what force of reafoning the Apoftle endeavours to throw this yoke from off the necks of thofe Heathens who had embraced Chriftianity.

Such then was the Heretick moft probably of whom St. Paul fpeaks in the text; and his berefy confifted in his raifing fuch foolish queftions, and giving occafion to fuch ftrivings about the law, as tended to make men look upon those things as the will of God, which, under the gofpel-covenant, were no better than the unwarranted commandments of men.

I proceed, fecondly, to fhew you in what fense it seems most probable that St. Paul reprefents this Judaizing Heretick as one, whom Titus knew to be not only fubverted, but to fin, being condemned of bimfelf.

The chief difficulty in the words of the text, is, to find out what the Apofle, moft probably, meant by this Heretick's being condemned of himself, in fuch a fenfe as that Titus might be fuppofed to know it; for the Apoitle fays to him, knowing, that be, that is fuch, is fubverted, and finneth, being condemned of himself.

:

Is it, that this Heretick taught for the true doctrines of the gospel, what he himfelf knew in his own confcience to be falfe doctrines ? This is one fenfe given by the expreffion of the text; and in this fenfe he was properly condemned of himself but then it may be july afked, how Titus could know this? The Heretick himself knew it plainly but how could Titus be affured, that the wicked teacher was thus condemned of himself, unless we fuppofe that he had a perfect knowledge of the fecrets of his heart? And is this to be fuppofed as a gift vouchfafed by heaven to Titus, when we do not find that, in ordinary cafes at leaft, it was a power communicated even to the Apoftles themselves? They speak of this commonly as of a divine perfection: thus, at the meeting of the Apoftles in council at Jerufalem, St. Peter introduces his fpeech with faying, God which knoweth the hearts, &c.* The whole body of the Apofties feem to have difclaimed any fuch power in themselves, by their applying themfelves to God, that he would direct them in their choice of a new Apostle, and faying, Theu Lord, who knoweft the hearts of all men, fbew whether of thefe two thou baft chofen +.

'Or, is it St. Paul's meaning in the text, that fuch a Heretick condemned himself, i. e. accufed or bore witness against himself, becaufe he openly maintained his falfe doctrine, and endeavoured to propagate it, to all around him? This fenfe Dr. Fofter, and other learned men have given to the words condemned of himself. And it is true that Titus, or any one else without knowing that the Heretick knew his doctrine to be falfe, might know that he was thus condemned. But then in this cafe the Heretick was only condemned of his a&ions, not of himself, i. e. not of the teftimony of his own mind. might believe his doctrine to be true, though his actions condemned him, He or witneffed against him for openly teaching and spreading it. fides, this would be only a circumftance attending his fin and aggravating it: it would not be the formal caufe or the ground of his fin, as the Apoftle feems to fuppofe it was, when he says, that he

Be

finneth,

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

To find out then the true meaning of the expreffion, as applied in the text to an Heretick, it must be remembered, that it is a Judaizing Heretick, of whom the Apoftle fpeaks, one who endeavoured to lay upon the Gentile converts to Christianity, as a neceffary part of their duty, thofe obfervances which at that time ftood only upon the foundation of the commandments of men.

Very few of the books of the New Teftament 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, Chriftianity was no otherwife known than by teaching, I mean teaching in oppofition to writing. But, however that was, we find the Apoftles always laying it down as a fure rule, whereby their converts might diftinguish between what were the doctrines of the gospel, and what were the mere commandments of men, that thofe converts had been taught and had received the doctrines of the gospel from the Apofties themselves, or from fuch teachers as had been fent to them by the Apoftles: whereas fuch as were the mere commandments of men had never been taught to them by any Apoftle, or Preacher authorised by an Apoftle; but were, in thofe 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 the Theffalonians to ftand faft and hold the traditions, which they had been taught either by his word, or bis epifle ţ. The fame Apostle exhorts Timothy to keep that which was committed to his truft, avoiding profane and vain babblings: and in this very epiftle to Titus, he directs, that a Bishop should hold faft the faithful word, as he had been taught §. In the 2d epifle to Timothy he charges him in these words, Continue thou in the things which thou haft learned, and baft been affured of, knowing of whom thou haft learned them and in the fame epiftle he fays, foolish and unlearned questions avoid **, i. e. queftions not learned by any Christian at his inftruction upon entrance into Chriftianity.

And this is the language of the other Apoftles 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 paffages in fo plain a cafe) when St. Jude exhorts Chriftians, that they should earnestly contend for the faith, he points out the true faith by saying, that it was that which was once delivered to the faints .

Whatfoever Chriftian 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 fome Apostle or apoftolical Preacher, what he had not received as fuch from any Apostle or

I Cor. xi. 2. 12. and 2, Tim. i. I Tim. vi. 20.

Ibid. ii. 23.

tt a John 10.

14,

+ 2 Theff. xi. 15. See alfo Gal. i. 9, 11, 15. and 2 Tim. ii. 2. and Rev. iii. 3. § Titus i. 9. See Dr. Clark's Sermons, It Jude ver. 3.

2 Tim. iii. 14. vol. viii. page 171.

apoftolical

apoftolical Preacher, was fubverted and turned from the truth; as they are faid to fubvert men's fouls; who taught as neceffary to be practifed by the Gentile converts, what the Apoftles gave no fuch commandment for; and fuch an Heretick finned, likewife being condemned himself, because he knew in his conscience, that he had received no fuch doctrine, and had been, taught no fuch practice from any perfon authorifed either by Chrift or by his Apoftles, to teach the will of God to mankind. So that he was felf-condemned in the ftrict fenfe of the word, because he taught a lie: even if the doctrine itself were fuppofed to be true, yet it was false that he had received fuch a doctrine from them; and therefore when he taught it as thus received, he flood condemned by the teftimony of his own mind.

And this Titus might very well know, as the text fays he did, and as the paffages which I juft now cited from the epiftles of three Apostles fuppofe, that every one of their converts might do; without our fuppofing 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 fuch doctrine as he taught? and Titus could be very fure, that he could produce no authentic and inspired teacher of the gofpel for his author, and that therefore he was condemned of himself, or, in other words, that he was inwardly conscious of his having no fuch warrant for his doctrine as he pretended.'

Without profeffing to coincide with every doctrinal fentiment, which may occafionally have been advanced by Bishop Pearce, in these four volumes of Difcourfes, we can truly fay, that they contain a fund of matter, on fubjects of the highest importance to the temporal and fpiritual welfare of men; and that they will afford great inftruction and edification to the clergy of every denomination, and to private chriftians. In the ftyle, our Prelate hath not been ambitious of ornament, but hath contented himself with being perfpicuous, plain, and accurate. Such a mode of compofition, perhaps, beft agrees with the dignity of truth, and the fimplicity of the gospel.

ART. IX. An Inquiry into the Caufes that have hitherto retarded the Advancement of Agriculture in Europe: With Hints for removing the Circumitances that have chiefly obstructed its Progrefs. By James Anderfon. 4to. 3s. Edinburgh printed, and fold by Cadell in London. 1779.

IT

Tis univerfally allowed that agriculture is the most useful of all arts; and as it is an art abfolutely neceffary to the very existence of man in a ftate of civil fociety, it appears a little furprising that it should not have been carried nearly to its ultimate degree of perfection long before the prefent period; nor can we help regretting, that while fo much ingenuity has been exerted in bringing to maturity many other arts of less utility to mankind, this should have been fuffered to remain in its prefent imperfect state.

• But

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

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

The Author of this work is already fo well known to the Public by his former performances, as renders any praises on our part unneceffary. We obferve in it the fame candour of difquifition, the fame beneficence of intention, and the fame depth of investigation which are fo confpicuous in his other works. There is too, obfervable 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 fenfible, and which he does not feem to think will contribute to their popularity. Perhaps he is right. But this circumftance will add to their durability, and their utility; objects of much higher moment than the Auctuating breath of popular applause.

The ftate of our knowledge in agriculture, Mr. Anderfon obferves, is as yet extremely limited: but, although he does not think that this will be fo univerfally 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 obferver will foon convince him of it, and because he himself had exhibited proofs of it, as to fome particular branches of agriculture, in a former work. We, for our own part, had but a limited idea of the very imperfect ftate of our knowledge in this art, till we had perufed the treatife before us. We thought that England not only far excelled all other nations in the knowledge of agriculture, but that he had even made confiderable

*Effays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and Obfervations on the Means of exciting a Spirit of national Induftry, &c. See Review, vols. Ivii. and lviii.

advances

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

As the progrefs of agriculture has been retarded by the want of proper experiments, Mr. Anderson takes notice that fome who have wifhed well to her interefts have proposed to have that deficiency fupplied by inftituting, at the public expence, a national experimental farm, and putting it under the direction of a perfon properly qualified for the task. But this, he obferves, although it would be a most useful inftitution, could not alone fully accomplish the end proposed.

There is, fays he, a peculiarity attending difquifitions in agriculture that feems to have been hitherto entirely difregarded, al"though it has more powerfully retarded the progrefs of this art than any other circumftance whatever; that is, the difficulty, if not the impoffibility, of making different perfons fully comprehend the refult of any one experiment in agriculture, or exactly to underftand the full import of any precept applied to this art *.

'For

"Some readers may perhaps be at a lofs 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 fame kind by way of illustrations:

Two foils not diftinguishable from one another in any obvious particular, but lying in different districts, were fallowed with equal care, and each dressed with horn fhavings in the fame proportion: the one was rendered extremely fertile for many years following in confequence of that dreffing; the other field did not receive the fmalleft benefit from it.

Two other fields at a diffance 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, fo as to be rendered almost unfit for carrying grain of any fort; the other had been in grafs for fome 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 fowed, a part of it with oats, and another part with barley; both of them exceeding weighty crops. The other field alfo, without any manure, was fowed with oats, but hardly gave two returns of the feed.

Another field of a deep rich loamy foil, 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 dreffing of dung, and was fowed with wheat. A few grains fprung up, but foon turned fickly, and died away. It was suffered to remain untouched till the month of July, but not one stalk 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 dressed 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 towards clay, and was imagined to be an exceeding rich and valuable foil by three fkilful farmers who came at different times from different diftant parts of the country, was fallowed two years fucceffively; the fecond year it received a complete dreffing of dung (upwards of fixty cart loads, as much as two flout horfes could draw, per acre), and was fowed with turnips drilled, and horfe-hoeda fine crop. Next year it was fowed with oats: produce about five bolls (30 bushels) 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 fecond time :

See Effays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Vol. I. Essay vi. part 2.

got