« PreviousContinue »
happy here and hereafter; believing, as we would, that God is “ verily no respecter of persons; but " that in every nation he that feareth him, and “worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.”..
An infidel at Paris! Hannah! here you was not half cunning, and versatility and craft are the predominant features in your character. Such phrases ought not to have disgraced your pages! Did you not foresee that there would, and must be “friend“ship and amity” between our King and the Chief Consul of the “ Infidels?” Have not our brave soldiers, and several “ fine fellows” from off my estate among them, fought in the same cause, and under the same banner, with the Turkish infidels; and did not you know that there are treaties of " friendship and alliance” between the Defender of the Faith and the Defender of the Infidels, and of the false Prophet? Surely you have lost all your prudence and discretion, for which you are remarkable! You are a bad subject I am afraid ; I do not mean to his Majesty, or to Mr. Pitt. I should be glad to reclaim you from your non-descript ways; and I am of opinion, were we acquainted, I might do something, though I fear you are too old to mend. Lady Mac Sarcasm shall, however, I am determined, soon wait on you, and we shall become acquainted; and as you are something of a virago, as I perceive from your own and other books, I expect you will reason unlike “ other women," without insisting “ it is so because it is,” but dialetically; and if I shall be happy enough to get you to recant your
" wicked errors," and be ".restored and recon" eiled,” according to the canon, there will be much joy on the recovery of a “ stray sheep.”.
We are assured (p. 275) that it is reasonable “ we should in christianity, as in arts and sciences, “ or languages, begin with the beginning, set out “ with the simple elements, and thus go on to. “ perfection.” Though, for the reasons I have already given, my opinion is, that children should from infancy be taught religious duties, yet I do not hesitate to say, that the lady and her doctor, whoever he be, are mistaken, when they say “ Christianity is a science.” A knowledge of natural religion, if it has not descended from Adam, may be attained by investigation and reasoning ; but in christianity there is no induction, otherwise there was no necessity for a Messiah. The great teacher of christianity never begins with first principles, runs into no abstraction or metaphysical disquisitions. The sermons of Jesus, in no instance, resemble a gradual progress, advancing step by step till a regular series of conclusions is established. Many of his discourses, in the fragments of them which have been preserved, begin with a redoubled verily, not only importing the consequence and utility of the doctrine he is about to deliver, but principally the infallible knowledge he had of it. His discourses were all occasional, generally consisting of precepts and aphorisms, as rules of conduct, having all a singular aptitude to existing circumstances, and the capacity of those to whom they were addressed. In the gospel there is no system. System has been raised from christianity, not christianity from system. It is distressing to find the endeavours of this lady to purify herself from her former « evil works," the drama, fruitless. She cannot illustrate a christian thesis, without the assistance of the “very principle of Dogberry, at “ which,” she adds, “ we have all probably “ laughed." Thus she cannot get forward to her Canaan, without looking back at her former scenes, the flesh pots of Egypt.
In p. 282, christianity is again considered as a science, and a reformation at death held as impracticable as to study mathematics ; it is to " learn the totally unknown scheme of chrisoč tianity.” This certainly is a wrong notion of the gospel. Then follow many pages of redundant preaching, and impalpable inanity. P. 315, we are told that
is “ Youth should be taught that as humility is the discrix " minating characteristic of our religion, therefore a proud “ Christian, a haughty disciple of a crucified Master, fura “nishes perhaps a stronger opposition in terms than the “: whole compass of language can exhibit. They should « bé taught that humility being the appropriate grace of “ Christianity, is precisely the thing which makes Chris" tian and Pagan virtues essentially different." - We have here a fruitless attempt at philological learning, and are told the Romans had no word for humility, but what was used in a « bad sense;" and it is erroneously inferred, that humility was no virtue till made so by christianity. Nego
consequentian et argumentum. Humilitas, a humilis, a humus, the ground, the English of which is humility, humble, for humus is not yet anglicized. But we have corresponding words in English, viz. low, or on the ground; lowly, humilis ; lowliness, humilitas. These words are of general sense, and their particular significations arise from their application ; for the abstract substantives, humility, humilitas, i, e, lowliness, are equally indicative of the position of body and mind. These words had existence before christianity; for if they had not, and a virtue formerly unknown to human nature were introduced by it, it would have been mentioned by its appropriate term. Humilitas is used by Cicero, as relating to mind'; humilis, básé, mean, dwarfish. To prove this, if it be denied that lowly, humble ; lowliness, humbleness, humility; apply not to the mind, search the bible, and there lowly, as a virtue, frequently occurs. It also occurs in the gospel, and when these books were translated, it clearly appears that our language had a word for the scriptural virtue, viz. " lowly.” The Greek, the Roman language, and the English, had all a primitive of their own, from which the adjective, and the abstract substantive were formed or derived,, and first applied to body, and afterwards, as men philosophized, to mind. The Apostle in the Greek was explicit, when he added to TATEIVOS, Qgoçum, thus, Tatevo- gogurn, humilitas mentis, lowliness of mind.
Pride is a root in our language (and an evil root it is) but the Greek, as well as the Latin,
has a compound word for it, viz. vwpapavič, supercilium. Even superbia is a derivative.
Her doctor might have furnished her with a better argument for christianity.
. If the Romans, who are falsely charged with giving to humilitas & humilis no intellectual meaning, used it only in a “bad sense,” the British senate, army and navy, are blamed for giving pride a good meaning. A“proud day,” “ proud event," a“ proud success ;" although our commanding officers piously enough ascribed their victory to “ Almighty God,” our author does not consider it as sufficiently“ evangelical ;” and she thinks the swift sailing vessel that brought the dispatches, ought to have waited till a better word could have been coined, on an occasion“ which has preserved “ that religion which sets its foot on the neck of “ pride !" It is impossible not to repeat epithets lately applied to her religion, “ bloody piety." Mrs. More is no christian. The doctrine she wishes to inculcate, though she endeavours to conceal it, is a mystical, unintelligible faith ; and she seems rather to believe that Christ came to “ send a sword,” than" peace” on the earth ; and that that holy religion which has been often in the mouths of knayés as peace, while war and cruelty were in their hearts, is not to exist in the world by its own excellence, and the superintendence of God, without nations combining to seal it with blood, and proclaim its peaceful doctrines, '“its "new commandment” to the nations, with anathematizing canons, and cannons of every calibre,