« AnteriorContinua »
Another extract shall be taken from book ir. on the Institutes, ch. 3. of making peace.
• If the Imam make peace with aliens, or with any particular tribe or body of them, and perceive it to be eligible for the Mufsulmans, there need be no hesitation ; because it is said, in the Koran, “ If the infidels be inclined to peace, do ye likewise consent thereto;'-—and also, because the prophet, in the year of the punishment of Eubca, made a peace between the Mussulmans and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years ; peace, moreover, is war in effect, where the interests of the Musulmans requires it, fince the design of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace : contrary to where peace is not to the interest of the Mussulmans, for it is not, in that case, lawful, as this would be abandoning was both apparently, and in effect. It is here, however, proper to observe that it is not absolutely necesfary to reftri& a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years,) because the end for which peace is made may be sometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term.
• If the Imam make peace with the aliens for a single term, (namely, ten years,) and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Mussulman interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war, after giving them due notice; because, upon a change of the circumstances which rendered peace advise. able, the breach of peace is war, and the observance of it a de. sertion of war, both in appearance, and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the fortaking of it is not becoming (to Muffulmans.) It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this case indispensably requisite, in such a manner that treachery may not be induced, since this is is forbidden. It is also requisite that such a delay be made in renewing the war with them as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be universally received among them; and for this such a time fuffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the same to the different parts of their dominion, fince, by such a delay, the charge of treachery is avoided.'
Amid much important matter, this Mahometan code presents fome specimens of singular frivolity, of which the following may be given as a contrast, from vol. iv. book xlvii. .
"If a person shoot at game with an arrow, and hit it, and it fall into water, or upon the roof of a house, or some other eminence, and afterwards upon the ground, it is not lawful to eat it; because the animal is in this case a Mootradeea, the eating of which is prohibited in the Koran ; and also, becaufe there is a suspicion that the death may have been occafioned by the water or by the fall from the eminence, and not by the wound.
. If a water-fowl be wounded, and the member wounded be not a part under water, it is lawful, whereas, if it be a part un. der water, it is not lawful, in the same manner as a land bird, which being wounded falls into water. · · Game hit (ftunned) by an arrow without a sharp point is unlawful, as it is so recorded in the traditions. It is to be observe ed, moreover, that the wounding of game is a condition of its le. gality; because a Zabbah Iztiraree cannot otherwise be establihed, as has been already mentioned.
Game killed by a bullet from a cross-bow is not lawful, as this miffile does not wound, and is therefore like a blunt arrow, A ftone, also, is subject to the fame rule, as it does not wound; and game is also unlawful when killed by a great heavy stone, notwithstanding it be sharp; because there is a probability that the game may have died from the weight of the stone, and not from the sharpness of it. If, however, the stone be sharp, and not weighty, the game killed by it is lawful, as it is then certain that it muft have died in consequence of a wound from it.'
But such instances affect not the intrinsic merit of the work, which we recommend as an important addition to English literature, and to science in general.
The Chart and Scale of Truth, by which to find the Cause of
Error. Lectures read before the University of Oxford, at the Leflure founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M. A. By Ed. ward Tatham, D. D. 2 Vols. 8vo. 125. Boards. Rivinge
tons. 1790. ON the first perusal of this title, it appeared doubtful when
ther · Lectures read' before the University, at Mr. Bampe ton's Lecture, implied compositions delivered in the schools, or fermons preached from the pulpit. It is only from a casual ex-pression in the Dedication, and from a scrap, instead of the usual extract from the founder's will, that we are enabled to hazard the latter conjecture. Indeed, both in his manner and mat ter, in the most triling as well as important points, the author feems to aim at originality; or rather at a purposed deviation from the track of his predeceffors. He addresses his episcopal patrons by the title of Right Reverend Sirs,' concludes with the appellation of Gentlemen, and devoutly wishes that learning may Aourish under their aufpice. It may alsu appear strange, and most certainly confirms Dr. T's claim to fingularity, that neither the form nor substance of his work indicates that species of composition exprefly described by Mr. B. unler the title of · Divinity Sermons,' and which has been observed by all the lecturers, excepting the present. There is neither text nor
fermenis fermonic division in the whole performance; which chiefly consists of a series of mathematical reasoning distributed into ehapters and sections, very much in the style of Watcs' Logic, but as abstract as Euclid, and dry as Burgersdícius. Whether the author has, by the publication of his labours in this form, strictly entitled him to the Bamptonian recompense, is as prablematic to us as any proposition that he has predicated. The founder's will directs the sermons which shall be preached to be printed. Now if it be in the power of the preacher to change the form in which his discourses were delivered, a fue ture lecturer may improve on Dr. T's example, and give his performances to the world in the shape of an instructive novel or entertaining history. Dr. T's own observations on the licence he has adopted tend to this conclusion. The form may not be (i. e. certainly is not) that which is usually adopted, but it appeared to be that by which I could best accomplish the end I have in view.' Should some successor theu, in the lecture, be of opinion that he can convey his thoughts moft effectually in a popular form, he may select an amusing and attractive vehicle for his instructions: and in that case theology will diffuse its fage disquisitions amongst the lighter class of readers, and consecrate the shelves of the circulating library.
The plan of this work is thus generally delineated :
• To trace the distinct and proper principles, to point out the right method of reasoning, and to mark that juft affent, 3/1 correrponding with each other, which appertain to the different kinds of truth, as they severally relate to the intellect, the will, and the imagination ; and this for the express and special purpose of afa certaining the proper nature, the particular method, and the peculiar genius, of theologic truth : which design, if I may be able to execute it up to the idea which my hope, or perhaps only my presumption, may have encouraged me to form, promises to lay the deepest as well as the broadeft bottom on which “To ground and establish the Christian faith."
This part, if successfully executed, will be preparatory to my second object, which will be- To thew how all the other kinds of truth minister and subferve, in their proper use, both to the introduction and support of theological : which will contribute to the further confirmation and illustration of that faith.
And the second part will pave the way to my third object, which will bem-To discover, in the different modes of abuse of the several kinds of truth, as they pass in review before us, many of the principal and most inveterate causes of Heretical and Schilmasical errors; which, by driving to their root and pointing out their origin, will prove the most logical and effectual method to eradi. cate and expose them,
"The . The first part, which is the ground-plor of the two following, will take a logical estimate of the different kinds of knowledge, and chalk out a general chart of their distinct and separate provinces, exhibiting a parallel or comparative view of che different logic appropriated to each-a parallel of their principles a pa rallel of their reasoning and a parallel of their truths. .
• Such a general chart and estimate, by distinguishing them from each other and by presenting before the eye a full and compre. hensive prospe&t of their order and dispofition, their relations and connections, their bearings and dependencies, may prove friendly to the advancement of universal learning, may contribute to re. move much of the difficulty of science, and may aslift reason in piloting its way with facility and success through every part of his literary voyage.'
Hence it appears that our author has, in the present performance, (which is twice as voluminous as any of his predeceffors' labours) executed only one-third of his intentions ; though we collect incidentally that it confifted of ten or twelve lectures, instead of eight, which is the number prefcribed by the founder. So that we think Dr. T. complains unjustly of that indolence' which he says “is a vice rooted in his constitution,' Certain it is, that however sparing he may be of his pains in other respects, he seems to delight in writ. ing.
Having opened his work with several chapters on Truth in general, on Mind in general, on Principles in general, on Reafoning in general, on the Kinds of Truth, and the Rule of Reason;' he produces his general plan, as it is sketched above, and proceeds to the Logic of Mathematics, the Logic of Phyfics, the Logic of Facts, the Logic of Ethics, the Logic of Po. etry, Music in general, and the Aristotelian Logic. These general heads, which are discussed in numerous sub-divisions, form the contents of the first volume, and are introductory to the purposes of the second. To pursue Dr. T. through those extensive and various regions of literature in which he has indulged his excursions, would occupy a much greater space than we can afford, and might subject us to the same premunire which the doctor confesses himself to have incurred by not impofing a timely guard on the impetus of his invention. It must, therefore, suffice to observe generally on the principles of the firft volume, that the author attacks with much vehemence the doctrines and discipline of Aristotle, and their effect on-learning, affirming that the organon of the great stagyrite, though
a splendid monument of human invention, and a superb and stately edifice, was never employed to any useful or honourable purpose; that instead of being the instrument of truth, as its
author vainly hoped, it has been the instrument of ignorance and error, by which that great philofopher has proved the greatest tyrant in the universe.'
• He not only fubverted all the systems of the philosophers who went before him with a bold and licentious hand, not sparing that of his master Plato, as his pupil Alexander did all the empires of the ealt; but, by that instrument has manacled the philosophy of all future times : and, though the dominion of that great prince and conqueror has vanished for many ages, and is now as though it never had existed, the chain of the philosopher is felt at this day by learned bodies and societies through some of the most diftant and enlightened parts of Europe. His logic rendered more imperfect than he had left it, held out as completely equipped to attend reason in the search and communication of all truth, infallible as a guide and incapable of improvement, superfeded every other, and deprived it for many ages of its most useful and faithful attendant; keeping learning and science in a dark and gloomy prison, and drawing a cloud over the disk of the literary fun, by which it was for centuries eclipsed, and of which more than a fingle limb is now obscured.'
How these censures are compatible with the sentiments of another author, who must be allowed to have tolerably well understood the merits of the venerable father of logic, is not very apparent. Let us be allowed to observe, without any acrimonious resentment, that thus toinveigh against a system which, erected in remote antiquity, has stood the test of two thousand years, and during that period retained the admiration of mankind, is at best injudicious and ungrateful; and requires that the author of such invidious censure, who, not content with expose ing defects which in a great measure depend on his own opinion, should produce another system adequate to that of which he has attempted the subversion. But the purpose of the censure is obvious. The strict ratiocination of Aristotle was found to be inconsistent with that mode of criticism which the author intended, in his second volume, to apply to the Bible; and, therefore, delenda eft Carthago. There is reason, however, to think, that the edifice, constructed by the fagacious peripatetic, will be revered by diftant pofterity, when Dr. Tatham and all his emendations shall be forgotten. We mean not to detract from the fame of Bacon; but he never could have attained the eminence he poffefses, unless Aristotle had laid the foundation.
"Primus mortalium Aristoteles certum logicæ finem constituit, prccepta in ordinem redegit, fingulari artificio integræ artis methodum contexuit. Quan invenit logicam, tani feliciter, perfecit, ut in hunc usque diem, per annos circiter bis mille, perpetuis clariffimorum virorum ftudiis cxculta, nihil prorsus acceperit merendenti. Aldrich.'