« 上一頁繼續 »
The latter place is the crypt (if I may be allowed the term) upon which the Chapel of Lincoln's Inn is built, originally designed for a promenade. The terms Cross-legg'd Knights," and "Knights of the Post," are, I believe, well enough understood to require no explanation. E, I. C.
Mr. URBAN, Durham, June 5. T may be said, and truly so, that an
to express his opinion publicly upon any subject connected with the public good; but still there is something impolitic (not to say presumptive) in starting objections against a system of religious and moral instruction, which has been organized and matured by the wisdom of our best Counsels. However well I may feel disposed to think of the sincerity of those political speculatists, who imagine that such institutions are productive of mischief, I cannot but deprecate, at the same time, the impropriety of treating a subject of the gravest nature with so much levity as has been done on some recent occa sions.
To characterize education as the fountain from whence disaffection and Radicalism take their rise, is going a little too far. Every general good may be said to have its particular evil, and this admitted, it consequently follows that Education ought not to be an exception; but then what is the inference? Is it wise to sacrifice the general good to the extirpation of the partial evil, and in trying the experiment adventure upon the possibility only of effecting it? By suspending Education we know we diminish knowledge, but can we at the same time assure ourselves that we diminish crime in proportion? The bare uncertainty ought to command the most serious consideration. It is by Do means a harmless experiment; because, should we prove unsuccessful in the attainment of the object, inevitable mischief must be the consequence of the failure. Would it be reason sufficiently conclusive to abolish some of our humane institutions, the pride and glory of our country, because it may be proved that a few mischievous individuals have wantonly abused them? and would any man venture so far from reason and candour, as to blame the
institution for the abuse committed? yet something of analogy to this seems to be the reasoning of these "fanciful theorists," who will have nothing short of ignorance as the anodyne plaster to heal up the sore of disaffection. But with respectful deference to their opinions, I think it may be shown that Education is not the part to be blamed; and I think it may too, en passant, be
propose would have the effect of curing the evil they complain of
Your Correspondent Mr. Gilchrist, of Newcastle, has very ably defended the principle of National Schools with his opinion I cordially agree: for what, I would ask, is there in the education of a Charity School that deserves the imputation of crime? What is the pious lessons of such a School that can give a leaning to infidelity or licentiousness? Does the Bible inculcate vice; or are the prin ciples of the institution such as to train youth up in rebeliion or disloyalty? Do not the very books from which their minds are formed, instil doctrines directly opposite, good morality, passive obedience, and sound religion? Are not the founders of these Schools men of wisdom, property, and character? Can they be supposed to encourage the evils complained of? They have property to protect; so that it becomes their interest as well as their duty, to tranquillize the country; and must they then be suspected of promoting what in fact must be their utmost wish to suppress? or can it be imagined that our Church dignitaries, whose greatest care is to protect Christianity, and by every means to disseminate its doctrines throughout the nation, would thus sow the seeds of irreligion, were they conscious that such was the fact, or that National Schools had, in the smallest degree, such a tendency?
The opinion delivered by the Bishop of London at a late Anniversary Meeting, ought to be considered good authority, and is decidedly in favour of these Schools; he mentioned a remarkable fact at that Meeting, which ought not to be overlooked by those who may have withheld their patronage from Charity Schools, because of their supposed evil tendency; he said that however crime might not appear to have diminished, since the institution
institution was founded, yet the cause was found to be quite remote from Education; and, as a proof, he referred to two high authorities, one of which stated that out of 400 juvenile delinquents, only two had been educated at the National Schools. In short, if one proof stronger than another is wanted to show the efficacy of national instruction as a national advantage, it may be found in its patrons. We may all remember the opinion on this bead of our late beloved and pious Monarch, when he said, "Let every poor child in the kingdom be instructed to read the Bible." We happily see the same charitable sentiment descend to his children; and it is no little recommendation to this enlightened country to see our Royal Family take the lead in promoting an Institution so congenial to its welfare, and so truly laudable in its design.
A CLERGYMAN OF
On the Extent of the Historic Relation, in discovering and marshalling the Subjects of Human Knowledge. (Continued from p. 504.)
HUS, men baving once lost their way, it became a question, or matter of research and discovery, to know "Wherein consists virtue? What is happiness, conscience," &c. I can compare all this uproar and hubbub of the Sceptics to nothing else than to the confusion of tongues in the Tower of Babel. What shall we think of Hume writing a treatise upon Religion, and the professing to do it, without the assistance of the very faculty that is solely and exclusively appropriated to it? As much as the eye and light are necessary to vision, are faith and the scripture to Religion. But (in principle), conscience, virtue, happiness, are, from first to last, if not different energies of one and the same faculty, discoverable as well as connected and made manifest by one governing relation. In the confusion and disorder of our condition arising from the repeated fall and degradation of human nature, proved both by historical tradition, and historical analysis, the matter of divine truth being no more communicated rapidly and instantaneously along one chain-we are wandering
in the dark: and the chain once broken, all is puzzle and inconsistency-when man once departs from the historical order.
Thence arose the necessity of enumerating in a category, the broken parts of truth. Analysis has been made of happiness in this way: "It consists," say they, "first, in right opinions-then in active exertion or occupation:"-next in attaining the object of such exertions" or success :
next (proh! pudor) “in the testimony of a good conscience;" finally in the "just estimation of us by others," ratifying that testimony. But, the governing principle being once lost (indeed it is not so much as named or recollected in this eaumetion) men were reduced in their speculations to a dry comparison, and weighing which of the above ingredients are the most valuable to hap piness-since they had no principle that could unite them all, and preserve them in ONE. In this storm of philosophy, some of these categories were therefore thrown overboard, to save the remainder, Or rather each ther principle, using it as a plank on person seised, some one, some anowhich to swim ashore:-That isupon the separation and analysis of the component parts of happinessTHIS man attached himself to one principle,-THAT to another—and so on-but each principle in exclusion of the rest.
The Epicurean system chose bodily pleasure (under temperance to economize its waste) requiring tranquillity and repose: of course not to be harmed, or thought ill of, or little of, by others. The Stoics, absolute independence of pain and opinion: the object of the Epicurean being to secure pleasure, of the Stoic to do without it. Plato at the head of the academicians made happiness consist in contemplation and discourse or study, with a perfect discipline in the tactics of speculation. Not knowing, authentically, the governing principle, but having heard of it, he elevated SoCRATES with some imaginary attributes, no doubt, into the supreme earthly governor, and the head of his monarchy: For such it was, though it is translated republic: and
oila means neither. It signifies "civil polity." He required, as the head of his monarchy, such a man as SOCRATES,
SOCRATES, a man whom while living, no one, not even the state, could put to silence: a man to be armed with Sovereign power over the opinions of men, supported by the invincible infantry of a well-disciplined, and veteran sophistry.
So far went the most celebrated antient systems: but the Scripture, old and new, having removed this pagan darkness-the modern Philosophers shutting the eye of the soul to this divine luminary, and having thereby lost the historical clue, feil into an uproar, about "What is become of Virtue? Why do we approve of it? What is it?" I should be inclined to answer one question by asking another: aud to say to a man who can gravely put such a question: Do you approve of it? First, answer me that? For the contrary is very presumable from so sceptical a state of mind. Do you think there can be any such thing? First, let us ascertain the existence of that fact, before we run after the reasons of it.
They answer, however, to their own question: We approve of virtue, 1. "Because it is obeying the will of the Deity as a Law-giver." They knew that such a reason as this, without showing his relation to us, and his revelations, would not have much weight with their audience. they accordingly follow this answer up by an objection ready prepared and fatal to it; where they say, "But what authority have we to say that it is his will? Why is it his will? And further-is a thing good or bad, merely because it is positively enjoined, or positively forbidden? There
must be some distinction between virtue and vice, independent of the command of a superior."
The wonderful discovery that philosophers (following what they call natural religion only) have bere made
"that there must be some real distinction between virtue and vice," shows how insensible they were of the immense circumambient truth-these blind guides were groping their way in quest of a splendid meteor-hoping that some fallen star would restore them to light, when they could not perceive that of the great sun of truth itself.
The next step was to maintain that the real distinction is not in the things themselves-but wholly in our rea
son and feelings. So ALISON has written two volumes to show that beauty and sublimity are not in the objects themselves but in the mind of the observer; that they excite an emotion analogous to them, (that is, in their character,) and a train of thought, that is-that they make us think of something else. In another place, he says they are analogous to the emotion of some simple passion, as innocence, tenderness, &c. Also "as in having unity, a uniform principle of connection," (this by the way is historical.) In another place he reduces them "to the exercise of imagination, ascribing them to association (which is again historical), affirming that we have no such faculty as an internal sense, called taste.
All this is merely because LOCKE had said that beat is not in the fire, but in the percipient: and SMITH and HUME that morality was not in the actions themselves!
However, as HUTCHESON had reminded the world of something like a moral sense, called by Bishop BUTLER Conscience Professor MILLAR thinks it necessary to announce to us that this is establishing a new and very important advance in the enquiry!
Still Millar objects to the appellation of conscience, which he says "is confined to a man's own actions." But I presume, as mankind are made up of men--if every man has this faculty, and knows that every other has the same faculty, analogous in his operations to his own-we may thus apply it to other men's actions also.
A further step was to analyse this reason or feeling-for as to any sense, that was given up by all the philosophers. HUME reduces it to an inference drawn of utility, meaning interest all the while, to which it has been not ill objected:-1. That this at least supposes too artificial and deliberate a process of computation, for our moral judgments-which are instantaneous: -2. That his proportions and degrees of estimation are wholly different from, and contradictory to, the most common experience of all mankind.
Adam Smith, as we have already observed, has resorted to propriety or suitableness, regulated by sympathy. But what regulates sympathy again? Or why is that right that is universally
universally sympathized with, as suitable? Why is it suitable? His theory is something like the explication of the Indian philosopher. "The world is supported on the back of an clephant, that on a tortoise," &c. But it has been shown how the principles of morals are founded on the hitherto immutable historic relations of this world: and, in the next section, it will be shown that those of taste are, alike, founded on them.
(To be continued.)
Mr. URBAN, THE "faint praise" of your Correspondent in pages 414 and 415, I will not atone for a somewhat more than insinuation that I have not been actuated by a due regard for literary truth, in two instances, mentioned by me in the Pastoral Address, which you lately honoured with insertion.
A man, methinks, should be very cautious in declaring his "belief" respecting any circumstance, "that it is not correctly cited as to facts," till he be sure that he is right in his allegation. Equally cautious should he be in requiring another "to quote fairly," till a contrary act have been proved. Equally cautious should he be, in assuming so much to himself as to say "there is great reason to suppose it will be found," that the person whom he arraigns "has been led into a mistake, which it were desirable should have been avoided," till such mistake can be made manifest. Equally cautious should he be, how he calls upon that person to “reflect upon the danger of mis-quotation," till he be quite certain that the crime has been committed; and also how he presumes that the supposed culprit will be glad of an opportunity of removing an objection to the mode which he has thought proper to adopt," till that objection be proved to exist. That I am wronged by your anonymous Correspondent, will be demonstrated presently: and although I sincerely forgive the wrong, yet do I feel it a duty which I owe to my character and to myself, and more especially the great cause of Truth, to speak thus strongly on the subject.
Now, behold, Sir, my vouchers for the two Anecdotes, of which your Correspondent says, "he believes
that neither the one nor the other are" (18) " correctly cited as to the facts."-For that relative to King Edward VI. see "Lessons for Young Persons in humble Life," p. 144; also True Stories, or interesting Anecdotes of Young Persons," p. 7. The former work purports, among other things, to consist of well-authenticated instances of piety and virtue:" and the latter is compiled in too conscientious a spirit to deceive. Both
these Volumes are excellent; and were prepared, I am credibly inform ed, under the superintendance of a man who merits the gratitude of his country for what he has done,-especially to facilitate the education, and to improve the morals of the rising generation, Lindley Murray, Esq. The circumstance of the young King is also mentioned, as I have cited it, in Buck's Anecdotes, vol. II. p. 7.
My authority for the second Anecdote, respecting Dr. Johnson, confirmatory of what I have heard from many other persons, is as follows:
"At a General Meeting of the Inhabitants of the City of York and its vicinity, held on the 29th of January, 1812, &c. (the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor in the Chair), Martin Stapylton, Esq. in an opening Speech, fraught with much additional interesting information, said, 'It may not be inapplicable to the subject in discussion, to relate a circumstance which occurred in the last illness, and which, though I have frequently mentioned it in conversation, was never inserted in any of the various compilations of the Life, of the late learned, good, and truly pious Dr. Johnson. A friend of mine, who sat up with him during the night, was called to his bed-side, and addressed to this purport: Young man, (said the dying Moralist), attend to the advice of one who has possessed a certain degree of fame in the world, and will shortly appear before his Maker. Read the Bible every day of your Life.""-York Herald.
Such, Sir, are my authorities for the two Anecdotes, concerning which the writer of whom I complain, bas thought proper to call my veracity in question. Whether or no I complain without cause, your Readers will determine: or, whether I have "quoted fairly" or not, they will easily be enabled to judge, by colJating the Anecdotes as they appear in my Address, and in the publica. tions to which I have referred.
That your respectable pages should
not be made the vehicle of error, it was equally your duty to afford space for the charges of my accuser, as it will be your pleasure, I know, to afford me an opportunity of thus rebutting them. But, as I do not think "an enemy hath done this," I am not afraid to leave the adjudication of my cause to the arraigner himself; not doubting but he will now a-ward me a different verdict to the one which he prematurely recorded against me. Though his visor, like mine, is not up (for 1 scorn to assail any one under a mask), and though we have hitherto crossed lances rather as enemies, that we may part as friends, and that no surmise may lead me to suppose he had some meaning "never meant," to use his own phrase," one word more," Mr. Urban: when he says, "the less temporal concerns are mixed with spiritual, the better; let the Clergy forsake all other but those pursuits which belong to their sacred character, and not mix up politicks and police with the worship of the Supreme Being, and the study of his Laws;"-does he mean this to apply to any part of my Pastoral Address? If he do not, he will allow me to ask, whether the casual reader can avoid so to apply it, following, as it does, something like reprehension uttered against me. If he do mean it personally, it is not too much to require of him to point out the part of that Address to which it is applicable. If he mean what is there said concerning the mischiefs which have been so extensively wrought by infidelity, disloyalty, and disaffection, and the exhorting my flock, while they abhor such baneful evils, to pity and pray for the infatuated persons who are tainted with them, I am just as reprehensible as Solomon and an Apostle, who exhort mankind to "fear God, to honour the King, and not to meddle with them that are given to change." Whether, when against God and his Church, as well as against the King and the peace of his realm, the Anarchist, the Parodist, the Deist, and the Atheist, seemed leagued in one common confederacy; for, it was at such a portentous time that the Address was written,-whether, as the sacred guardian of a large and populous Parish, I exceeded the line of my duty, by an adoption of GENT. MAG. Suppl. XC. PART I.
the language I then used, it becomes not me to form an opinion. But were to conclude, from the reception with which the Address has been honoured, by, perhaps, not fewer than 20,000 copies of it being printed,-something like a gratifying emotion must visit my breast. Besides the permanent form it has received by being admitted into your standard Volumes, and some of the other respectable Publications of the country, besides a large impression for the use of my own Parish, several highly-esteemed characters, some at a great distance from nie, have requested permission to multiply copies of it, for gratuitous distribution in their respective neighbourhoods. "At this I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice:" but God forbid that I should glory, save in his gracious goodness, who has been pleased thus extensively to bless it so far beyond my humble expectations. LUKE BOOKER.
cannot help thinking that there is no such feeling in nature.
In my search after Conscience, I began with Statesmen; I could find nothing like it among them; one said he had heard of it, and another said, that, upon the faith of vulgar report, he had often ventured to mention Conscience in his speeches as a thing he possessed; but God knows, added he, I had no more Conscience at that time than cash; but my constituents and the Publick, poor fools! gave me credit for both.
Another great man wanted to do a little action,-Conscience put itself in his way; he could not pass, he tried the right side, that would not do, though he might have passed if he chose; for it is always safe to keep by the right side of Conscience, in all cases where it has a right side. He tried on the left side,-that would not do; Conscience baffled all his eudeavours. What to do he knew not.
At length he made a balloon of his Speeches, and got over Conscience; but Conscience still pursues him, and swears by the L-d, that she will come up with him.
I once thought that Conscience was to be found among the Members in