Page images
PDF
EPUB

der; the facred fongs of Sion, the unparalleled productions of genuine in{piration." :,' “ The Jews, who had hitherto been considered by the nations among whom they fojourned, as forlorn exiles, and a despised people, experienced after a tedious interval, a respite from their toils. They were favoured with the protection of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and partook of every immunity in common with the rest of his subjects. The tide of prejudice which had run so strong againit them, had now subfided. The laws of their divine legislator, which had hitherto been overlooked or scorned, were now contemplated with reverence. During this free intercommunity and ingenious intercourse betwixt the victors and the vanquished, the language of their respective nations could not long continue unknown to each other. The more learned and inquisitive among the Greeks would wish to become acquainted with a religion and laws, so unlike, yet so superior to their own. Thecurfory survey, which they might have cafually bestowed on these facred books, would but stimulate their zeal to examine the great original. If the language of the Greeks were familiarized to the Jews through the version of the Seventy, the Hebrew tongue would, in its turn, be familiarized to the · Greeks through the knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus informed, the poet would be impatient to catch some particles of that spirit, which breathed from the lips of inspired prophets. He would be emnulous of enriching his fubsequent compofitions with nobler ideas and more exalted sentiments, than the superstitions of Paganism, and the dreams of Pagan poets had suggested."

“The truth of these observations will be confirmed by various passages, selected from that constellation of poets which gave lustre to the present period. In this poetic class the author of Casandra holds an honourable place." " Numerous were the competitors for fame who flocked to Alexandria; where the treasures of literature were depofited for their pery. fal, and where the exertions of industry and genius were munificently rewarded. In the number of these adventurers was our poet, a native of Chalcis." Pp. 4, 5, 6, 7.

It is with reluctance that I forbear transcribing more of this charming performance. The specimens of a translation of Lycophron which follow, are alike remarkable for easy versification, and a lucid display of the manner and method of that author, whilft the notes exhibit a rich fund of critical fagacity. I hasten to the remark in p. 40. on the word Ipidos, which oceurs in the 324th line of Lycophron's poem. “ Ptolemy's poets read the Bible, both in the Greek version and orignal Hebrew. The resemblance between the stories of Iphigenia and Jeptha's daughter, and between the names Jepthe and Iphi, could not escape their observation. Iphi is a corruption from Jepthe; and the import of the word annexed, from yiropal is evident. But the familiar currency of common words by no means recommended them to our poet's choice. His language must be oracular, for the speaker was Cassandra. His terms must be obscure and rare, for oracles were ambiguous. He,' therefore, in the stead of the well known word Iphigenia, has fubstituted 1015; which is a patronymic noun, formed from Ipi. It is formed by the same analogy that regulates the words Ex vois, Ilgrauis, and others. Thus is Ipıs, which means Iphi's, i. e. Jerthe's daughter, used as an equivalent for Iphigenia. Canter, Meursius, and Potter, are filent with regard to this word; and the scholiast's remark upon it is by no means satisfactory." I am, Gentlemen, your's truly, Jun. 11; 1802..

A LONDON CURATE.

BISHOP

BISHOP HORNE's LETTERS ON INFIDELITY.

LETTER I. I BEGIN, Dear Sir, with a few observations on the Apology for the Life

and Writings of David Hume, Esq. drawn up soon after that work came out, but reserved in expectation of Mr. H.-'s posthumous tracts.

With difficulty I am able to persuade my friends, that this author and myself have not written in concert; for his Apology and my Letter fit each other like two tallies.* In his Dedication, he expresses his apprehension, that “the CHRISTIAN clamour would be raised afreth.” A clamour is accordingly raised by o one of the people called CHRISTIANS." Elsewhere he intimates his expectation that Mr. H-'s “affectionate Dr. Smith" would come in for his share. A letter is accordingly written to that very doctor.

You see, Dear Sir, how I have done my best to fulfil his predictions. Let us now enquire whether he may not have returned the favour, and been equally kind to me.

In my Advertisement I ventured to suppose, that, by a late publication, the admirers of Mr. H. imagined religion to have received its coup de grace, and that the aitonithed public was utterly at a loss to conceive, “ what they, who believed in God, could possibly have to say for themfelves.” To convert my lupposition wito matter of fact, he opens his Apology with a kind of funeral oration, most folemnly pronounced over Christianity as a breathlets corpie, about to be for ever interred in the grave of Mr. H.

" David Hume is dead! Never were the pillars of Orthodoxy so desperately thaken, as they are now by that event!" And at p. 9, he speaks of “ the particular circumstances of this event" as “ increasing the aggregate of our confiernution!

Here, the dittempered imagination of the Apologist sees Mr. H. like another Samson, bowing kimself with all his might between the pillars, and Ilaying more at his death, than all that he flew in his life. He fees the believing world aghaft, the church tottering from its foundations, and Christians allembling in an upper chamber with the doors fut, for fear of the philosophers. : What may be the state of religion upon earth, before the end Ihall come, we cannot tell. We have reason to think it will be very bad. But let us hope, notwithstanding all which has happened in Scotland, that the Gofpel will last our time.

Thus again-I fcrupled not to assert, that the end proposed in giving an account of Mr. H is life and death was, to recommend his fceptical and atheistical notions. Dr. Smith indeed was wary and modest. He gave us a detail of cireumstances, and then only added, that, “ as to his philofophy, men would entertain various opinions, but, to be sure, all muit allow his conduct was unexceptionable," &c. But the Apologift has blurted it all out at once. David Hume's life was right, and therefore his system cannot be wrong. My friend Dr. Smith will take him to task for this, as sure as he is alive.

And now for another piece of complaisance on my fidemp. 9. He « withes only out of curiosity, to know the unaffected state of our feelings," on perusing the account given by Dr. Smith-As if I had been privy to his thoughts, the with was no sooner formed, than gratified by my Letter, which communicated to him and to the public the state of our

feelings, * The Apology was written before the publication of the Letter, though sent into the world after it.

feelings, and in a månner, I do affure him, perfe&ly unaffected. But it is a difficult matter to please him; for now he hath Geen me, he doth not like me.

At the close of his Address, he tells me, that " after accurately examining my Letter, and carefully reconsidering the whole subject of the preceding Apology in consequence of it, he sees no occafion to alter a fingle sentence." Let us therefore take a view of the Apology, which is pronounced to be unaffected by it. · P.U. “ It is less the design of these papers to defend H--'s principles, than to shew, upon the best authority, that he was earnest in what he wrote; and that, through every part of his life, even to the very moment of his death, he made precept and practice go hand in hand together."

But, surely, if the principles are not to be defended, if they are, as they have been represented, sceptical and atheistical, does the man who propagated them during his life, and took the requisite measures that they thould be propagated after his death--does such a man deferve commendation, because he was in earnejt? An Apology of this kind may be offered in behalf of every felon executed at Tyburn, provided only that by dying hard, he make precept and practice go hand in hand together. And the A. very judiciously observed as much. · P. 10. « Many, indeed, will think, that this, however perspicuously proved, will be doing him no real honour; fince in proportion to the elearness of the evidence upon this matter, it will only thew his impiety and obstinate infidelity the plainer; thereby, in the end, incurring upon him a more general disgrace." ! Truly he has hit the mark. This is the very objection which caused a friend of mine, on reading his book, to fáy, he fhould think it a less misfortune, to have the difgrace of hanging incurred upon him, than to have such an Apologist. And yet, in the case before us, he had a reafon for making this Apology, namely, that there was no other to be made. The only question is, whether it might not have been better if he had said nothing, and suffered things to take their chance. However, it is now too late. The objection is fairly stated, and we all stand, arrećtis auribus, in expectation of the answer--Lo, it comes-.“ I am of a different opinion. The terms Infidelity, Impiety, and Atheism, should not be lavithly trusted from the lip”-Such a fentence (by the way) should not have been lavishly trued from the pen--" We fhould not presume

- To deal damnation round the land

.On each we deem our foe." Sir, your very humble fervant-I most heartily wish you a good night Here was the jugulum caufæ, the precise point to be argued, over which I hoped to have had the honour of his good company for the evening; when, in the twinkling of an eye, he flips through my hands, like an eel, and is out of fight, in the mud.

We are not about to deal damnation on any man. But are there not such things as Iufidelity, Impiety, and Atheism? And are not the writings of Mr. H. justly chargeable with them? These are the questions.

The A. knows, as well as I do, that Mr. H-'s Effays contain arguments downright Epicurean, against the being of a God. Some of them are mentioned in the Summary, at the end of the Letter to Dr. Sinitli, and no notice is taken of the matter. In the Natural History of Religion,

Dr.

Dr. Hurd thought our philosopher was appraching towards the borders of Theism, But I never could find that he penetrated far into the country. These same arguments stand to this hour unretracted; the Essays which contain them are published and republished with the rest; whether, at the hour of death, he thought there was a God, or thought there was none, we have not a single hint given us; and concerning his posthumous papers, * the A, informs us, in his Dedication, " there is every reason to believe they turn upon similar researches with such as have been already printed; or, as it is more likely, they may carry his philofophy still nearer to THAT POINT, which he might not think it DISCREET to push too rigorously in his life-time." New discoveries in irreligion, then, it seems, still remain to be made. They who have duly considered the vigour displayed by Mr. H. in his life time, are rather at a loss to conceive, what THAT POINT may be, to which, by posthumous efforts, his philosophy is to be carried. It must lie somewhere

Beyond the realms of Chaos and old Night!. Discretion is, undoubtedly, as Sir John Falstaffe says, the better part of valour; but really, in these days of freedom, there is scarce a plausibility of its ever being called for. Something, however, is to come, which the A. supposes will occafion more CHRISTIAN clamour. When we are so severely pinched he imagines we shall cry out. Certainly, it cannot be thought we are lavish of the terms Infidelity, Impiety, and Atheism, when we apply them to such proceedings as these. What other terms can we apply, or would he himself with us to apply? And he gravely apologizes for their author, by telling us, he was consistent, he was in earnest, he died as he lived, and left blasphemies to be published after his death, which he dared not to publish while he was yet alive, Whom thall we most admire, the Philosopher or his Apologist ?

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

A Defonce of Public Education addressed to the molt (Right) Reverend the

Lord Bishop of Meath, by WILLIAM Vincent, D. Ď. in Answer to å Charge annexed 10 his Lordship's Discourse, preached at St. Paul's on the Anniversary Meeting of the Charity Children, and published by the Society for

Promoting Chriflian Knowledge. Is. 6d. London, Cadell and Davis, 1801. THE occasion of this defence is the following note, containing a mott

serious charge, which, if true in the extent of its meaning, is, of itself, not only enough to bring our public schools into discredit, but to destroy that opinion of their great and general utility, which has been hitherto universally prevalent.

“ I had proposed to say a few words on the fad degeneracy of our Public Schools, in this most important part of education, and their systematic neglect, for such it is now become, of that religious inftruc. tion, which in the earlier parts of the Reformation, and even to a much later date, was so carefully provided for the higher and wealthier classes of the British youth; but I found the subject anticipated by Dr Rennell, in his sermon on this anniversary, and I could add nothing to what that zealous and eloquent preacher had there urged, to call the Vol. II. Churchm, Mag. Jan. 1802. Η

publi . These have been since published.

public attention to this portentous evil.”—This note the bishop of Meath annexed, in page 39, to an excellent discourse preached by his lord ship on occasion of the anniversary meeting of the charity children, at St. Paul's cathedral. - It is of a nature calculated to rouse the feelings of those concerned in the education of the rising nobility and gentry of this land; and is of such a cast, that the confiderate part of this country may, if the allegation be true, with great juftice, afcribe to the «« systematic neglect of religious instruction,” in our public schools, the diffusion, in part, of those principles of infidelity, which, of late, lave gained considerable ground, and which, from being early imbibed, have tended to poison the minds of young men.--Now that the main purposes, the principal end, and chief design of Christian education ; that the pious intentions and benevolent views of the generous founders of our public schools, should have been so perverted by a " syftenjatic" neglect of religious instruction ; in those Public Schools too, of which the masters and ushers are clergymen, high in repute, for their learning, morality, and afliduous attention to the youths whom they educate, is, surely little short of a libel upon those very seminaries, wherein the most able tatesmen, which the world can boafi of, the most consummate lawyers which have dignified, and do fill dignify the seat of justice, and the most eminent divines which have adorned and do now adorn the Christian Church, - wherein there, and the first writers in the world have received the elements of that education, upon which their acquisitions of knowledge and science were built, their upright principles, and virtuous characters were formed, and by which themselves, the place of their education, and the country that gave them birth, became, and is still renowned. We do unequivocally affert that the lord bishop of Meath has taken for granted an affertion made in the zeal of the moment, by an eloquent and learned divine, whose labours have, however, been meritoriously directed to reform the manners of a degenerate age ; but who, on this occasion, has suffered the measure of his zeal to exceed that of his knowledge.--We mean his knowledge of the care taken to inculcate the pure principles of the Chrillian Religion, in the minds of the youths of at leait jome, if not all of the public schools of the united kingdom.

The defence before us is a coniplete refutation of Dr. Rennell's asser.. tion, which though it be fan&tioned by the authority of the bishop of Meath, is no less void of foundation, than the glaring affertion, that the doctrines of the gospel, are not faithfully preached by the Clergy of the Church of England, because fanatics and enthusiasts athrm they do mot preach them faithfully.

Dr. Vincent, the learned, the indefatigable, the excellent master of Westminster School, thall Ipeak for himself, and we are confident, that, if he is attended to with candour, the reputation of the famous seminary over which he presides with so much credit to himself and with so much benefit to his country, will be fo far from suffering from this charge, however it may be supported by great names, that it will appear itill more unimpeached than if the charge had never been made.

One observation, however, we wish to premise, and that is, that the subject of dispute lies entirely, as we think, between Dr. Vincent on the one part, and the lord bishop of Meath and Dr. Rennell on the other part; and that the society for promoting Christian Knowledge, the worthy and able secretary of that fociety, and their respectable booksel.

lers,

« PreviousContinue »