averfion to controul. And he, who in one fituation cannot brook a fuperior, is certain in another to diflike being joined with an equal.Hence, what the prince, under a pure or a limited monarchy, is, by the conftitution of his country, the leader of a faction would willingly become in a republican government. For can you believe a popular reformer, or rather I fhould fay, a downright intemperate leveller, to be actuated by principles lefs arbitrary than a Cromwell or a Mirabeau?" P. 326.

In Letter 104 we have fome good remarks on luxury, and, in the fame, we have a hint given of the quality at least of Mr. S.'s correfpondent, if any fuch really exifted, p. 427.

In the 105th Letter Mr. S. is warm in expreffing his difapprobation of every kind of religious intolerance, as a fpecies of which he confiders our facramental teft. That Mr. S. is as inconfiftent in this part of his work as in others, it would be eafy to prove at large, and we might reft our proof briefly on the comparifon of two paffages at pp. 389 and 453, especially as Mr. S. is ftill, in this inftance alfo, very wide of the avowed object of his work. But, as the fubject is impor tant we shall fubjoin a few remarks.

Page 458, Mr. S. allows that "the rulers of a people have a right to choofe a religion, and to endow it. "But furely then they have a right to guard and protect their chofen and endow ed religion." But they have no right to impofe creeds."Suppofe fo: But if they have a right to choofe a religion, and endow it, furely they have a right to enquire into the creeds of individuals, if this be found neceffary for the prefervation of what they have chofen and endowed.

At p. 460 we are reminded that the Americans have decreed, "that no religious teft fhall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public truft under the United States," and that many other great nations have granted toleration, and

left the punishment of herefy and fchifm to the care of Heaven alone." But, to state this matter fairly, how is the Teft Act properly to be called a punishment? The "rulers of the people" here (that is the Legiflature of England), have judged it to be an indifpenfable guard to the Church they have thought fit to endow and establish, and to the religion which (according to their right, admitted p. 458) they have chofen, to exclude thofe difaffected to it from power and trust, and this not on conjecture only, let it be remembered, but in confequence of woeful experience. But is this any punifhment of those who differ from us? Is it fo meant by the Legiflature? "It would indeed be very unreasonable," fays Bishop Sherlock, "to beat a man beY y

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. IV. DEC. 1794,

caufe

caufe he has an infectious diftemper, yet it is very rea fonable to deny him a place in the family upon this account! in one cafe I fhould injure him-in the other I only take care of myfelf." And, again, "if there be no difference between perfecuting a man for his opinions, and fecuring myfelf against being perfecuted for my own, then, indeed, it is a perfecution to exclude men, for the fake of their diffaffection to the established Church, from civil power.-Perfecution, the Bishop adds, is an hard word, but when it comes from words to blows, it is an harder thing. The Church of England has felt it, and the has a fhort memory if the has already forgot what it is."

With refpect to the Sacramental Teft, the receiving of that rite, according to the form of the Church of England, is not required or taken to be a test to qualify a man, in confequence of the law, but his having received it within one year before election to an office (and this claufe of the act should be particularly remembered) is allowed to be a test of his being a fincere conformist, becaufe in its own nature it ought to be fuch a teft. It is not the qualification, but the proof of the qualification. If this operates as a restraint on individuals who diffent from us, furely it is alfo a restraint on the very head of the Church itself, in whom is lodged the power of difpofing of offices. See Bishop Sherlock's admirable treatife on this fubject*, which, extenfive as Mr. S.'s reading has been, we conceive, never fell in his way; otherwife, we are inclined to think, many parts, for their matchlefs force, might have found their way into his common-place book, and thence, poffibly, into the work before us; for, in order to make the most of his extenfive collection, we think Mr. S. fometimes capable (like the fatyr in the fable, to which he has alluded), of blowing hot and cold.

Much of the laft Letter is a confufed, and, in fome places, almost an unintelligible medley of things. It feems, we muft confefs, to be the remainder of fome literary repofitory which had not been found applicable enough to introduce elfewhere thus, at page 508, we have a ftory from Pagan hiftory given us, which appears to be inferted merely that it might not be loft.

Having now attended Mr. S. through the whole of his voluminous publication, we feel in fome degree competent to give a general opinion of it, which we mult confider as the

This Treatife was re-published in 1790, and fold by Meffrs. Rivingtons, Elmfly, &c. London; and Cooke, Oxford.

more

more neceffary, from our having had frequent occafion to vary our opinion of it, as we proceeded through the several volumes. In the 1ft, and part of the 2d, where Mr. S. confined himself to a detail of fuch difcoveries as had been made in natural knowledge, we were difpofed to confider the work as a valuable prefent to the public. When in the latter part of the 2d vol. we found Mr. S. difputing the authority of Mofes as an infpired writer, we held it fit to examine with care into his pretenfions to be a judge in this important matter, and we confess we were glad to find (as we think the establishment of this point to be of the moft weighty confequence) that our faith in this article was in no danger whatever of being fhaken by the arguments of Mr. S. either as a Naturalift or a Theologian. As it has been our endeayour through the work to anfwer Mr. S. as much as we could from his own writings, we hope this may be received as at least a fair proof of his inconfiftency as a reasoner :-of the extent of his knowledge as a Naturalist we have had other grounds to doubt *. The metaphyfical difcuffions in the 3d vol. &c. we have paffed haftily over, as containing nothing new, and the antiquities of the 4th and 5th as being very little connected with a " View of Nature." The 6th vol. though containing many valuable extracts from fome of the ableft defenders of Chriftianity, feemed to us, more than any of the reft, to be copied from a common-place book, and to have many things crowded into it, merely, as we observed before, that they might not be loft.

* Several things in the courfe of the work have led us to fufpect that Mr. S. is no profound Naturalift, though he has meddled fo much with the works of those that are. Some of his obfervations which have occafioned our doubts, we have noticed in their place; others we have paffed over; but we cannot avoid faying, that in his reference to the works of M. St. Pierre, Vol. II. and particularly in his adoption of his ftrange fyftem of the tides, he proves himself, to have no very found judgement in fuch fubjects, The works of M. St. Pierre referred to (Les Etudes de la Nature) are in very little repute among Naturalifts, and, in our opinion, defervedly fo, however they may have been received in the world as elegant writings. Such, in many refpects, they moft certainly are, and though no Naturalift, M. St. Pierre may deferve our regard as a ftrenuous (we wish he may have been a fincere) defender of Revelation, both as recorded in the Old and in the New Testament. We cannot forbear expreffing our earnest hope that his reverence for thefe facred and ineftimable books may have fome good effect in France, where he has very recently been appointed to the fuperintendance of the public fchools.

Whatever credit then may be due to Mr. S. for his labour and his intentions in prefenting the public with the fruits of his extenfive reading; whatever ingenuity he may have shown in bringing into a methodical form, this heap of detached materials; whatever there may be of entertainment and amufement fcattered through the work, and however much of real value he may have introduced from the very excellent writings to which he has had recourfe; yet we feel it incumbent on us to fay, there is ftill much to be found to which it would have become a wife and a confiderate man to have paid no attention; and much faid which fuch a perfon ought not to have faid. The epiftolary form in which thefe materials appear we apprehend to be only an adopted one. We cannot suppose that any perfon would be at the pains of copying so much from other authors (efpecially during a foreign tour), merely to entertain, or even to inftruct a diftant correspondent. The variety of books referred to, and the very recent publication of fome of them, confirm us in this opinion.

ART. XI. Corrections of Various Paffages in the English Verfion of the Old Teftament; upon the Authority of Ancient MSS. and Ancient Verfions. By the late W. H. Roberts, D. D. Proveft of Eton College. Publifhed by his Son, W. Roberts, M. A. Fellow of Eton College. 8vo. pp. 254. 55. Cadell, 1794.

THE Biblical Scholar will infallibly receive with pleasure

these remarks from a man of undoubted learning and ingenuity. The chief intention of Dr. Roberts, feems to have been that of leffening the number of words fupplied in Italic, in our public verfion, as not anfwering literally to any words in the Hebrew, by fhowing that in fome cafes they are neceffary, and that in fome the fenfe may be filled up from the Hebrew by other means. There are alfo, many remarks of a more general kind. It is curious to fee the different fpirit with which various men undertake the fame tafk. Some, from premises of much lefs ftrength, contend fiercely for the neceffity of a new version. Dr. Roberts, modeft and candid, fays, "whether it would be advifcable to produce a new tranflation of the Old Teftament for general ufe, I will not prefume to determine." To us it appears that, unlefs it could be thought defirable to have the fame talk frequently repeated, to which there are the most obvious and urgent objections, it will be neceffary

neceffary to wait till the obfervations of learned men to this intent, fhall not only have accumulated much more than at prefent, but till there fhall have been full time for them to be completely digefted and difcuffed. Dr. Roberts has here contributed his aid to the work, and his contribution will always be entitled to refpect. He confeffes that fince he made his obfervations and corrections, he has found that fome of them had also occurred to Houbigant and others: but he did not therefore determine to fupprefs them, wishing that they fhould become known to English readers, and confidering them as ftrengthened by fuch coincidence. We fhall lay before our readers a few fpecimens of Dr. Roberts's obfervations. "Exodus, vi. 8. "I am the Lord." The word am is neither in the Hebrew nor in any ancient verfion. God confirms the promife, and figns it, as it were, with his name; "I Jehovah ;" the fublimity is loft by the infertion of am." P. 15.

The following note on the errors and mifreprefentations of Voltaire, deferves attention.

"M. de Voltaire, fpeaking of the Jews, fays, "Cette nation n'étoit compofée que d'une feule famille, qui en deux cens cinque années produifit un peuple de deux millions de perfonnes: car pour fournir fix cent mille combattans, que le Gencfe compte au fortir de l'Egypte, il faut au moins deux millions de têtes. Cette multiplication contre l'ordre de la nature eft un des miracles que Dieu daigna faire en faveur des Juifs." (Vol. viii. p. 16, 4to.) What opinion M. de Voltaire had of miracles is well known. But in this paffage there are two mistakes; the former of which I believe to be accidental, and the latter wilful. Inftead of Genefis he fhould have faid Exodus ; that I conceive to be the accidental miflake: but when he fays, that there were fix hundred thousand combatants, and thence computes that there must have been two millions of people, in order to enhance the improbability, that I think was a wilful miftake. The account is this: and the children of Ifrael journied from Rameses to Succoth, about fix hundred thoufand on foot, that were men, befides women and children." Does it follow, that these fix hundred thoufand were all warriors? Does Mofes fay they were? But even fuppofing that they were, the increafe is not fo much against the order of nature, as M. de Voltaire is willing to make it. The Ifraelites were in Egypt about 210 years; M. de Voltaire acknowledges 205 years; now the perfons who came up into Egypt from Canaan, including Jofeph and his family, were feventy; befides the wives of Jacob's fons, and probably of his grandfons; for he was a hundred and thirty years old, wher he came into Egypt. And whoever confults Blackstone's Table of Collateral Confanguinity, in the fecond volume of his Commentaries, will find this increase not fo contrary to the order of nature.

* In the Arabic," I Jehovah will perform this."

I will