« السابقةمتابعة »
of Job, wherein his Lord hip steps 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 shall judge for themselves,
The author of A Free and Candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Principles, &c. having asked this question, IVhere was idolatry ever punified 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 quæstionem respondetur: fub 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 teftimonium perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua familia principas 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 circumvicinarum defectione adhuc retinebant, cavere, ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obftinatos et rebelles, et sceleris contagionem propagantes, fupplicio afficere? --Supplementum ad primam prælectionum editionem : Addit. Editionis fecundæ, p. 312.'
· This is so pleasant an answer, says his Lordfhip, and fo 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 Job was a dramatic work, written long after the time of the Patriarch, asks, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the fewish economy? The profesor answers, It was funished under the Jobean ceconomy. And he advances nothing without proof. Does not Job himself say, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be punished by the Judge? The Examiner replies, that the Job who says this, is an airy fantom, raised for other purposes than to lay down the law for the Patriarchal times. The Profesor maintains that they are all asses, with ears as long as Father Harduin's, who cannot see that this is the true and genuine old Job.-In good time. Subjudlice lis ef?: And while it is so, I am afraid the learned Profeffor begs the question; when, to prove that idolatry was punished by the magiftrate, out of the Jand of Judea, he affirms that king job punished it. If he say, he does not reft his assertion on this passage of the book of Job alone, but on the facred records, from whence he concludes that those civil magistrates, Abraham and Melchifedec, punified idoJatry ; I shall own he acts fairly, in putting them all upon the
fame footing; and on what ground that stands, we shall now fee.
< 2. The Examiner says, there was idolatry ever punished by the magistrate, but under the Jewish economy? A question equivalent to this,—“ Where was idolatry punished by the civil magiftrate on the established laws of the state, but in Judea ?" To which, the Profeffor replies, “ It was punished by all the Patriarchal monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and king Melchisedec,”
Of a noöle race was Shenkin. But here notone, save the laft, 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; so that, tho' of divine, yet certainly not a monarch of the true stamp, by hereditary right. The critic therefore fails in his first point, which is, finding out civil magistrates to do his hierarchical drudgery:
? 3. But let us admit our Professor'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 bis descendants, come first under consideration. What! (says he) was not Abraham, exercising the fovereignty in his own family, to punish idolatry ? Hobbes, is I believe, the only one (fave our Profeflor) 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 houfhold after him, and they fall 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 testimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abraham's pious and parental care to instrull his family in the law of God. And it is well, it
for no more, or Í 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 same propriety as Lord Bolingbroke does atheists and divines. This is not the only instance, however, wherein he exposes himself by intro-ducing 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
• This confirms an observation, says the annotator, which Mr. Hobbes made long ago, that there be very few bishops that act a sermon 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 sermon the same 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 dissenting teacher, written in defence of the Divine Legation, and paid his court to the Author in the same 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 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 so 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 censure of every candid reader: Foster's reputation rests on too folid a foundation to be shaken by the foul blafts of such envious, narrow-minded critics, and Pope's compliment to him remains in full force.We now return to what Our Author says of Dr. Lowth.
• Melchifedec's story is a short one; he is just brought into the scene to bless Abraham in his return from conquest. This promifes but ill. Had this King and Priest of Salem been brougho in curfing, it had had a better appearance: for, I think, punilhment 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 eafily run into their contrarics. What follows, is bis taking tythes 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 seen 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 inseparable connection between tythes and perfecution, but in the ideas of a Quaker, -And so much for king Melchifedec.
• But the learned Profesor, who has been hardily brought up in she keen atmosphere of wholesome severities, and early taught to distinguish between de facto and de jure, thought it needless to enquire into faets, when he was secure of the right. And, therefore, only slightly and superciliously asks, “ What? was Dot Abraham, by his very princely office, to punish idolatry ? Were not Melchifedec and Job, and all the heads of tribes to do the same?” 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 Prelection.'
Though we are almost strangers to Dr. Lowth's person, yet from what we have heard from many of his intimate acquaintance, we are fully persuaded 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 persecution, 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 fpirit, prevents many modest persons from writing upon those subjects which he has discussed 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 insults of this haughty Prelate, not in order to teach him humility, for this, we are sensible, surpasses all human power ; but to reduce bim, if possible, 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 Philofophy, we find that the appendix, to the fifth book, in the new edition of the Divine Legation, is transcribed, almost verbatim, from the said View, Lett. IV.
R Another instance of his contemptuous manner of speaking of even the most respectable personages in the republic of letters, may be seen in his gth Vol. (p. 152) now before us: where, having occasion to mention, the truly worthy and very learned Dr. Leland, (author of some excellent defences of the Chrillian religion, against the Deifts) he says, ' - In this, the Dissenter, Leland, as I remember, in some of his things, seems much to triumph- Were the Diffenter, Leland, capable of returning such language and Ahould say the Prelate, Warburton, in fome of bis things,” should we not be apt to think that the Diflenter expressed himself in very ungentleman-like terms ?
Conclusion of Dr. Whyti's Observations on the Nature, Causes, and
Cure of those Disorders which are commonly called Nervous, Hypo-. chondriac, or Hysteric. See the Review for last Month.
HE seventh chapter, which treats of the general cure of
thefe diseafes, extends to above a hundred pages; and indeed could not well be reduced into a smaller compass, by a Writer who had considered 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 cost our Author much attention, and have exercised his judgment not a little, to make all the practical and necessary diItinctions it contains. As he generally directs much the same remedies, and varies the regimen of different constitutions, and under different sympioms, in nearly the same manner which the best 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 it, 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, 1. to the lessening or removing the predisposing causes; and 2. to the removing or correcting the general and particular occasional caufes, 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 cafes are included both in these and in the text. His modest supposition, p. 344, 345, that chalybeate medicines in a flate of diffolution do not seem to enter into the blood (which he supports by an experiment and a consequent disection 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 blcod, it is obvious, they must produce their effects solely by the ftrengthening the stomach and intestines : whence not only the digestion of the aliment will be better performed, but by means of that remarkable sympathy which subsists 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 itemach and bowels are in a sound, or an infirm itate.'
For the efficacy of the cold bath in many subjects of these difeases, he resers 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