hundred and seventy-five gentlemen counted, it grew as plain to us as a pike-staff, for a syllogism carries less conviction than a superior number, though that number does not use the least force upon earth, but only walk peaceably out of the house and into it again. The next day we were to be in the same numerical way convinced that we ought to be but one hundred and ten, for that we ought to expel Mr. Wilkes out of the house; and the majority were to prove to us (for we are slow of comprehension, and imbibe instruction very deliberately) that in order to have all London acquainted with the person and features of Mr. Wilkes, it would be necessary to set him on a high place called the pillory, where everybody might see him at leisure. Some were even almost ready to think that, being a very ugly man, he would look better without his ears; and poor Sir William Stanhope, who endeavoured all day by the help of a trumpet to listen to these wise debates and found it to no purpose, said, "if they want a pair of ears they may take mine, for I am sure they are of no use to me.” The regularity, however, of these systematic proceedings has been a little interrupted. One Mr. Martin, who has much the same quarrel with Mr. Wilkes as King George, and who chose to suspend his resentment like his Majesty till with proper dignity he could notify his wrath to Parliament, did express his indignation with rather less temper than the King had done, calling Mr. Wilkes to his face cowardly scoundrel, which you who represent monarchs, know, is not royal language. Mr. Wilkes, who, it seems, whatever may have been thought, had rather die compendiously than piece-meal, inquired of Mr. Martin by letter next morning, if he, Mr. Wilkes, was meant by him, Mr. Martin, under the periphrasis cowardly scoundrel. Mr. Martin replied in the affirmative, and accompanied his answer with a challenge. They immediately went into Hyde-park; and, at the second fire, Mr. Wilkes received a bullet in his body. Don't be frightened, the wound was not mortal-at least it was not yesterday. Being corporally delirious to-day, as he has been mentally some time, I cannot tell what to say to it. However, the breed will not be lost, if he should die. You have still countrymen enough left : we need not despair of amusement,

Here follows one method of measuring life's length. Still, a man's


is not to be counted by the number of summers or sovereigns he may have seen, but according to what he has done in the given time.

I have seen and remember so much, that my life already appears very long; nay, the first part seems to have been a former life, so entirely are the persons worn out who were on the stage when I came into the world. You must consider, as my father was a minister then, that I' almost came into the world at three years old. I was ten when I was presented to George I., two nights before he left England for the last time. This makes me 'appear very old to myself, and Methuselah to young persons, if I happen to mention it before them. If I see another reign, which is but too probable, what shall I seem then? I will tell you an odd circumstance. Nearly ten years ago I had already seen six generations in one fainily, that of Waldgrave. I have often seen, and once been in a room with, Mrs. Godfrey,

VOL. II. (1843.) No. 1V.


the occupiers build the same castles in the air. What is ours but the present moment? And how many of mine are gone! And what do I want to show you? A plaything-vision, that has amused a poor transitory mortal for a few hours, and that will pass away like its master! Well! and yet is it not as sensible to conform to common ideas, and live while one lives? Perhaps the wisest way is to cheat one's self. Did one concentre all one's thoughts on the nearness and certainty of dissolution, all the world would lie eating and sleeping, like the savage Americans. Our wishes and views were given us to gild the dream of life, and if a Strawberry Hill can soften the decays of age, it is wise to embrace it, and due gratitude to the Great Giver to be happy with it. The true pain is the reñection on the numbers that are not so blessed ; yet I have no doubt but the real miseries of life-I•mean those that are unmerited and unavoidable—will be compensated to the sufferers. Tyrants are a proof of an hereafter. Millions of men cannot be formed for the sport of a cruel child.

Art. XII.-Cant. A Satire. Darton and Clark, London. There are certain topics, the usual staple of demagogues and sceptics, on which while few can be original, all can be fluent; and while scarce one can say anything worth hearing, any one may secure an audience. It matters not, on a subject of this sort, that the speech or writing be in reality utterly worthless ;-let there but be a

profusion of party terms, and plenty of abuse, and all will go well. The grand requisite, besides hard names, is

some watchword for the fight,
To vindicate the wrong, and warp the right:
Some factious phrase by cunning caught and spread,

That guilt may reign and wolves and worms be fed." Let but these be supplied, and the "mobile vulgus,” to whom of course such productions must be almost exclusively addressed, will take assertion for argument, abuse for satire, falsehood for facts, and the whole vile compound of a seditious harangue, or an infidel pamphlet, for a masterpiece of argumentative eloquence or impassioned oratory.

On the effect of one--perhaps the most frequent and most mischievous of any of such watchwords, that of priestcraft-must the writer of this little book found his hope of its success ; and in the above-mentioned class, and therein only, must he expect to find approving readers. The title is a sad misnomer. There is not one particle of legitimate satire in the book. It consists of nearly a hundred pages of coarse and virulent invective against all churches and clergymen in the gross. It is full of scandalous misrepresentation, of impiety, and of personal, indecent, and abominable abuse. Part of it is mere simple folly, part falsehood, part low vitupera

[ocr errors]

tion,-and a very, very small part is good in design, and shows some
talent for versification in its execution. In proving by extracts the
justice of the epithets we have applied as generally characteristic of
the work, we declare seriously that we are about to select passages
almost at random. They are so crowded into every page, and all of
so sufficing a nature" each one seeming monstrous till its fellow
comes to match it”-that as it is impossible to find room but for a
small proportion, so there seems scarcely any reason for preferring
any given one to another. Some, however, we must give; and we
may as well take them in the order wherein we have mentioned the
qualities to which we object. We can take no rule from the work
itself, for we can find in it nothing approaching to a regular plan or
system-nothing which we can follow. It is, in fact, a lump of
First, then, for the misrepresentation :-

The child that dies uncrossed by Holy Ghost
Is taboo'd by our priest, and set down "lost;"
No tears can move, though parent bosoms swell;
Salvation's mute, and Satan tolls the bell !
Malignant priestcraft! that with soul austere
Will suffer not the little babe come near,
But spurns the blighted flower-to malice true,
Because it hath not sipp'd "salvation's dew;"
Because unsprinkled by thy hand it fled,

Thy hand that was against the infant dead.
Read the twenty-seventh article of our church. Baptism is there
called “ a sign of profession," "a mark of difference," and " a sign of
regeneration or new birth.” The last sentence is this : “ The Bap-
tism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church,
as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” Now what is
there here to bear out this maligner of religion and religious men in
his false and calumnious assertion ? We are told what baptism is;
firstly, a distinguishing mark of Christians ; secondly, a sign of re-
generation : and we are recommended to baptize children, as a custom
agreeable to scripture. Regarding the fate of infants dying before
the rite, the articles of our faith maintain, as does the Bible from
which they are derived, a solemn silence. And this is exactly what
might have been expected. Our duty, and the consequence of neg-
lect to ourselves, is clearly pointed out :--beyond this, as nothing is
necessary to our welfare, little is in this life made known to us.
The Bible was given to man to enable him to attain to that heaven
which his gracious Maker after the first fall, again placed within his
reach--not to satisfy the vain and restless longings of a morbid
curiosity. It tells us, therefore, whatever is requisite for that pur-
pose, and little if anything more. On extraneous points, such as
this, every man of proper feeling in religion, while permitting his

[ocr errors]

thoughts occasionally to recur to them with a reverential hope, that in due time he shall see his Maker “face to face," and understand what is now mysterious in his dealings with his creatures, will surely feel all too free inquiry checked by the authoritative demand, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" If our inference from the words of the article be not allowed as evident, we will refer to the admirable work of Bishop Burnet. “Our Saviour has made baptism one of the precepts, though not one of the means, necessary to salvation. A mean is that which does so certainly procure a thing, that it being had, the thing to which it is a certain and necessary mean is also had; and without it the thing cannot be had ; there being a natural connexion between it and the end : whereas a precept is an institution in which there is no such natural efficiency; but it is positively commanded, so that the neglecting it is a contempt of the authority that commanded it; and, therefore, in obeying the precept, the value or virtue of the action lies only in the obedience. This distinction appears very clearly in what our Saviour has said both of faith and baptism. He that believeth and is baptized, sha!! be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned

But this (baptism) being an action that is not always in our power, but is to be done by another, it were to put our salvation or damnation in the power of another, to imagine that we cannot be saved without baptism; and therefore it is only a precept which obliges us in order to our salvation; and our Saviour, by leaving it out when he reversed the words, saying only he that believeth not, without adding, and is not baptized, shall be damned, does plainly insinuate that it is not a mean, but only a precept in order to our salvation.” (Burnet, Art. 27.) We need not, surely, comment upon this. It is impossible for words to be plainer.

We cannot refrain from noticing an instance of similar want of candour; though, not having the work of Dr. Buckland at hand for references, we are unable to expose it in detail. The opening lines of our author are these :

When nature form'd this nebula of earth,

Millions of ages before man had birth. To which is appended the following note :

Compare the Rev. Dr. Buckland's account of the creation of the world with that of Moses, and decide as seemeth best, for Philosophy or Divinity. Comparing this with the general tenour and spirit of the work, we have ourselves no doubt that it is intended as a sneer at the Bible; but, at the least, it must be taken to mean that the discoveries of geological science are at variance with the Mosaic account of the creation. The chief objection of this kind, we believe, is that here hinted at; that portions of our globe exhibit to the geologist in their present

aspect, conclusive evidence of having existed from a date immensely anterior to that assigned by the Bible to the creation of the world and mankind; these being, it is asserted, by the narrative, apparently nearly cotemporary. In cases like this it is always well to set out the exact words whose meaning is disputed.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”(Genesis i. 1, 2.) The rest of the chapter gives an account of the six days of creation, the creation of man in the image of his Maker on the sixth, and the solemn sabbath, “when the morning-stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," on the seventh.

In reading this, the phrase in the beginning evidently gives us the possibility of as far-back an antiquity from whence to date the original creation of matter, as even the imagination can picture. On the other hand, when we are told, “and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;" we have nothing to fix the lapse of time between the two events—between the primary act of creative Omnipotence which called into being from nothing the materials, as yet without form and void, of what should one day be a world; and the second more beautiful, if not more wondrous exhibition of the Divine attributes, which reduced to shape the unwieldy mass, and clothed it with verdure, and peopled it with happy and sinless tenants, —and from the raw material of a chaos, produced the splendid manufacture of the habitable world. Let the period required by geologists, for the existence of matter prior to the usual date of the creation, to give time for the processes they trace, be what it may, there is room here to allow for it without the least stretch of probability or the least straining of the word. The sole thing indicated by the Bible is the priority of the one to the other. The interval between the two, as to which Scripture is silent, we learn from human science was, in all probability, extremely large. It may be said that such an explanation would not be admitted in any other work, and that is granted; but in a work so completely sui generis as the Bible, it is nothing to the purpose. The earlier portions of Scripture comprise the history of so vast a time in so small a compass that nothing can be gathered from their omissions. Whatever is actually stated in, or can be clearly deduced from the text, is of course indubitable, but beyond this it is not safe to venture. We will give a pretty strong instance of what we mean. The account of the parentage of Moses is thus given:-" And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi, and the woman conceived and bare a son." (Exodus ii. 2.) Who, at first sight, would not take it for granted that the son herg spoken of was

« VorigeDoorgaan »