fhould draw a very different conclufion, and confider it as a fymptom of the levity and futility of the prefent age; unable to bear the fatigue of manly thought, and prone to fink into habits of literary fauntering.

In the Strictures on Modern Ethics' our Author drops an intimation of his opinion upon the controverted doctrines of Liberty and Neceffity. The writers who maintain the mechanifm, of the human mind are pretty roughly handled by him in the following paragraph,

But even he who is taught to revere the wisdom of the naked Indian, and to defpife the improvements of his own times and nation, is more likely to think and act with dignity, than the man who be lieves himself a machine. Such an one, to be confiftent, must renounce the idea of the foul's fupremacy over the actions of the body, and must refign himself to the impulfe of that blood, of which alone he believes himself to confift. As an engine he will yield to every motion without refiftance; for the perfection of the machine depends on its moving with the leaft poffible friction or impediment. The mistake of him who looks on himself in this light, is equally abfurd with that of the hypochondriac vifionary, who, in the temporary madness of his reverie, imagines himself a goose or an addled egg.'

If this paffage does not indicate a great ignorance of the question at which it glances, it certainly betrays a want of decency to thofe who differ from him concerning it. Whether Dr. Priestley will be much alarmed at the idea of fo formidable a champion as Mr. Knox, we cannot fay. We believe the Doctor is in no danger of imagining himself either a goofe or an addled egg, and therefore it is not probable that he will be greatly disturbed by this fingular fuggeftion. We must however do our Author the juftice to obferve, that he is here declaiming against the profefled fceptics of the age, and that he does not feem to have thought of taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Dr. Priestley on this fubject. He feems only to have pointed his ar tillery at a fet of fashionable or modifh philofophers, againft whoin he might think declamation the most effectual weapon. Taken in this view, the following expreffions will not perhaps appear too warm. nndra

Abfurd and pernicious as are most of the opinions advanced and maintained by modern philofophy; yet an elegance of ftyle, a vivacity of expreffion, a fingularity of fentiment, have had charms fufficient to recommend it to many whofe badnefs of heart is only equalled by the weakness of their understandings: weakness, I fay, for cunning is not wisdom. Many of the great, the degenerate defcendants of a debauched nobility, whofe little minds have received the fmall degree of improvement of which they were capable, from a French matter; are the profeffed difciples of Voltaire: and the of fenfive fwarms of paltry pretenders to wit and genius, who ground their pretenfions on blafpheming their God and calumniating their neighbour; and who prove the depravity of human nature by their

own bafenefs, are the admirers of Hume and Bolingbroke. This corruption has already fpread far and wide, diffolving the bands of fociety, and diffufing perfonal mifery.. Whenever it shall become general, there is no doubt but that the over-ruling Providence which left not one stone upon another in Babylon, fhall fweep away the nàtion in which is prevails, with the befom of deftruction.'

It is ealy to collect from thefe Effays, that Mr. Knox adopts. the fyftem of thofe philofophers who affert common fenfe to be the.. teft of truth in morals and religion. This fyftem is an extremely commodious one. It flatters the vanity and indolence fo natural to the human mind, by referring all difficulties to a fuppofed infallible monitor, which pronounces at once on the queftion in difpute, and chafes away every doubt. If we underftand the import of Effay XXXV. On the ill Effects of proving by Argument Truths already admitted,' it affords not the leaft dangerous application of the theory juft alluded to. This Effay wears the form of a letter from, a very good fort of man, whose repofe has been difturbed, and whofe religious conviction has been fhaken by books of controverfial divinity, and who unfort tunately believed lefs as he read more. The picture of a mind thus thrown off the hinges is drawn with much fancy, and well fuitained throughout. But what is the inference that refults! from it? Is it that, the affent which precedes examination is more valuable than that which flows from it? that conviction is, in an inverse ratio to inquiry ?-Surely Mr. Knox does not think fo!The honeft letter-writer concludes his epiftle with tell, ing us, that he has refolved to lay afide proofs, demonftrations, and illuftrations of all matters fufficiently proved, demonstrated and illuftrated to the humble mind, by their own internal evidence.' If our Readers, be difpofed to inquire what species of truths are the objects of this internal evidence,' we are left to collect this from a preceding part of the letter: the catalogue is i pretty copious.

་

C

I had received (fays he) all the notions ufually instilled by parental authority, with implicit belief. I was told that there was one God, and I believed it, for I faw his works around me. I embraced revealed religion in all its parts, with the fame evidence of conviction with which I believed the fun to exist in the heavens, when I beheld it radiance, and felt its warmth. I faw and believed the difference between right and wrong, vice and virtue, juftice and injustice, as Arongly as the difference between black and white, and fweet and ! bitter. I never dreamt of calling in queftion the authenticity of the fcriptural writers, the doctrine of the trinity, the divinity of our Saviour, the immateriality and immortality of the human foul, and the refurrection of the body. When I repeated the creed, I fpoke with the fame confidence of undoubting conviction, as when I afferted the truth of a fact of which I had ocular demonstration. The Ready light of common fenfe had guided me, and I had been humble enough to follow its directions." Rev. Jan. 1780.

F

However

However important these articles of faith are, and however fufceptible of folid proof, any or all of them may be thought, we confefs we fee no great merit in believing them by rote, without any knowledge of the arguments by which they are fupported. Though there should refult fome ill effects (as Mr. Knox fuppofes) from proving truths already admitted, if they were admitted without examining, thefe effects ought to be hazarded. Religion need not fhrink from the most rigid difcuffion. She cannot fuffer from the freeft inquiries: and to inquire and to judge is the bufinefs of all, in proportion to their means and opportunities of doing it. We do not entertain any high refpect for that defcription of men whom the poet characterizes

⚫ Unlettered Chriftians (who believe in grofs),
Plod on to heaven, and ne'er are at a loss.'

-We have already taken notice of Mr. Knox's enmity to logic and metaphyfics. In his Effay On Speculative Criticism and on Genius,' he relaxes fomewhat of this hoftile difpofition; and in defining genius, he feems to have delineated the qualities which form a logician, rather than the ingredients which conftitute the poet. He fuppofes genius to be an extraordinary power of attention; a capacity in the mind of attaching itself clofely and ftrongly, at a glance, to every object that folicits its regard; of taking in the whole of it, in all its diftant relations, dependen- · cies, modifications, origin, and confequences. If attention be allowed to ufurp the name and honours of genius, what becomes of enthufiafm? what becomes of invention, and of the creative power of imagination, which Shakspeare tells us, bodies forth the forms of things unknown, &c. and which has been ever confidered as the very effence of genius?

In remarking these accidental points in which we differ from Mr. Knox, we do not mean to detract from the general merit of his performances. Perhaps there are few writers who have entered into fo great a variety of subjects to whom we could have objected fo little. We ftill adhere to the fame favourable fentiments which we at first formed of this gentleman. It were a want of candour to exclude him from that indulgence which in his concluding Essay he has folicited for other literary adven

turers.

• The spirit of adventure in literary undertakings, as well as in politics, commerce, and war, must not be discouraged. If it produces that which is worth little notice, neglect is easy. There is a great probability, however, that it will often exhibit fomething conducive to pleasure and improvement. But when every new attempt is checked by feverity, or regarded with indifferenee, learning flagnates, and the mind is deprefed, till its productions fo far degene

* Vide Review above referred to, for the account of the firft volume of Effays Moral and Literary,

rate

rate as to justify difregard. Tafte and literature are never long flationary. When they cease to advance, they become retrograde,

Every liberal attempt to give a liberal entertainment is entitled to a kind excufe, though its execution should not have a claim to praise. For the fake of encouraging fubfequent endeavours, lenity thould be displayed where there is no appearance of incorrigible ftupidity, of affuming ignorance, and of empty conceit. Severity chills the opening powers, as the fioft nips the bud that would elfe have been a bloffom. It is blameable morofenefs 10 cenfure thofe who fincerely mean to please, and fail only from caufes not in their own dif ofil,

The praife, however, of well meaning has ufually been allowed. with a facility of conceffion which leads to fufpect that it was thought of little value. It has also been received with apparent mortification. This furely is the refult of a perverted judgment; for intention is in the power of every man, though he cannot command ability,

ART. X. An Appeal from the Proteftant Affeciation to the People of Great Britain, concerning the probable Tendency of the late Act of Par liament in Favour of Papills. 8vo. 6d. DodЛley. 1779.

WE

E hold the principles of popery in as much abhorrence, and its abfurdities in as much contempt, as the most zealous member of the Proteftant Affaciation. But fince a bill hath paffed both Houses of Parliament, and gained the royal affent, in favour of Roman Catholics, we are apprehensive that it bears too much the appearance of a popifh fpirit, to endeavour to procure a repeal of it. Proteftants have (and with great reafon) accused the Papifts of a bigotted and intolerant spirit ;and have appealed to the decrees of their councils,-the decifions of their ableft and most approved advocates, and above all, to the inconteftible evidence of facts, to authenticate their charge. But fhall we condemn ourfelves, by imitating their conduct? Shall we act like Papifts in fupporting Proteftantifm? No. Let our actions convince them of the diffimilarity of our principles. Let us fhew them, that in efpoufing the caufe of Proteftantifm, we are not vindicating the claims of a fect; but that our difpofition is as benevolent as Christianity, and our object as extenfive as Human Nature. This conduct would, in the nobleft fense of the expreffion, heap coals of fire on their heads: and convince them (if any thing could convince them) that Proteftants have imbibed the amiable and exalted fpirit of their divine Mafter, who came not to destroy men's lives, but to fave them.'

But the members of the Affociation are prepared to tell us, that the question at prefent is not fo much about a point of religion, as a matter of civil polity. They do not oppofe Popery because it is a fyftem of errors and abfurdities; but be caufe of its ftate maxims, and the malignant afpe&t which it bears on the civil and religious rights of mankind. Hence,

F 2

what

what is highly ridiculous when feen in a fpeculative point of view, becomes infinitely dangerous when placed in a political. light and our contempt of its principles is almost loft in our dread of its confequences.

To enter into the arguments that have been advanced on both fides of the queftion, would lead us beyond the limits of our journal: we thall therefore content ourselves with offerings to our readers a brief outline of the prefent performance.

The firft fection contains, thoughts on Toleration, and how far it is confiftent with our civil conftitution, and the prefervation of the Proteftant religion, to extend it to the Papifts.. Under this head, the perfecuting fpirit of the Church of Rome,.. from one period to another, is exposed; and the doctrine of the Pope's fupremacy is particularly confidered as derogatory to the effential maxims of a free state. From a view of the inherent nature and invariable tendency of Popery, the gentlemen of the Affociation infer, that to tolerate its opinions, is to infult the natural and moral perfections of that God who gave us reafon and immortality, and to encourage the practice of idolatry, by.. haw, in a Chriftian country. To tolerate Popery, is to be inftrumental to the perdition of immortal fouls now exifting, and of millions of fpirits that at prefent have no existence but in the prescience of God; and is the direct way to provoke the vengeance of an holy and jealous God, to bring down deftruction upon our fleets and armies, and ruin on ourselves and our pofterity."

This was the language of Bonner when he gave orders for the fires in Smithfield-of Calvin when he fent Servetus to the ftake and of Laud when he condemned Leighton to the pillory. Shall we tolerate opinions (faid they) which are inftrumental to the perdition of immortal fouls?

So far as any religious fyftem refpects the worship of God, and a future ftate, fo far it hath an undoubted claim to every poffible indulgence. As a fyftem of opinians, no state under heaven hath any concern with it. The matter wholly relates to the all-feeing God, and the dictates of private confcience. It is not the buimefs of government to provide for men's fafety in a future ftate, any farther than by guarding their morals and fitting them for the offices of civil life. Of what remains to be done to qualify the foul for Heaven, every man muft judge for himself.

The second section prefents the reader with a view of the principal laws that were in force against Papifts before they were altered by the late act; and, of the fpirit in which they were executed.

E

Section the third offers Considerations on the late. Act of Parliament; and the alterations made thereby in the penal laws V.J agami