« PreviousContinue »
sive and injurious, may be brought forward, and perhaps may be carried. And by these means the remedies, which the scientific part of the Society would wish to apply to the abuses which exist, may be prevented. But, Sir, I am united with a respectable and numerous band, embracing, I believe, a majority of the scientific part of this Society: of those who do its scientific business. Sir, we shall have one remedy in our power, when all others fail. If other remedies should fail, we can at last sECEDE. Sir, when the hour of secession comes, the President will be left with his train of feeble Amateurs, and that toy* upon the table, the Ghost of that society in which philosophy once reigned, and Newton presided as her minister.”
On putting the previous question, the numbers were, for it 59, against it 106, the President's own vote included. The main question was then put, and the members were against it 42, for it u19.' The President's own vote in his own cause again included.
Further efforts were made by Dr. Horsley and the other friends of Dr. Hutton to procure his re-establishment, and to check the increasing despotism of the President, but without effect. A new stretch of power was soon afterwards exhibited, of which the following account appeared in the “ Public Advertiser of April 6, 0784."
“ We hear that the President of the Royal Society has given fresh disgust to several of the fellows of it, by a step he has just taken concerning the office of one of the principal secretaries, which has lately become vacant by the resignation of the Rev. Mr. Maty. He has sent round a card to all the fellows of the Society, (to whom the election of a new secretary belongs), to inform them, that Dr Blayden (a respectable and learned physician) has offered himself a candidate for the office, at his de sire, and to recommend him to their choice. This expression at his desire, seems to imply that no person ought to presume to be a candidate without his approbation, or even be supposed to have any chance of succeeding with, out it, or of failing of success when he bas obtained it: which are implications that are by no means agreeable to the more independent members of the Society. This card is called by many of them, the President's Congé
* Pointing to the mace.
d'Elire. Dr. Horsley, in particular, gave it that title publicly at the meeting of the Society at Somerset Place, on Thursday last, the 1st of this instant April, 1784. •It is,' said he, a
the Society to elect a new secretary, and a nomination by the President, as their so. vereign, of the person he would have them choose ; which is exactly similar to the proceeding of the King in the nomination of a new Bishop.”
In a very ingenious pamphlet written by Mr. Maty, one of the Minority, entituled “ An History of the Instances of Exclusion from the Royal Society, which were not suffered to be argued in the late Debates," are these observations on this unphilosophical warfare:
“The Royal Society was à Society; we do not wish to see it a monarchy; it did conduct itself according to the rules of justice and equity: we desire it may not violate those rules; its principles were, that the first distinction of men is virtue, and the second learning; we cannot bear that birth should take rank with either of these. Now, the President does think that it ought; and therefore it is proper to look out for one, who, with Sir Joseph Banks's merits, be those merits what they may, does not think so." The conclusion of the same tract, which though written by Mr. Maty, was drawn up, under the inspection, and expressed the sentiments of the whole respectable minority, is as follows:
* If indeed the dignity of the Society has been committed, and if our learned brethren of Europe, have indeed reason to lament, that we stand no longer on that high eminence where they loved to see us; it was then committed, when, for the first time, and with a fatal ex. ample to literature, an example that has been but too much followed, we suffered our chair, which ever before had been offered to unassuming modesty, to be claimed and publicly canvassed for through this great town; it was committed when we received into that chair, the chair of Newton, a gentleman who had not published a single line in our Transactions, nor given any sign of literary merit, but what might have been given by one of the humblest of the votaries of the humblest of the sciences; it was committed when we sent forth to Europe, at the head of our learned volume, a speech of that gentleman, deficient in English, deficient in idea, full of fúlsome and undignified adulation of ourselves, mean and inadequate in expressions of respect and grati
tude, where the highest respect and gratitude are due, The dignity of the Society was committed, when we sat patiently by, and saw that gentleman encouraging those very disorders he was elected to restrain; at one time voting in his own cause; at another affecting not to count the balls in a question which was going against him; a third, taking the sense of the body, in direct opposition to a positive statute, by tumultuous acclamation; clinging, in short, like a polypus, to every one of his usurpations; and never (which has driven us to this harsh necessity) never at any one period of the long nine months the contest has now lasted, acknowleging that he might be mistaken, promising that he would amend; or even soliciting a friendly conference of the two parties, authoritatively to settle what might be amiss. Finally, our dignity has been essentially committed, by some of us persisting, against every admonition, and by every artifice persisting, to support acts which it is one of the first and darling distinctions of science to abhor and repress, acts of arrogance, acts of injustice, acts of inhumanity. These are our real humiliations; these are the true causes, that point the unlearned finger at us. To aim at the cure of such evils, can lessen the dignity of rio man, or set of men. On the contrary, it is to the honour of our natures that we have felt, it will long continue our boast and consolation that we have endeavoured to redress them.” For entering into so particular detail of these dissentions, our excuse is, that Dr. Horsley has been frequently charged with an overbearing arrogance and an in temperate zeal in the part which he took on the occasion. We are thoroughly convinced that every candid reader will see from this statement, which is in every point accurate, much to admire in the ardour of Dr. Horsley's friendship, in the open and manly avowal of his sentiments, in his liberal regard and support of men of modest merit and real learning, and not less in the dignified superiority of his mind, which scorned to appear in the courtly train of wealthy and pompous pretenders to science. From this time he absented himself from the meetings of the Royal Society, till about a year or two ago, when some alterations for the better having taken place, he again gave his occasional assistance, and at the last anniversary was chosen one of the council. (To be continued.)
FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.
REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO ST. LUKE':
GOSPEL. (Continued from page 195.) AVING now pretty well qualified ourselves to judge
how far the professor's hypothesis, concerning St. Luke's motive in writing, is consistent with his concessions, concerning our Evangelist's sundry obligations to those fabulous compositions, and with his brief enumeration of his inaccuracies; let us next endeavour to discover, by means of his own concessions, concerning those early compositions, whether there be any thing like a foundation for the heavy charges which he has brought against them. ,
By what he says at page 94, be seems to afford us no great reason to think, that any of those early Gospels were written in any other but the Hebrew language. Now, by admitting that they were most of them, or rather all, (for he makes no exception,) written in Hebrew, he has not only admitted, that they were written for the benefit of those who understood Hebrew, but that they were written by some inhabitants of the country, when that language was used; that is, they were written in or near the district wherein the transactions, which they contained, happened, by some of the inhabitants of that very district or parts adjacent, for the information of any other inhabitants of the same district and its vicinity. Is it then at all credible, that those many Evangelists, one and all, so far misrepresented any of the facts which they recorded, and that they, one and all, so far misrepresented some of them," as to make it absolutely necessary” for any one to write after them, for the purpose of correcting their inaccuracies, and silencing their idle stories. Surely whatever in aprobable or idie stories otliers may have incautiously recorded, those
Vol. XI. Charchm. Mag. Nov.1806. Cu who
who lived near the place where our Lord's works were wrought, would of all men have been careful not to do so, as they could not have expected to escape detection, and were surrounded by numberless adversaries, ready to avail themselves of the slightest inadvertencies. And as to other countries where the Hebrew language was not understood, if they all wrote in that language, there could have been but little danger of any bad effects arising from their inaccuracies or idle stories in such places. Indeed, that no very bad effects could have been produced by those early narratives, (even though they "contained so much falsehood, that a correction of them was absolutely necessary," as the professor declares) any where, and especially in Judæa, he himself acknowledges at page 109, where he says, first verbal accounts which were communicated out of Palestine, were certainly not communicated by the Apostles: and if the first written accounts were not communicated by them, yet as long as they lived and taught, there was little danger to be apprehended from the erroneous relations of other writers.” To this declaration the professor immediately after subjoins, “ And, whatever inconveniencies might have followed, yet as soon as the four Evangelists had written their Gospels, those inconveniencies were removed. At least the former erroneous accounts could then do no greater injury, than if they had been written many years afterwards : for the credibility of an historian depends on his character and circumstances, not on the priority of his composition.” From the first part of this divided extract, we learn, that “ there was very little danger to be apprehend. ed as long as the Apostles lived and taught, from the erroneous relations of other writers," and from the latter part, that whatever inconveniences might have fol. lowed, were removed as soon as the four Evengelists had written their Gospels.” This seems to be reasonable enough; but are there not more coadjutors introduced to our notice, than are necessary to counteract those inconveniences? If those many wrote in Flebrew, was not St. Matthew's much better calculated than any of those other three now extant, to correct their inaccuracies, or rather was it not absolutely sufficient of itself? Surely, if it was written many years before that by St. Luke, and in the Hebrew language (and that “this is a true state of the case” the professor bas, we find, acknow