may be affured, that they would have been very different from the prefent, and that, instead of appealing to their works (which if they did none, is most abfurd) they would have used the declamatory harangues of the fophifts. We may be perfuaded that they would not have Spoken of themselves in a way fo ill calculated to give us an exalted idea of their genius and manner of life *. Enthufiafts or impoftors never proclaim to the world the weakness of their understanding, and the defects of their character. Yet the Apoftles tell us of their prejudices fcarce furmountable, of firifes, of hardness of heart +. Matthew calls himself a Publican, a name of great reproach; none of the reft call him by that name. When John mentions the difciple whom Jefus loved, he does not give his own name. Peter did not tell Mark, who wrote by his direction, the honourable answer which Jefus made concerning him; but his fall is minutely fet down. Luke does not mention the half of Paul's hardships, as appears from Paul's own epiftle, when a recital of them was extorted from him. The Evangelifts write no encomiums upon each other, or upon their Mafter. It is very remarkable, that throughout the whole New Teftament, there is no eulogium upon Jefus Chrift. They have fet down plain matters of fact alone. If a man fhould fill continue to think that the Apoitles coveted honour, I would ask him what honours could Paul expect: he who deferted honours, rewards, the diftribution of dignities, friends, and acquaintances, to join himself to low ignoble men, to expofe himself to popular odium, to perils of robbers, to work with his own hands, to call himfelf the leaft of the Apoftles ? He would not be at the head of a party: when fome of the Corinthians faid they were of Paul, he exclaims thus, "Is Chrift divided t?" By affociating with the difciples, he could not hope to advance his temporal intereft, or gratify any paffion. If an impofor, he would have availed himfelf of his learning above the other Apoftles; he would have been crying it up; but of all others he makes the leaft of it. He declares, in his epiftle to the Corinthians, that he used no eloquence among them, but works. Indeed the converfion of this great Apostle mult for ever involve infidels in inexplicable perplexity. Human ingenuity has not been able to devife any improper motive, which, with a fhadow of reafon, can be faid to have influenced his conduct. If, fays my Lord Littelton, he forged the story of the vifion, it would never have fucceeded; for be faid it happened in the midst of the meffengers which accompanied him, which were chofen by the Priests, for their great zeal. How could he expect that such a public lie as this could pafs undetected? Could he bribe them all to filence against their confcience? Would not the Priefts have given a much greater bribe for divulging the truth? Would not he himself rather have pretended, that he law fome miracle among the Chriftians which converted him, for this would put him out of the power of the opposite party? The folemn and marked appeals made in the face of open day, and of enemies, by one whofe unquestionable worldly interest it was to think otherwife, is, by itself, a ftriking argument for the truth of Chriftianity. If, indeed, Jefus Chrift and his Apoftles had, like Mahomet and his followers, founded a mighty empire, the charge of ambition might then be made with juftice; for it is evident that they acted in this manner, ufing revelation as a ladder to mount to thrones; whereas the Apostles, without attempting any innovation, charge men to be obedient to the ruling powers. Socrates might look for glory from men by his death; though it must be confeffed this fuppofition is very improbable; but could the half of the firft Chriftians expect this, who were of the loweft order of artizans, women and children, boys and girls? To a fagacious inquirer, God has difcriminated their case from that of all others.' An entire chapter is allowed to the argument from the correfpondence of types and antitypes, which, our author fays, are, through the Old and New Teftament, continually looking toward each other, like the two cherubims over the mercy feat.' We are furprized to find fuch a degree of ftrefs laid on a kind of evidence in which fancy has fo much concern. This work would be much improved by a table of contents and an index. E. ART. XIII. Memoirs of the Literary and Philofophical Society of Man chefter. Vol. IV. Part I. [Article concluded.] IN Papers on METAPHYSICS, PHILOLOGY, and ANTIQUITIES. An Argument against the Doctrine of Materialifm, addressed to Thomas Cooper, Efq. By John Ferriar, M.Ď. Dr. F.'s argument is founded on a number of cafes of injury of the brain, which fhew that the whole of its vifible ftructure has been materially changed, without affecting the exercise of the rational faculties.' Hence the Doctor argues that fomething more than the difcernible organization must be necessary to produce the phænomena of thinking,' and that the brain is the inftrument only, not the caufe, of the thinking power.' This argument, however, even in the author's own opinion, will not convert one thorough materialift.' Its defect is, indeed, obvious at firft view; for, as long as the fenforium shall continue, according to the immaterialift, in a condition to be the inftrument, the materialift will contend that it may be the caufe, of thought. * Grotius de Verit.' Comments Comments on Sterne. By J. Ferriar, M.D. Moft of Sterne's readers will receive from thefe comments the pleasure of furprize; unlefs that fatisfaction be counterbalanced by a diminution of their admiration of him as a genius altogether original. Dr. F. traces many of his most striking fingularities in ftyle and fentiment to their fource in the wellknown fatirical romance of Rabelais, in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, in the Contemplations of good Bifhop Hall, and in fome other, principally old, writers. The very idea of his pages in mourning appears to have been borrowed. Sterne, as we have been informed by a gentleman who knew him well before he became celebrated, found his principal amusement in the library of a neighbouring family: this library was composed principally of antiquated authors; of which he made fuch free ufe, as occafionally to copy with the clofeness of a plagiary: his model, as Dr. F. well obferves, even led him to ridicule obfolete follies. Of the following parallel paffages, adduced by Dr. F. thofe in Roman characters are from Sterne, and thofe in Italic from Burton: " "Tis an inevitable chance-the first statute in Magna Charta-it is an everlasting act of Parliament, my dear brother-all must die.”* "'Tis an inevitable chance, the firft ftatute in Magna Charta, az everlasting act of Parliament, all muft die." + My Son is dead," fays Mr. Shandy, "fo much the better, 'tis a fhame, in fuch a tempeft, to have but one Anchor." I-but he was my most dear and loving friend, quoth Burton, my fole friend-Thou maist be abamed, I fay with Seneca, to confefs it, in fuck a tempeft as this, to have but one anchor. "Hilarion the hermit, in fpeaking of his abftinence, his watchings, flagellations, and other inftrumental parts of his religion,-would fay-tho' with more facetioufnefs than became an hermit-That they were the means he used, to make his ass (meaning his body) leave off kicking." "By this means Hilarion made his Afs, as he call'd his own body, leave kicking (fo Hierome relates of him in his life) when the Devil tempted bim to any foul offence."§ Several other equally ftrong examples of coincidence are produced from Burton. Bifhop Hall fupplies others not lefs remarkable. "Mercy well becomes the heart of all thy creatures, but most of thy fervant, a Levite, who offers up fo many daily facrifices to thee, for the tranfgreffions of thy people." Triftram Shandy, vol. v. chap. 3.' + Anat. of Melancholy, p.215.' This is an aukward member of the fentence.' || Tr. Shandy, vol. viii. chap. 31.' Burton, p. 333. -"But -"But to little purpose," he would add," have I ferved at thy altar, where my bufinefs was to fue for mercy, had I not learn'd to practife it. Mercy, fays Bp. Hall, becomes well the heart of any man, but most of a Levite. He that had helped to offer fo many facrifices to God for the multitude of every Ifraelite's fins, faw how proportionable it was, that man fhould not hold one fin unpardonable. He had ferved at the altar to no purpose, if he (whofe trade was to fue for mercy) had not at all learned to practife it! "There is no fmall degree of malicious craft in fixing upon a Seafon to give a mark of emnity and ill-will;-a word, a look, which, at one time, would make no impreffion,-at another time, wounds the heart; and, like a fhaft flying with the wind, pierces deep, which, with its own natural force, would fcarce have reached the object aimed at." This is a little varied from the original: There is no small cruelty in the picking out of a time for mischief; that word would fearce gall at ane feafon, which at another killeth. wind pierces deep, which against it, can hardly find strength to flick The fame fhaft flying with the upright.'* Dr. F. is of opinion that Sterne will fill be left in the poffeflion of every praife but that of curious erudition, to which he had no great pretence, and of unparalleled originality, which ignorance only can afcribe to any polifhed writer.' Exceptions might, perhaps, be tendered against this decifion; it would, at all events, be prudent to forbear fumming-up, till the evidence be all before us; and this must be collected from the books with which the library above mentioned fupplied Sterne. Dr. F. is certainly entitled, for what he has done toward the illuftration of Sterne, to the thanks of the curious in literature. The prefent paper may poffibly be followed by an edition of Sterne's works with notes, which would hardly fail of being acceptable to the public, if the editor fhould pofiefs due difcrimination, and if he fhould not overwhelm his author by too great a mass of annotations. On the Impreffion of Reality attending Dramatic Reprefentations. By J. Aikin, M.D. In oppofition to Dr. Johnfon, Dr. Aikin maintains that dramatic exhibitions do really delude us into a momentary belief of the reality of the fcenes reprefented. The arguments employed are, as the author remarks, very fimilar to those which many of our readers muft have already perused in the interlides to the fecond volume of the Loves of the Plants. Dr. A. assures us that this effay was written fome years before the appearance of that beautiful poem. We do not hesitate to give credit * Hall's Shimei Curfing.'. to to the affertion; the effay bears internal marks of originality; and Dr. A.'s analyfis of our emotions, as excited by real,' imagined, or reprefented fcenes, will be read with pleasure, after the obfervations of the ingenious critic who preceded him in the publication of the fame doctrine; as the following extract will evince: Attend me next to the theatre. I go, it is acknowledged, with the full conviction that the place is Drury-lane, and that the actors are merely players reprefenting a fiction, for their own emolumenti Nay, I go with the avowed purpose of seeing a favourite actress in a particular character. The curtain draws up, and after fome preparation, enters Mrs. Siddons in Belvidera. The firft employment of my mind is to criticize her performance, and I admire the juftnefs of her action, and the unequalled expreffiveness of her tones and looks. The play proceeds, and I am made privy to a horrid plot. With this, domestic diftreffes are mingled, involving the two most interefting characters in the piece. By degrees, I lofe fight of Mrs. Siddons in her proper perfon, and only view her in the affumed shape of Belvidera. I cease to criticize her, but give way with full foul to all the fentiments of love, tenderness, and anxiety which the utters. As the catastrophe advances, the accumulated diftrefs and anguish lay faft hold on my heart: I fob, weep, am almoft choaked with the mixed emotions of pity, terror, and apprehenfion, and totally forget the theatre, the actors, and the audience, till, perhaps, my attention to prefent objects is recalled by the fcreams or fwooning of a neighbour still more affected than myself.' On the Ufes of Claffical Learning, by G. Gregory, D.D. This paper is not the production of a bigotted admirer of antient literature; which, according to Dr. G.'s enumeration of the advantages that it affords, is to be confidered as ornamental rather than as ufeful. Dr. G. does not allow much force to the maxim which infifts on the abfolute neceffity of claffical learning in what are called the profeffions.' He regards the Greek tragedies as pitiful productions; and is of opinion that Ariftophanes and Plautus are as much beneath our common farce writers, as the best of the antient dramatists are inferior in excellence to Shakespear and Moliere.' In refpect of science, it will not furprize either those who adopt, or those who reject, these opinions of Dr. G. that he should hold the antients cheap. The metaphyfics of Plato are stated as fubtil, [fubtle,] vifionary, and ufelefs; thofe of Ariftotle, as mere fcholaftic definitions. Good political obfervations are occafionally to be found in the Greek and Roman writers: but, in political science, the moderns are much fuperior. In the writings of the Stoics, we find not only admirable moral precepts, but fomething of prin ciple. After reading fuch fentiments as thefe, we did not expect that Dr. G. would prefer the antient to the modern hiftorians. REV. FEB. 1794. Warmer |
