Page images

by which she was to have been placed on a throne to which the bad neither inclioation nor preten fons, and by means unknown to her. felf. She was the only child of Charles Stuart, fifth Earl of Len, nox, (uncle to James Í. and great-grandson to Henry VII.) was born about the year 1578, and brought up in privacy under the care of her grandmother, the old Countess of Lennox, who had for many years resided in England. Her double relation to royalty was equally obnoxious to the jealousy of Elizabeth and the timidity of James, and they secretly dreaded the supposed danger of her leaving a legitimate offspring. The former therefore prevented her from marrying Eafme Stuart, her kidsman, and heir to the titles and estates of the family, and afterwards imprisoned her for liften. ing to some overtures from the son of the Earl of Northumberland; the latter, by obliging her to reject many splendid offers of marsiage, unwarily encouraged the hopes of inferior prerenders, among whom, as we may fairly infer from fome passages in this collection, was the fantastical William Fowler, secretary to Anne of Denmark. Thus circumscribed, the renewed a childish connection with William Seymour, grandson to the Earl of Hertford, which was disco. vered in 1609, when both parties were summoned to appear before the Privy Council, and received a severe reprimand. This mode of proceeding produced the very consequence which James meant to avoid; for the lady, sengble chat her reputation had been wounded by this inquiry, was in a manner forced into a marriage, which becoming publicly known in the course of the next Spring, the was committed to close custody in the house of Sir Thomas Parry at Lambeth, and Mr. Seymour to the Tower. In this state of feo paration, however, they concerted means for an escape, which both effected on the same day, June 3, 1611, and Mr. Seymour got safely to Flanders; but the poor lady was retaken in Calais Road, and imprisoned in the Tower ; where the sense of these undeserved opprefsions operating too leverely on her high spirit, she became a lunatic, and languished in that wretched state, augmented by the horrors of a prison, till her death on the 27th of September 1615."

Mr. Lodge is the more circumstantial in his account of this lady, because of some different representations in regard to her perfon, which have been made in the Biographia Britannica, and which he thinks sufficiently confuted by the engraving affixed to this volume, and by the letter to which his note immediately belongs. If the painter did not Alatter her, the was indeed a very fine woman; and her letters, inserted in this collection, thew that she was both sensible and sprightly.

The Introduction to this work ends with the following lines :

« The editor here concludes a task which hath occupied most of his leisure time for some years. With no great dread of censure, with smaller pretensions to praise, with no affe&ation, however, of indifference, as to that little portion of credit which his humble labours may deserve, he prefents to the public a collection of the works of others. For the series of ancient papers which is here brought to light he asks no favours. The notices which he has pre


fomed to add to those respectable pieces, may perhaps ftand in need of much indulgence. Doubtless many errors will occur in numerous details of minute circumstances, abounding with names and dates. He will be thankful for candid correction.' “ We regard the editor's notes as a great improvement to this publication, which is in itself entertaining and valuable. Nu. merous readers will no doubt think themselves indebted to him for his accurate labours. Indices, tables of papers, explanations of terms, &c. add to their accommodation; and the prints will increase their amusement and pleasure.

Art. Il. Miscellanics, Philofophical, Medical, and Moral. Con

taining, 1. Observations on the Literature of the Primitive Chrif. rian Writers. II. Reflections suggested by the Character of Pamphilus of Cæsarea. III. Hints respecting the State and Education of the People. IV. Thoughts on the Origin of Human Knowledge, and on the Antiquity of the World. V. Remarks on Profeffor Meiners's History of Antient Opinions respecting the Deity. Ví. Account of Dr. Ellis's Work on the Origin of Sa. cred Knowledge. 8vo. Pp. 442. 4o. Boards. Nicol. 1792*. He enemies of political reformation have industriously re

presented modern innovations in policy, as the effect of seligious incredulity; and have taken pleasure in promiscuously branding the present race of reformers with the odious appellations of infidels and atheists. The volume now before us furnishes one fact, among many others which might be mentioned, in refutation of this ground less charge. It is written, as we are assured, by Mr. Thomas Christie, to whom the public are obliged for a judicious account of the French revo. jution t. Most of the pieces in this miscellany are intended to remove some aspersions which have been caft on Christianity, and to prove that mankind have been much more indebted to revelation, than many are willing to allow.

'The first paper in this miscellany contains Observations on the Literature of the primitive Christian writers; being an attempt to vindicate them from the charge of Rousleau and Gibbon, that they were enemies to philosophy and human learning. Mr. Christie juftly thinks it a matter of some importance, to determine what opinion the primitive fathers of the church entertained on this subject; because, if it should be found that those persons, who were the immediate successors of Christ and his Apostles, generally agreed in condemning phi

* The date at the bottom of the title is 1789: but the publication of the volume has been delayed till very lately. + Sce Rev. Aug. 1791, p. 444, and March 1792, p. 324. 7


losophy and human learning, as hostile to virtue, a strong prefumption would arise, that they had imbibed these sentiments from the founder and first teachers of the Christian religion. In order to prove that the Christian fathers were not hostile to human learning, our author quotes many passages from their writings, in which they either discover their own learning, or país encomiums on learning and philosophy. Among these quotations, which are well felected, are an abftract of St. Bafil's homily on the advantage to be derived from profane learning, and of the Grecian Therapeutics of Theodoret. The general conclufion we shall state in our author's own words :

Hence, it appears, that the primitive writers, so far as they were free from fuperfition, were no enemies to true philosophy, although there are passages in their works, which, on a foperficial perusal, might give countenance to such an idea. However, if we

conlider their fituation, we shall not be surprized that they were | sometimes led to say harsh things relative to human science. In

mcdern times, we have seen prejudiced and misanthropic writers. produce laboured works again it philosophy, under a pretence, that they found human learning magnified, to the depreciation of reve.. lation : but in the primitive times this plea was real. The fathers daily heard human learning magnified against the gospel; and were perpetually meeting with the most injurious treatment from ignorant and vicious men, who arrogated to themselves the title of philosophers. Yet, though they chastised the pride of these vaia pretenders to science; though they exposed the imperfection of their boasted knowledge; and though they newed, the weakness and insufficiency of philosophy, unaided by revelation, to conduct men to the favour of God and eternal life; they never uttered any thing equivalent to the opinion of Mr. Rousseau; they never taught that learned nations were necessarily vicious; or that there was an irrefittible tendency in knowledge to corrupe the manners of mankind. If Mr. Rousseau had taken up the argument in another way; if, instead of pretending that the great Primitive Writers were on his fide, in discarding all philosophy, he had alledged, that they philosophized too much, or, to state it more accurately, that they corrupted Christianity by erroneous tenets, borrowed from Placo and ihe Orientals, i should not have attempted to have difproved the assertion: for all the learned converts from heathenilm were defrous of incorporating the doctrines of Plato wish the system of the Gospel. It was plealing to them to discover a coincidence between the opinions they bad anciently held, and thole which they were now to hold. The fupposition that they discovered such a coincidence, probably contributed not a little to reconcile them originally to the new system, and they would soon find out, that is was a powerful engine to bring about the conversion of others. It is not iherefore to be wondered at, if at some times they carried it too far. This is a charge from which it is impossible to acquit either Justin, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Clemens, or Gregory And the consequence of this difpofition soon appeared. The im.


plicity of the Christian do&rine was depraved, by an impure mix. ture of Platonic chimeras. The Gospel became paganized, while heathenism was christianized; till, at length, maiters were carried such a length, that Ammonius Saccas proposed a coalition betwixt them; and caught in the school of Alexandria, that the one of them was not designed to fuperfede the other. At this period many persons, among whom was the Emperor Alexander Severas, ill able to decide on the claims of the several pretenders to a divine million, and wishing to make sure work in the matter, divided their reverence among all the antient heroes, and paid equal honours to Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Jesus Chrift.

• Hence arose a great controversy, which was long carried on in the church, whether Learning and Philosophy were advantageous to the Gospel or not. The fimple and illiterate Chriftians faw clearly, that their learned brethren had corrupted the fyftem of Revelation, and that they talked of its doctrines in a manner very different from Christ and the Apostles. Hence they concluded, that all science was detrimental to Religion. It was natural enough for them to fall into this mistake; but a mistake it certainly was.

It was confounding the use of things with the abuse of them; and alledging the ill effects of false philosophy to depreciate the true. Had they lived in an age when true philosophy was cultivated, and when it was employed, as it ever may be, to preserve the purity of Religion, they would have entertained very different sentiments of it, and seen clearly that Philosophy and Revelation proceed from the same source, and tend to promote the same end.'

The manner in which Mr. Christie endeavours to account for the inconsistency that at first view appears in the writings of the Fathers, respecting the value of philosophy, does not seem to us altogether satisfactory. The truth seems to be, that the Chriftian Fathers treated the wisdom of the ancient philosophers with respect, only fo far as they judged it to have been derived from divine revelation. The high regard, which many of them express for the Platonic doctrine, and the readiness with which they incorporated it into the Christian system, were owing to an idea, which, whether well or ill founded, they seem to have very generally entertained, that Plato had received many divine truths, either directly or indirectly, from the Hebrew scriptures.

Farther to establish the value and neceflity of divine revelation, our author maintains, in his fourth effay, that the knowlege which men pofless of the Deity, of the origin of the world, and perhaps the principles of knowlege in general, were derived from tradition, and are ultimately to be referred to immediate divine communication. Many passages are here quoted from the ancients to prove, that the Grecian philosophers, and even the Egyptians, referred the origin of their knowlege to tradition, and that, as far as men have departed from the


ancient traditions, they have corrupted knowlege. On the neceffity of immediate inftruction from heaven on religious principles, the author thus argues :

That nature alone, anexpounded by Revelation or Tradition, should be able to teach men the existence and perfections of God, and their duty towards bim, is a fond and ill-grounded idea, totally contradicted by the hiftory of mankind. There is no proof that any class of men ever acquired their knowledge in this way. The glorious fuo, the resplendent moon, and shining stars, bave indeed, in every age, proclaimed their Creator's praise to those who already knew him, and had been taught to conlider these as the works of his hands. But to others they have told nothing but their own brigbrness. So far were they from being able to teach the existence of God to mankind, that they could not even keep up that knowledge after it had been taught. On the contrary, they became the means of destroying it ; for in all countries, where there were not repeated revelations

from the great Source of Wisdom, which at firit imparted them, mankind forgot the God whom they had learned to adore, and worshipped thar fun, and moon, and Aars, in his stead, The same bach happened to all the other parts of nature. Whea contemplaced apart and alone, by those who pofseffed no higher knowledge, they have continually been the means of leading men away from God. Hence the Philosophers became Atheists; and the vulgar deified the elements, and worshipped dead men, frail haman beings like themselves, yea, and paid divine adoration to animals, to birds, to plants, and creeping things; so that there is scarcely a fingle object in nature which hath not in its turn fupplanted its Creator! The constant tendency of man, in his native itate, hath ever been to fink down from the skies, and gravitase, if I may so exprefs it, to the centre of the earth. Human nature, a feeble and delicate plant, hach always required the frequent interpofition of him who first reared it, to preserve it from drooping and decay.'

Mr. Christie has bestowed much thought and reading on the question of the antiquity of the world. The result is an opinion, that the world itself, and even the race of inferior animals, are much older than the human kind. In a note affixed to this part of the work, many curious fa&ts are collected, respecting lavage life and manners, and the gross opinions which even civilized nations, not enlightened by revelation, have entera tained concerning the divine nature. The fifth essay, in prosecution of the same idea, enumerates the facts and arguments, adduced by M. Meiners in his Hiftoria Doctrina de vero Deo, to prove, that it is far above human nature to discover the knowlege of God. The fixth, with a similar view, gives an abftract of a learned and sensible work on the same subjedt, u The Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, not from Reason or Nature, &c. by the late John Ellis, D.D. Vicar of St. Catharine's, Dublin."


« PreviousContinue »