ple of Jupiter, the homage was not paid to the ftatue, but to the god. In Greece, in Egypt, and in every other country, the cafe muft have been the fame. The worthip of idols, as fuch, is not to be found, in modern times, even among the most ignorant and superftitious people. Bernier, a judicious traveller, relates, that he converfed with one of the pundits at Benares, on the worship of idols among the Hindoos, who told him, that though they had in their temples many ftatues, both of fuperior and inferior divinities, before which they proftrated themselves, prefenting them flowers, rice, oil, and other articles, with much ceremony, nevertheless, they did not believe that the ftatues were the divinities themselves, but only their image, or reprefentation; and that they honoured them only on account of the beings which they reprefented; that they were placed in the temples only to furnish the people with fome vifible object to fix their attention, and that, when they prayed, it was not to the ftatue, but to him whom it reprefented (a).” There has never been a time, or place, in which men have believed, that by the incantation of a few holy words, a piece of wood, or ftone, could be converted into a divinity. Idols have been, in all ages, the images, or reprefentatives, of beings whofe exiftence has been the object of popular belief. Concerning the origin of the use of thefe fymbols, and the manner in which they were first introduced, a due attention to a few leading facts in the ancient hiftory of religion, may, perhaps, lead us to a fatisfactory conclufion. The Hebrew writings, though they enable us to look back to a very remote period, caft little light upon this fubject. The account given, in the book of Genefis, of Rachel's theft of her father Laban's teraphim, or gods*, proves, that domeftic idols were in ufe at this early period; but in what man ner, or for what purpofe they were employed, does not appear. The idolatry of Egypt, and other neighbouring nations, is fometimes mentioned in the Mofaic hiftory, but without conveying to thefe diftant times much diftinct information concerning its nature and origin. From various other records, we learn, that in ancient nations the moft prevalent fuperftition was the worship of the heavenly bodies. In Chaldea, which formed a part of the kingdom of Babylon, anterior to the establishment of the Egyptian (a) Crawfurd's Sketches of the Hindoos, Gen. xxxi, 30. 371 monarchy, we find early traces of this worship. Believing the fun, the planets, and the ftars to be gods, who directed the deftiny of mortals, the Chaldeans practifed the art of aftrological divination, and performed religious rites in honour of thefe divinities (a). We have the authority of the learned Jew, Maimonides (6), for the early existence of this worship in Arabia, under the name of Sabifm: and it is probable, and is, indeed, afferted by their hiftorian, Abulfaragius (c), that this worfhip was borrowed, in very remote times, from the Chaldeans. In Egypt, according to Diodorus Siculus (d), the most ancient inhabitants acknowledged two great divinities, the fun and moon, under the names of Ofiris and Ifis, by whom they believed the world to be governed, and on whom they fuppofed the birth, growth, and perfection of all the productions of nature to depend. The fabulous hiftory of thefe two divinities, preferved by Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch, may be interpreted as allegorical defcriptions of their motions in the heavens, and of their influence, real or fuppofed, on the productions of the earth. The fame remark is applicable to the Grecian fables of Hercules, whofe twelve labours were probably allegorical reprefentations of the fun's courfe through the figns of the zodiac. Among the Perfians, we learn from He rodotus (e), Strabo (ƒ), and many other writers, that the fun was worshipped, under the name of Mithras: and to this day a Perfian fect exifts, called Guebres, defcendants of the ancient difciples of Zoroaster, who worship the element of fire. The fame worship is found among the Indians. Alexander offered facrifice to the fun upon the borders of the Ganges, on his victory over Porus (g). practice of the Indians, mentioned by Lucian (b), of worshipping the rifing fun, is continued to this day by the Bramins of Hindoftan. In various parts of the east are ftill found remains of ancient edifices confecrated to the fun. If farther proof were neceffary, of the general prevalence of this worship in ancient times, authorities might eafily be accumulated to atteft, that the first gods of the Greeks were the heavenly bodies; that in the moft enlightened periods of Greece and Rome, the fun, and other heavenly bodies, were The 362 On Small and Large Farms. pended on its cultivation *. If fome neglected corners be obfervable on a large farm, the deficiency they occafion can never be put in competition with the furplus, arifing from the high cultivation of the reft; and, indeed, it is the profits of this high cultivation, which render the "occupier too opulent to care fo much about" the minutia. The calculation, that a farm of 1000 acres produces lefs grain, by one fixth, than if the fame had been divided among nine or ten farmers, is extraordinary in itfelf; but the affertion on which it appears to be formed, is ftill more fo.-The great farmer, it is faid, has certainly not fo much manure, in proportion, as he who farms to a lefs extent.The author of this, one would fuppofe, was acquainted with no manure for a farm, but what was collected from the dunghill of the house, and then, indeed, as the farm increafed, the proportion of manure wold diminish. But is there no method of raifing manure from the produce of the farm itself? and will not that produce be in proportion to the extent of the farm, and to the capital employed in its cultivation? Again, a small farmer, of a small capital, collects his hay and his straw, carries them to market, and brings their value back in coin: an extenfive farmer, with a large capital, buys cattle to fatten on the produce of his fields; and, when they are fold off, they leave, to the farmer, their value in coin; and, to the farm, its hay, turnips, and ftraw, in the fhape of Let me ask your correfpondent, then, which of these two methods is likely to accumulate the greatest proportion of manure and which is likely to produce lefs grain, by one fixth, than the other? Will he who mows and fells the produce of his meadow lands, or he who confumes that produce at home, have the greater quantity of manure left to encreafe the fertility of that portion of his farm, which is to fupply the community with grain +? manure. *Even where the fmall and the great farmer perform the fame operations, the certainty of fuccefs is much in favour of the latter for where critical featons are to be caught, either for the fowing or reaping of critical crops, or the preparation of the foil, he who can centre on one object the greatest number of hands, will evidently accomplish it with lefs rifque. It is evident that the fame reafoning which proves a fuperior produce of grain on large farms, would, in like manner, demonftrate a fuperior proportion of every other article: the objection to large farms, therefore, which this [June The cafe, I believe, is, that when farms are fo fubdivided, as to be within the reach of fuch as can" fcrape together 40l. or 50l." all that the occupants can hope, is, to live and pay the rent. They have fcarcely capital fufficient to conduct them to this point of mediocrity, by tilling the foil in order to reap its spontaneous productions.By continually cropping, and carrying off the crops, the foil is exhaufted; and exhaufted too, perhaps, in fupplying nutriment to nearly equal quantities of weeds and edible plants; for weeding, manuring, draining, fencing, and all the adfcititious aids to nature, are beyond the compass of their little capital to afford. Nothing, perhaps" (fays your corre fpondent) "is lefs fubject to monopoly, than corn."-Is it, then, his opinion, that that which is leaft fubject to monopoly, should be moft fubject to reftriction?" But, that it may be monopolized" (he maintains) "the preceding year has afforded too many examples"-and the "overgrown farmers" he confiders as the monopolizers. In the first place, he must allow, that the fcarcity of corn in the market, last year, may have arifen, in a great measure, from a deficiency in the preceding crop, in confequence of a want of labourers to cultivate. the foil, and the inability of small farmers to pay the increased price of labour-that has been the confequence of the war. In the fecond place, it remains to be proved, that the corn, which has been withheld from market, has been withheld from a fpirit of monoply. The peculiar openness of the winter having enabled farmers to continue their agricultural operations through the whole of the feafon, little opportunity of thrashing corn has occurred; farmers generally, and judiciously, deferring that work, till the expected time, when they can no longer employ their labourers out of doors, and when, if the business of thrashing does not remain, they muft lie idle. And here again it must be obferved, that, if the farmer were inclined to carry on both operations together, the fcarcity of hands would be an obftacle of no trifling confideration. In the third place, it remains to be proved, that, if the corn were withheld from a fpirit of monopoly, the farmers writer afterwards urges from the fuppofed confequence of a fcarcity of milk, can have no force from the inadmisibility of the fact. The objection from a fcarcity of poultry, which he urges at the fame time, is, as an article of luxury, too trivial to be confidered in questions of national prosperity. were 1796.] On Ecclefiaftical Reform. were the monopolizers. I have shown, that thofe who withheld their own corn, probably, did fo from other causes than a pirit of monopoly; and, with respect to fuch as bought the corn of others, they could not be aided, in fo doing, by the extent of their farms, but by the unemployed furplus of their capital. Now a man of an extenfive farm is, of all others, the leaft Jikely to have an unemployed furplus to fport in fuch fpeculations: the very extent of his farm muft ferve to fix his capital at home; and I believe it will be generally acknowledged, that the profeflion of a farmer and a cornfactor are feldom, if ever, united. That the fmall farmer is obliged to "fell his grain at the ufual times, to pay his landlord, and his current expence, is a truth, which comprifes in infelf a strong argument against the fubdivifion of farms; for, in confequence of this neceffity, be the other avocations of his farm ever fo neceffary-be the feafons ever so critical-the farmer is obliged to employ his labourers to thrash his corn, and to carry it to market; and when he comes there, the fame neceffity has driven fo many of the fame neighbourhood, to the fame conduct, that the market is glutted, - and the price fo low, as not to yield him the reasonable profits of his labour and capital employed and thefe very finall farmers felling fo low, give the others an appearance of felling too high. It is again objected, that large farms employ a lefs proportion of labourers.If my former reafoning, on large farms being more highly cultivated, and a greater quantity of productive stock being maintained upon them, be admitted; it will fupercede the neceffity of any fpecific reply to this objection, as it would imply a greater proportion of produce from a lefs proportion of labour. But the proof adduced in fupport of the objection, will claim fome attention. The confequence of largefar ms, it is faid, is the increase of the poor and the fact is exemplified in inftances of inclofures, where farms become extended, and "the poor rates almof double."-Now is it not equally notorious, that every parith dreads the eftablishing of a manufactory within its limits, becaufe the poor rates are generally almost doubled? But fhall we argue, from thence, that the number of labourers employed in the parifh is lefs? So in inclofures and large farms, where more ground is more highly improved, fhall we lay, that the number of labourers is diminished? or that the general population is encreased, and therefore that the poor rates are augmented? 363 Again, it is alleged, that large farms deftroy the gradation of ranks, and that there is now a much greater difference between a farmer and his labourers, than between him and his landlord.-The alteration, then, is this:-there were three ranks, landlords, farmers, labourers-two of thefe continue the fame, but the remaining third is confiderably encreafed in refpectability: whether this be an improvement or deterioration of the whole, I leave, Mr. Editor, to your confideration. In fact, the improvement of agriculture is one of the most important objects that can occupy either the legislature or the individual. It is now perceived, that this improvement can only be effected by judicious experiments, conducted under the aufpices of fcience, and liberal information. But if farms be frittered away, till they become an object not worthy the time and attention of men of knowledge and liberal education, a ftop will, at once, be put, to the only means of making any ipeed or effectual progrefs in the art. Your's, &c. Durkam, May 8, 1796. For the Monthly Magazine. ON ECCLESIASTICAL REFORM. G. THE learned Italian annalift, Mura tori, fays of Pope Julius III, "that he bad thoug bis of reforming the court of Rome; but let the case of putting it in execution to his fucceffors." E penfalfe anche a riformar la corte di Roma; con lafciarne nondimeno la cura a fuoi fucceffori. 1 do not find that any of his fucceffors have done more than think of it; and the probability is, that with all its mul-, tiplied offences on its head, full ripe in iniquity, and no longer able to maintain its fway over the minds of men, it will fall, an unpitied and unreformed victim, to the fpirit of the times. This, when it happens, will be an event whence much edification may be derived; but cannot we derive fome anticipated wifdom from the profpect of it? May we not, with advantage, apply the cafe nearer home? Some eminent perfons in the church of England, have alfo bad their thoughts of reforming, and have even loudly declared their conviction of the necetlity of it. Such opinions have, at times, found their way even to thofe, who, by their station, feem to have had it in their power, to bring about the defired reformation. I believe, I do not wrong the prefent pious bishop of London, in mentioning him as one whofe name was pledged to the principle of reform; nor can it be doubted, 3 A 2 that that feveral others on the venerable bench have entertained the fame fentiments. Yet nothing is done. Not only have liturgies and articles remained juft as they were; but church policy, church claims, and the fpirit of the church, have not undergone the leaft alteration, except it be in rendering them more rigorous, and lefs difpofed to any compromife with the rifing fpirit which is fo hoftile to them. Some, perhaps, may think this conduct to be politically right; but before fuch a conclufion is admitted, it may be proper to make a few reflections. And, firft, is it of no confequence to render religion more rational? Has all the talk about it been idle wrangle Are the ends in view, fuch as may be effected by error as well as truth, by authority as well as argument, by compulfion as well as perfuafion? It is prefumed, that few will choose to give the adverfary fuch an advantage as to allow all this. Then, with respect to the proper fcafon-will the eternally repeated plea "this is not the time," avail any longer? What is it not time to do every thing towards rendering religion pure and amiable, when fo many are aiming at her very existence? Ought the now to affociate herfelf with force or fraud, when every establishment founded on thefe bad principles totters to its bafis ? To be very explicit, I fhall fay, that the admirably skilful defences of Chriftianity upon general grounds which have lately proceeded from churchmen high in ftation and character, muft lofe a great deal of their efficacy, as long as their authors are in a fituation of being incapable of giving a plain anfwer to the question, "What is this religion that you are perfuading us to receive-is it faithfully reprefented in the articles you have fub-. fcribed, in the forms your duty obliges you to ufe? It fignifies little to tell me, (an occupied and unlearned man) zubere it is to be found; have you fatisfied your felves with what is to be found there? is your clofet fyftem the fame with your pulpit one o, do you join in deluding us bout a matter which you reprefent as of infinite importance?" Such questions as thefe will be afked; and furely the reply thould be at hand. I know, the fashionable do@rine of the day is, that every established religion, in its union with common morality and orderly government, poffeffes fufficient claims to the attachment and fupport of all good members of fociety; and the [June mutual civilities which have of late paffed between popery and proteftantifm, fufficiently how that they are, at prefent, defirous to difplay to the world their points of agreement, rather than of difference. But truth is not of fo compliant a difpofition as policy; and the appeal having been once made to her, cannot now with confiftency be shifted off to an inferior court. It may be depended up on, that from the moment in which all religions are confidered as equal, and are fupported upon common grounds, the real influence of all is near its end. Among the numerous alarms France has afforded, this ought to be added; that a religion, kept up with all the circumstances of pomp and parade, and allied to every thing great and powerful in the ftate, may to entirely have loft its hold on the belief and affection of its nominal profeffors, that when its operation is most wanted, it fhall be found no longer to have an existence. It has stalked about, magni nominis umbra, the ghost of its former felf; and when preffed by the hand that would lean upon it, it fhrinks from the touch, a mere air-blown form of facerdotal vestments. I believe there is no way of preventing this cataftro he, but by removing from the clergy all fufpicion of their acting a part; by a difunion of the interests of truth from thofe of temporary and partial expedience; and by a manly confiftency and undifguifed opennefs in those who undertake the defence of a revelation, which, if true, can admit no artifice or concealment. For t'e Monthly Magazine. laft, I had been endeavouring, you will recollect, to remove any fufpicion of defigned detraction which might arife from the application of a certain epithet to a celebrated critic. Thus prepared, allow me to fay, that it is impoffible the learned Commentator on Horace could mean to under-value, in the finalleft degree, any, nay, that he should not vcnerate in the higheft, every obfervation, which, at any time, in any manner, on any fubject, fell from the pen, or from the lips of his revered friend, who not only 1796.] 46 Warburton, and Hurd. only united in his comprehenfive mind, the refpective excellencies of Aristotle and Longinus, but to thefe powers added an important fcience, unknown, it fhould feem, to either of the admired Ancients (as will, no doubt, fufficiently appear to every competent judge of their critical performances, eip.cially the Treatife of the former on Rhetoric)a perfect infight into human nature; and thus "ennobling the exercife of literary by the juftest moral cenfure, at length advanced criticism to its full "glory." Were it not for this awful reverence, which the RR. biographer has at all times, with equal fincerity, no doubt, as warmth of affection, expreffed for every doctrine, every opinion, every line, every fentence in the multifarious works of his all-fufficient mafter; an indifferent reader, on perufing the curious paragraph we are examining, might be fo far mifled by the ambiguity of the diction, as almost to doubt whether the RR. biographer were, in reality, much diiplcafed with the opportunity, which the editor of Hume's Life afforded him, of difclaiming the merit of fo fine a work; which he could nor, he fays, in feeming contradiction to what he had faid in the preceding page, without injury to its author, take to himself. The RR. biographer feems, indeed, to fufpect, that he makes but an awkward figure in difclaiming this fo fine a work; as, in doing fo, he was obliged to open the fecret of their little ftratagem, in which the grace of it, he fays, mainly confifts; intimating, you will obferve, that this little hatagem had other graces to recom mend it. But we will attend the RR. biographer, if you are difpofed to accompany me, through the remainder of his narrative. He now tells us, that having tranfcribed the remarks with little alteration, he wrote a fhort introduction and conclufion, merely to colour the propofed fiction. Here, at fir, I was rather startled at the bluntnefs of the expreffion. The term filion, unqualified by any foftening adjunct, carries with it the idea of deceit, of fomething contradictory to truth. In this fenfe it is, no doubt, very properly applied to the fubject under confideration; but from the general train of panegyric which runs through the whole account, I con * See Dedication of Horace's Epiftles to Auguftus, with an English Commentary and Notes. 365 fefs, I was not prepared juft in this place to expect fuch plain-dealing. We have feen in what light a fiction of the fame fort has been confidered by the world; and in what manner the unhappy author of it has been treated. Thus prepared, the Remarks were fent to the prefs. Then, to crown the whole, it is declared, with an air of triumph, that the contrivance was not feen through: though the great contriver, with that modefty and diffidence fo congenial to his difpofition, was rather apprehenfive it would have been. In this even be was miftaken. The difguife, thin as it was, anfwered its purpote in keeping the real author out of fight. Poor Chatterton was not, it feems, equally fortunate in the event of his contrivance. Here he was far out-done by thefe reverend mafters in the art of impofition.. How far fuccefs, in the one cafe, may ferve to ennoble, or the want of it, in the other, to debafe an attempt, in moral eftimation effentially the fame, I will leave with the profeffors of cafuiftry to decide. The fpeculative moralist, unacquainted with the capricious tyranny of fathion and cuftom, when meditating in the retirement of his closet on the different nature of virtue and vice, would not furely eafily be brought to abide by fo precarious a criterion. Our friend Hs, for inftance. Methinks I hear him now, in all the pride and conscious dignity of virtue, exclaiming, with the pott, "A knave's a knave to me in ev'ry state; Pope. That the moral quality of an action is in no degree affected by the relative fituation of the agent, or by the fuccefs whether good or bad, with which it may be attended, appears, indeed, to be an axiom in ethics fo plain and cogent, as to force immediate affent. Yet a very little intercourfe with the world will ferve to fhow, that the general eftimation of mankind is regulated upon far other principles. Succefs will always have a confiderable influence on the public opinion. The importance and rank of the agent operates ftill more powerfully. Thus, what in a poor unfriended boy was fraud and forgery, is recorded by a RR. prelate, in terms of high commendation, as a little ftratagem, reflecting no finall fhare of honor on the original |