« PreviousContinue »
Art. 39. An Enquiry into, and Remarks upon, the Conduct of Lieu
tenant General Burgoyne. The Plan of Operation for the Campaign, 1777. The inftructions from the Secretary of State, And the Circumstances that led to the Loss of the Northern Army. 8vo. I s. Matthews. 1780.
This review of the conduct of General Burgoyne, with regard to that unfortunate expedition, which ended in the loss of his army, is written with keenness and energy, but with a degree of rancour which marks the spirit of party.--Perbaps, we may infer, without any great pretensions to fagacity, that if the luckless General had forborné to connect himself with Opposition, since his parole return to England, he would have been less exposed to the virulent attacks of those literary Pandours, who kirmish under the ministerial standard,
Did not meet with the late book, intitled, The Church of England
vindicated, till I saw your remarks upon it in the Review for laft November; where you justly call the Author a moft illiberal intolerant, One thing I took more particular notice of, that he says,
“ The old Will Whiston affirmed, that Jesus Christ was a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, in the same manner as he was the natural product of a male and female Whifton.”
Now, as grandson to Mr. Whiston, and well acquainted with his opinions, I will take upon me to affirm, that that was not his belief; and the Author has no right to charge him with it, unless he can produce one passage, at least, out of his numerous writings, which says fo; which I hereby call upon him to do. And if he does not know the difference between a Socinian, which Mr. Whifton was not, and what is called an Arian, which he owned himself to be, this Au. thor is not qualified to write on that controversy.
Mr. Whilton's opinions, which I shall neither deny, nor am ashamed of, will be best seen by some quotations from his own writ. ings : I shall take them from his Account of the Primitive Faith, in the fourth volume of his Primitive Christianity revived; where he says as follows:
Art. 5. • Jesus Christ is the Holy One of God, a Being or Person, of supereminent and divine perfections, knowledge, power, and authority; and so far superior to all subordinate creatures; i. 6. to all the thrones, dominions, pricipalities, powers, cherubim, seraphim, archangels, angels, and men, which are made subject unto him.'
Art. 6. Jesus Christ is the royos 18, za çoces w2035, The firf begotten of all creatures, The beginning of the creation of Ged, i. e. a Divine Being or Person, created or begotten by the Father before all ages; or before all subordinate creatures, visible and invisible.'
Art. 7. • God the Father by his Word, by his Son, or by Jcfus Christ, as his minister or active instrument, at first created, made, ordered, or disposed; and fill governs all the subordinate creatures, visible and invvisible.'
Art. Art. 9. ' Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, was very frequently sent by the Supreme God, the Father, in the ancient ages; and again, more apparently at his incarnation ; as his servant, his vicegerent, and minifter, into the world."
Art. 13. ' Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, did in his Divine nature, in the most ancient times, properly descend from beaven, and appear at several times, and in several places, to the patriarchs; personating the Supreme God, or acting wholly in his name, and as his deputy and vicegerent in the world.
Art. 14. ' Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, descended properly again from heaven, in his Divine nature, and became man; being by the power of the Holy Ghoft, conceived in, and born of, the blessed Virgin Mary; and increasing afterward in wisdom and kature like other men.'
From these quotations, to which more might be added, let any impartial person judge, whether Mr. Whifton thought our Saviour a mere man; who he says was far superior to angels and men, and as God's minister created and governs them (Art. 5, and 7.), or that he did not exist before Joseph and Mary; who, he says, was before all ages, and in the moj ancient times appeared to the patriarchs (Art. 6 and 13.).
T. BARKER. Lyndon, Jan. 17, 1780,
We are sorry that any thing we have said concerning Dr. Delany, in our Review of the Supplement to the Works of Dean Swift *, should have drawn on us the suspicion of halte or partiality. We respect the abilities and learning of Dr. D. and we esteem his general character. In quoting such passages as occurred in Lord Orrery's letters, respecting the Doctor, we meant rather a compliment to his virtues, than a reflection on his memory. If his LordThip misrepresented some parts of the Doctor's character, at the time when he beltowed such liberal encomiums on other parts of it, we are not answerable for the mistake. From the anecdotes preserved of the Dogor, and published by Mr. Nichols, we see enough to convince us, that the best men have their peevish and splenetic hours; and unleis Lord Orrery can be suspected of an illiberal falsehood with respect to the man for whom he profesleth so much good-will, we must give credit to the complaint he made of the harsh treatment he had met with from Dr. Delany.
We acknowledge the politeness of C. D's letter, and thank him for his obliging lint relpecting a General Catalogue.
N. B. I C. D. can produce sufficient proofs to invalidate the re. flections of Lord Orrery, or will communicate any particulars to illoitrate the character of Dr. Delany, we ihall probably have no objection to laying them before the public.
ft In your Monthly Review for Dec. 1779, I find a mitake tin P. 414. It is there related, in the Article Hittorical Account of
* See Review for November, Art, IX.
the Rise and Progress of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia," that a frolling Moravian preacher came to Carolina, to the family of Dutartres, and filled their heads with wild and fantastic ideas, which produced mischiefs, for which three persons were deservedly hanged in 1724. Now it happens, that none of the Moravian Brethren, whatever nonsense they may be accused of, ever came to Carolina; till ten years after that date, at least. Mr. Garden, on whose exafness.che Author of that book relies, may, in 1738, have heard of a Moravian being at Purysburg, and confounded his ideas. Certain it is, that none of the Mravian Brethren were in Carolina so early; nor could I ever learn that any of them were used to spread Jacob Behmen's books, whatever their merit or demerit may be.
I am, Gentlemen, yours, &c. Feb. 5, 1780.
AN OLD CORRESPONDENT.
If I see in your Monthly Review for Jan. 1780, an account of an Article in the Philofophical Tranfadions, relating to a machine which Mr. Le Cerf, watchmaker at Geneva, pretends to be the inventor of. It was not of his invention; Mr. Louis Preudhomme, of Geneva, was the inventor. . Le Cerf arrogated to himself the invention of an instrument he does not even understand, but has spoiled. Some papers relative to this machine, are in the hands of the Prefident of the Royal Society, and I believe Lord Mahon has, lace the communication of Le Cerf's paper to tbe Royal Society, been informed by some of his friends at Geneva, of the true state of the facts relative to this machine; but I know not whether the Royal Society, consistent with its usages, can now do any thing in the matter. When the Transactions of the Geneva Society of Arts Thall appear, the fact with regard to Le Cerf will, I am informed, be sec in its true light. However, I thould hope, Lord Mahon will, if he has received true and satisfactory information, give it to the Royal Society.
I am, Gentlemen, yours. Feb. 6, 1780.
$1$ In answer to an application which we have received, relative to a passage in our Review for last month; we need only refer our Correspondent to the late publications of Dr. Prieltley, for inftractions relating to the methods of imitating, and even excelling, with respe&t to their medical qualities, the waters of Spa, and others of that class.
Itt Dr. FRANKLIN's Political and Miscellaneous Pieces in our next. Allo Mr. Fill's Demoniacs.
* T The design of a General Index to all the volumes of The Monthly Review, is poftponed for the present.
K7 An accident has prevented Mr. Hey's Letter from appearing in this Month's Review. It will be given in our next.
For MARCH, 1780.
ART. I. Demoniacs. An Enquiry into the Heathen and the Scrips
cure Doctrine of Dæmons. In which the Hypothesis of the Rev. Mr. Farmer, and others on this Subje&t, are particularly considered. By John Fell. 8vo. 55. Boards. Dilly. 1779.
HEN we began to read the preface to this publication,
we flattered ourselves that we were about to perufe, at leaft, a candid discussion of the subject mentioned in the title. We suspected, however, before we had finished it, that we were mistaken ; and now that we have gone through the whole work, we find ourselves obliged to confider Mr. Fell as a prejudiced and conceited writer, whose performance is equally de ficient in judgment and in candour. We have had occation, heretofore, to reprove Mr. Fell for his pertness and arrogance ; but he has not profited by our admonition. In bis present publication, Mr. Farmer is treated with an air of superiority and contempt; which would have been unjustifiable, even if Mr. Fell had been as much superior to Mr. Farmer, with respect to judgment and learning, as Mr. Farmer is to moft writers on this contraverted subject. The opinions of this Author are, in general, advanced with the confidence of infallibility, and the principles and spirit of those against whom he writes, are arraigned and condemned with equal severity and prefumption. Mr. Fell has yet to learn, that modesty and humility are qualities necessary to give a writer of his moderate abilities and ago tainments a claim to attention, and that judicious inquirers will not take confident assertions for conclusive arguments, but will ever suspect the foundness of that writer's judgment, and the goodness of his cause, who, instead of proving that the fyftem which he opposes is not well founded, is perpetually declaiming on its tendency and consequences, and inveighing against its abertors. Vol. LXII,
The greater part of the publication before us is little more than a vehement declamation upon the tendency and consequences of denying the agency and influence of fuperior evil beings in the natural and moral world. To affert, that the world is under the sole government of God, and that no other Being has any power or dominion over the course of nature, is preposterously represented as striking ar the foundation of both natural and revealed religion. The Reader may judge by the following instance, how well qualified our Author is, critically to examine, and fairly to state, the opinions of others..
Near the beginning of his first chapter, the design of which is to prove,' that the greatest part of those Deities to whom the Heathens sacrificed, were by them considered as existing prior to the creation of man,' he has quoted a passage from the beginning of Hefiod's Theogony, containing a poetical and allegorical account of the origin of the immortals always exifting,' and of the earth in its present form, &c. In his remarks upon it, he says, among other things, í The ancient Greeks acknowledged one Supreme Deity, the Creator of the universe, whom they considered as incapable of any evil, and to whom they ascribed every perfection, while, at the same time, they worshipped a multitude of other gods 'as intelligent beings, superior to the nature of human souls; and thought these deities to have been brought into being by the Firft Cause, along with the different parts of nature, prior to the existence of man. This is evident from those passages in Hefiod's Theogony, which we have just quoted.'
Without inquiring into the truth of this observation, which may easily be contraverted, we have only to remark, that in the passages quoted from Hesiod, no mention is made of a Supreme Deity, the Creator of the universe, incapable of evil, and possessed of every perfection;' or of any · First Cause, by whom other deities were brought into being.' Mr. Fell has several times in this chapter repeated this title, the Creator of the Universe, as given by the Heathen to their chief deity, but has not produced a single passage from any of their writers in support of his affertion. Ovid's Ille Opifex Rerum – Mundi Fabricator, will bear no such interpretation. It is doubtful at least, whether even those philosophers, who allowed that the world had a beginning, had any proper idea of a creation. Mr. Fell is confident that they had, and arrogantly declares, that “ to affert that he is called in a pafrage not quoted, the fource of nature, who - had once been a man, and that, in another *, he is represented as being filled with terror, whom the Heathens confidered as the Creator of the Universe, must be evident proof, either of
* Hor. lib. iii. OJ. 4. V. 42, &c.