"cribed to no other agency than that of God," when we confider that the demons, which are faid to have entered the swine, were not mere nullities, as this author fuppofes; not a mere name for deceased fouls, or the fouls of dead men, but are expressly declared by the Evangelift Mark to be unclean fpirits! τα πνευμαία τα ακαθαρία. Mark v. 13. For if the Sin against the Holy Ghost (the most unpardonable of all blafphemies!) confifted, as many learned commentators have fup. pofed, in attributing the works of God to "Beelzebub the prince of demons," furely it must be almost equally dangerous to afcribe to the agency of God the furious and profane agitations occafioned by the infpiration of unclean fpirits!

But I impeach not the intention of the learned author, but only the tendency of his doctrines: his excufe, however, is already prepared; he doubts (in p. 61.) "whether thefe epithets" (evil and unclean, given by the Evangelifts to the fpirits ejected by Christ) "exprefs

their perfonal difpofitions, or only thefe effects they were fuppofed "to produce;" nay, even wxo; daar (Caco-Demon) with him is "not a wicked demon!" Sce note in p. 61. And he tells in another part of his work, p. 352. that Infirmities, plagues, and evil fpirits, feem to be mentioned only as fo many diftinct fpecies of di• feafes. Thefe fuppofitions (for they are merely fuch) may seem at firft fight to afford fome excufe for his afcribing to the agency of 'God' the declared effects of "unclean fpirits." But his error has ftill a deeper root; he has, in another tract, afcribed to the agency of God' that which no less than three Evangelifts have exprefsiy registered amongst the tranfactions of the devil himself, (I mean the temptation of Chrift by the devil in the wilderness); and he roundly exculpates Satan from the charge; and yet all this is carried on in fuch fmooth language, and with fuch feeming plaufibility, that the author himself is apparently deluded by his own fophiftry and mif taken conclufions: for, notwithstanding the plain teftimony of the Evangelifts above-mentioned concerning the agony of the Devil and Satan in that temptation; yet our author is pleafed to affert, that it "is to be understood as a history, not of a fact, but of a vifion. As "fuch, fays he, the writer of the Gofpel exprefsly reprefents it" (by which, it teems, this learned author is fo far blinded by hypothefis, as to forget the true meaning of the word exprefsly; for not one of the writers of the Gofpel have expreffed the leaft idea about a vition in this particular cafe; and yet he afferts, that they exprefsly reprefent it) without leaving us" (fays he)" as the facred penmen have "been thought to do in other inftances, to collect it from the nature "and circumftances of the relation. They likewife (continues he)

66

represent this vifion" (he muft mean this vifion of his own imagi nation-this vifion of a vifion; for the Evangelifts cannot be juitly charged with any fuch reprefentation) "not as diabolical, but divine: "afcribing it" (fays he) to the fpirit of God." ("An inquiry," &c. p. 64, 65.) Now what fhall we fay to the affertion of this critick, when we turn to the Evangelifts themfelves, and find, that they are fo far from afcribing any fuch fuppofed vifion of a temptation to the Spirit of God, that they expressly mention the Devil or Satan as the empter; and do not exprefs or reprefent a single word about a vition

in that particular cafe: nevertheless, our Commentator boldly adds to this monstrous perverfion of the evidence the following mockery of truth, viz.-" So that to all the other arguments urged above (fays "he) we may add (what we betore promifed to produce) the authority "of the evangelifts" (whom he most notoriously contradicts)" and the "express Letter of the Text" (which as notorioufly contradicts him) "in confutation (fays he) of those, who mifconftrue Chrift's temptation, either as an outward tranfaction, or as an illufion of Satan." Inquiry, &c. p. 65. See alfo his propofition, p. 36.-" that all the "Evangelifts, who have mentioned this affair, do, in exprefs terms, "affirm, that it pafied fpiritually and in vifion, that it was an ideal or "mental reprefentation; and confequently could not be an outward "tranfaction." Now, "If fuch a method of explaining Scripture," (as he himself cenfures others in, p. 372. of his Effay on the Demo niacks, &c.) "be allowed, language can be of no ufe!"

"He may think it a generous action, perhaps, to excufe, or endeavour to exculpate an adverfary (ard more efpecially fuch an inveterate adverfary as Satan himfelf) from the most baneful and malicious attempt that was ever made against the happiness of mankind! But this generofity (or whatever elfe it may be called) to the enemy, is productive of confequences which the learned author (had he been aware of them) would not, perhaps, be willing to adopt for his doctrine of Satan's innocence in this matter (viz. that "there was no real pre"fence or agency of Satan on this occafion," p. 63.-that "the "Devil was not really and perfonally prefent with Christ, but only in mental reprefentation; and confequently could act no part in "this whole tranfaction," p. 62. and that the Evangelifts "reprefent "this vifion" [as he is pleased to call it] "not as diabolical, but divine; aferibing it to the Spirit of God," p. 65.) This doctrine, I say, of Satan's innocence, not only deprives Chritt, "the Son of Man," of that actual triumph and victory, which he gained in his human na ture (for the reitoration of mankind) over the temptation of " the prince of this world; but it alfo neceffarily implies, that God himfelf was the tempter; which, if not downright blafphemy, is at least a doctrine which is expressly contradicted in Scripture-for there we read, that "God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any "man." (James i. 13.) And though there are feveral paffages of Scripture wherein God is faid to tempt, yet they are all clearly to be understood in a different feufe from the tempting mentioned by the Apostle James, which was a tempting, or being tempted of evil, apparently meaning a temptation to Sin. And in other paffages, where the latter, or indeed any fpiritual influence of evil whatever, is to be understood, the evil fpirit, or real agent in the evil, is generally mentioned; and in that cafe the agency cannot be "afcribed to the Spirit "of God," without grofs abiurdity, at least, if not blafphemy! even though the Spirit be exprefsly declared to be "from the Lord," as in the cafe of Saul related in 1 Sam. xvi. 14. where we read, that “an " evil fpirit from the Lord troubled him."

"Now this expreffion, if we regard the literal meaning of it, clearly implies, not only, that the evil fpirit came by the permiffion of God

(as

(as it was "an evil spirit from the Lord") but also that the said evil fpirit was really "the agent" which troubled Saul.

Our author proceeds to object to the fame writer's expofi tion of the diforder of Saul; which he imputes to a deep melancholy; meaning a natural difeafe. The futility of this fuppofition, Mr. Sharp tells us, he intends to fhew in a separate tract on the cafe of Saul: of which we shall give our readers timely information; taking our leave of the present tract, with its author's declaration concerning Liberty of Conscience and the expediency of our Clergy's fubfcribing to the articles of the Church.

"It is reasonable and juft, indeed, that all men fhould be at liberty to teach and profefs whatever religious opinions they think molt con fiftent with the Holy Scriptures, if we except any publick promulga tion of that religion, which offends against the laws of this nation, as a civil fociety, by afferting a foreign jurisdiction; and which has alfo unhappily adopted fome antichriftian rites of idolatry, forcery and inchantments!

But the petitioners cannot allege that they are not already at liberty to bear a publick teftimony of their opinions; and it would be dange rous even to the true religion, were not fuch liberty of confcience allowed: for fuppofing any material alteration should be permitted to be made in the articles and liturgy of the Church of England, a great majority, perhaps, of the prefent churchmen might think themfelves obliged to diffent, and feparate from what would then be called, the Established Church; and would certainly think themselves intitled to a free toleration, and a public ufe of the prefent liturgy in their feveral feparate congregations.

I am therefore a fincere advocate for Liberty of Confcience; but when a majority of the clergy and people have agreed upon the arti cles of their faith, and established the fame as the national profeffion of religion, (which it furely is while the majority continue of that op nion) it is certainly no unjust restraint nor derogation from that neceffary liberty above-mentioned, that those who are to be admitted public teachers of the national profeffion, should be required to fubfcribe a declaration that they approve and will maintain the fame. For otherwife the uniformity of doctrine would be banished from the pulpits, and the peace of congregations would be continually disturbed by the broaching of undigested notions diametrically opponite to the general and citablithed opinions of the people; and even the publick form of prayer would be reduced and moulded according to the caprice of every offciating minifter; for there can be no church government without 3 written test of doctrine, couched in fuch terms as are least able to misconstruction and equivocation. The Catholik or Univerfal Church in every age, and in every place, hath ever had its tefts of doctrine, or particular creeds, to which the aflent of all perfons, but more parti cularly the affent of the clergy, was always required; fo that the Church of England is not fingular in requiring the affent or fub

fcription

fription of thofe perfons who defire to be admitted and authorized by the national church as publick teachers and expounders of the Chrif tian Faith."

S.

Letters, from Lord Chesterfield, to Alderman George Faulkner, Dr. Madden, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Derrick, and the Earl of Arran. Being a Supplement to his Lordship's Letters. 4to. 25. Wallis.

So much has been recently faid and written, upon the epiftolary talents of Lord Chefterfield, that critical encomium or çenfure would be now equally fuperfluous. Let it fuffice, therefore, to fay of the letters before us, that they bear the ftrongeft internal marks of their being genuine. His Lordfhip's letters to Mr. Faulkner, in particular, afford a striking example of that ironical facetiousnefs and pleasantry, for which he was peculiarly remarkable. At the fame time, also, they exhibit as ftriking an inftance of the wonderful utility of a good butt to a profeffed wit. Mr. Alderman Faulkner was, indeed, fo fingularly and egregioufly ufeful in this particular, that we can readily forgive the fimulation and diffimulation of the Noble Earl, in playing upon him even to the laft.-We fhould deprive our readers of much entertainment, did we not give them a fpecimen or two of this curious correfpondence.

LETTER II.

то GEORGE FAULKNER, ESQUIRE.

MY GOOD FRIEND,

Bath, November 11, 1752.

YOU judged very rightly (as you always do) in thinking that I have the greateft efteem for the works of the bishop of Cloyne, and you afted very kindly (as you always do too) in fending them to me. I have fince received them from the bishop himfelf, but felonioufly printed in London by Tonfon and Draper, and, like moft ftolen goods, trangely altered and difguifed, as well by larger and whiter paper, as by ink of the blackeit dye. I always expect your pacquets with impa tience, and receive them with pleafure; but that pleasure would be much more complete, it fome productions of your own now and then accompanied the excellent ones which you fend me of other people. I must treely tell you that you have been long enough the celebrated and fuccefstul man-midwite of other people's conceptions, and it is now high time that you should take up the other end of the business, and beget, conceive, and bear fruit yourself. The most illustrious of your predeceffors did fo. The Stephens's, the Aldufes, and many others, acted as men-midwives to the greateft authors; but then they acted as men too, and begot, as well as delivered: and indeed there is fuch a relation and connection between those two operations, that it is next to impoffible that one who has been to able as you have been in the one,

fhould

fhould be deficient in the other. You have moreover one advantage which the greateft of your typographical predeceffors had not. They were never perfonally acquainted with Horace, Virgil, Cicero, and others whofe productions they brought to light, but were obliged to exhibit them in the always-imperfect, often-deformed, state in which they found them, in ragged and worm-eaten vellum and parchment. Whereas you have been always at the fountain head; you have not only printed and read, but you have heard Swift, Berkeley, and all the beft authors of the Irish Auguftan age. You have conversed with, you have been informed, and to my knowledge confulted by, them. Should you afk me, my friend, what fort of work I would particularly point out to you, I can only anfwer, confult your genius, which will beit direct you; if it does not lead you, or rather hurry you, whether you will or not, into poetry, do not attempt verfe, but take the more common manner of writing, which is profe. Cicero himself had better have done fo. A Typographia Hibernica, which no man in the kingdom is more capable of doing well than yourself, would be a useful work, and becoming your character. I do not recommend to you any ludicrous performances: they must flow naturally, or they are good for nothing; and though, were it only by your long and amicable collition with Sheridan, Delany, Swift, and others, you rauit be very strongly impregnated with particles of wit and humour, yet I take your natural turn to be grave and philofophical. A collection of Anas would admit of all fubjects, and, in a volume or two of Swiftiana, you might both give and take a fample of yourself, by flipping in fome Faulkneriana; the fuccefs of which would, I am perfuaded, engage you to go further. Biography fhould, in my mind, be your next step, for which you appear to be thoroughly qualified, by the clear and impartial accounts, which your hebdomadal labours give of the deaths of all people of note. Hiftory would foon follow, which in truth you have been writing these many years, though perhaps without thinking fo. What is history but a collection of facts and dates? Your Journal is a collection of facts and dates; then, what is your Journal but hiftory? Our friend, the chief baron, with whom I have often talked upon this fubject, has always agreed with me, that, in the fitnefs of things, it was neceffary you fhould be an author; and I am very fure that, if you confult him, he will join with me in exhorting you to fet about it forthwith. Whenever you affume that character, I claim a very ftrong dedication with the first copy of the work, as an old friend, which, joking apart, I fincerely am, and

Your humble fervant,

THOUGH I am very forry for your quarrels in Ireland, by which I am fure the public must fuffer, let who will prevail; I gladly accept your kind offer of fending me the controverfial productions of the beili

gerant