« ZurückWeiter »
part of the Sacred Volume; and who seems to repose an undoubting confidence scarcely in any portion of Scripturé, excepting the Apocalypse.” (See Letter III.) Happily, however, here « their witness agrees not together," either in respect to the Apocalypse or the Gospels. The book on which Mr. Evanson is said so implicitly to rely, our reviewers contemptuously reject.
And in regard to “our four canopical Gospels," with Mr. Evanson “that of Luke is a genuine production, while the other three are the forgeries of a later age:" whereas these critics, with Eichhorn, give this exclusive honour of genuineness and “originality" to Jolin, and think the other three compilations from such documents as could be founů at the end of the second century; and that particularly " Luke founded his Gospel principally on the basis of that of Marcion;" a heretic who "rejected the divine authority of the Old Testament." (See Vol. 12, P. 380; 10, p. 449-465)
Whoever carefully peruses their review of " Wette on the Old Testament," will see what a contemptible opinion these critics entertain of
many parts, if not the whole, of this portion of Scripture. This, indeed, is not done without caution and reserve. But this consideration amounts to little. « Such,” this Critical Review has informed us, " has beeni the zeal of infidelity, so various have been the forms which it has of late assumed, that (extraordinary and even ridiculous as it may to some appear) it. is not impossible for an explanation of the Bible to issue from the pen of one, whose greatest satisfaction it would be to obscure its truth, to corrupt its purity, and to destroy its influence." (See Vol. 4, P. 373; 8, P. 472-2.483.) Such cautions or professions stand for nothing with the present writer; as his object is not to ascertain the private sentiments of the critics under bis consideration, but to show the pernicious tendency of their writings. Of this, too, he will leave his readers to judge for themselves, after furnishing them with a further distinct specimen of the reviewer's language on the subject in question.
They say, then, that the Apocalypse is a "mere visimary representation, the product of some potent but deluded fancy ; chaos of confusion;" and deserves no more regard than “the delusive dreams, or incoherent suppositions of any man in a state of. delirium.” They speak" also of " the sanguinary spirit and unrelenting ferocity which are evinced” in it."All the Chris tianity," they add, “which is necessary for salvation; is contained in the four Gospels; and the peace of the Church would kave been much less disturbed, IF THE LPistles or St. Paul, which St. Peter himself confesses that he found it difficult to understand, had. PERISHED WITH THE CHURCHES TO WHICH THEY WERE FIRST ADDRESSED, and for whose direction, in many points of temporary expediency or fugitive interest, they were particularly composed.” Then, as to these Gospels, only one of the four, it has already appeared, is allowed the credit of originality, and that they are merely " human compositions, and exceedingly adulterated with superstitions and errors. Our présent canonical Gospels, it is maintained, were not known, nor used by the Fathers, until the close of the second centary; and that at ihis period they were
« approved by the Church, not because they were deemed inspired compositions, but because of the many human compositions, which then existed on the same subject, they were deemned the best.” It is added, however, that “all the blographical notes of Jesus, which were most current in the two first centuries, and which are quoteci by the Fathers, are " tery. different," "palpably different," and "cssentially different from our present canonical Gospels:” as diferent, to specify one instance, as the simple representation of Jesus as “the Son of Joseph and Mary," and the ascribing to him a "miraculous conception,” and Divine origin. The original Gospel is represented to have been far more concise and simple. “The Aposties,” it is said, “ knew nothing of the njiraculous conception;” but “that in proportion as the Fathers lived later they pretended to know more," and made continual additions to the priinitive history of Jesus. It is remarked, moreover, in respect to the Evangelists, that “there are several strange and marvellous appearances in their historical relations... in the popular idiom in which they are expressed, or (as in the case of Demonides) in the popular superstition and vulgar creed with which they were incorporated: improprieties... which are quite abhorrent from our present sentiments.” Our reviewers talk, therefore, of being still able " to separate the original life of Jesus from all subsequent additions, and from the same to recompose a life of Jezus purified from the traditions of a later period." The answers, they say,
" which the Fathers of the Church give to questions on this subject " are futile and absurd.” (See Vol. 11. 8. 113–119; 12, p. 212, 374-382; 10, P. 449-465).
What insufferable arrogance is all this. How different is this mode of treating the Divine Records, from that of Bacon and Buyle, of Locke and Newton; or even from that of Lardner and Paley! When, however, together with the " Thirty-nine absurdities," and our “ idolatrous” Liturgy, the Epistles of St. Paul, and all other objectionable parts of the Bible are dismissed, and the remainder of the Sacred Book is properly modernised and reformed, we shall have made considerable advances towards the new “state of moral existence and social bliss" which our reviewers and their associates are labouring to introduce Then the simple form of subscription for our teachers of religion may run thus: "I'A. B. promise from my heart, that I will renounce every other system as old-fashioned and foolish, and that I will conform my religious instructions to the new Gospel, or life of Jesus, which has been composed by certain celebrated foreign critics, who have lately assisted in ac' complishing wonderful events in their own country, and by their Alluminated brethren in this kingdom." Thus shall we prove our selves superior to valgar prejudices, and worthy of the enlightened age in which we live. Thus shall we be calmly placed in the frozen zone of Christianity," and any persons who shall still find the smallest restraints on their conduct from this religion which are disagreeable, may easily, by taking a single step further, pass into and wanton without control inthe regions of scepticism and infidelity:
But seriously, do we not behold in this Review an extraordinary accumulation of those evils which we are taught so earnestly to
deprecate, "all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; hirdness of heart, and contempt of God's Word and Commandment;" and odious disa play of pride, vain-glory, and hypocrisy; of hatred, malice, and uncharitableness;" all aggravated by the very loudlest pretensions to integrity, and purity, and brotherly love? Is it not then a disgrace to us, that such a publication can be circulated at all? Should it not be execrated by every friend of his Church, bis government, his country, and his religion? Ought not so vile a production to be every where “shunned as infectious, and hunicd down as destructive?”
Not doubting but that you will continue to merit the warm thanks of your country by a vigilant attention to such diabolical writers,
I am, Sir, with due respect,
THE public mind has been so completely engrossed by the important inquiry into the conduct of the commander-in-chief in the disposal of commissions, as to allow no other object to occupy any portion of its attention for the last two months. The main question has been decided by à vote of the House of Commons, who have resolved, that the evidence adduced before them afforded no grounds for charging the Duke of York with corruption, or with connivance at the infamous transactions which that evi.. dence disclosed. This resolution was carried by a majority of cighty-two, 278 members having voted in favour of it, and 196 against it. To the decision of a majority of the House of Commons, however small, we shall always pay that degree of respect which is due to the solemn determination of one of the great councils of the state. But as we are in full possession of the grounds of that decision, of the motives which influenced the leading members in the vote which they gave, and on the evidence on which alone such vote ought to be founded, it will be no presumption in us to hold and to declare a different opinion from that which the majority bave proclaimed, particularly when supported by no less than 196 members of the House, among whom are nien of minds as independent, and as firmly attacbed to the principles which brought the present ministry into power, as ourselves; and as cordially dispesed to support the great measures of ministerial policy
which they have proposed and enforced. As we conceive that the public have a right, on such questions as this; to call for tke decided opinion of every public character, and of every public writer, we shall frankly declare, that, after a most attentive perusal of the evidence taken at the bar of the House, and of all the documents by which it was accompanied, as printed by authority, and of the comments and expositions of different members in the course of the debute, had we been called upon for oor opinion, we should have pronounced it to be the full deliberate conviction of our mind, that the commander-in-chief was guilty of connivance at the corrupt practices carried on by his mistress. And though we should not have been so presumptuous as to. question the purity of their motives, or the sincerity of their dem clarations, who had drawn a different deduction from the sanie premises, yet we cannot conceive from what known principle of human action it is possible to infer his royal highness's ignorance of transactions which were so peculiarly calculated to alarm his jealousy and to raise his suspicions. That he was deeply enamoured of. Mrs. Clarke, after reading his letters, it is impossible to doubt for a moment. Who then can believe, that her applications to him in behalf of different persons, some of them young
g nien, would not lead to an immediate inquiry into the motives of his beloved mistress's interposition in their favour, into the source of the dear interest which she took in their concerns? No doubt this seems to us at least, to betray an ignorance of human nature so consummate and perverse, as to baffle the efforts of reason, and to set even conjecture at defiance. If an inquiry so natural were made, the answer could be no other than that which Mrs. Clarke has stated in ber evidence to have been given. An equivocal answer, it is obvious, would not have satisfied the doating admirer of a " darling love," "an angel," who was all sensibility, all affection, and who must, therefore, have been exquisitely alive to those impressions which could scarcely fail to be felt by a less ardent lover, and to have sprung from a better regulated passion. But independent of the inference which probability would have led us to draw, the positive testimony of Dowler and Miss Taylor, which there was no counter-evidence to shake, would have carried with them, in our minds, an irresistible conviction of the existence of a culpable connivance at corrupt practices. Having mentioned the name of Miss Taylor, we cannot but express our regret at the unnecessary severity of
Der cross-examination, and the fatal consequences which have resulted from it. We lay it down as an incontrovertible position, which we defy all the lawyers in the kingdom to overturn, that there exists not in any earthly tribunal the right or the power compel answer to a question intended to extort from a young woman a confession that her MOTHER IS! A WHORE AND HERSELF A BASTARD. Such a question appears to us to be immoral, unnatural, and irreligious; because it tends not merely to violate the best feelings of our nature, but to induce the breach of a divine conimandment, by leading the witness to revile and to defame her parents, which God has commanded her to honour.-Bat let us not be misunderstood : God forbid that we should impute any thing inmoral or irreligious to the gentleman who put the question! We are persuaded that no one of his majesty's subjects is more strongly impressed with the importance of moral and religious principles than himself, . nor is there any one whose general conduct is more influenced by these principles, or more in unison with them, than his. Zeal in the defence of what he believed to be the cause of innocence has betrayed him, income siderately, into a deviation from propriety, which, on reflexion, have no doubt he will regret.
From one part of Mr. Perceval's speech, we perceive that he has done us the honour to attend to our suggestions and observations on this case: that while we express our satisfaction at the justice which he has done us by such attention, we request him not to harbour, for a moment, the injurious suspicion, that we believed him capable of feeling an indifference to the interests of religion and morality. No; we recollected full well his generous effort to enforce, in a certain clause, obedience to the laws of God, by the terror of human punishment, in his bill for making the crime of adultery a misdemeanour-a bill, the rejection of which inflicted an indelible disgrace on that House of Cominons which Was guilty of so flagrant a breach of its duty. We are happy, however, that the moral part of the question has at length received from the House the attention which it so eminentiy deserved. Had it escaped their notice, the effect on the public could not have failed to be most pernicious. If the guardianship of public morals is not so far vested in the legislative body of a state, as to render it au imperative duty to pass a strong censure on any flagrant act of public immorality which may be subjected to their cognisance,