« AnteriorContinua »
9. More than half their number follow no business: others are dealers in horses and asses: farriers, smiths, tinkers, braziers, grinders of cutlery, basket-makers, chair-bottomers, and musicians.
19. Children are brought up in the habits of their parents, particularly to music and dancing, and are of dissolute conduct.
11. The women mostly carry baskets with trinkets and small wares; and tell fortunes.
12. Too ignorant to have acquired accounts of genealogy, and perhaps indisposed by the irregularity of their habits.
13. In most counties there are particular situations to which they are partial. In Berkshire is a marsh, near Newbury, much frequented by them; and Dr. Clarke states, that in Cambridgeshire, their principal rendezvous is near the western villages.
14. It cannot be ascertained whether, from their first coming into the nation, attachment to particular places has prevailed.
15, 16, and 17. When among strangers, they elude inquiries respecting their peculiar language, calling it gibberish.. Don't know of any person that can write it, or of any written specimen of it.
18. Their habits and customs in all places are peculiar.
19. Those who profess any religion represent it to be that of the country in which they reside: but their description of it seldom goes beyond repeating the Lord's Prayer; and only few of them are capable of that. Instances of their attending any place for worship are very rare.
20. They marry for the most part by pledging to each other, without any ceremony. A few exceptions have occurred when money plentiful.
21. They do not teach their children religion. 22 and 23. Not one in a thousand can read.
Exeter, Aug. 7, 1816. HOPED to have had no further occasion to engage the attention of yourself, or your readers, to the subject of my former paper, (p. 264;) but your Correspondent's reply in the last Number of your estimable Repository, (p. 390,) seems to require my
taking notice of some of his statements; in doing which I shall endeavour to be as brief as the subject admits.
To expose to the world the failings of a fellow-creature, must necessarily prove a painful task to a benevolent mind; but publicly to advance, or even insinuate, a charge of immorality against an individual unable to defend himself, without substantiating such allegation, appears to me a procedure altogether unwarrantable. Your Correspondent, however, seems to me placed in this awkward predicament, by his unnecessary and unproved insinuation against the Count. The injurious reflection he threw out in his first paper, I am sorry to find reiterated by him, after what had been advanced by myself. Since what he regards as evidence is not produceable in a work designed for general readers, why advert to so ungrateful a topic at all? Christian charity, not to mention justice, would in my opinion have here dictated silence. But your Correspondent assigns the following reason for his insinuation to the prejudice of the Count. "I considered it my duty, to guard the memories of such men as Watts and Doddridge, from the imputation of an unqualified approbation of Count Zinzendorf." A strange mode of acting this, to exalt one character by depreciating another! But whoever regarded the Count with unqualified admiration? That he was a great and good man I have no doubt, but he had his defects and weaknesses; and in persons of his ardent cast of mind they are always most prominent.
In reference to the religious poems to which your Correspondent alludes, (for they were not used as hymns,) let me inform him that scarcely any had the Count for their author; and, as already noticed, as soon as he perceived that they were open to misrepresentation, he checked their further circulation. Yet even these poems, objectionable as their original phrascology is, become far inore so in Rimius's hands; and I affirm cannot be justly appreciated from his exhibition of them: his illegitimate renderings, and utter neglect of the connexion in which the passages quoted by him stand, necessarily preclude his work from implicit credit. Perinit me, Sir, to add, that the only clue to
a just exposition of such phraseology, is to be found in an intimate acquaintance with the theological and moral views of Count Zinzendorf and the brethren of that day. Such phraseology, though open to abuse, was, however, I am warranted in affirming, only employed in a spiritual sense by the brethren themselves, and I am satisfied, from experience and observation, gave rise amongst them to no other than the purest ideas and emotions. Had the excellent Jortiu been aware of this circumstance, however he might reprehend such language, he would have refrained from implicating in his censure the character of the Count.
Your Correspondent tells his readers, that my appeal to the case of Dr. Gill" has very little, if any connexion with the subject;" but let me, notwithstanding, still adduce it as well calculated to confirm my position, viz. that there is no necessary connexion between impropriety of language and impropriety of thought and feeling; though I would decidedly protest against the use of any such language myself. On this account I cannot approve of your Correspondent's use of the word amatory, where divine love is the subject, because that word being usually expressive of sensual attachment, will be thus associated
in the mind.
The compliment paid by your Correspondent, to the brethren of the present day, at the expense of their esteemed predecessors, will I apprehend scarcely be accepted by them.
It remains for me only to apologize for the length of this paper, and in conclusion (to avail myself once more of your Correspondent's words) will say that "I am not aware that I ought to trouble him, or any of your readers, further on the disagreeable subject which has very unexpectedly been forced on my attention," but which a sense of duty prompted me to undertake, in behalf of an esteemed individual, whose character I consider unjustly aspersed.
With every sentiment of regard,
But I am blamed by your Correspondent for not having verified my allegations against Rimtus; in answer permit me to adopt his own words: "I did not conceive such a discussion adapted to a work designed for general readers." Your Correspondent and myself are here placed in similar circumstances; however with one material difference: my estimate of Rimius's work appeared necessary, whereas your Correspondent's attack on the Count's character may be considered optional. That I may not however be thought to have advanced charges wholly without foundation, I shall take the liberty of adverting to one instance amongst others of Rimius's unfairness, would I could say incapacity, as a translator: the example I select is his unjustifiable rendering of the German termination lein by little, instead of dear or preSIR, cious; as in the words laemlein, wund-FEAR that I do not fully understand your An Old Inquirer, in the Repository for June, (p. 322,) who animadverts upon the first scheme of Divine Providence
On the Divine Government.
the literal rendering of these words is I admit little lamb, little wound; but the connexion in which they stand, plainly pointed out to Rimius that they ought to be translated precious lamb, precious wound; Christ and his sufferings being the theme, and the brethren of that time being in the habit of using that termination to express holy endearment. Thus a translator, deficient in ability,
in rectitude, may pervert an author's meaning without infringing any grammatical rules.*
to have overlooked what I there said, for he observes, "Crantz and La Trobe have left it unimpeached." As historians, an answer to that work did not fall within their province, had they been so inclined; full, and I think according to the Count's but I will inform him that he may find a view of Bible truth, a satisfactory reply, to all the charges brought against him, in a quarto volume published in the German language about the year 1754.
* In my last paper I noticed the line of conduct the brethren thought proper to adopt, with regard to Rimius's publication; though your Correspondent seems
It will have been seen that this Correspondent has ceased from his labours, and fallen into his place in our Obituary, p. 487. ED.
without touching upon the second, the effect of independent powers, are (p. 74,) which I should have pre- therefore as much the appointment of sumed would have had his appro- God, as the place and action of every bation.
atom of lifeless matter. We may be If we admit the existence of God, confounded by the variety of effect, as the Creator of all things, I think it and wonder how any mind could comwill follow as an unavoidable conse- prehend such a vast machinery; but quence, that all lifeless matter that we no less confounded by the he has formed must obey the laws powers of creation. Thus then all with which it is impressed, and that matter and its effects, and all animals therefore not an atom is to be found, which we see, and their actions, are of which did not necessarily occupy the divine appointmeni, or the necessary station and perform the office for which effects of creating power;, except it was appointed. I mean when such indeed the actions of inen, which must atom has not been acted upon or now be examined. influenced by living existence. So Either man is governed in his whole, far we seem to proceed, without the conduct by the fixed laws of his intervention of hypothesis, . upon nature, or he is emphatically free in grounds absolutely certain, taking for all his voluntary conduct—there is no granted only, that matter and its laws middle supposition which is tenable, were created and made by an intelli- and under these opposite suppositions, gent being. If An Old Inquirer deem the greatest names have arranged this a gratuitous hypothesis, namely, themselves in argument and disputathat intelligent being created all mat- tion. I presume not to determine ter, and impressed it with its laws, I the question, but only to reason upou
be an hypothesis - but the consequences of either supposition. one, which secms not only reasonable, If man then be an agent perfectly but what is now generally admitted. free in all his voluntary conduct, it So far then, as lifeless maiter is con- will follow that he possesses a power cerned, I think we need not enter froin his Creator, which he exerts at upon any farther illustration. A vast pleasure, concerning the effect of class of living beings, which we do whichnothing can be predicated. not deem rational and moral agents, Whatever evils men occasion by their next invite our inquiry, the birds in voluntary conduct, and whatever the air, the fishes in the sea, and the good, is ascribable to them, and not innumerable irrational animals on the to their Creator. earth. The question then will be,' If God formed the first male and do these ever act, or can they act, in female with such powers, then he contrariety to the laws to which their appointed not the existence of the Creator has subjected them? Have human race, for it depended upon they independent powers, or do they their voluntary co-operation whether necessarily follow the laws of their the race should proceed. God nature? For it will not, cannot be the powers, the use or abuse of them denied that they are created subject to belongs only to man. According to certain laws. They have feeling, feel this reasoning, the maximum of happleasure and pain, and necessarily piness and misery may be fixed; but avoid the one and choose the other. whatever of happiness or misery be Their actions, are they the simple the effect of the voluntary powers of result of those feelings, or have they a men, as these are free and independent liberty of self-determination? In as powers, are not of divine appointment, far as we can judge from observation, but arrange themselves under Dr. Pathey appear to follow their feelings ley's scheine of chance.
Whatever simply, for we cannot perceive that sufferings come upon brute animals, they have any thing to oppose to these by the voluntary conduct of man, as feelings. We kill the iyger because it was not foreseen or appointed, is he destroys us, not because in so doing, not resolvable into the will of God. we imagine him to abuse his liberty This supposition places man in an and act contrary to his nature. Ad awful situation, and he cannot but the actions of these immense tribes wish that the first pair had died withof animals, if they be the simple result out issue. of the laws of their nature, and not On the opposite supposition that
the actions of man, are the necessary result of his nature and circumstances, he has the consolation of a less tremendous responsibility, but then it is in contradiction to all the general systems of religion.
AN INQUIRER. P. S. I will take the liberty of adding a few remarks upon Dr. Paley's Scheme of Chance, He says that there may be chance in the midst of design; two men travelling by design between London and York, meet by accident, or chance, on the road. Here is chance in the midst of design. This principle must be admitted to its full extent, when human design only is contemplated. Thus the consequences of nine tenths of the actions of men are consequences of chance. No man by design injures his circumstances, few by design injure their health, thus every man's death nearly, is by chance. Very few men when they marry design children, this is not their motive or design, therefore, every man's birth is by chance. There is according to this scheme, very little that affects the being or happiness of sensible beings the effect of design. And this is perfectly agreeable to my second scheme of the Divine government, which is the only doctrine consistent with the philosophical free agency of man, and which, as it excludes foreknowledge of effect from the Deity completely as to whatever relates to man in this world, excludes also effective design. God wills that if men are born, they should possess a definite organization, and be subject to certain general circumstances, and there the design of the Deity stops. Their future, not their present destination, depends entirely on his will, and if there be either justice or goodness in it, must be as various as the variety of human character. This is Dr. Paley's doctrine of chance, and seems to be agreeable to appearances, and the common apprehensions of mankind.
Every middle scheme is a system of confusion and contradiction, or of constant miracle, so that there appears to be no alternative between Paley's Chance, and Hobbes's Necessity. This is the full extent of my assertion, I meddle not with the question as to which scheme is the true one.
Newington Green, SIR, September 10th, 1816. OFFER a few remarks on a communication in your last Number, (p. 448), respecting the Greek Article, but without the smallest intention of stepping in between your Correspondent and Dr. Charles Lloyd. I have not the least doubt that a gentleman of the Doctor's learning can prove to demonstration that the Deity of Christ is not to be inferred by any right application of the Article to passages in the New Testament;" and shall be glad to see such proof in the Monthly Repository or in a separate publication.
Your respectable Correspondent will not, I trust, be offended with my remarks on some parts of his letter. His object seems to be useful knowledge, and therefore I presume that my notice of his communication will be as well received as it is well intended. “The Article (your Correspondent remarks) is only an index." I thought so when I wrote the following sentence in Reason the Arbiter of Language : “ This and that are merely two indexes or pointers, such as we often see on way-posts or buildings to direct the eye to some object, and which are properly printed as a hand, because they supply its place. So that or this supplies the place of a hand, or rather of a finger, and was originally nothing but its name." Such was my opinion at that time: whether I invented or borrowed it I cannot now ascertain; but I recollect well that even then the nature and origin of the parts of speech had cost me much hard thinking and tiresome searching. But on further inquiry (and, I trust, clearer, deeper reflection), I was compelled (somewhat reluctantly, for I had published an opinion), by what I deemed convincing evidence, to abandon the idea of index, and proclaim the fallibi lity of my understanding. The final decision of my erring judgment is ex pressed very fully in Philosophic Etymology. If your Correspondent will favour my Work with a perusal, he will find that my opinion coincides with that of Aristotle and that of Dr. Middleton at the same time. In re presenting the Greek as having no resemblance to the English Article, indeed I suspect the Doctor knew not what he said nor whereof he affirmed. He was right in saying that the Greek Article is the pronoun relative; but
he would have been equally right had he said that the relative pronoun is the Article. The terms relative and article seem both to have originated in just conception.
Your Correspondent remarks: "though it be granted that was originally a pronoun, it is no more a pronoun now than it is a verb or adjective." Dugald Stewart employs similar language in his remarks upon the Diversions of Purley, which I do not wonder at; but I would submit to the re-consideration of your Correspondent, whether such fanguage be suited to rigorous inquiry and just conception. The question of any importance, is not what technical names have been applied to o, but what it is. What is its nature or use? Will your Correspondent have the goodness to explain what a pronoun or a verb is? I can assure him the question is not captious, for if he can give a simpler, more intelligible and satisfactory account of these matters than I have endeavoured to give, he shall have my best and sincerest thanks. "The Monthly Reviewer (it is said) has justly maintained the superiority of the English over the Greek in precision, by the means of the indefinite-an- in combination with the definitive." But I suspect if the Monthly Reviewer were asked this simple question-what is the definite or what is the indefinite article? he would not give a very ready or very 'intelligible answer. 'What is called the definite article has no necessary connection with definiteness; and what is absurdly called the indefinite article is merely a varied spelling and pronunciation of the numeral one.
There is a gentleman with whose remarks on these subjects I should be extremely glad to see your pages enriched, for I consider his understanding of a much higher order than that of either the mere linguist or the mere metaphysician. He has only to think as freely, clearly and profoundly on philology, as on Philosophical Necessity, to render important services to true grammar and sound logic. He has with much candour (I ought perhaps to say generosity after the poignancy of some of my strictures) acknowledged that I have successfully illustrated several obscure points; and if he will point out some of the more essential particulars wherein I may have failed
in developing the principles of language satisfactorily, I trust that I shall treat his remarks with becoming respect.
He may have more reverence for scholastic authority than I can admire, but I feel confident that he will be at the trouble of understanding my meaning, though I fear much that some of my readers will resemble those alluded to in the following sentence: "When men have once acquiesced in untrue opinions, and registered them as authentical records in their minds, it is no less impossible to speak intelligibly (or convincingly) to them, than to write legibly upon a paper already scribbled over." Unfortunately for useful learning and true science, the minds of many teachers are scribbled over with school-boy nonsense; but as the judicious Locke justly remarks: "It is not strange that methods of learning which scholars have been accustomed to in their beginning and entrance upon the sciences, should influence them all their lives, and be settled in their minds by an overruling reverence, especially if they be such as universal use has established. Learners must at first be believers, and their master's rules having been once made axioms to them, it is no wonder they should keep that dignity, and, by the authority they have once got, mislead those, who think it sufficient to excuse them, if they go out of their way in a well beaten tract. And when fashion hath once established what folly began, custom makes it sacred, and it will be thought impudence or madness to contradict or question it."
If I have not already occupied too much of the room allotted in the Repository to communications of this nature, I should be glad to have some queries inserted in reference to a subject which has received some notice in your pages, hoping that some of your readers will be induced to reply to them.
What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of government? Wherein consists true national prosperity? Is the doctrine of Malthus an insurmountable obstacle to the perfectibility or improvableness to any great degree of human society? In other words, are vice and misery necessary to keep population down to the level of the means of subsistence?