Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Another extract fhall be taken from book ix. on the Infti- . tutes, 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 Muffulmans, there need be no he fitation; because it is faid, in the Koran," If the infidels be inclined to peace, do ye likewise confent thereto;"-and alfo, because the prophet, in the year of the punishment of Eubea, made a peace between the Muffulmans and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years; peace, moreover, is war in effect, where the interefts of the Muffulmans requires it, fince the defign of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace: contrary to where peace is not to the intereft of the Muffulmans, for it is not, in that cafe, lawful, as this would be abandoning war both apparently, and in effect. It is here, however, proper to obferve that it is not abfolutely neceffary to reftrict a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years,) because the end for which peace is made may be fometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term.

If the Imam make peace with the aliens for a fingle term, (namely, ten years,) and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muffulman intereft to break it, he may in that cafe lawfully renew the war, after giving them due notice; because, upon a change of the circumftances which rendered peace advifeable, the breach of peace is war, and the obfervance of it a defertion of war, both in appearance, and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the forfaking of it is not becoming (to Muffulmans.) It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this cafe indifpenfably requifite, in fuch a manner that treachery may not be induced, fince this is is forbidden. It is alfo requifite that fuch a delay be made in renewing the war with them as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be univerfally received among them; and for this fuch a time fuffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the fame 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 prefents fome fpecimens of fingular frivolity, of which the following may be given as a contraft, 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 houfe, or fome other eminence, and afterwards upon the ground, it is not lawful to eat it; because the animal is in this cafe a Mootradeea, the eating of which is prohibited in the Koran; and alfo, because there is a fufpicion 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 fame 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 fo recorded in the traditions. It is to be observed, moreover, that the wounding of game is a condition of its legality; because a Zabbah Iztiraree cannot otherwise be established, 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, alfo, 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 ftone, and not from the sharpness of it. If, however, the ftone be sharp, and not weighty, the game killed by it is lawful, as it is then certain that it must have died in confequence of a wound from it.'

But fuch inftances affect not the intrinfic 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 Lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M. A. By Edward Tatham, D. D. 2 Vols. 8vo. 12s. Boards. Riving tons. 1790.

ON the firft perufal of this title, it appeared doubtful whe

ther Lectures read' before the University, at Mr. Bamp ton's Lecture, implied compofitions delivered in the schools, or fermons preached from the pulpit. It is only from a cafual expreffion in the Dedication, and from a scrap, instead of the ufual extract from the founder's will, that we are enabled to hazard the latter conjecture. Indeed, both in his manner and matter, in the most trifling as well as important points, the author feems to aim at originality; or rather at a purpofed deviation from the track of his predeceffors. He addreffes his epifcopal patrons by the title of Right Reverend Sirs, concludes with the appellation of Gentlemen, and devoutly wishes that learning may flourish under their aufpice. It may alfo appear strange, and most certainly confirms Dr. T's claim to fingularity, that neither the form nor fubftance of his work indicates that fpecies of compofition exprefly described by Mr. B. under the title of Divinity Sermons,' and which has been obferved by all the lecturers, excepting the prefent. There is neither text nor

fer menic

fermonic divifion in the whole performance; which chiefly confifts of a series of mathematical reasoning distributed into chapters and sections, very much in the style of Watts' Logic, but as abstract as Euclid, and dry as Burgerfdicius. Whether the author has, by the publication of his labours in this form, ftrictly entitled him to the Bamptonian recompenfe, is as problematic to us as any propofition that he has predicated. The founder's will directs the fermons which fhall 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 fu ture lecturer may improve on Dr. T's example, and give his performances to the world in the fhape of an inftructive novel or entertaining hiftory. Dr. T's own obfervations on the licence he has adopted tend to this conclufion. The form may not be (i. e. certainly is not) that which is ufually adopted, but it appeared to be that by which I could beft accomplish the end I have in view.' Should fome fucceffor then, in the lecture, be of opinion that he can convey his thoughts most effectually in a popular form, he may felect an amusing and attractive vehicle for his inftructions: and in that cafe theology will diffuse its fage difquifitions amongst the lighter clafs of readers, and confecrate the fhelves of the circulating library. The plan of this work is thus generally delineated:

To trace the diftinct and proper principles, to point out the right method of reasoning, and to mark that juft affent, all corresponding 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 exprefs and special purpose of afcertaining the proper nature, the particular method, and the peculiar genius, of theologic truth: which defign, if I may be able to execute it up to the idea which my hope, or perhaps only my prefumption, may have encouraged me to form, promises to lay the deepest as well as the broadest bottom on which "To ground and establish the Chriftian faith."

This part, if fuccefsfully executed, will be preparatory to my fecond object, which will be-To fhew how all the other kinds of truth minifter and fubferve, in their proper ufe, both to the introduction and fupport of theological: which will contribute to the further confirmation and illuftration of that faith.

And the fecond part will pave the way to my third object, which will be-To difcover, in the different modes of abuse of the feveral kinds of truth, as they pass in review before us, many of the principal and most inveterate caufes of Heretical and Schifmatical errors; which, by driving to their root and pointing out their origin, will prove the moft logical and effectual method to eradicate and expose them,

'The

The firft part, which is the ground-plot of the two following, will take a logical eftimate of the different kinds of knowledge, and chalk out a general chart of their diftinct and feparate provinces, exhibiting a parallel or comparative view of the different logic appropriated to each-a parallel of their principles-a parallel of their reafoning-and a parallel of their truths.

Such a general chart and eftimate, by diftinguishing them from each other and by prefenting before the eye a full and comprehenfive profpect of their order and difpofition, their relations and connections, their bearings and dependencies, may prove friendly to the advancement of univerfal learning, may contribute to remove much of the difficulty of fcience, and may affist reason in piloting its way with facility and fuccefs through every part of his literary voyage.'

Hence it appears that our author has, in the prefent 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, inftead of eight, which is the number prefcribed by the founder. So that we think Dr. T. complains unjustly of that 'indolence' which he fays is a vice rooted in his conftitution.' Certain it is, that however fparing he may be of his pains in other refpects, he seems to delight in writing.

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 Reafon;' 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 Poetry, Mufic in general, and the Ariftotelian Logic. Thefe general heads, which are difcuffed in numerous fub-divifions, form the contents of the first volume, and are introductory to the purposes of the fecond. To purfue Dr. T. through thofe extenfive and various regions of literature in which he has indulged his excurfions, would occupy a much greater space than we can afford, and might subject us to the fame premunire which the doctor confeffes himself to have incurred by not impofing a timely guard on the impetus of his invention. It must, therefore, fuffice to obferve generally on the principles of the first volume, that the author attacks with much vehemence the doctrines and difcipline of Ariftotle, and their effect on-learning, affirming that the organon of the great ftagyrite, though a fplendid monument of human invention, and a fuperb and ftately edifice, was never employed to any ufeful or honourable purpofe; that inftead of being the inftrument of truth, as its

author

author vainly hoped, it has been the inftrument of ignorance and error, by which that great philofopher has proved the greatest tyrant in the univerfe.'

He not only fubverted all the fyftems of the philofophers 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 caft; but, by that inftrument has manacled the philofophy 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 philofopher is felt at this day by learned bodies and focieties through fome 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 fearch and communication of all truth, infallible as a guide and incapable of improvement, fuperfeded every ether, and deprived it for many ages of its most useful and faithful attendant; keeping learning and fcience in a dark and gloomy prifon, and drawing a cloud over the difk of the literary fun, by which it was for centuries eclipsed, and of which more than a fingle limb is now obfcured.'

How these cenfures are compatible with the fentiments 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 obferve, without any acrimonious refentment, that thus to inveigh against a system which, erected in remote antiquity, has ftood the teft of two thousand years, and during that period retained the admiration of mankind, is at beft injudicious and ungrateful; and requires that the author of fuch invidious cenfure, who, not content with expof ing defects which in a great measure depend on his own opi nion, fhould produce another fyftem adequate to that of which he has attempted the fubverfion. But the purpose of the cenfure is obvious. The ftrict ratiocination of Ariftotle was found to be inconfiftent with that mode of criticism which the author intended, in his fecond volume, to apply to the Bible; and, therefore, delenda eft Carthago. There is reason, however, to think, that the edifice, conftructed by the fagacious peripatetic, will be revered by diftant pofterity, when Dr. Tatham and all his emendations fhall be forgotten. We mean not to detract from the fame of Bacon; but he never could have attained the eminence he poffeffes, unless Aristotle had laid the foundation.

Primus mortalium Ariftoteles certum logica finem conftituit, precepta in ordinem redegit, fingulari artificio integræ artis methodum contexuit. Quan invenit logicam, tam feliciter, perfecit, ut in hunc ufque diem, per annos circiter bis mille, perpetuis clariffimorum virorum ftudiis exculta, nihil prorfus acceperit incrementi. Aldrich,'

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »