« AnteriorContinuar »
feveral particular passages are attended, are commendable, even where his attempts may not be deemed entirely successful. In the present case, it is no mean talk that he hath undertaken. The predictions of Daniel, when considered in a general view, seem very clear; and it appears easy enough to determine the grand leading events' prefigured by them. But, when they come to be minutely examined, questions arise which do not admit of a ready solution, though they are far from invalidating the arguments which may be drawn from his prophecies to support the truth of divine revelation. The learned Profeflor Michaelis hath lately pointed out, in a striking manner, the various difficulties which attend the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks; and, at the same time, he hath gone fare ther, in our opinion, towards a true explication of it, than any preceding author.
Three of Daniel's principal predictions are examined by Dr. Parry, in the work before us. With regard to the first of them, Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it admits, accompanied with Daniel's interpretation of it, so easy an explanation, that there is scarce any prophecy in the Old Testament the meaning of which is more perspicuous and determinate. This prophecy our Author juftly entitles, The Kingdom of Heaven; or the Fall of Paganismi
The next prediction, considered by Dr. Parry, is Daniel's vision of the four great wild beasts which came from the sea. The first part of this vision is sufficiently clear ; but the concluding part of it hath been very differently explained by differènt writers. Our Author refers it to the fall of Judaism, and hath taken great pains to shew that the little horn is descriptive of the province of Judea. What he hath said upon the subject, is undoubtedly worthy of attention ; though candid and judicious critics may, perhaps, still think that there is room for hefitation and debate.
Dr. Parry, at the close of his remarks upon Daniel's vision, having taken occasion to apply himself to the members of the papal communion, makes the following judicious and liberal application to the protestants; We indeed, says he, have pru. dijaly withdrawn ourselves from the grosser pollutions of that meretricious community. How far a second REFORMATION may be either necesiary or expedient, I must not take upon me to determine. This, however, may be said with 'truth, and therefore, it is hoped, without offence, that the more there is OF THIS WORLD in our ecclesiastical establishment, the nearer it is to POPERY, and the farther from the SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL.'
Our Author, in his explication of the prophecy of the feventy weeks, endeavours to thew, that the commencement of these weeks must be fixed from the second year of Darius Nothus
King of Persia. It is objected to this opinion, that the persons who are represented by the prophet Haggai, as having seen both temples, must have been of an age beyond belief; because from the destruction of the temple to the second of Darius Nothus, were an hundred and fixty fix years. Dr. Parry's reply to this objection, is too curious and extraordinary to be omitted. I answer, says he, in the words of a very illustrious writer on another occasion, “ the promises of God have never borrowed help from moral probabilities.” His promises to Abraham were not of this kind, And why then should they be of this kind to the children of Abraham ? The Jews lived under an extraordinary dispensation of providence. Long life was the general promise of the Mosaic law to the obedient. And this promise was particularly repeated at the time we are speaking of. « There shall
yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.” Who now can think it improbable, when events correfpond so exactly with every part of the prophecy, that some among the Jews fhould be found of an exceeding great age? « If it be marvellous in the eyes of the people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes, faith the Lord of Hosts."
Such a method of removing difficulties, can never satisfy a discerning critic, or do honour to revelation. At the time to which the objeclion refers, it was as contrary to the fate of things under the Jewish dispensation, as it was to the usual course of nature for persons to live above an hundred and fixtyfix years. Indeed, the promise of long life under the Mosaic law, did not originally include the term contended for by our learned Author. Unless, therefore, he can find out a more rational mode of answering the objections to his hypothesis, it must, we are afraid, fall to the ground.
Dr. Parry has added, as he did in his last publication *, a variety of notes, some of which are ingenious and valuable. That upon the number 666, the number of the beast in the book of Revelations, has very considerable merit; and fo likewise has the note upon St. Paul's Address to the high priest of the Jews. We by no means agree with our Author in his opinion, that the title of Christians was given to the disciples at Antioch, by divine appointment. Dr. Lardner's reasons to che contrary, appear to us decisive upon the subject. Neither do we approve of what Dr. Parry hath said concerning the man of fin. That St. Paul's reprefentation of the man of fin is peculiarly descriptive of the papal power, has been so clearly fewn
* The genealogies of Christ in Matth. and Luke explained. See Review, vol. xlvi. p. 62,
by by Benson, Duchal, Warburton, Newton, and Hurdd, that we cannoc help considering them as having given by far the most probable explication of the prophecy.
In his pre
ART. III. Remarks on the Opinions of some of the most celebrated Wri
ters on Crown Law, respecting ihe due Distinction between Man. Naughter and Murder : Being an Attempt to shew, that the Flea of sudden Anger cannot remove the Imputation and Guilt of Murder, when a mortal Wound is wilfully given with a Weapon : That the Indulgence allowed by the Courts to voluntary Manslaughter in Rencounters, and in sudden Affrays and Duels, is indiscriminate, and without foundation in Law: And that impunity in such Cases of voluntary Manslaughter, is one of the principal Causes of the Continuance and present Increase of the base and disgraceful Practice of Duelling. To which are added, fome Thoughts on the particular Case of the Gentlemen of the Army when involved in such disagreeable private Differences. With a prefatory Address to the Reader, concerning the Depravity and Folly of modern Men of Honour, falsely so called; including a short Account of the Principles and Design of the Work. By Granville Sharp. 8vo. I s. 6d. White, &c. 1773. ROM the verbose title of this performance, it will appear
that its tendency is to prove the decision of private quarrels by private combat, to be contrary to law; and that when one of the parties falls, the survivor is guilty of wilful murder, and : js not intitled to the mitigated verdi&t of manslaughter: in which conclusion it is difficult to dissent from the writer. face he makes the following just distinction between wilful murder and manslaughter.
Now, certain it is, that some allowance ought to be made for heat of blood upon a sudden provocation, in confideration of the extreme frailty of human nature, provided there are no cir cumstances of malice in the case. As if (for instance) a man, in sudden anger, should strike another, merely with his fill, or a fmall cane, or flick, meaning only to correct, and should accidentally kill; this would be, properly, manslaughter; which, though it is deemed felony (as the act of striking, or beating another person is, in itself, unlawful), is nevertheless pardonable both hy the laws of God and man. But when two persons fight with dangerous weapons, an intention of killing is expressed by the weapons ; and such intention renders the manslaughter voluntary, which is the fame thing as wilful; and consequently the “ malice prepensed” (which excludes the benefit of clergy) is necessarily implied, though the sudden anger be but a moment before the fatal stroke ; for “ malice prepen fed” is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke, “ That is (says he) voluntary, and of set purpose, though done upon a sudden occasion : for if it be voluntary the law implieth malice.” '3 Inft. c. xii, p. 62.'
The Author has shewn much reading in eftablishing this point, and, presuming on the fairness of his quotations, has deiected several inconsistencies in the writings of our most famous lawyers in distinguidhing between murder and manslaughter ; though he may not have given his argument all the advantages it was capable of receiving. To inlift on the Levitical law, and to ascertain the true reading of Hebrew, texts, will not be likely to operate much in confuting the current principles of modern honour : nor do gentlemen in settling their frivolous punctilios, concern themselves greatly in pleas of the crown. It appears, however, from this treatise, that our lawyers have, in fact, countenanced the pernicious custom of duelling, by temporifing and warping their opinions, to make more allow. ances for it than the public good of society will warrant. Selfdefence, as he observes, cannot be pleaded in behalf of men who meet by consent to attack each other with deadly weapons.
Mr. Sharp, however, like other fanguine men, extends his argument to an abfurd length; for after endeavouring to op. pole this point of honour among the gentlemen of the army, by arguments not well adapted to their notions of things, and therefore not calculated to have with them the force that might perhaps be wilhed, he introduces the following frange principle :
· The law, says he, will not excuse an unlawful act by a foldier, even though he commits it by the exprefs command of the highest military authority in the kingdom: and much less is the soldier obliged to conform himself implicitly to the mere opinions and falle notions of honour, which his superiors may have unfortunately adopted.-Even in publick military service, or warlike expeditions by national authority, the law manifestly requires the soldier to think for himself, and to consider, before he acts in any war, whether the same be juft; for, if it be otherwise, the common law of this kingdom will impute to him the guilt of murder,
* And though the law does not actually punith such general crimes, as may unfortunately have obtained, at any time, the fanction of government; yet the time will certainly come, when all such temporizing military murderers must be responsible for the innocent blood that is shed in an unjust war, if they have rendered themselves acceffaries to it by an implicit, and, therefore, criminal-obedience to the promoters of it. " Item fic homicidium in bello," (says the learned Bracton) “ et tunc videndum utrum bellum fit juftum vel injuftum. Si autem injustum, tenebitur occisor : fi autem juflum, ficut pro defensione patria, non tenebitur, nifi hoc fecerit corrupta voluntate et intentione."
· Men of true honour, therefore, at the same time that they are sensible of their duty as foldiers and subjects to their king, must be mindful that they are subject also to the empire of reason,
and are bound thereby, in common with all mankind, to maintain the dignity and natural freedom of human nature : and those soldiers, who, in addition to their natural reason, have a true sense of religion, will not only be mindful, that they are foldiers and subjects to an earthly king, but that they are also foldiers and subjects to the King of Kings; whose laws and precepas they will, on all occasions, prefer to every other command; and will obey the same with such a steady courage, as may be equal to every adversity, and undeserved suffering that threatens them.
• It was this indispensible, this unhappy disposition, and sense of fuperior duty, which prevailed even in an unlawful standing army, that had been raised, and was exprefly designed for arbitrary purposes, and which, nevertheless, contrary to all expectation, exerted itself in saving this kingdom, at the glorious revolution, from the political slavery, which then threatened it, as well as from the more intolerable tyranny of the Romilh religion.'
It will not be an easy matter for this writer to justify a military man, and protect him from declared penalties, especially if he is in a subordinate rank, for disobedience to orders; though he may disapprove the cause of a war, in which the government demands his service. Nor can any general principle be drawn from so peculiar an exigence as the revolution, which was not only justified by the general sense of the nation, but by what was of much more importance in this view of the case, by fuccefs. Had the Prince of Orange been defeated, as Monmouth was, and the nation again subjected to James, it may be left to Mr. Sharp to imagine what would have been the fate of those officers who carried over their men to the unsuccessful invader ! Even as affairs terminated, though the army deserted the King, the individuals that composed the bulk of it, however willingly they changed fides, still preserved military obedience to their immediate superiors, who led them over.
ART. IV. Cursory Refle&tions on the Single Combat, or Modern Duel.
Addressed to Gentlemen in every Class of Life. 4to. I s. Bald. win. 1773.
OTHIC and absurd as the custom of duelling is generally
allowed to be, there are advocates for it, on principle; seasoners, who coolly argue for the necessity, and even convenience, of this mode of accommodating certain kinds of perfonal differences, and of redressing certain species of injuries, for which the laws have not provided proper or adequate remedies : they conclude, therefore, that an appeal to the sword is a requisite supplement to the law, and that this sort of satisfaction for extrajudicial offences, must take place, till some other mode shall