Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Our

cerning the punishment of idolatry under the patriarchs. author rallies the profeffor in his reference to the Gemara, and thinks that he could never give an adverfary more fatisfaction, than in fhewing himself reduced to take refuge amidst the lies and nonfenfe of rabbinical drivellers.

Jacob going to celebrate a folemn act of religious worship, fays to his family, Put away the flrange gods that are among you ; and be clean, and change your garments. In his observations on the former part of this paffage the Profeffor fays, "A command issued by a fuperiour in an authoritative manner, and in due form, plainly implies a right, and a power and a will to enforce obedience to the command: the patriarch iffues a command against idolatry: therefore the patriarch had a right, and a power to punish idolatry; and would have punished it in thofe, whom he should have found guilty of the crime."

The author of thefe Remarks replies, Since he gives Jacob a right to punish all who did not obey the command issued by him, he must give him a right to punish those who neglected to purify themselves, and to change their garments, as well as those who refused to put away their firange gods. Let the Profeffor alone for a thorough difciplinarian. At firft it was only conformity to the worship of the God acknowledged. We now find in this "patriarchal statute book" there was an act of uniformity to rites and ceremonies, fuch as making themselves clean, and changing their garments. And now let me afk, where is the want of candor in faying, the doctor maintains the principle of intolerance? does his importance expect the peculiar privilege of being exempted from the imputation and opprobrium of holding doctrines exprefsly delivered in his writings?'

As Dr. Lowth speaks of the fathers of families and heads of tribes exercifing dominion and fovereignty over their dependents, and fuppofes that they had a power to punish idolators as traitors and rebels,this writer infifts that the Doctor lays himfelf under a neceflity of adopting the patriarchal Jcheme of Filmer.

Dr. Lowth has obferved, that "the magiftrate becomes the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon every one that doth evil; upon every vice, every immorality, every crime against the law of nature, as far as it may have a pernicious effect on civil fociety.".

• The magistrate then, fays this author, is to punish idolatry" fo far as it may have a pernicious effect on fociety." And could he have told us in plainer terms, that the magiftrate had nothing to do with the idolater mentioned in the book of Job, who kiffed his hand with his mouth, while he was worshipping the heavenly bodies could he have told us in plainer

terms,

terms, that he was not to punish idolatry under the idea mentioned in the book of Job, or as it was the denial or renunciation of the one true God? And, laftly, how could he have told us more directly that his patriarchal ftatute book, fentencing all idolaters without diftinction to capital punishment, was only the delirium of fome old doting Rabbi, or Jewish lawyer. It was then a little unlucky in our learned doctor to erect his fystem on a position which intirely overturns it.

It fhould, continues our author, be remembered, that all forts of idolatrous worship, hurtful and injurious to fociety by their licentious and debauched practices, have nothing to do in the prefent question: the bishop, both in his Alliance and in his other works, declaring an abhorrence of the least toleration to any of these.

But as Abraham was raised up to preferve the worship of the true God, must it not have been his duty to check the progrefs of every species of idolatry, even where the interefts of civil fociety were not in the leaft affected by it? Unqueftion. ably it was. But I must beg leave to add, by legitimate and proper means, or the mild and gentle method of perfuafion, exhortation, and instruction; not by whalefome feverities. If any of his family apoftatized from the worship of the true God, he might endeavour to reclaim them from their error, by informing and enlightening their understandings; by expofing the vanity and impuissance of idols; by teaching and explaining the nature and attributes of the one supreme God; by the affurance of his favour and protection while they adhered to his service; and by alarming them with the terrors of the divine vengeance, which would await their defection and revolt from him. If hẹ could thus reform them by reafon and argument, all was well; if not, he had nothing to do, but to leave them to God and their own confciences.'

We read that Abraham was called to keep up and fupport the worship of the true God in his family. We find from fcripture hiftory, that he did fo. But we do not find that hẹ was commiffioned to ufe, or that he ever did ufe, coercive power for this end. And yet, had intolerance been the ordinance f heaven, we probably fhould have heard fomething of his divine commiffion to use it.'

When Jacob, he obferves, faid to his family, put away your frange gods, &c. he was acting in the character of priest, or minifter of religion; and what he says, was purely relative to the qualifications neceflary to prepare them for an act of divine worship; and therefore it seems reasonable to conclude, that thofe were words of perfuafion and exhortation only, and not

3

words

words of command, which could exact obedience by fecular punishment.

Suppose an ancient prieft, or modern minifter, under the authority with which they were invefted, should take, as they often have done, these words of Jacob for their text, does that imply they had a right to adminifter fire and faggot? Are not fuch words every day used as words of perfuafion only, without being fuppofed to denote any right to coactive or coercive power in the minifter of religion who uses them? Has not the doctor, addreffing himself to his congregation, often faid, "put away your fins, cease to do evil, learn to do well," without imagining himself intitled to inflict civil punishment on those who did not obey him?—The cause of perfecution must run very low, while fuch wonderful reafoning is employed for its fupport.'

The author confiders the case of Rachel, and observes, that had Jacob looked upon idolatry as an iniquity not to be tolerated by the judge, it is not to be conceived he would have permitted his family to retain and to keep poffeffion of their firange gods fo long, and not have attempted a reformation till he was fummoned to appear before God in a folemn act of religious worship.

[ocr errors]

After making fome obfervations on the punishment of idolatry by the Jewish law, he concludes his argument with this general remark: The author of the book of Job was speaking of a political or civil conftitution, which prefcribed the exclufive worship of the one true God, and punished idolatry as fuch, or merely as it was the renunciation of this worship. But this univerfal and undiftinguishing punishment of idolatry would not be juft and equitable in any political and civil government, but in the Jewish theocracy. I must conclude, therefore, with Mr. Lock, and the bishop of Gloucefter, that the author of this book had his eye on the Mofaic law.'

The author confiders next the famous queftion of the punishment of children for the fins of their parents. In the Mofaic law, he obferves, God declares he will punish the fins of the fathers upon their children. But then Jeremiah and Ezekiel declared, that this mode of punishment was to cease after the promulgation of the gospel. Now as it was to ceafe with the law, it muft, he thinks, have been peculiar and appropriated to that system, and not a mode of punishment made use of in the world at large, in the general exercife and adminiftration of Divine Providence. For the mode of punishment made use of in the world at large, in the general exercise and administration of Divine Providence, must have been juft the fame before and after the publication of the Chriftian religion.

If then, fays he, an infipid writer, meaning the author of the book of Job, talks of God's laying up the iniquities of the fathers for the children, he muft refer to the Jewish law, because he must have known, that the fact was not true under any other dispenfation of Providence.

On the doctor's hypothefis, that this author lived before the law, it was, he fays, his business to point out fome divine revelation, anterior to this period, which taught the doctrine in queftion. Instead of this, he puts us off with paffages from Sophocles, Euripides, and Horace, which inform us that the falfe deities of the Pagan world were believed to exercise this mode of punishment. But first of all, his authorities are of much too late a date to prove, that even the false deities of the Pagans were believed to use this mode of punishment, during the period in queftion, or before the inftitution of the Mofaic law. He concludes therefore very ridiculously, when he infers from these teftimonies, that "it was a popular opinion, common to all nations, and all ages, of the world." Secondly, Had he shewn that it prevailed and obtained among the Pagans in this early period; and that they believed this mode of punishment was agreeable to the nature and attributes of their falfe deities; does it follow, that fo wife and good a man, and fo ferious and faithful a worshipper of the true God, as Job, must have believed, it was agreeable to the nature and attributes of the Supreme caufe of all things. Thirdly, Had these later Pagans fpoken of the Supreme cause, and said that he punished the crimes of parents upon their children, the question then would be, how this opinion came originally into the heathen world. Now it is almoft felf-evident that they could not have it from reason, or experience. They must have had it, therefore, from revelation. And if fo, they must have had it from the Mosaic law; finçe it did not belong to any other part of the revealed system.’

We come now to the second part of the epistolary correfpondence, which, fays this writer, fhews by the unerring evidence of dates, that the doctor was the aggreffor, and began the quarrel, With what spirit he began it appears, he thinks, from the infolent and injurious comparison to father Harduin. Yet this grofs and glaring indignity, continues our author, extorted nothing more from his lordship than a little raillery. He preferred this gentler mark of fenfibility to ferious expoftulation, when he was expofing arguments that tended to establish intolerance and civil flavery. Serious expoftulation might have had confequences, which the bishop is the last man to countenance or approve. This is all the doctor can object to the perfon he had offended. For that no unfair or injurious reprefentation of the

the doctor's reasoning and opinions was laid beforethe public, in the Appendix, is here abundantly evinced.

The comparison above-mentioned is as follows: "Porro autèm ftylus poematis, quod vel maximum eft, præcipuè vetuftatem fapit; eft ejus peculiaris character açxaïou. Adeo ut qui id infra captivitatem Babylonicam deprimunt, non multo fanius in Hebraicis judicare videantur, quam in Latinis Harduinus, qui aurea Virgilii, Horatii, cæterorumque poemata ferreis monachorum fæculis adfcripfit."

If this comparison was the principal thing which gave offence to the bishop of Gloucester, it was certainly very unfortunate for the Profeffor that his lordfhip had adopted an hypothefis which he had occafion to cenfure. But why this fhould be looked upon as a personal attack upon the bishop, an impartial reader will not eafily perceive: for it is certain the Profeffor might with the greatest propriety have made the fame remark, if the Divine Legation had never existed.

XIV. An Examination of Mr. Kenrick's Review of Mr. Johnson's Edition of Shakefpeare. 8vo. Pr. 15. 6d. Johnston.

T is with no small regret we find ourselves once more subjected to the difagreeable task of mentioning Mr. K's criticifms. We would willingly have avoided all notice of fuch a writer; but the reader will please to observe, that our province as Reviewers obliges us to do our duty indifcriminately upon all offenders; and that a fheriff, let his station be ever so exalted in life, is himself by law obliged to execute a condemned criminal, if no other executioner prefents himself. We are, however, very glad to be joined by the author before us in that difagreeable part of our duty, especially as we were so tender in the execution of our office, that the criminal furvived the operation, and in a few days after appeared in a borrowed dress, as his own vindicator.

We muft, at the fame time, differ from this Examiner in thinking that Mr. Johnson's passing muster (as he calls it) with Oxford and Dublin at home, and the academy Del Crufca abroad, ought to be the finalleft plea against his being brought to the bar of a court of criticifm. The only privilege fuch honours entitle him to, is his being exempted from that personal abuse and illiberal treatment he has received from fuch an author as K. In the name of literature let Mr. J. avail himself (and he justly may do fo) of the reputation he has acquired as a man of genius; but we will venture to fay, that the mere 8 cláracter

« VorigeDoorgaan »