Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tain, that nothing of mind or matter exists, except his own mind at the precise moment at which he speaks. This system might, we think, have suggested to Sir William a far shorter process for in validating Scripture. Why did he not, instead of perverting the Bible, deny its existence? Could he once convince the world of so obvious a fact, how glorious would be the consequences! Dr. Marsh would put off his armour; Dr. Maltby, (whose curtailing project we mean speedily to examine,) would think the whole ghost of a Bible no more mischievous than a half one: the Bartlett's Buildings' Society would return to her old easy-chair: and the world, released from its supposed scriptural shackles, would slash away the Commandments, as Eneas did the shades in Tartarus; and proceed boldly to sin, to quarrel, to fight abroad and stab at home, up to the full bias of their fallen nature.

But to return to Sir William: the next work in which we recollect to have recognised his dilapidating hand, is in the Herculanensia; a volume of treatises, the joint production of himself and Mr. Walpole, on certain topicks connected with Herculaneum. Tired, we apprehend, with the follies of above-ground philosophers and prophets, the learned gentleman determined to dive into the bowels of the earth for a new and improved philosophy. What he saw there it is difficult to say, as Sir William is no great reporter of facts. What he learned by his converse with the dead of the year 79, is announced to the world in a few very learned, rather eloquent, and, we think, highly inaccurate and fanciful disquisitions. In calculating, for instance, the population of Herculaneum, he estimates the inhabitants by the size of the theatre; proceeding throughout upon an hypothesis, contradicted by the concurrent testimony of the Roman writers, that all women were excluded, (we wish they had,) from the Roman theatres. In the third disquisition in this volume, while searching for some more remote root for the word Herculaneum than that which has satisfied other etymologists-the name of Hercules, its founder; he enters upon an extensive argument, to show that half or all the heathen gods were types of the sun, and the twelve labours of Hercules typical of the signs of the Zodiack. Here we see the germ of the monstrous theory examined in the work before us by Mr. D'Oyly, in which Jehovah is converted to the same type with the heathen gods, and the twelve Apostles are destined to occupy the same typical throne with the labours of Hercules. In another essay, the rebellion of the Titans is treated as an allegorical history of volcanick eruptions.

We have taken this brief survey of the preceding works of Sir W. Drummond, hoping, as we said, to supply our readers with a scale by which his pretensions and peculiarities as an author may be tried; by which those who are disposed to think well of heterodoxy in religion, may trace the operation of the author's Quixotism upon subjects more reverenced by them. If we are not deceived, both the works we have noticed betray much passion for display, much love of innovation, much self-conceit, much contempt

of others, much blindness in the perception of what really exists, and acuteness in the discovery of what has no existence;-much, in short, of that perverse ingenuity by which, in fevers, the patient cunningly discovers imaginary visitors in every corner of his room, and yet blindly runs his head against the wall. Sir W. Drummond will forgive us a simile of this kind, by which nothing more is meant than to give our readers some conception of a character of mind which the uninitiated can conceive only by some such obvious illustration. We will only add, that instead of being angry at being compared to a man in a fever, he ought devoutly to wish the simile a fact; as then he might, in a measure, apologize for the extravagances of his opinions, by the height of his pulse. We shall now, however, proceed more distinctly to notice the work, and the answer; the bane, and antidote, which are both before

us.

The preface to Sir William Drummond's book is, as we have already intimated, occupied with attacks upon the Scriptures and the orthodox interpretations of them. It is, of course, impossible that we should, in compliment to this new assailant, fight all the battles in which the advocates of religion have fought and triumphed a thousand times. Replies to this author may be found in almost every reply to Tom Paine. We shall content ourselves with merely stating the nature of his attacks, and giving our readers a few pages of the sensible observations of Mr. D'Oyly in reply to his adversary.

There are then, we think, three points on which the author is chiefly culpable:-First, he imputes to the orthodox, interpretations of Scripture which they never employ. Secondly, he himself discovers in the Jewish Scriptures certain defects, not recogrised by any of the best criticks of any age or country. Thirdly, he states his objections to the Scriptures, or the accredited interpretation of them, in a style of the grossest indecorum and levity. As to these charges, let our readers take some examples.-Christians, then, are represented as believing that the God of the Hebrews was a mere "local and material god, who dwelt in a box made of shittim wood, in the temple of Jerusalem," (Pref. p. 7); as "having human passions, and those none of the best; as a quarreisome, jealous, vindictive God; as continually changing his plans for the government of the world." Again, "they," (the Christian readers of the Old Testament,)" find it quite simple that the Triane Jehovah should dine on veal cutlets at Abraham's table;" and are not at all surprised, that the God of the universe should pay visit to Ezekiel, in order to settle with the prophet, whether he should bake his bread with human dung, or cow dung." But we really cannot consent to soil our paper with any more such ribaldry is this.

In these several instances, it will at once be perceived, that this iversal skeptist attributes to Christian interpreters expositions which they do not avow; that he clothes all accredited opinions in he most absurd dress; that, on the whole, the Jewish Scriptures

[ocr errors]

enjoy no sort of homage from him, but rather provoke his ridicule and indignation. Now, we will say nothing of the dishonesty of charging men with opinions they do not hold, nor of the indecorum of grossly insulting the religion of fifteen millions of his fellowsubjects; but we cannot help calling his attention, as the means most likely to impress him, to the estimation in which these Scriptures have been held by men of undisputed liberality and genius. Longinus represents the lawgiver of the Jews" as no ordinary man. Tacitus, speaking of the faith of the Jews, as derived from the Scriptures, says; "The Egyptians venerate various animals, as well as likenesses of monsters. The Jews acknowledge, and that with the mind only, a single Deity. They account those to be profane who form images of God, of perishable materials, in the likeness of man. Theirs is the one supreme, eternal God, unchangeable, immortal. They therefore suffer no statues in their cities."* Locke, whose bigotry in church or state, will not be supposed to have fettered his judgment upon this or any other topick, has pronounced the Scriptures to have God for their author; eternity, (not the calendar,) for their object; and truth, without any mixture of errour, for their subject matter. The testimonies of Boyle, Bacon, and Pascal, to the Jewish Scriptures, are in every one's hand. That of Sir William Jones is equally noto; rious, where he declares that "the Scriptures † contain, independently of their divine original, more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty, purer morality, more important history, and finer strains both of poetry and eloquence, than could be collected within the same compass from all other books that were ever composed in any age, or in any idiom." Milton also has a right to be heard, in opposition to the critick who condemns the Scriptures as too mean a vehicle for religious truth, and consigns them to the same function with Moor's Almanack. "If occasion," says he," shall lead to imitate those magnifick odes and hymns, wherein Pindarus and Callimachus are in most things worthy, some others, in their frame judicious, in their matter most, and end faulty; but those frequent songs throughout the law and the prophets beyond all these, not in their divine argument alone, but in the very critical art of composition, may be easily made appear, over all the kinds of lyrick poetry, to be incomparable." Rollin, speaking of one of those portraits of the Deity, at which the sneers of Sir William Drummond are pointed, says, it " surpasses the most beautiful descriptions which the heathens have transmitted to us in this way." It would be easy to multiply quotations-to call up the mighty dead of almost every age and clime, to bear witness to the majesty and splendour of these writings. But Sir William is as much more familiar with testimonies of this kind, as his reading is greater than our own. He could stretch out his wand, and in

Tacit. Hist. lib. v. 5.

* Reason of Church Government,

† Anniversary Discourse.

§ Belles Lettres, lib. I. 3.

stead of the cloud with which he has been here endeavouring to quench the splendour of these compositions, could summon authorities from every point of the compass to "rise up and call them glorious." Under such circumstances, is he never induced to pause, and ask himself, why he holds them in such inferiour regard? That eye must be diseased which sees every object in a distorted shape; and what must be the state of the mind which reverses all the decrees of the good and great, and calls that bad which God and the noblest of his creatures pronounce to be" good!"

very

There are several distinct replies made by Mr. D'Oyly to specifick charges of Sir William, which we think highly creditable to him. To give our readers a specimen of his manner, as well as to show them the pleasant picture of a discomfited philosopher, we shall subjoin a few extracts from this little work. The objections have been so often advanced, that Mr. Drummond could not but find some of the answers also ready made to his hand: but, whether original or not, they are used sensibly and unambitiously, and show the man, we think, anxious rather to defend his cause, than to display himself. He is content to fight the battle, without announeing that he forged the weapon. Some of the matter, however, we really think original. In the ancient tournaments, the combatants never, we believe, proclaimed their own titles; and we are not sorry to be the heralds of Mr. D'Oyly, on this occasion.

"To come," says Mr. D'Oyly, "to your particular examples. You tell us that the Supreme Being is depicted as a material and local god, who dwelt in a box made of shittim wood in the temple of Jerusalem: in regard to which, you add, 'Christian readers abide by the literal interpretation. In justice to you, Sir, I am willing to hope that you never read a syllable of what Christians do think on the subject. If you are acquainted with their opinions, and still assert that they believe the Deity to have been a local and material god, I see not how you can escape from the charge of wilful mirepresentation. If, as perhaps is the case, you merely make a random conjecture at their opinions, I put it to your candour to say, whether you do them not great injustice, in pretending to state their opinions without first inquiring what they really are.

"Know then, Sir, that Christians do not believe what you impute to them. What they do believe is this; that the Supreme Being was pleased to visit a particular spot in the Jewish temple, with a visible symbol of his presence; not, as you insinuate, that he resided locally in it, as a material being would do, and that his presence was there confined. They apprehend there is nothing inconsistent with the most exalted notions of the Deity in the belief, that he, whose immaterial essence fills universal space, and swells through all immensity, did, in the times of which the Hebrew Scriptures bear record, for the purpose of carrying on important dispensations of his providence, occasionally hold sensible communication with human beings, and sigalize his immediate presence by perceptible manifestations.

Christians, Sir, derive this belief from what appears to them the literal and obvio interpretation of their Scriptures. If any among them think differently, I ana are they must have imbibed their notions of scriptural truth from some such persons as yourself, and they can never have searched their Bible for themselves. If they were to take the trouble of so doing, they would find, that at the very time of the dedication of that temple in which, according to you, the Deity was thought to reside as a local and inaterial god, at that very tine King Solomon used expressions in his publick prayer which nobly bespeak his juster apprehension, and even show to have been anxious to preclude all possibility of errour in the minds of the peoStanding before the altar, he spread forth his hands towards heaven,' and began, Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or in earth

beneath.' He frequently, in the course of the prayer, repeats the words, 'Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place; and in one part of it, addresses the Deity in these sublime terms; Behold, the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contam thee; how much less this house that I have builded.""

p. 28.

"They," the Christian readers of the Old Testament, "find it quite simple that the Triune Jehovah should dine on veal cutlets at Abraham's table." I turn to my Bible, and find you referring to the passage, (Gen. xviii. 1, &c.) in which Abraham receives a preternatural intimation that a son should be born to him. The relation begins by saying, that the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre. It proceeds: he sate in the tent door, and lo! three men stood by him; and he ran to meet them from the tent door; and he ran into the herd and fetched a calf, and hasted to dress it; and he stood by them, and they did eat? Since it is expressed at the beginning of the account, that the Lord appeared unto Abraham; and in the subsequent parts, the Lord said unto Abraham; you insinuate that Christians believe the Supreme Jehovah to have actually come to Abraham in a human form, to have sate at table familiarly with him, and to have partaken of the calf which he dressed.

"Really, Sir, it is astonishing you should have hazarded such an assertion, when, at the head of the chapter, in our authorised English translation, you might have read'Abraham entertaineth three angels:' a complete proof that, by the English readers at least, the passage is understood to speak, not of Jehovah himself appearing, but of angels or messengers commissioned by him: and almost every commentator, whom you could have consulted, would have taught you to understand it precisely in the same manner. I admit, the expression runs in some parts of the narrative, as if the Lord were present in person, and spoke with Abraham. But you cannot be ig norant, how common a form of language it is, to say, that a person does himself whet he commissions another to do. Such a form is extremely common in Scripture: I will call your attention to one instance, which is precisely in point. If you turn to Ex. iii. 2. you will find it expressed, the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a bush: but the account goes on, (ver. 4.) The Lord saw that he turned aside,' the Lord said, I am the God of thy fathers,' &c. Here most clearly, the Lord is said to have spoken himself, when an angel appeared and spoke in his name. The case is completely similar, in the passage which we have been considering. This passage has been always held, with very few exceptions, to treat of three angels: it is deci dedly understood so to speak in our English translation: and it must indeed be matter of regret that you should have made, in such terms, a very unwarrantable assertion of what Christians do believe respecting it." p. 40, &c.

"Ifind you frequently objecting in a tone of ridicule, to the colloquial style which the Supreme Being is sometimes described as assuming in the Scriptures, and to the minuteness of detail into which he occasionally enters. You bring forward sever passages which are likely to present your objection in its fullest force to your reader's mind. Without discussing these particularly, I most readily allow, that the Deity is described in the Old Testament, to have instituted among his peculiar pesple a ceremonial law, the details of which are prescribed with great minuteness aus! precision. The question is, whether it is necessarily irreconcileable with our notions of the great Lord of the universe, that he should enter into these minute details. I. opposition to what you insinuate, I maintain that it is not; and I maintain it on the ground, that he does enter into details similarly minute, both in framing the work of his hand, and in conducting the plans of his providence. The great Lord of the universe, as religion both natural and revealed teaches us, formed at the first, and preserves continually, every the most insignificant and ignoble part of every animal and vegetable: he turns also to the purposes of his providence, many of the most trivial accidents and events of human life. Thus, to interfere minutely, in apparently trivial concerns, is not inconsistent with the dignity of so great a Being. But yo are prepared to say, there is an essential difference: in the one case he interferes lently and insensibly; in the other case, he is described to have interfered sensibly and openly. An essential difference there is, I admit, as to the method of the interference: but a complete resemblance, as far as regards the question of such minute interference being compatible or not, with the Divine dignity. Once allow, that his dignity does admit of attention to minute details in the exercise of his ordinary providence, and you need not hesitate to allow, that, when he exercised an extraordi nary providence, his dignity may equally have admitted of condescension to details similarly minute and seemingly trivial. You merely trifle with the understanding of your readers, when you tell them the Deity is introduced conversing about par. and shovels, the fat of a ram, &c. As well might you burlesque the doctrine of h. · being the universal Creator, by saying he is introduced as busying himself about the

« AnteriorContinuar »