Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

[ ]

THE

CRITICAL REVIEW

For the Month of January, 1779.

Sermons on feveral Subjects, by Zachary Pearce, D. D. late Lord Bishop of Rochester. Published from the original Manufcripts, by John Derby, M. A. 4 vols. 8vo. il, 1s. in boards. Robinson.

TH

HE name of bishop Pearce is respectable in the republic of letters. His reputation as a critic and a divine is eftablished, by his accurate editions of fome of the claffics, his theological tracts, and his Commentary on the four Evangelifts. The learned world will therefore undoubtedly be anxious to fee this collection of Sermons, which may be fuppofed to contain an excellent defence of Chriftianity, or af leaft a rational illuftration of fome of its most important doctrines.

The reader however is informed, that' none of thefe difcourses, except those on natural and revealed religion in the first volume, and thofe on popery in the fourth, appear to have been defigned for publication.' On this account he must not expect to find in every one of them an equal degree of accuracy and precifion. The ableft writer, when he is compofing a fermon for a popular audience, is apt to treat the fubject in a more flight and fuperficial manner, than he would do, were he at that time profeffedly addreffing himself to the literati. But in thefe hafty compofitions a learned, fenfible, and experienced writer will fuggeft many fentiments and obfervations, which are worthy of notice, and much too valuable to be fuppreffed.

* See Crit. Rev. vol. xliii. p. 112..

VOL. XLVII. Jan. 1779.

B

In

In his first difcourfe his lordship endeavours to establish tha fundamental article of all religion, the existence of a Deity: The arguments, which he produces in fupport of this point, are fuch as have indeed been repeatedly advanced; but as they are in themselves important, and very clearly ftated, our readers will not be displeased with the following extract.--- Having obferved, that there muft either have been from all eternity an infinite fucceffion of men, without any original cause; or, that there has exifted fome other Being, which was the original cause of the beginning of mankind; and having fhewn, that the firft is abfurd, he proceeds in this manner:

* "

[ocr errors]

• First we have the general confent of all the most ancient writers in favour of this notion, that mankind began to exist at fome period of time. Many of the heathen philofophers, efpecially the earlieft, taught "that God made the world out of water a doctrine which plainly attributes a beginning to mankind. And this opinion of theirs, that the world was framed out of water, feems to be taken from what Mofes fays, that the fpirit of God at the creation moved upon the face of the waters; which St. Peter expreffes almoft in the words of the ancient philofophers, when he fays, that by the word of God the heavens and the earth (which is the Jewish phrase for the world) were of old standing out of the water † (or rather made of the water) as the words more literally rendered fignify .'

Here our author fuppofes, that the heathen philofophers took their notion of the beginning of the world from Mofes. But this, we apprehend, invalidates his argument; by placing this notion on the authority of a Jewish writer, and not reprefenting it as the effect of univerfal confent.

If it should be objected, that Mofes, as an infpired writer, was the only perfon, who could give any account of the creation, we answer: that this objection takes for granted what cannot be proved. We do not know how far our first parents might be acquainted with fome particulars, relative to the cofmogony. At least, which is all our argument requires, they might have certain grounds to believe, that the earth was newly created, or that they were the firft inhabitants. In this cafe fome vague traditionary accounts of the creation would naturally be tranfmitted from father to fon, in all civilized nations. His lordship, therefore, like many other writers, pays a compliment to Mofes, which is probably groundless, as well as injurious to his argument.---He proceeds:

*Tillotson, vol. i. fol. p. 9. Cic. de Nat. Deor. 1. i. 6, 10% 2 Pet. iii. 5.

‡'E§ Udalos auresão, Tillots. vol. i. fol. p. 8.

⚫ We

We have a second strong argument to prove, that mankind has not exifted from all eternity, because we have plain footfteps of the peopling the world by degrees within the compafs of a few thousands of years paft. Men, well versed in ancient history, can trace the arrival of almost every particular people into that part of the earth where it now inhabits: fome nations by degrees have moved farther weftward, others to the fouth, and others to the north, all fetting out from the eaftern countries, where Mofes affures us, and we Chriftians believe, that mankind had its beginning in our first parents. Whereas, if men had exifted from all eternity, the whole earth must have been peopled millions of ages before the date which our hif torical records bear; and, no place, after fo long a series of time, could have been left uninhabited within the compass of the last fix thousand years.

A third circumftance to prove this, is the progrefs of the feveral arts and sciences among mankind; which we can clearly trace backwards, and find the original of, at the distance of no more years than are affigned in the fcriptures for the age of the world.

[ocr errors]

But, if mankind had no beginning, all thofe arts and fciences must have been invented and perfected long before any remembrance of the hiftories which we now have: unless we will be fo unreasonable as to fuppofe, that from eternity, till within the compass of the last fix thousand years, the inhabitants of this earth were all ftupidly ignorant, and incapable of any invention and improvement in knowlege.

And to thefe proofs, I may add one more circumftance no lefs convincing, viz. that there are extant neither hiftories, nor records, nor even traditions of any actions of heroes, lawgivers, or other celebrated men, before that time, which we ufually fix upon for the infancy of the world. And it would be very ftrange, that all memory fhould be loft, that no footfteps fhould remain of this fuppofed eternal race, if it were true that there never was a time when that race of men did not live and flourish here on earth.

• Unbelievers may fuppofe, if they will, that all these four circumftances have been brought about by fome univerfal deluge, which happened once or at feveral times within the compafs of eternity, and swept away the whole body of mankind, except a very few, and thofe of the moft ignorant fort: able indeed to recover the race of mankind, but unfkilled to recover any of the arts or fciences, and retain any knowlege of what was pat. But an univerfal deluge is one of the greatest miracles: fuch as could not happen without the power of fome fuperior Being to bring it on; and the fuppofition of this is in effect giving up the point. Has not Mofes given us an account of one fuch deluge? and does not he introduce God himself as the author of it? and did ever any writer attempt to folve the poffibility of it, without fuppofing, that the common courfe of nature (which we call the

[blocks in formation]

:

laws of nature) was fome, how changed, a thing to be accom plished only by a Being fuperior to nature? fo that to talk of a general deluge, is to allow the being of a God; for the confequence must be that, whether they will fee it or no. Befides, of one general deluge we have an account in Mofes's writings and did that deluge destroy the knowledge of all that preceded it, as the objection requires? no: for we are ftill acquainted with many things done before that time: many inventions then first put in practice are remembered even now, and they are afcribed to the true original difcoverers of them. So that should the fuppofition of feveral fuch univerfal deluges be true, yet nothing would be gained thereby, to fhew, that there might have been an eternity of ages, in which mankind exifted, before the prefent account which we have of things in the world."

1

In this paffage the notion of an univerfal deluge, or feveral local deluges, abolishing all the records and monuments of preceding ages, is very properly expofed

The author proceeds to fhew, that the Deity exercifes what divines call an actual providence in the world. Among other arguments in defence of this article, he infifts, that the powers of attraction and gravitation are proofs of God's conftant and immediate agency. This is a notion, we confefs, which is maintained by many eminent writers; but as inconclufive, as it would be to affert, that the going of a clock is owing to the conftant and immediate agency of the maker.

In the third difcourfe his lordship produces the most obvious and fatisfactory arguments, which reafon affords, in favour of a future ftate. In the fourth, he points out the chief of thofe duties, to which we are directed by the light of nature, or, in other words, the obligations of natural religion. In the fifth he confiders the nectary and unavoidable imperfections of that religion, which reafon alone teaches us; and fecondly its accidental ones.

Its neceffary defects he reduces to thefe three heads: that men, under the direction of reafon only, wanted authority to commence inftru&tors; that this religton did not, and could not poffibly, discover to men, that God would affift them towards the difcharge of their duty with his grace and divine help; and lastly, that it did not, and could not find out for men a ny method of reconciling God to them, whenever they had offended him by their tranfgreffions.

On the last of thefe topics he argues in this manner : repentance is but after-wifdom, it alters nothing of paft faults, it is not the undoing of what has been done amifs; and ftri&t juftice, fuch as naturally belongs to God, knows no

other

other rule, than that of rendering to every man according to his works.'

[ocr errors]

This is furely an injurious reprefentation of God, and the moral conftitution of the univerfe. Repentance, it is true, cannot undo what has been done amifs;' but it may render the finner an object of mercy; and it cannot be fuppofed, that God is inexorable; or, that he created a world of frail and peccable beings, with a determination to exclude repentance, and punish them with everlast ng deftruction for one tranf greffion. This would leave no room for the exercife of his ' patience, forbearance, and mercy; it would annihilate his moft amiable and endearing attributes; and contradict all our ideas of his goodness and benignity, which we derive from the contemplation of his works.

The author intimates, that Chriftianity alone difcovered the means of reconciling God to mankind. But the fcripture places the matter in a very different light; informing us, that God was in Chrift reconciling the world unto himself *; or, that He was uniformly gracious, and man only eftranged and alienated from virtue, and his Creator.-It is ufually faid, that our Saviour gave repentance its efficacy. But no fuch doctrine is any where taught in fcripture. The uniform language of divine revelation is this: When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedne's, and doth that which is lawful and right, he fhall fave his foul alive.' And the dictates of reafon are perfectly agreeable to this reprefentation. We therefore cannot but conclude, that his lordship exaggerates the imperfections of natural religion.

From natural religion his lord fhip proceeds to confider the excellence, and the evidences of Chriftianity.

In recounting thefe evidences he fhews, that the books of the New Teftament were written by thofe perfons, whofe names they bear; that their account is a faithful one; and that their writings are come down to us, not only uncorrupted, but fo far unaltered, as to be the very fame, in the main, with what came out of the hands of the facred writers.

It is asked by way of objection, that if the Chriftian revelation came from God, why did it come fo late? why was it not given to all nations? How happens it, that Chriftians differ to widely about the meaning of the facred books? and how comes it, that is has not had all its proper effect in reforming the world ?

See 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20.

Rom. v. 10. Col. i. 20, 21.

« ForrigeFortsæt »