ftudy of nature, now fo much in vogue, has this excellence, that it constrains us to look up to nature's God. But unhappily, this ftudy, efpecially in its minuter branches, botany, entomology, conchology, and other frivolifms (in which the fcience chiefly confifts in burdening the memory with a barbarous and complicated vocabulary) has little other tendency than to divert the mind from looking into itself, and to lead it to contemplate the omnipotent Author of nature as a phyfical not a moral agent in his empire of creation.

The ancient philofophy thoroughly explored, leads us directly to revealed religion.-The abufe of the ancient philofophy in the very few who fearch into its depths, confifts in felecting from the mafs thofe fhining fragments, which place political and focial duties, and fome rational principles of natural religion in the faireft light: not reflecting on the impure mixture of fcepticism and abfurdity with truth, of turpitude with beauty, and of atheifm or pantheifm lurking in the most ad. mired works of antiquity. Ariftotle, Plato, Plutarch, Antoninus, have more of this inconfiftency than common fenfe is now capable of fo that one may even affirm, that vice and impiety are no where taught with more effrontery than in the writings of the moft applauded philofophers.'

Among our Author's farther obfervations, we have the following, that it is of ufe, in order to convince ourselves, and others, of the true nature, extent, and perfection of the Chrif tian faith and ethics, to form them into coherent fyftems; and he laments the neglect of fyftems in the prefent day: I know not, fays he, any prejudice more fatal to the fcience of theology than that contempt of fyftems, which is almost always an unequivocal proof of ignorance. This is fpeaking very strongly; a contempt for fyftems may be very improper, and proceed from pride, but that it is always a proof, and as our Author terms it, an unequivocal proof of ignorance is not fo certain; and perhaps when he confiders what great mifchief a bigotted attachment to forms and fyftems has done in the world, he will per

haps abate a little of his cenfure. Some plan and method it is natural and useful to form on moft fubjects, but in points concerning which we can only be guided by revelation, and where that has not explicitly fettled the fubject, it is not only unreafonable but dangerous to prescribe what ought to be believed.

Mr. Apthorpe proceeds to fpeak of the character of the age, and confiders modifh irreligion and infidelity as one great and chief fource of our corrupted manners; because all restraints except thofe of revealed religion are infufficient to controul imperious paffion, &c. He however comforts himself and his friend, and we would hope juftly, with the perfuafion that irreligion has done its worst, and that a veneration for the fcriptures begins to revive. And now, after many fenfible and judicious obfervations on fubjects bearing fome connection with his immediate defign, we are brought to that part of the volume in which he endeavours to detect the fallacy of fome paffages in Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory, and to vindicate Chriftianity from the cenfures of that elegant writer. He speaks of Mr. G. with juft respect, but obferves that the prejudices of this accomplished author are so obvious from the moft curfory perufal of his work, as to lead both the friends and enemies of revealed religion to difcern that the ecclefiaftical part of the imperial hiftory, was much more interefting to the writer, than the confused policy, the military defpotism, and rapid fucceffion of its fanguinary tyrants.'

The limits allotted to this Article will not admit of our prefenting our Readers with a fatisfactory view of what Mr. Ap-. thorpe fays in this important part of the work. We fhall, therefore, only add, that in the fourth and laft letter, which treats of the Establishment of Paganifm, he difcuffes the subject with that learning and ability which juftly entitle his obfervations to the attentive regard of the Public. On the whole, he draws this general conclufion, that fuch was the ftrength of the Pagan establishment, that humanly fpeaking it muft appear to the highest degree aftonifhing that the gofpel fcheme fhould have been able not only to withstand but to deftroy its power! a power which, he obferves, was irrefiftible, and its fubverfion impracticable, otherwife than by a divine and miraculous energy. And from hence, he apprehends, arifes, a moral demonstration of the Chriftian religion.'

Here we take leave of our Author, referring the Readers of this Article, for further particulars, to his work at large; which, we are perfuaded, will afford them both improvement and pleasure.

Hi.

ART.

ART. III. The Chriftian Orator delineated. In Three Parts. By Thomas Weales, D. D. Vicar of St. Sepulchre's. 8vo. 4 s. fewed. Cadell. 1778.

HOSE who have turned their thoughts to the fubject of

Tpulpit oratory, and are acquainted with the writings of

our most celebrated preachers, will find little that is new in this work. It contains, however, many pertinent and juft obfervations, and fome striking paffages from Clarke, Coneybeare, Sherlock, Seed, Sterne, &c. and, confequently, it may be read with confiderable advantage by those who have the facred office in view.

In a fhort introduction, the Doctor tells us what he means by a SERMON. By that fpecies of compofition, fays he, which goes under the name of a SERMON, I understand, a difcourse that is but one contexture of doctrines, thoughts, words, figures, and images, contained in holy writ.'

If this definition conveys to any of our Readers a clearer and more diftinct idea of a Sermon than they had before, they will have the advantage of us; for to us it appears such a definition as leaves the thing defined much more unintelligible than it was before. The Doctor goes on to tell us, that the great ends which a preacher hath in view are, and can be, no other, than either to command the reafon, engage the fancy, or touch the paffions of his hearers.

Now there are three qualities, or perfections, fays he, indispenfibly requifite for the attainment of fuch valuable ends, viz. an unity of defign, a juft diftribution of the fubject into its feveral heads, and a fimplicity of thought and expreffion. In regard to the first, a perfect difcourfe does virtually comprehend in it but one fingle propofition, or branch of doctrine, and that placed in the most striking point of light. Certain roving declaimers, whofe motley pieces are made up of the most independent matters that can be eafily imagined, are wonderfully deficient in this article. Their difcourfes, in which a variety of morals or doctrines are treated in a flight per. functory manner, have the ordinary effect of large profpects, where the eye fees little or nothing diftinctly, and as it ought to be feen. With respect to the fecond requifite, or a just divifion of the fubje& into its feveral heads, it cannot be too fimple and concise. The two radical defects of our ancient fermons are their being crumbled inta minute infignificant divifions, or enervated by ufelefs and impertinent digreffions. And many a modern one totally void of that lucid order, or fuch a connexion of parts as ferves to reflect a light upon, and strengthen each other, is little elfe but a parcel of maxims or fentences tacked together in I know not what fantastic form. Of this fort are most of thofe equivocal things commonly called effays, which afford no convition to the undertanding, no entertainment to the fancy, no selling to the heart. Their authors are thus happily decyphered by the poet,

Thefe,