« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
is, that, like citizens of ancient Rome, on whatever region they might happen to be caft, they may find themselves at home.' When an Englishman is supposed not to know the terms of his own Law without an English Glossary, what can foreigners do! Mr. Lofft has not helped them to one !
We cannot but observe likewise, that he is much too technical and minute in his book De Leg. Angl. Commun. in treating of Burglary, Arfon, Larceny, Replevin, Trespass, &c. If what he has said of these, be Principia, as in a lax sense they may be so called, he might as well have given half Viner's Abridgment, or the Statutes at Large, as Elements of the Laws of England.Still less was there any reason for publishing them in Latin ; they are the Indigines of this country, and not likely to travel much abroad.
ÅRT. IX. The History of Lord North's Adminifiration, to the Difo. lution of the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain,
3 S. fewed. Wilkie. 1781.
HE time for an impartial history of Lord North’s Admi
nistration is not yet arrived. The minds of men are too much agitated by hopes and fears, opposition and resentment, to form a dispassionate judgment of recent transactions, The Writer of this history has defeated the claim which he might otherwise make to impartiality, by setting out with an unfair, illiberal account of the motives which firft engaged Mr. Wilkes in opposition to ministry, and of his consequent expulsion, &c. Among other things, having mentioned the illegal seizure of his papers, and arbitrary commitment of his perfon, without cenfure, or reflection of any kind, he says, ' This proceeding brought to light a licentious poem, equally replete with profaneness and obscenity. Every individual member of Adminiftration was locked at such flagitious impiety; and the offences of the man, in whose custody it was found, against his God and his King, were descanted upon with all the energy of virtuous reprobation in both Houses of Parliament. Even Mr. Wilkes's asłociates in those unhallowed orgies, which this poem was composed for the purpose of animating, declared their abhorrence of the crime. The discovery worked an immediate conversion on a noble Lord, who had heretofore been distinguished by his zelt for these profanations: with tears in his eyes, he read to the house the maledictory verses, and execrated them with all the fervour of new-born zeal.' If the Author intended this for irony, it is aukwardly introduced, and improperly expressed. If he meant to be understood seriously, he must either be a dupe himself, or intend to make his reader one.
The bulk of this history is little more than a detail of the arguments which have been advanced pro and con upon the ques
tions that have been agitated in. Parliament, from the commencement of Lord North's Administration, to the diffolution of Para liament in 1774. Sometimes even the names of the speakers are added ; at others they are omitted. The Writer is very sparing of his own reflections ; palling over much curious matter without remark, and closing the most interesting debates with a bare recital of the numbers that voted for and against the question. His language is in general plain and perfpicuous, but sometimes turgid and obscure. For instance, · Mr. George Grenville opposed the measures then pursued, although framed by the husband of his fifter : but his laboured researches were constantly nullified by the emanations of Mr. Pitt's enlightened mind.' Again, 'The boldness of this proceeding,' referring to the commitment of the Messenger of the House of Commons by the Lord Mayor and the, Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, in the affair of the Printers, The boldness of this proceeding, and the open defiance which was hurled at parliame tary privileges, when claimed independent of law, aftonished the nation ; whilst the indignation of the Houje at the insult which their officer had received, rose to a height that seemed to threaten severe chastisement to the MAGISTERIAL TRIUMVIRATE.'
But left we should be accused of selecting only the more faulty passages, we shall transcribe the following paragraph as a fair and even favourable specimen, both of the Author's language, and of the few reflections with which he has accompanied his narrative. It follows an account of the debates on the bill to regulate the East India Company in 1773. We are not answerable for the propriety with which it is there introduced.
• When the great Hampden contended with the Crown for the payment of forty Thillings, which he considered as illegally levied, it was not within the compass of human forefight to predict, that, in little more than a century, that noble zeal, in the fupport of the just rights of mankind, would be lost in this country. When the Parliament, after the peace of Ryswick, refused to comply with a request made by their King and Deliverer, that he might retain his Durch guards, the members who were then such austere guardians of liberty, against the incroachments of regal power, little thought, that even their fons might be senators, when Parliaments would become the mere echo of the Minister; and that the most essential alterations would take place in the conditions of the Prince and the People, without
alarm being excited, or the body of the nation having any apprehension of the change. But when the manners of a people alter, their form of government will undergo a corresponding modification. Simplicity and frugality embrace liberty as the parent of every blefling; refinement and luxury spread a general indifference among the people, they become blind to consequences,
and fegnent: in a general cause, which furnish Ministers with golden opportunities to effect their purposes. Savior armis luxuria incubuit.'
The Author professes to give the debates on the Petition of the Clergy in 1772, from minutes taken in the house at the time, and never before printed. He also claims a merit, which we shall not dispute, respecting the accounts he has given of the supplies and ways and means in each succeeding year. Upon the whole, we cannot consider this as a very excellent performance. It may, indeed, be of service, in refreshing the memory of those who have not an opportunity of consulting the Parliamentary or Annual Registers : but it is not calculated to afford the Reader a comprehensive view, or to enable him to form a sound judgment, of the measures and spirit of the Administration whose history it professes to recite.
Art. X. The Duration of our Lord's Ministry particularly considered :
in Reply to a Letter from Dr. Priestley on that Subject, prefixed 10 his English Harmony of the Evangelifts. By William Newcome, D.D. Bishop of Waterford.
2 s. fewed, Dublin printed, and fold by Longman in London. 1783. UR Readers will find an account of the occasion and rise
of this controversy in our Review of Dr. Newcome's Harmony of the Gospels *, and of Dr. Priestley's English Harmony of the Evangelifts t. In the Article last mentioned, we took particular notice of Dr. Priestley's Letter to his Lordship, to which the present publication is intended as a reply. In that letter the Doctor wished his Lordship to enter into an amicable discussion of the question relative to the duration of our Lord's ministry, and desired in particular to know in what light the most considerable of the arguments that he had alleged in fupport of Mr. Mann's hypothefis appeared to his Lordthip's mind. Accordingly the Bishop has here entered into a particular confideration of the subject, ftated the facts and circumstances upon which his opinion respecting the length of our Saviour's miniftry is founded, and made observations on some of the principal arguments of Dr. Priestley, as they affect either distinct portions, or the whole of the period that he has allotted to it. The facts and circumstances which his Lordship has here stated are chiefly repeated from the Notes subjoined to his Harmony. As we made some large extracts on this subject in our account of that learned and judicious publication, we shall confine our remarks at present to what his Lordship has further advanced in
* Review for O&tober 1779. Rev. June 1781.
+ Review for February last. FE
confirmation of his own sentiments, or by way of reply to Dr. Priestley.
His Lordship enters upon the subject with repeating his opi. nion respecting the commencement of the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Jesus, and endeavours to strengthen it with the authority of Lardner. He esteems it probable, that John began to preach when he attained his thirtieth year; that is, about fix months before Jesus's baptism ;' and fixes the birth of Jesus on the firft of October. Now,' says he, if Jesus began to be thirty years of age when he entered on his miniftry, it will follow from my hypothesis, that he was baptised in a serene I and temperate part of the year, fuited to the exercise of John's office as Baptist. And Lardner's words are , “ Near the end of the summer season, harvest and vintage being over, or near over, which was a time of general leifure, John began to preach and baptise.” From such probabilities and presumptions, I call them by no other name, I collect that Jesus entered on his ministry about fix months before that Paffover which is recorded John ii. 13, &c.' Here his Lordfhip has been guilty of an inadvertency, which we should not have expected in fo cool and deliberate a Writer. For, if John did not begin to preach and baptise till near the end of the Tummer season, Jesus, according to the hypothesis, was not baptised before the February or March of the following year. On the contrary, if, as it is more probable, Jesus was haptifed fix months before the Passover recorded John ii. 13. John must have begun to preach and bap. tise about the time of the preceding Paffover.
The next point which Dr. Newcome takes into consideration is, the part of our Lord's ministry comprehended between the Passover John ii. 13. and that feast of the Jews which St. John mentions ch. v. 1.: as to which he endeavours to prove that the fpace of fifty days is too short a period for the events included in it. He supports his opinion, among other confiderations, by insisting on the great probability that Jesus continued at Jerusalem all the eight days of the Paschal Feaft. And under this head, in answer to the objection made by Dr. Priestley to our Lord's purging the temple at this first Passover, from che bold, ness and provoking nature of the action, his Lordship has the following observations:
• The“ bolder *” his action of purging the temple was, the greater is the praise of his fortitude. But I much doubt whe, ther it was the most * provoking of any thing that he ever did, respecting the Jewish rulers.” It was interpreted by them as an affertion that he was a prophet. Then answered the Jews and
I See Macknight's Harmony, i. 149. 2d edit.
faid unto him, What + sign Shewest thou' untà us, seeing that thou doeft these things? Jesus had not yet contradicted their preju. dices relating to the Messiah : and the question seems to be put without asperity. They might be affected by this part of Jesus's conduct, not only because he thus assumed a prophetic character, but because he might, posibly, obstruct the gain which arose to them from letting out the courts of the temple to prophane uses, and might be understood as indirectly reproving their avarice and impiety. But what appeared on the face of the action was highly laudable; an extraordinary zeal for God and his temple.'
" It is true, that, during the last week of our Lord's life 1, when the Scribes and Chief Priests heard, that he had cleansed the temple, they fought how they might destroy him. But according to my ftate of facts, circumstances were then widely different.'
And, as it is an important point in the history of our Lord, I with that those who maintain only one cleansing of the temple, would direct their attention to a circumstance which I have omitted in the Notes on my Harmony, where I treat this subject at large : I mean, the different conduct of the Jews, when they asked Jesus, What s fign Mewest thou, seeing that thou doeft these things? and when for the same action they fought how they might * destroy him. The sentiments of the Jewith Rulers seem more favourable to Jesus at the first Passover than at the last. Rabbi, fays Nicodemus, himself a Ruler, WE KNOW that thou art a Teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doelt, except God be with him.'
Upon this reasoning, as far as it is intended to prove, that Jesus purged the temple twice, we beg leave to remark, that according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a question very similar to What sign thewest thou, &c. was put to our Lord by the Jews almost immediately after that action, and with an undoubted reference to it, viz. By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? The rancour of the Jewish rulers in general would, it is probable, increase by continued oppofition. On the contrary, we know that Nicodemus maintained a favourable opinion of Jesus, even after his crucifixion : and St. John has informed us, that many of the chief Rulers believed on him, though the fear of being put out of the Synagogue prevented them from openly profesling themselves bis difciples.
Under the next subject of debate, the continuance of Jesus in Judea after the firit Passover, the Bishop discusses a curious incidental question, respecting the comparative number of dis
+ John ii. 18.
John ii. 13.
| Mark xi. 18. Luke xix. 47.
* Mark xi. 18. Ff 2