But for the violation of truth, I offer no excuse, because I well know, that nothing can excuse it. Nor will I aggravate my crime, by disingennous palliations. I confess it, I repent it, and resolve, that my first offence shall be my last. More I cannot perform, and more therefore cannot be required. I intreat the pardon of all men, whom I have by any means induced to support, to countenance, or patronise my frauds, of which I think myself obliged to declare, that not one of my friends was conscious. I hope to deserve, by better conduct and more useful undertakings, that patronage which I have obtained from the most illustrious and venerable names by misrepresentation and delusion, and to appear hereafter in such a character, as shall give you no reason to regret that your name is frequently mentioned with that of,

Reverend Sir,

Dec. 20, 1750.

Your most humble servant,


[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THIS is a treatise consisting of Six Letters upon

1 a very difficult and important question, whic I am afraid this author's endeavours will not free from the perplexity which has entangled the speculatists of all ages, and which must always continue while we see but in part. He calls it a Free Enquiry, and indeed his freedom is, I think, greater than his modesty. Though he is far from the contemptible arrogance, or the impious licentiousness of Bolingbroke, yet he decides too easily upon ques. tions out of the reach of human determination, with too little consideration of mortal weakness, and with too much vivacity for the necessary caution,

• This “ Enquiry,” published in 1757, was the production of Soame Jenyns, Esq. who never forgave the author of the Review. It is painful to relate, that after he bad suppressed his resentment during Dr. Johnson's life, he gave it vent in a petulant and illiberal mock-epitaph, which would not have deserved notice had it not been admitted into the edition of his works published by Mr. Cole. When this epitaph first appeared in the newspapers, Mr. Boswell answered it by another upon Mr. Jenyns, equal, at least, in illiberality:

This Review is justly reckoned one of the finest specimens of criticism in our language, and was read with such eagerness when published in the Literary Magazine, that the author was induced to reprint it in a small volume by itself; a circumstance which appears to have escaped Mr. Boswell's research. C.


In the first letter on Evil in general, he observes, that, “ it is the solution of this important question, whence came Evil, alone, that can ascertain the « moral characteristick of God, without which there « is an end of all distinction between Good and “ Evil.” Yet he begins this Enquiry by this declaration: “ That there is a Supreme Being, in“ finitely powerful, wise, and benevolent, the great “ Creator and Preserver of all things, is, a truth sa r clearly demonstrated, that it shall be here taken 6 for granted.” What is this but to say, that we have already reason to grant the existence of those attributes of God, which the present Enquiry is designed to prove? The present Enquiry is then surely made to no purpose. The attributes, to the demonstration of which the solution of this great question is necessary, have been demonstrated with. out any solution, or by means of the solution of some former writer.

He rejects the Manichean system, but imputes to it an absurdity, from which, amidst all its absurdities, it seems to be free, and adopts the system of Mr. Pope. “ That pain is no evil, if asserted with “ regard to the individuals who suffer it, is down“ right nonsense; but if considered as it affects the “ universal system, is an undoubted truth, and " means only that there is no more pain in it than “ what is necessary to the production of happiness. “ How many soever of these evils then force them“ selves into the creation, so long as the good pres ponderates, it is a work well worthy of infinite “ wisdoin and benevolence; and, notwithstanding to the imperfections of its parts, the whole is most « undoubtedly perfect.” And in the former part


of the Letter he gives the principle of his system in these words: “Omnipotence cannot work contra“ dictions, it can only effect all possible things. “ But so little are we acquainted with the whole ss system of nature, that we know not what are s possible, and what are not: but if we may judge “ from that constant mixture of pain with pleasure, 6 and inconveniency with advantage, which we must s observe in every thing round us, we have reason “ to conclude, that to endue created beings with s perfection, that is, to produce Good exclusive of 6 Evil, is one of those impossibilities which even « infinite power cannot accomplish.”

This is elegant and acute, but will by no means calm discontent, or silence curiosity; for whether Evil can be wholly separated from Good or not, it is plain that they may be mixed in various degrees, and as far as human eyes can judge, the degree of Evil might have been less without any impediment to Good.

The second Letter on the evils of imperfection, is little more than a paraphrase of Pope's Epistles, or yet less than a paraphrase, a mere translation of poetry into prose. This is surely to attack difficulty with very disproportionate abilities, to cut the Gordian knot with very blunt instruments. When we are told of the insufficiency of former solutions, why is one of the latest, which no man can have forgotten, given us again? I am told, that this pamphlet is not the effort of hunger: what can it be then but the product of vanity ? and yet how can vanity be gratified by plagiarism or transcription? When this speculatist finds himself prompted to another performance, let him consider whether he is about to disburthen his mind, or employ his

fingers ;

fingers; and if I might venture to offer him a subject, I should wish that he would solve this question, Why he that has nothing to write, should desire to be a writer?

Yet is not this Letter without some sentiments, which, though not new, are of great importance, and may be read with pleasure in the thousandth repetition.

“Whatever we enjoy is purely a free gift from our « Creator; but that we enjoy no more, can never “ sure be deemed an injury, or a just reason to ques“ tion his infinite benevolence. All our happiness is “ owing to his goodness; but that it is no greater, " is owing only to ourselves; that is, to our not « having any inherent right to any happiness, or " even to any existence at all. This is no more to " be imputed to God, than the wants of a beggar to 6 the person who has relieved him : that he had « something, was owing to his benefactor; but that “ he had no more, only to his own original poverty."

Thus far he speaks what every man must approve, and what every wise man has said before him. He then gives us the system of subordination, not invented, for it was known I think to the Arabian metaphysicians, but adopted by Pope; and from him borrowed by the diligent researches of this great investigator.

« No system can possibly be formed, even in ** imagination, without a subordination of parts, « Every animal body must have different members < subservient to each other; every picture must be “ composed of various colours, and of light and « shade; all harmony must be formed of trebles, s tenors, and basses; every beautiful and useful edi

"o fice

« 前へ次へ »