« AnteriorContinua »
REVIEW AND MAGAZINE,
Monthly Political and Literary Censor
JUNE TO SEPTEMBER (INCLUSIVE)
WITH AN APPENDIX,
AN AMPLE REVIEW OF FOREIGN LITERATURE.
"Be it known to all who are under the dominion of bereticks that they are fet free from
Printed, and published for the Proprietors, by J HALES, at the Anti-Jacobin Prefs,
AND SOLD BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOMS OF GREAT
Review and Magazine,
&c. &c. &c.
For MAY, 1805.
Accufatores effe in Re publicâ utile eft, ita Criticos in Re literariâ, ut metu contineatur audacia.-ANON.
The Prophetic or Anticipated Hiftory of the Church of Rome, written and published fix Hundred Years before the rife of that Church. In which the prophetic Figures and Allegories are literally explained; and her Tricks, Frauds, Blafphemies, and dreadful Perfecutions of the Church of Chrift, are foretold and defcribed. Prefaced by an Addrefs dedicatory, expoftulafory, and critical, to the Rev. MR. WHITAKER, Dean of Canterbury. To which are added, 1. A Pill for the Infidel and Atheift; in which the divine Authority of the Apocalypfe is logi cally and philofophically proved. 2. A Word to the Editors of the Gofpel Magazine and Theological Review. 3: The Errors and mifreprefentations of Bishop Sherlock, in his Difcourfes on the Prophecies, detected and refuted. By Jofeph Galloway Efq. Author of Brief Commentaries upon the Revelation &c. 8vo. PP. 233. 55 Weft, Jones, Higham, Jordan and Maxwell, Pearmain and Ridgway, London; and Blackburn, Knightsbridge. 1805. that it is no mean
has been obferved, we
of genius to write a good advertisement, or to manufacture a good title-page; and the obfervation, though apparently jocular, is really founded in truth. For both thefe fpecies of compofition, though generally short, and seemingly fimple, require, in order to their perfect execution, the power of juft and accurate thinking, together with a talent for difcrimination, arrangement, and compreffion. On the enormous length of the prefent title-page we shall make no remarks; but it contains a blunder of a fingular kind, which we cannot help noticing and for which we find ourselves unable to account. Our readers will obferve that it styles Mr. Whitaker, the learned author of "A general NO. LXXXIII. VOL, XXI. and
and connected View of the Prophecies relating to the times of the Gofpel" Dean of Canterbury. Mr. Whitaker, we believe, is as deferving as any man of being a Dean or even a B shop. But the fact is that he is only a Rector; and accordingly, in the title of our author's address to him, he is rightly defigned "rector of St. Mildred's Canterbury."
In our review of Mr. Galloway's "Commentaries" (Vol XVII. Pp. 225 &c. 394 &c.) though we could not rate his fuccefs as an interpreter of the difficult book of the Apocalypfe very high, we gave him full and unlimited credit for excellent principles and laudable intentions. We felt, indeed, for him all the refpect which we must ever entertain for a good man, who endeavours, with all his ability, to promote the caufe of religion, of virtue, and of focial order. But, from the publication now before us, we have reafon to fufpect that, had Mr. G. lived to read over our Review, we, inftead of receiving thanks for our praife, fhould have fmarted feverely, under his lash, on account of our cenfures. For, before his death, our worthy old friend appears to have become extremely irritable. This volume difplays, in various places, efpecially in the addrefs to Mr. Whitaker, a fpirit of bitterness towards those who differ from him which we cannot, by any means, approve, and a harfhnefs of language which borders on rudeness.
"You will perhaps," he says to Mr. W. "think this a strange kind of dedication.... It is intended chiefly to expoftulate with you upon the uncivil, and I must call it unchriftian-like cenfure, [which] you have paffed on a work, evidently defigned, whatever may be the fuccefs, to promote the truths of the Gospel of Chrift."
It appears from this address, that Mr. G.'s "Commentaries" were publifhed in march, 1802, and that a fecond edition as we fuppofe of Mr. W.'s "View" (which we have not feen,) was published in the month of July following. From this circumstance Mr. G. concludes that Mr. W. had feen his Commentaries, and that they are particuIarly alluded to in a paffage of Mr. W.'s preface, which paflage it is proper that we should give as it is quoted by Mr. G.
"At the fame time, the conftancy with which it (the Church of Rome) is holden up as the great perfecutor of God's witneffes even to the lait, will convince him (the reader,) that the notion lately taken up of the appearance of Antichrift under different characters, is not only an error, but one bigbly pernicious in its confequences, in drawing the attention of Chriftians from a quarter (the Church of Rome) on which they fhould ever keep the strictest guard."
This unfortunate fentence excited in our author fuch high refentment that he writes as follows: "This long fentence is replete with fo much equivocal and fophistical froth, that it is impoffible to find out the fubftance. If there be nothing in it to wonder at, its abfurdity will create a fmile." (P. vii.) To us, (P. vii.) To us, we muft.confefs, his fenfibility appears to be exceffive, and his refentment unreasonable. With Mr. Whitaker's opinions on the fubject of Antichrift, though
fupported, as they are, (we speak of his firft publication) with great learning and ingenuity, we are far from being prepared to coincide. But it was not, we apprehend, to be expected that, thinking as he did, he should fpeak of thofe who differed from him in any other terms; and if his language is ftrong, it must, at least be allowed to be that of a gentleman. Befides, the animofity of our author seems altogether unjuftifiable, on another account." It is," he fays" a reasonable conclufion that I am one, if not the principal, of the culprits [whom] you have difingenuously, and without ceremony, condemned." Now we, for our part, can fee not even the fhadow of a reason for this conclufion. Mr. G. could not poffibly have been ignorant (indeed, he afterwards clearly fhews that he was not ignorant,) that he was far from being the only person who had maintained that the defignation of Antichrift is, without fufficient warrant, appropriated to the Church of Rome. And he does not alledge that either his name or his book, in particular, is so much as hinted at by Mr. Whitaker.
He proceeds, however, to comment on the fentence quoted above with a feverity which certainly favours of rancour, and, seemingly, we are forry to add, of difingenuity. To what other principle can we impute the following and similar cavils? "this, Sir, is really the first time I have ever heard or read that conftancy in maintaining a doctrine is the proper ground of mental conviction. Perfons who have been acquainted with what has paffed in the world, have known that the most mischievous doctrines, as well as evident truths, have been with great conftancy and perfeverance held up from age to age, and yet the former have been believed and the latter rejected" (P. viii.) We cannot take upon us precifely to fay, and that for the reafon already affigned, what Mr. W's. particular meaning is, when he talks of the "conftancy" with which the doctrine that the Church of Rome is Antichrift is holden up. He probably, however, means the conftancy, with which, as he supposes, that doctrine is holden up in scripture. But Mr. W. we are fure, was incapable of affirming as a general propofition, what Mr. G. in this place makes him affirm, that, the conftancy with which opinions are maintained is a certain evidence of their truth. This perverfion, therefore, of Mr. W's. fenfe arofe, we are afraid, from a voluntary mifconftruction.
Our author, however, has better fuccefs when he contends that Mr. Whitaker's opinion has not been the general belief of the Church. "All the ancient fathers," he says, "who have mentioned the subject, fuch as Irenæus, Cyril, Jerome, Austin, &c. &c. have from the evident meaning of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John, referred the ærd of the rife of Antichrift to the latter times,' and the last time' of the Gospel of Chrift; and you will not, surely, infift that the Church of Rome, whose power and influence commenced in the beginning of the seventh, and has continued twelve centuries fince, arose in the last time or latter times' of the Chriftian difpenfation. (P. xi.) And, Sir, in refpect to the opinions of the later divines, I fufpect you will find it a difficult task to produce any of them, who afcribed to the