« PreviousContinue »
At p. 15, the doctor says, that kings, “by reason of their proximity and neernes unto God, in some respects are most commonly of more discerning spirits than ordinary men.” He admits however, p. 17, “that the king hath a soul to be saved as well as others.” The doctor sums up his chapter on Oyle in the following weighty manner:— “Lastly, Kings are the Lord's anointed, because they are anointed with his own oyle, oleo sancto meo, with my holy oyl have I anointed him, Psal. lxxxix. 20. It is not with any common or vulgar oyl, or oyl that any laies claim to but himself; but it is oleo meo, my oyl: neither is it oyl that was fetched out of any common shop or warehouse; but it is oleo sancto, with holy oyl, oyl out of the sanctuary: and no question but this is a main reason (if they would speak out) why some have such an aking tooth at the sanctuaries; because they maintain in them oyl for the anointing of kings: but if the alabaster box were broken, the ointment w" soon be lost; if they co persuade the king out of the church into the barne, they w” soon pull a reed out of the thatch, to put into his hand instead of a scepter; or if they co get him to hear sermons under a hedge, there w" not be materials wanting to make a crown of thorns to pleat it on his head.”—p. 23. “Oyle,” however, is the doctor's hobby. He returns to it again by a wonderful stretch of ingenuity, in the following chapter, at p. 33, where he is proving that bad kings, as well as good, are to be held sacred and divine. “When in the cave of Engiddi, David mo have cut off Saul's head; like precious oyntment he descends only
to the skirts of his garment, and with a quid fecif checks himself, and beshrews his heart that he had done so much,” &c. After adducing many such cases from Holy Writ, (and be it carefully remarked that all the cases which tell against him, he thinks may be explained away,) our doctor comes to the conclusion “that no faults or pretences whatsoever can make it lawful to depose, or so much as to touch, the Lord's anointed.” Chap. xiii., entitled, “Of the necessity and excellency of monarchy,” commences in the following noble strain: “A Jove principium, let us begin with Heaven: I behold its monarchy in the unity of the blessed Trinity; though there be three persons, yet there must be but one God, for the avoiding of that who we are fallen into, a confounding of persons, and dividing of substance. Descend lower, and consider the angels, and you shall find one arch-angel above the rest, as the angel's monarch. Lower yet, to those senselesse and inanimate rulers of the day and night, the sun and moon, and you shall not find (or so much as the appearance of such a thing) more suns or moons in the same firmament then one, with a prodegie or portent of some dire and direfull event. Come down to the regions, and you shall find in the head of the highest region a prince of the aire. Come to the lowest, and you shall find amongst the wing'd inhabitants thereof the soveraigne eagle as the king of birds. Come amongst the beasts of the field, and the lion will soon let you know that there is a king of beasts. Run into the sea, and there is a king of fishes. Descend into hell, and there is a prince of devils: and shall only man be independent 7"—p. 85.
Dr. T. B. then attempts to show, (and in this part of his discourse he talks more like a man of this world than in the others,) that liberty, as it was called, is either anarchy or the worst sort of tyranny; and “that there is no such thing as a free state in the world.” He then instances several oligarchical governments, which he says he himself visited, and which he takes as examples of free states. His object is to show, from the case of such states as Venice, that there is no law to curb or punish the members of the oligarchy, which is perfectly true ; and the same thing as saying that the sovereign, whether one, a few, or many, being the author of the law, either as having made it himself, or sanctioning it, though made by others who preceded him in the sovereignty, is not subject to the law; in other words, is not subject to himself. With the following anecdote, illustrative of the state of things at Venice,—(and a very apt illustration it is,) which we do not recollect to have seen before, unless the similar contrivances that are not unfrequent in the old dramatists can be considered as of the same stock, —we shall conclude.
“ There was a nobleman who was an Austrian both by birth and family, who, being a traveller, chanc'd to cast his eyes upon a fair and virtuous lady, who in every respect were deserving of each other. This nobleman had no sooner made his mind known unto this paragon for beauty, but he was soon obstructed with a corrival, who was a nobile Venetiano; who, perceiving his mistresses affections to this stranger to be more liberally expressed than unto him, contrives his death, and soon effects it. Shee, loving her martyr more than either others conceived,
or shee herself could brook so great a crosse concerning them, studies revenge ; and, being an Italian, found herself easily prompted by her own natural inclination: she pretends much love, that she might the better put in execution her greatest hatred; she gets him into a chamber, where she praies him to rest himself in a chair, wherein he was no sooner sat, but his arms and thighs were caught with springs; and, being thus fastened, she murders him with her owne hands, and flies for sanctuary to the next nunnery within the Pope's dominions; leaving behind her, by the murdered, these words written with her own hand in a piece of paper, “Because there is no justice to be executed against a noble Venetian, I have been both judge and executioner myself.’”—pp. 105-6.
So much for the arguments on which has been supported “The right Divine of kings to govern wrong.”
LW. HOMO WERMIS.
THIS is the title of a short copy of verses at the end of “the Reformed Virginia Silk-worm,” 4to, Lond. 1655. They are not unlike some lines in Pope's Works.
“We all are creeping worms of th’ earth:
170 who FIRST DoubleD THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE 2
Found about the earth we're crawling :
LVI. WHO FIRST DOUBLED THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE 2
In this enlightened age the reply of every schoolboy to this query will be, “Why, Vasco de Gama, to be sure.” In Portugal, however, a much more ancient navigator has been mentioned. Vieyra, an old preacher of great renown at Lisbon, said in one of his sermons, “One man only passed the Cape of Good Hope before the Portuguese. And who was he? and how — it was Jonas in the whale's belly. The whale went out of the Mediterranean, because he had no other course; he kept the coast of Africa on the left, scoured along Ethiopia, passed by Arabia, took port in the Euphrates on the shores of Nineveh, and, making his tongue serve as a plank, landed the prophet there.”
Dr. Southey says that the sermons of Vieyra, perhaps more than any other compositions in any language, display the strength and the weakness of the human mind.
LVII. BERKELEY AND THE PRIESTS.
“IT may not be amiss to record a little incident that befell Mr. Berkeley in this city, (Leghorn 1714), with the relation of which he used sometimes to make himself merry among his friends. Basil Kennett, the author of