Page images
PDF
EPUB

which blaze eternally around the throne of God." (p. 14.)

But notwithstanding the faults of style here noticed, we have derived much pleasure from the sentiments contained in the Sermon, which are in general just, and frequently striking. We were, however, a good deal surprised, that when the preacher had occasion in a mixed assembly to condemn the vice of censoriousness the only instance he produced of it should have been one as remote as possible from the consciences of those whom he addressed; one, therefore, which even if it were allowed to be just, could serve no practical purpose whatever. The zeal of censoriousness," he observes, "is a theological sycophant, publishing tales, credible and incredible, of FOREIGN ATHEISM; that a licentious patron, perhaps a licentious kingdom, may be first soothed into self-satisfaction, and afterwards stirred up to the exercise of that cardinal virtue, generosity to the heralds of their excellence." (p. 12.) Does the Author mean to insinuate that foreign atheism had no existence, or that the exposure of it in any case was justly liable to the imputation of censoriousness? If not, he must mean to accuse those who actually held it up to the abhorrence and detestation of the public, of having been instigated by the base motive of wishing to soothe the licentious into selfsatisfaction, with a view to their own pecuniary advantage. But is this, we would ask, putting "the most favourable construction on dubious conduct;" (p. 12.) On the contrary, we think it affords an apt illustration of that very evil, the zeal of censoriousness, which Mr. Hughes reprobates.

Dr. Doddridge certainly merits all the praise which Mr. Hughes has bestowed upon him.

We are happy to learn that the funds of the Society, for which Mr. Hughes pleads, are in a healthful state.

It

ap

pears from the Appendix, that more than 300,000 souls, once ready to perish for lack of knowledge, have been indebted to this institution for religious instruction; that in May, 1801, the schools belonging to it contained 15,719 scholars of both sexes, training up to

habits of industry, as well as to the faith and practice of Christianity: and that many thousands of Catechisms, Testaments, and Bibles, translated into Gaelic, the language of the Highlands of Scotland, had been dispersed by the Society. The institution, from its commencement, has been supported by private beneficence.

LVII. Materials for Thinking. By WILLIAM BURDON, A. M. No. I. London, Hurst, 1801. is.

THIS is the introductory number of a set of tracts, intended to lessen the effect of prejudice, and diffuse the comforts of society."

We should scarcely have thought it deserving of notice, had not the continuation of the work afforded ground for apprehending that the ambiguity of its title, and the apparent modesty of its pretensions, may have procured for it a circulation, to which neither its tendency, its originality, nor its ability, give it the smallest claim.

The tract before us contains two Essays, the first of which is on Liberality of Sentiment. This liberality, the boast of modern philosophers, and their substitute for the morality of the Gospel, has been so painted as to resemble Christian charity in some of its most amiable features. Under this guise, at one time it deceived many; but the tree has since been ascertained by its fruits.

Before the events of the last fifteen years had afforded the decisive evidence of facts, Christianity and philosophy might be thought by many to stand in some respects on equal ground; but the superiority of the former, in promoting the happines of mankind, is now no longer a question, even with the infidel legislators of France. It will not, therefore, be necessary to spend much time in pointing out the discrim inating features of the "liberality of true philosophy," which boasts of being "more extensive than that of Christianity." (p. 6.) More extensive indeed it is in some respects. The author of Christianity delighted in exposing wickedness, and unmasking bypocrisy, even at the hazard of his own life. One province of philosophical

liberality is to "soften the deformity" allowance for the defects of educa

of vice." (p. 13.) Christianity requires, that "whatsoever we do, we should do all to the glory of God." Philosophy despises such narrow-mindedness; provided we do what is pleasing to her, she cares not whether we act from obedience to the will of God, conformity to the fitness of things, or self-interest.* (p. 9.) Yet we are not left to suppose that the influence of philosophic liberality is omnipotent, or its sphere of action unbounded. This "godlike virtue" confesses that it cannot love those who hate us; (p. 11.) it cannot cry out under persecution, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" nor, like Christianity, can it do good to the unthankful and unholy. Liberality is "lost" upon meanness, selfishness, cruelty," &c. These vices "deserve no quarter" and "must be treated as they treat others," (p. 13.) i. e. with meanness, selfishness, and cruelty.

:

We may easily judge from all this what the Author's sentiments will be when an occasion is afforded for exercising his liberality. Liberality, it is said, will teach a "benevolent attention to the failings and ignorances of our fellow-creatures in all ranks and stations for a man of true liberality never judges harshly of the conduct of others." (p. 10.) But when the failing is pride, and the fellow-creature a Churchman, these liberal sentiments are allowed by Mr. Burdon to have no place. The laughter of the haughty Churchman at the "tattered coat and humble dwelling" of the patient Dissenter, (p. 22.) we might contend to be altogether imaginary: but be this as it may, we can discover no traces in the picture, of * To inculcate this doctrine seems to be the Author's main object. It appears from this Essay, as if the essence of liberality consisted in thinking ill of no man on account of his principles, whether they be right or wrong, virtuous or vicious: his actions being all with which we have to do. In other words, till we have actually felt its claws, we ought to caress a tyger as we would a spaniel. Yet, in many passages, especially in the second Essay, the Author indirectly admits opinions to be of the greatest consequence.

tion, and the errors of judgment;" (p. 10.) "no unwillingness to impute that conduct to a bad motive on which a favourable construction can be put; (p. 10.) no equal tenderness for the failings of all men; (p. 23.) no slowness in believing evil reports, even of our enemies." (p. 24.)

He

The Second Essay is on Human Inconsistencies; and, like the former, has for its ultimate object the discredit of Christianity; which it attempts principally by observations on the conduct of its professors. Abler writers have failed to prove some things inconsistent which the Author has assumed to be so, without attempting the proof. commonly takes for granted, that what he opposes is the result not of reflection and conviction, but of custom, prejudice, or interest; after which, any farther evidence of its falsehood, inconsistency, &c. is of course unnecessary. Indeed this trick of assuming the truth of what an author wishes to impress on his reader's mind, (often something very different from what he professes to have in view); of talking about it as if it were too clear for argument, as if it were established on the common consent of all the intelligent and unprejudiced part of mankind, and only needed to be explained and enforced, is not peculiar to Mr. Burdon. It has been frequently pointed out as a common practice among the later infidel writers.

Both these Essays are written with great affectation of coolness and indifference to party; but their drift is too obvious to escape detection. They betray a rooted hostility in their Author to Christianity, and even to sound morality; and we can regard them in no other light than as one of those effusions of modern philosophism, by which of late years the minds of many, in almost every part of Europe, have been vitiated, and which it is the duty of every friend of Christianity, and every lover of his country, as far as he can, to discourage and repress.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS, &c. &c.

ALTHOUGH the following paper cannot De considered as a full or direct reply to the question put in our last number; What are the most safe, and, at the same time, the most effectual means in the present circumstances of the world, of counteracting in a work like ours, the influence of those publications which are employed in disseminating infidelity and irreligion: yet, as the remarks contained in it may be of use, not only to reviewers, but to our readers in general, we willingly insert it.

SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE question you have proposed for discussion, in page 603 of the last number of your miscellany, is certainly a very important one. The impression it made on me, has induced me to send you the following contribution on the subject. I shall be glad, however, to see my reply superseded by a more satisfactory answer to the question.

of it; but let it not speak for itself; for that which ought not to be written, ought not to be read.*

In the perusal of some popular reviews, I have observed a fault which may be mentioned here by way of caution to the Christian Observer. I have found these critics passing sentence of condemnation on a profligate work; but have observed with grief, that the sentence has been so expressed, as to tend rather to the propagation than to the extinction of the mischief which the book was likely to produce. The design has been reprobated, the manner applauded. The reader has been very gravely cautioned not to look into the book, because vice is therein set forth with such fascinations of description, such strokes of wit, such effusions of genius, as may be too much for his virtue; and the mention of these attrac tions makes him a purchaser. If a book be bad in its tendency, let no inducement to peruse it be held out.

As you have pledged yourself to In the review of such books as deproduce only a select review of books, serve more particular notice, it seems you are happily exempted from the of great consequence that you should necessity of reporting every thing always remember, that your miscellany which vanity, virulence, or impiety, is a family book. In drawing up, theremay bring forth. In the class, how- fore, a critique on any publication, you ever, of books "connected with reli- should not think merely of a few men gion, morals, and education," there are of extensive information who may read some compositions, of which, on the the review, and who can, without any whole, it may be adviseable to take no hazard to themselves, peruse what is notice. They are so contagious, that, written against the truth, as persons like a putrid body, they cannot be touch- used to attend dissections can bear the ed without imminent peril. The only exposure of what would shock others. hope in such a case is, that some do Let me intreat you, Sir, not to think of not know that there is such a book it these gentlemen only, but of our sons lies out of their walk; and they are the and daughters; and to consider, when safer for not passing within the sphere you insert a quotation, how that passage of its infection. I do not apprehend is likely to affect them. that the Christian Observer would defile his page, by a quotation from a publication of so bad a quality: but I beg leave to recommend to him to refrain from quoting likewise from works, whose hurtful tendency may not be quite so great. If it be at all necessary to take notice of a mischievous pub. lication, the most eligible way seems to be to produce only a general report of its design and tendency: give it its character according to your judgment

It may possibly serve to guide you in the review of those books, from which it is necessary to make extracts, to bear in mind two existing evils; the corruption of human nature and the revolutionary spirit of the times. In conse

*Does not this recommendation admit of some qualification? Did not the Bishop of Llandaff, Mr. Scott, &c. render a real service to the community by exposing the ribaldry, profaneness, and blasphemy of Thomas Paine Ed.

quence of the first, we are naturally in a state of recipiency for that which proceeds from the spirit of error. It needs no effort of argument to introduce or to fix it in the mind. It is congenial with the propensities of our fallen nature, and when bad and good are presented on the same page, the unrenewed mind seizes, as by a kind of elective attraction, the former, and leaves the latter. This danger, perhaps, it is not possible entirely to avoid; but it may be lessened, by great caution, in the introduction of what is wrong, and is, therefore, likely to assimilate with the state of a distempered mind.

Among the particular evils of the present times, there seems to be none much more likely to spread than the spirit of insubordination. I would have the Christian Observer keep a vigilant eye on this tendency, and strenuously withstand those who labour at the degradation of constituted authorities. While young people are incapable of judging for themselves, it seems to be the incumbent duty of all serious minds, to nourish in them a reverence of every authoritative appointment, both civil and sacred.

I beg leave further to observe, that I would have the Christian Observer set an example to his readers of a Christian Spirit in the exposure of errors. It is devoutly to be wished, that this entertaining work may diffuse a spirit and temper worthy of the truths it is designed to support. The influence of its language on those families in which it is read, will, without doubt, be consi derable. It will generate a violent, a supercilious, or a gentle manner of treating an adversary, according to the language it uses towards those whose sentiments are at variance with its own. Such being the probable effect of its language, it will, I trust, be the care of its Editor, that it be highly exemplary in this point. It ill becomes one who engages in the cause of God and truth, to put on the airs and manners of worldly disputants. Leave to such antagonists the contemptuous and the sarcastic style. Some of your readers will probably look into other reviews, and they will see and acknowledge a marked superiority in your work, if a christian

spirit be as conspicuous as a zeal for christian doctrine. You will not be recognized merely as the abettor of a particular system, but as an example to the advocates of every system; and if in contending for truth you make no impression on your opponent, you will, at least, hold out to those who look on, during the contest, a pattern of that temperance of spirit and language which will render it safe to put the more disputatious part of your work into the hands of young persons: inasmuch as, while it guards them against errors, it will also teach them to maintain their principles with the "meekness of wisdom."

Your correspondent C. C. has given us a good quotation, in which a clear and full exposition of the truth" is recommended as one of the means of obvi. ating error. This is a rule of prime importance. But here give me leave to observe, that some, while professing to proceed by this rule, go beyond it. To say all which can be said on the contrary side, is not, I apprehend, what the writer meant by "a clear and full exposition of the truth." To keep within these limits, every thing that does not exactly meet the question must be omitted; as must, likewise, all consequences not fairly deducible from the premises. He who aims not to keep up a controversy but to settle it, will find it of use to him to remember the words of Terence, "Ne quid nimis "

Let me in conclusion observe, that some publications resemble those bales of rich goods, which are sometimes imported from the Levant: they contain useful and valuable articles; but we run the hazard of catching the plague by opening them: they come from an infected quarter, and they bring morbid matter combined with that which is good in itself. If in any work, whatever be its professed object, or however ably it be executed, there be found but one grain of heterodox or seditious matter, you will, I hope, apprize your readers of that circumstance. In the perusal of some of our elementary books for young people, I have met with this latent poison.* The same

* We think it an object which well merits the attention of our correspondent, to point

1

[blocks in formation]

HAPPENING to cast my eye over the British Critic for the month of September last, my attention was engaged by the following passage which stands at the 300th page,

"It is here (viz. in the work under Review) clearly demonstrated, that the injunction (Matt. xix.) to sell all a man's property, and bestow it on the poor, cannot, in its primary meaning, relate to Christians of the present time, nor indeed, properly speaking, to Christians. at all; but to those who, in the time of Jesus Christ, were desirous of becoming our Lord's actual disciples. It teaches also to Christians of every age, the important lesson, not to rely too much upon their own merits for acceptance and salvation, but on the merits of their Redeemer. It is moreover clearly demonstrated, that those rich men are alone represented, who trust too much in their riches; and who make them, not what God intended, the means of diffusing happiness to others, but the instruments of pleasure, luxury, and vice," Not having the work which forms the subject of the above critique before me, I must here confine my remarks to the sentiments which the Reviewer, by his method of exhibiting them, has adopted as his own; and these have suggested to me the following topics of inquiry:

1. Although it is allowed that the command (Matt. xix) to sell all and give to the poor, cannot, in its literat meaning, be applied to Christians of the

out the poison to which he alludes, so as to guard unsuspecting parents against its pernicious effects. Ed.

Christ. Observ. No. 10.

present or of any age; yet are not Christians of every age absolutely bound by its spirit, to employ all their property in the service of God, and to regard themselves as no other than stewards of his bounty, who are obliged entirely to regulate their appropriation of it according to the will of God, made known in his word?

2. Does not the language, that Christians are "not to rely too much upon their own merits for acceptance and salvation," imply that in the Reviewer's estimation, some degree of reliance may be safely placed on them? But is this orthodox? Is it the language of scripture or of our church? Is it not rather a-kin to that doctrine of human merit which our reformers objected to the Romish Church, and which is condemned in our articles and homilies?

3. When it is said, that those rich men alone are represented as entering with difficulty into the Kingdom of Heaven, "who trust too much in their riches," is it not difficult to affix any very safe meaning to those words; for how can a trust in riches be in any way conducive to salvation? Besides, is it not dangerous to seem to admit, that a certain degree of confidence, though perhaps a very minute one, may be placed in wealth, without its proving an obstacle to our salvation?

4. Can we rely too much or too exclusively on the merits of our Redeemer for acceptance and salvation? If we cannot, why should language be used which would imply that there are other grounds of reliance, and that the only danger we have to fear is an undue distribution of our confidence, or trusting too much, when, in fact, we are bound not to trust at all. in other objects?

My only motive for these remarks is, to prevent the ill effects which unguarded language on a subject of such moment, especially when it proceeds from so respectable a quarter as the British Critic, is calculated to produce on inconsiderate minds. S. L.

4 Q

« PreviousContinue »