Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

will a man who cannot write common fenfe venture upon dispus tation?

This Author proceeds, with great parade, to declare his opinion, that ingenuity fhould be exerted only in defence of thofe doctrines which are to be found in the facred writings, and in the refutation of fuch as are not to be found there, by whatever denomination of Chriftians they may have been adopted.' It is pity he does not fee, that faying this is faying nothing. The queftion, What doctrines are to be defended and refuted? re-. curs in another form, What doctrines are, and what are not, found in the facred fcriptures?' Concerning this question, mankind are by no means agreed; and if the doctrine of infallibility is given up, the Reviewers may as juftly oppofe this Author's opinion of the fenfe of fcripture, as he theirs.

The Author fays, in his preface to his differtations, that so difficult is the undertaking of elucidating and interpreting every part of facred writ, that with all the advantages which nature, art, and the most favourable concurrence of circumftances can beftow upon one man, fome obfcurities will still remain unnoticed, fome difficulties unexplained, and fome plain paffages mifinterpreted.' This paffage we have contracted thus: to elucidate and interpret every part of facred writ is fo difficult, that no MAN, with all the advantages of nature and art, can effect it! This, the Author fays, is a mifreprefentation. He infinuates that there is an important difference between the words no man and no one man, and that, by omitting the word one, his propofition, in our hands, implies, that the elucidation and interpretation of fcripture is impoffible to all men collectively. But if he un derstands language no better, it does not follow that language is not better understood. If we had faid that no man can draw as much as ten horfes, could we be charged with afferting that the united efforts of all men would be equally ineffectual? We did indeed leave out an abfurdity in the Author's propofition, which he has now forced into notice: he tells us, that if one man was to be endowed with all the advantages of nature and art, he would misinterpret some plain paffages of scripture; and his reafon is, that the interpretation of fcripture is difficult. Is it then, in this fagacious Writer's opinion, difficult rightly to interpret plain paffages? fo difficult, that, with the strongest abilities and profoundest learning, no one man can effect it? Did any man ever misinterpret the firft fentence in the fourth chapter of Genefis, Adam knew Eve his wife?' Nothing that is plain can be the fubject of investigation, any more than of difpute; things become the subject of both by being not plain, but obfcure and questionable, and by no other cause.

A writer who does not understand the fimple import of words, cannot be expected to understand the complicated fenfe of ma

ny

ny words put together, or to difcern either grammatical or logical diftinctions.

The Reviewers obferved, "that if no man can elucidate and explain fcripture, it follows, that no man can understand it." With humble fubmiffion,' fays this modeft Author, I should apprehend you have here done what the vulgar would call " putting the cart before the horfe," for if no man can elucidate and explain fcripture, it does not follow from it, but must necessarily precede it, that no man can understand it.' If this gentleman had any notion of following or preceding otherwife than a cart may follow or precede a horfe, he would have referved his pleafantry for a fitter occafion. That may with propriety follow as an inference from premifes, which precedes in the natural order of things. If the body of Lazarus had begun to putrefy, when Jefus came to the fepulchre, it might fitly be inferred that he was dead, though death muft of neceffity precede putrefaction.

The Author in his Differtations has afferted, that what has hitherto been leaft understood in fcripture is most important. The Reviewers remark, that "if the parts of fcripture which are till obfcure contain what is necessary to be known, we may yet perifh for want of a revelation;-if they do not, the time is wafted which is employed about them." This has thrown our Author into great diftrefs and confufion. He fays, that although, thefe obfcure parts are not neceffary, yet they are neceffary; that though they are important, yet they are not important. He acknowledges that the fcriptures may contain a rule of life eafily to be comprehended; it is prefumed he will alfo admit. that they contain conditions upon which the Deity will be gracious, that are easily to be comprehended. Let him tell us, in what fenfe more is neceffary: and, thefe being eafily comprehended, how that which is not easily comprehended can be most important.

The Reviewers think that a meaning which the Divine Being graciously intended to convey by a miraculous inspiration, would actually be conveyed; and, confequently, words of a doubtful import would not be used on this occafion. To confute this opinion, the Author fhrewdly afks if the Reviewers would have the words of revelation contain a meaning contrary to reason!

The Author, in his first differtation, undertakes to prove, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is plainly revealed: the Reviewers fay, that the Author's very undertaking refutes his pofition; he replies again, in his Socratic method, by asking, Could a writer then prove a doctrine without attempting it?' We fay no: but infift that what is plain neither requires nor admits of prof, which is the deduction of fomewhat that is not plain from fomewhat that is.

That

[ocr errors]

That Abraham begat Ifaac, is plainly revealed in scripture; but does the propofition, that Abraham begat Ifaac is plainly revealed in fcripture,' admit or require proof? and if any man fhould attempt to prove it, fhould we not pity him, and fmile?

The Author in this, and the preceding inftance, puts us in mind of another arch character, Harlequin, in the Italian entertainments; whom we remember to have heard argue just in the fame manner. He afks Pierrot whether he ever read the poems faid to have been written by one Horace? Pierrot replies that he has: Well, fays Harlequin, don't you think them very ingenious? Certainly, replies Pierrot: I will tell you a fecret then, fays Harlequin, I was the author of them myself. How! cries Pierrot, why, they were written many hundred years ago. Well, fays Harlequin, and are they ever the worfe for that? Our Author's questions conclude juft as much against our argument as Harlequin's against that of Pierrot. He does indeed resemble Harlequin in more particulars than one; he fhuffles along, flapping his wooden fword, through a thoufand zigzags, in which it would ill become us to follow him.

In his differtation on eternal punishment, his argument, in fum, is this:

It was fit to threaten eternal punishment, to prevent temporal crimes.

It is fit to inflict it, becaufe it has been threatened.

The Author finding himself embarraffed by our objection, that in this view, fuppofing the expedient in one inftance only to prove ineffectual, it would produce more evil than it would prevent, the evil that it would produce being infinite, and that which it would prevent being finite, makes a defperate plunge. to get free, and afferts that the inftitution of eternal punishment was thus made neceffary to prevent mankind from being eternally punished. What! was eternal mifery made neceffary, to prevent eternal mifery! Did prince Prettyman kill prince Prettyman! But the Author afks, Was it neceffary for him to inform Chriftians? Could he fuppofe that any who bear the name could be fo ignorant, as not to know that the promulga-tion of eternal punishment turns men to that path which leads to eternal happiness?' But if the promulgation of eternal punishment was neceffary to induce men to fulfil the conditions of eternal happiness, and if no Chriftian can be supposed to be ignorant of this, what need of any other proof that the promulgation of eternal punishment is confiftent with the divine attributes; and of what ufe is this Author's defence of it upon principles that are entirely new, the fruits of his own inveftigation?

It must be observed here, that this Author makes the new covenant a covenant of works, which we mention only to fhew, that either the anathemas which he pronounces against the Reviewers,

Reviewers for appearing to diffent in fome particulars from the doctrine of the church of England as established by law, are either unmerited, or recoil upon himself.

Our Readers will have observed, that we have treated the Author of the Letter as the Author of the Differtations. We acknowledge that the Letter is not written in that character, but it is impoffible that it should be the work of another writer. The Author of the Letter fpeaks of the Author of the Differtations, and of his work, as no human Being would speak of them except himfelf. The Author of the Differtations, fays the Letter-writer, has, in every one of them, either propofed new interpretations of fcripture, or fupported old ones with new arguments. He very feldom advances opinions which have been difcovered by others, without either refuting them if falfe, or deducing fome ufeful confequence from them if true, or impunging fome abfurd conclufion which others had drawn. His reafoning is so close, that to abridge it would be to maim it.—There can now be no difpute between perfons equally wife and learned concerning the doctrine of eternal punishment, because the Dif fertator has proved it to be plainly revealed. The Differtator has removed all doubt of eternal punishment being one of the doctrines of revelation. His arguments compel affent: his fame fhall fpread the farther for oppofition; and his work fhall be read with approbation, when the Review fhall be remembered only for its defects.' Is not this man's ftate defperate? "Seeft thou a man wife in his own conceit, there is more hope of a fool than of him."

The article in the Review in which this Author's work is confidered, has not, as he infinuates, oppofed revelation; but only his account of it. If this Author's arguments are not conclufive, does it follow that Chriftianity is falfe? if not, our refu tation of his arguments cannot impeach our belief of Chriftianity. Revelation was certainly intended as a rule of faith and, practice to all whom it fhould reach. To fuppofe that it is not what it was intended to be, is to charge God foolishly.' If it can make only philofophers and critics wite to falvation, jult the contrary of what Jefus has affirmed is true, it was intended for the wife and prudent, and not for the unlearned and fimple. If it can make the unlearned and fimple wife to falvation, we may well pray that the differtations of philofophers and critics, with those of the nameless fry, that, without abilities to be ei ther, affect to be both, may fleep with their fathers among "all. fuch reading as is never read."

If this ingenious gentleman who has difappeared as a Differ tator, and re-appeared as a Letter-writer, fhould enable us to amufe the public with an account of any further transformations, we fhall not neglect the opportunity. He threatens us REV. Dec. 1769.

Gg

with

with another ftroke of his wooden weapon, fo that our Readers may probably be entertained with another petit piece, under the title of Harlequin Differtator.

Remarks on the Character and Manners of the French. In a Series of Letters, written during a Refidence of Twelve Months at Paris and its Environs. 12mo. 2 Vols. 4s. 6 d. fewed. Johnson and Payne.

Y whom? No authority is required to fupport an obvious fiction; it is received as fuch: and every one judges for himfelf whether the tale is well or ill told. But when information concerning matters of fact is offered to the public, which does not carry its evidence with it, we receive it on the perfonal credit of the Relator. This publication, however, hath no fuch claim to attention; defcriptions are given, and characters drawn, without any name to vouch for the veracity of them. Either therefore our own actual knowledge will render the perufal of these letters needlefs, or we fhall read them without truft or confidence in the writer.

As for us poor Reviewers, we have been too often reproached with our indigent circumftances and fituation, to render it probable that we ever were bleffed with a fight of the fuperb metropolis of France: but without afcertaining this point, another difficulty ftands in the way, viz. the contumacy of our namelefs Letter-writer, in the following declaration:

I am not very folicitous about the favourable report of those who never read, yet give a decifive opinion of every work that comes out.'

How this Writer came by his hurt, we know not, but the poor fteed must be fore, indeed, who winces before he is touched. It may be hinted, too, that when decifive opinions' prove agreeable to the party moft concerned, they are fo far from being defpifed, that they are often publicly copied, as unquestionable certificates of an Author's merit. But as this gentleman enters a protest against them, he does not deferve to be furnifhed with one, unless he will accept the concluding fentence of this article. All, therefore, that we have farther to do, at prefent, will be, to point out, as good-nature fhall direct, one or two of his letters, as fpecimens of the whole collection: and, by the way, we fhall be obliged to open the book, at least, to felect them:

LETTER IV.

Dear Sir, If a traveller was to judge of the French by the ftrictnefs and multiplicity of their regulations, he would probably fuppofe them the most ungovernable people in the world.

• From

« AnteriorContinuar »