what force of reasoning the Apostle endeavours to throw this yoko from off the necks of those Heathens who had embraced Christianity.

• Such then was the Heretick most probably of whom St. Paul speaks in the text; and his beresy confifted in his raising such foolist questions, and giving occasion to such frivings about the law, as tended to make men look upon those ihings as the will of God, which, under the gospel-covenant, were no better than the upwarranted commandments of men.

• I proceed, secondly, to thew you in what sense it seems most probable that St. Paul represents this Judaizing Heretick as one, whom Titus knew to be not only fubverted, but to firi, being condemned of himself.

The chief difficul:y in the words of the text, is, to find out what the Apolle, molt probably, meant by this Heretick's being con. demned of himjelf, in such a sense as thac Tilus might be supposed to know it'; for the Apoitle says to him, knowing, that be, that is fuch, is subverted, and finneth, beirg condemned of himself.

Is it, that this Heretick taught for the true doctrines of the gospel, what he himself knew in his own conscience to be false doctrines? This is one senfe given by the expreifion of the text; and in this sense he was properly condemned of himself : but then it may be juhly asked, how Titus could know this? The Heretick himself knew it plainly: but how could Tirus be affured, that the wicked teacher was thus condemned of himself, unless we suppose that he had a per. fect knowledge of the secrets of his heart? And is this to be fup, posed as a gife vouchsafed by heaven to Titus, when we do not find that, in ordinary cafes at least, it was a power communicated even to the Apostles themselves? They speak of this commonly as of a divine perfection : thus, at the meeting of the Apostles in council at Jerusalem, St. Peter introduces his speech with saying, God which knoweth the bearis, &C.* The whole body of the Apofles seem to have disclaimed any fuch power in themselves, by their applying themselves to God, that he would direct them in their choice of a new Apostle, and saying, Tbcu Lord, who knowefit the hearts of all men, few whether of these two thou baff chosen t.

Or, is it St. Paul's meaning in the text, that such a Heretick condemned bimself, i. e. accused or bore witness against himself, because he operly maintained his false doctrine, and endeavoured to propagate it, to all around him? This sense Dr. Folter, and ocber Jearned men have given to the words condemned of himjelf. And it is true that Tilus, or any one else without knowing that the Heretick knew his doctrine to be false, might know that he was thus condemned. But then in this case the Hiretick was only condemned of his actions, not of himself, i. e, not of the testimony of his own mind. He might believe his doctrine to be true, though his actions condemned him, or witnessed against him for openly teaching and spreading it. Bebides, this would be only a circumstance attending his fin and aggravating it: it would not be the formal cause or the ground of his fin, as the Apostle seems to suppose it was, when he says, that he

f Ibid. i. 24.

* Acts xv. 8.


finneth, being condemned of himself; i. e. in this his fio confifteth principally, that he is self-condemned in what he teaches.

• To find out then the true meaning of the expression, as applied in the text to an Heretick, it must be remembered, that it is a Judaizing Heretick, of whom the Apostle speaks, one who endeavoured to lay upon the Gentile converts to Christianity, as a necessary part of their duty, those observances which at that time stood only upon the foundation of the commandments of men.

.. Very few of the books of the New Testament were written at the time when St. Paul gave this Rule to Titus; and it is not improble that in the Island of Crete where Titus was then Bishop, Christianity was no otherwise known than by teaching, I mean teaching in opposition to writing. But, however that was, we find the Apostles always laying it down as a sure rule, whereby their converts mighs diftinguish between what were the doctrines of the gospel, and what were the mere commandments of men, that those converts had been taught and bad received the doctrines of the gospel from the Apofties themselves, or from such teachers as had been sent to them by the Apostles : whereas such as were the mere commandments of men had never been taught to them by any Apostle, or Preacher authorised by an Apostle; but were, in those who taught them, the entire fictions of their own brains, the workings of their own fancies.

. On this account St. Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping . the ordinances, as he had delivered them unto them *.

• And he calls upon che Thessalonians to stand fast and bold the traditions, which they had been taught either by his word, or bis epifile t. The same Apofle exhorts Timothy to keep that which was committed 10 bis truft, avoiding profane and vain babblings I: and in this very, epistle to Titus, he directs, that a Bishop foould hold fast the faithful word, as he had been taught s. In the ed epille to Timothy he charges him in these words, Continue thou in the things which thau hay! learned, and has been ajured of, knowing of whom thou haft learned them il : and in the same epifle he says, foolish and unlearned questions avoid **, i. e. questions not learned by any Chriftian at bis initruction upon entrance into Christianity.

• And this is the language of the other A poftles: for St. John advises, that if any man brought not the doctrine, which they had learned of him, they should not receive him into their houses tt. And (to quote no more passages in so plain a case) when St. Jude exhorts Chriftians, that they should earnefly contend for the faith, he points out the true faith by saying, that it was that which was once delivered to the faints 11.

• Whatsoever Christian therefore in Crete (under Titus's government) or in any other part of the Church, taught as an article of faith or rule of practice received by him from some Apostle or apostolical Preacher, what he had not received as such from any Apostle or

• 1 Cor. xi. 2. + 2 Theff. xi. 15. See also Gal. i. 9, 11, 12. and 2. Tim. i. 14, 15. and 2 Tim. ii. 2. and Rev. iii. 3. II Tim. vi. 20.

Titus i. 9.

|| 2 Tim. iii. 14. *. Ibid. ii. 23.

See Dr. Clark's Sermons, vol. viii. page 171. ft 2 John 10. 11 Jude ver. 3.


apoftolical Preacher, was subverted and turned from the truth; as they are said to fubvert men's fouls; who taught as necessary to be praised by the Gentile converts, what the Apostles gave no such commandment for;, and such an Heretick finned, likewise being condemned himself, because he knew in his conscience, that he had received no such doctrine, and had been taught no such practice from any person authorised either by Christ or by his Apoftles, to teach the will of God to mankind. So that he was self-condemned in the stria sense of the word, because he taught a lie: even if the doctrine itself were fupposed to be true, yet it was false that he had received such a doctrine from them; and therefore when he taught it as thus received, he food condemned by the testimony of his own mind.

. And this Titus might very well know, as the text says he did, and as the paffages which I jult now cited from the epistles of three Apostles suppose, that every one of their converts might do; without our suppoling him to have any knowledge of the Heretick's heart: for the question is about a fact; not about the truth of the doctrine which the Heretick taught, but about this point, whether he had ever received any such doctrine as he taughe? and Ticus could be very sure, that he could produce no authentic and inspired teacher of the gospel for his author, and that therefore he was condemned of himse'f, or, in other words, that he was inwardly conscious of his having no such warrant for his doctrine as he pretended.'

Without profeffing to coincide with every doctrinal sentiment, which may occasionally have been advanced by Bishop Pearce, in these four volumes of Discourses, we can truly fay, that they contain a fund of matter, on subjects of the highest importance to the temporal and spiritual welfare of men; and that they will afford great instruction and edification to the clergy of every denomination, and to private christians. In the Atyle, our Prelate hath not been ambitious of ornament, but hach contented himself with being perspicuous, plain, and accurate. Such a mode of composition, perhaps, best agrees with the dignity of truth, and the simplicity of the gospel.

[ocr errors]

ART. IX. An Inquiry into the Causes that have hitherto retarded the

Advancement of Agriculture in Europe : With Hints for removing
the Circumitances that have chiefly obstructed its Progrefs. By
James Anderson. 460. 38. Edinburgh printed, and sold by
Cadell in London, 1779
T is universally allowed that agriculture is the most use-

ful of all arts; and as it is an art absolutely neceffary to the very existence of man in a state of civil society, it appears a little surprising that it should not have been carried nearly to its ultimate degree of perfection long before the present period; nor can we help regretting, that while so much ingenuity has been exerted in bringing to maturity many other arts of less utility to mankind, this should have been suffered to remain in its present imperfect state.

• But . But when we reflect that true knowledge can only be attained by accurate and judicious experiments; when we contemplate the immensity of objects that require our attention in agriculture ; when we advert to the difficulty of devising proper experiments for elucidating every separate article, and the lengtin of time that is required for each of these experiments, together with the numberless circumstances that may affect their results and the difficulty of attending to all these circumstances, and making proper allowances for them, our wonder is indeed abated, but our regret continues ; and we cannot help earnestly wishing that some method could be devised for facilitating experiments in agriculture, and of rendering them of more universal utility.'

Such is the exordium of the work before us; and it is be lieved that every man of sound judgment will join with our Author in wishing success to every attempt that hath such a valuable end in view.

The Author of this work is already so well known to the Public by his former performances * as renders any praises on our part unnecessary. We observe in it the fame candour of disquisition, the same beneficence of intention, and the same depth of investigation which are so conspicuous in his other works. There is too, observable in this, as in all his other writings, a cautious diffidence, and an unceasing attention to guard against every circumstance that may lead to error, which gives to his writings the appearance of a minuteness of detail, of which he is obviously sensible, and which he does not feem to think will contribute to their popularity. Perhaps he is right. But this circumstance will add to their durability, and their utility; objects of much higher moment than the fluctuating breath of popular applause.

The state of our knowledge in agricultore, Mr. Anderson observes, is as yet extremely limited: but, although he does not think that this will be so universally acknowledged for an undoubted truth as it ought to be, he declines giving a formal proof of it, because he thinks the experience of every attentive observer will soon convince him of it, and because he himself had exhibited proofs of it, as to some particular branches of agriculture, in a former work. We, for our own part, had but a limited idea of the very imperfect state of our knowledge in this art, till we had perused the treatise before us. We thought that England not only far excelled all other nations in the knowledge of agriculture, but that she had even made confiderable

* Essays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and Observations on the Means of exciting a Spirit of national Indufry, &c. See Review, vols. lvii. and lviii.

advances advances toward bringing that art to perfection. But we are now convinced that very much is required to be done before flte can with justice lay claim to that honour.

As the progress of agriculture has been retarded by the want of proper experiments, Mr. Anderson takes notice that some who have wished well to her interests have proposed to have that deficiency supplied by instituting, at the public expence, a national experimental farm, and putting it under the direction of a person properly qualified for the task, But this, he observes, although it would be a most useful inftitution, could not alone fully accomplish the end proposed.

• There is, says he, a peculiarity attending difquifitions in agriculture that seems to have been hitherto entirely disregarded, al. "though it has more powerfully retarded the progress of this art than any other circumstance whatever; that is, the difficulty, if not the impoffibility, of making different persons fully comprehend the result of any one experiment in agriculture, or exactly to understand the full import of any precept applied to this art

. For

* Some readers may perhaps be at a loss to understand the full import of the paragraph in the text to which this note refers, as few have had opportunities of re- marking the peculiarities here alluded to. The followings facts are selected from a great

many others of the same kind by way of illustrations :

Two soils not distinguishable from one another in any obvious particular, but lying in different diftricts, were fallowed with equal care, and each dressed with horn-thavings in the same proportion: the one was rendered extremely fertile for many years following in confequence of that dressing; the other field did not receive the smallest benefit from it.

..Two other fields at a diftance from one another, and not seemingly of very different qualities, were fallowed with equal care. One of them had been exhausted by frequent crops of corn, so as to be rendered almost unfit for carrying grain of any fort; the other had been in grass for some years, and had only carried one crop to help to rot the fward. The first field, after the fallow, without any manure at all, was lowed, a part of it with oats, and another part with barley ; both of them exceeding weighty crops. The other field also, without any manure, was lowed with oats,mbut hardly gave two returns of the feed.

• Another field of a deep rich loamy soil, that had been in tillage for many years, and with the affiftance of frequently manuring it, had carried many good crops of oats and barley, was fallowed : got a good dressing of dung, and was sowed with wheat. A few grains sprung up, but soon turned fickly, and died away. It was suffered to semain untouched till the month of July, but not one ftalk of wheat ever again made its appearance. It was then turned down and prepared for another crop.

• Another part of the same field that had been limed about seven years before, and was drested in every other respect alike with the part above mentioned, yielded a - very good crop of wheat t.

Another field that appeared to be a good loam, of a tendency towasds clay, and was imagined to be an exceeding rich and valuable soil by three silful farmers who came at different times from different diftant parts of the country, was fallowed two years succeslively; the second year it received a complete dressing of dung (opwards of fixty cart loads, as much as two fout horses could draw, per acre), and was lowed with turnips drilled, and horse-hoed :-- fine crop. Next year it was sowed with Oats : produce about five bolls (30 bufhels) per acre. Next year it was fowed with oats (it was known that no other kind of grain would grow in it at all): prodace hardly two bolls (12 bushels) per acre. It was then fallowed a second time :

t See Essays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Vol. I. Eflay vi. part 2.


« VorigeDoorgaan »