صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

of Job, wherein his Lordfhip fteps out of his way, in order to fall upon one of the best writers, and one of the best men this coun try has to boast of.-But our Readers fhall 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 magiftrate, but under the Jewish oeconomy? Dr. Lowth, in the fecond edition of his Prakctions, concerning the facred Poetry of the Hebrews, anfwers thus: Ad quæftionem refpondetur: fub œconomia 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 divifa, verum Deum coleret, publicum proponeret exemplum puræ regionis, contraque cultum vanorum numinum teftimonium perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua familia principa tum exercentis proprium officium et munus in idololatriam animadvertere? Nonne Melchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis in fuis tribubus principum, qui veri Dei cognitioner et cultum in communi fere gentium circumvicinarum defectione adhuc retinebant, cavere, ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obftinatos et rebelles, et fceleris contagionem propagantes, fupplicio afficere ?—Supplementum ad primam prælectionum editionem: Addit. Editionis fecundæ, p. 312.'

This is fo pleasant an answer, fays his Lordship, and fo little needing the mafterly hand of the Examiner to correct, that a few ftrictures, in a curfory note, will be more than fufficient to do the bufinefs.

1. The examiner, to prove, I fuppofe, that the book of Job was a dramatic work, written long after the time of the Patriarch, afks, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the Jewish a conomy? The profeffor anfwers, It was finished under the Jobean ceconomy. And he advances nothing without proof. Does not Job himself fay, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be punished by the fudge? The Examiner replies, that the Job who fays this, is an airy fantom, raised for other purposes than to lay down the law for the Patriarchal times. The Profeffor maintains that they are all affes, with ears as long as Father Harduin's, who cannot fee that this is the true and genuine old Job.-In good time. Sub judice lis eft: And while it is fo, I am afraid the learned Profeffor begs the queftion; when, to prove that idolatry was punished by the magiftrate, out of the land of Judea, he affirms that king Job punished it. If he fay, he does not reft his affertion on this paffage of the book of Job alone, but on the facred records, from whence he concludes that thofe civil magiftrates, Abraham and Melchifedec, punished idoJatry; I shall own he acts fairly, in putting them all upon the

fame

fame footing; and on what ground that ftands, we shall now fee.

[ocr errors]

2. The Examiner fays, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magiftrate, but under the Jewish economy? A queftion equivalent to this," Where was idolatry punished by the civil magiftrate on the established laws of the ftate, but in Judea?" To. which, the Profeffor replies, "It was punished by all the Patriarchal monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and King Melchifedec."

Of a noble race was Shenkin.

But here not one, fave the laft, had fo much as a nominal title to civil magiftracy: And this laft drops as it were, from the clouds, without lineage or parentage; fo that, tho' of divine, yet certainly not a monarch of the true ftamp, by hereditary right. The cri tic therefore fails in his firft point, which is, finding out civil magiftrates to do his hierarchical drudgery.

3. But let us admit our Profeffor's right of inveftiture, to confer this high office, and then fee how he proves, that thefe his lieges punished the crime of idolatry by civil punishment. Abraham, and the Patriarchs his defcendants, come first under confideration. What! (fays he) was not Abraham, exercifing the fovereignty in his own family, to punish idolatry? Hobbes, is I believe, the only one (fave our Profeffor) 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 fpeaking of Abraham, fays, I know that he will command his children and his houshold after him, and they fhall keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And Hobbes and our Profeffor, I suppose, regard this declara tion 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 teftimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abraham's pious and parentalcare to inftruct his family in the law of God. And it is well, it can go for no more, or I fhould fear the learned Profeffor would have brought in Ifaac as a backflider to idolatry; and his Father's laying him on the facrifical pile, as a kind of Auto de fe.'

We cannot help obferving here, that his Lordship joins' Hobbes and Dr. Lowth together, with much the fame propriety as Lord Bolingbroke does atheifts and divines. This is not the only inftance, however, wherein he expofes himself. by intro-ducing Hobbes, who seems to be a favourite author with him, Mr. Pope, in his epologue to the Satires, fays,

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

This

• This confirms an obfervation, fays the annotator, which Mr. Hobbes made long ago, that there be very few bishops that act a fermon fo well, as divers prefbyterians and fanatic preachers can do. Hift. of Civ. Wars.'

Now, in the name of candor and common fenfe, how could the amiable Fofter's excelling ten Metropolitans in preaching well, confirm this obfervation of Hobbes? Is acting a fermon the fame thing with preaching well? What would Mr. Pope have faid to fuch a note; the abfurdity of which is nearly equal to its malignity? Had Fofter, though a poor diffenting teacher, written in defence of the Divine Legation, and paid his court to the Author in the fame ftrains of adulation that Dr. Brown, and fome other worshippers have done, his many virtues would then have been not only allowed, but most amply difplayed. But having no fuch claim to favour, and having befides the misfortune of being a diffenter, the Annotator could not bear to see such a compliment paid him by fo celebrated a poet; and has therefore meanly endeavoured, without any manner of provocation, to reprefent him as a fanatic, who had no other merit but that of acting a fermon well. The only effect, however, which this feeble, this malevolent attempt has produced, is to expose the annotator to the cenfure of every candid reader: Fofter's reputation refts on too folid a foundation to be shaken by the foul blafts of fuch 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 fhort one; he is just brought into the scene to blefs Abraham in his return from conqueft. This promifes but ill. Had this King and Priest of Salem been brought in curfing, it had had a better appearance: for, I think, punishment for opinions, which generally ends in a fagot, always begins with a curfe. But we may be mifled by a wrong tranflation. The Hebrew word to biefs, fignifies likewife to curfe, and, under the management of an intolerant prieft, good things eafily run into their contrarics. What follows, is his taking tythes from Abraham. Nor will this ferve our purpose, unless we interpret thefe tythes into fines for non-conformity, and then, by the blaffing, we can eafily understand abfolution. We have feen much stranger things done with the Hebrew verity. If this be not allowed, I do not fee 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 fo much for king Melchifedec.

But the learned Profeffor, who has been hardily brought up in the keen atmosphere of wholefome feverities, and early taught to diftinguish between de facto and de jure, thought it needless to enquire into facts, when he was fecure of the right. And,

therefore,

1

therefore, only flightly and fupercilioufly asks, "What? was not Abraham, by his very princely office, to punish idolatry? Were Melchifedec and Job, and all the heads of tribes 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 perfecuting patriarchs is no where to be found, but in a poetical Prelection.'

not

*

Though we are almoft 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 fay nothing of its malice, truly ridiculous. But it is really pleafant to hear this haughty Dictator in the republic of letters talk of perfecution and intolerant principles. If pouring contempt upon the most refpectable writers, when they prefume to differ from him in matters of ever fo fmall importance, and imputing principles to them which their hearts abhor, be not perfecution, we know not what is. He is himself therefore, in this refpect, one of the greateft perfecutors now living, and by the terrors, not of his learning, but of his illiberal spirit, prevents many modeft perfons from writing upon those subjects which he has difcuffed with fo decifive and magifterial an air. Matters indeed are come to that pafs, 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, furpaffes all human power; but to reduce him, if poffible, to fome degree of decency and good manners:

"When Truth or Virtue an affront endures,

"Th' affront is mine, my friend, and fhould be yours."

Since writing the above, looking, by mere accident, into the View of Lord Bolingbroke's Philofophy, we find that the appendix, to the fifth book, in the new edition of the Divine Legation, is transcribed, almoft verbatim, from the faid View, Lett. IV.

R

[ocr errors]

Another inftance of his contemptuous manner of speaking of even the most respectable perfonages in the republic of letters, may be feen in his 5th Vol. (p. 152) now before us: where, having occafion to mention the truly worthy and very learned Dr. Leland, (author of fome excellent defences of the Christian religion, against the Deifts) he fays, In this, the Diffenter, Leland, as I remember, in fome of his things, feems much to triumph-. Were the Diffenter, Leland, capable of returning fuch language, and fhould fay the Prelate, Warburton, in fome of bis things," fhould we not be apt to think that the Diffenter expreffed himself in very ungentleman-like terms?

Conclufion

Conclufion of Dr. Whytt's Obfervations on the Nature, Caufes, and Cure of thofe Disorders which are commonly called Nervous, Hypochondriac, or Hyfteric. See the Review for laft Month.

TH

HE feventh chapter, which treats of the general cure of thefe difeafes, extends to above a hundred pages; and indeed could not well be reduced into a smaller compass, by a Writer who had confidered them in all their variety of fymptoms, in different fubjects and circumftances, and annexed many ufeful and illuftrating cafes on the occafion. It must certainly have coft our Author much attention, and have exercised his judgment not a little, to make all the practical and neceffary diftinctions it contains. As he generally directs much the fame remedies, and varies the regimen of different constitutions, and under different fymptoms, in nearly the fame manner which the beft medical writers and phyficians have done, we fhall not givę. a regular, however abstracted, detail of this excellent chapter; but rather fele&t a few fuch obfervations and reflections from it, as appeared the newest to us, and moft engaged our attention.

Having obferved that the intentions in the cure of nervous diforders may be reduced, 1. to the leffening or removing the predifpofing caufes; and 2. to the removing or correcting the general and particular occafional caufes, fpecified in the third,. fourth, and fifth chapters,-he proceeds to particularize his own practice in fulfilling thefe intentions, in a long fucceffion of pages,. with feveral notes; and fome cafes are included both in these and in the text. His modeft fuppofition, p. 344, 345, that chaly-* beate medicines in a flate of diffolution do not feem to enter into the blood (which he fupports by an experiment and a confequent diflection of Dr. Wright's) may appear new to many; though from this experiment, and its event, he very rationally infers P. 345 If fal martis and other preparations of iron do not enter the blood, it is obvious, they muft produce their effects folely by the ftrengthening the ftomach and inteftines: whence not only the digeftion of the aliment will be better performed, but by means of that remarkable fympathy which fubfifts between the alimentary canal and the whole fyftem, 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 tomach and bowels are in a found, or an infirm state.'

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

« السابقةمتابعة »