to have fome hare. Mr. Knox confines his obfervations to points in which there is lefs danger of this fufpicion, when he represents the influence that Letters' poffels to footh the mind in the hour of dejection, and to lighten the burthen of diftrefs.

Under the title of Literary Effays we fuppofe Mr. Knox claffes his critical productions. The term literary has yet acquired no appropriate fignification in our language. It is included in that of Elay. It is therefore equally defcriptive of every fpecies of compofition, and characteristic of none.

In the province of criticism, this Gentleman difcovers rather a correct and claffical tafte, than any fuperior degree of originality, or depth of penetration. His averfion to logic and metaphyfics (which the abuse of these ftudies may almoft justify in its excefs) is difcernible even here. Fearful of being abftrufe, he is too loofe and indeterminate in his remarks: in avoiding the charge of fubtilty, he gives into a languid ftyle of criticism and fpiritlefs obfervation, from which little improvement will be derived by those who are moderately tinctured with this fort of literature. The Effays on Preaching and Sermon Writers, and on the Choice of Books,' are too fuperficial and too futile to merit a place in this work. Thofe on Simplicity of Style'on • Epiftolary Writers' On fome of the Minor English Poets,' are elegant, but contain no very ftriking remarks. The Effay On Oriental Poetry is of an higher order; and exhibits a rich and flowing ftyle, at the fame time that it abounds with ingenious. and folid obfervations,

The undiftinguishing cenfure which Mr. Knox paffes on the kindred ftudies of Logic and Metaphyfics,' and the heat and paffion with which he is carried away when he speaks of Modern Ethics," may incline fome of his Readers to fufpect that he is himself no very accurate reafoner, and that he does not understand very clearly what he condemns fo decifively. We hope too he is mif taken in the fact he alleges. He obferves with a fort of triumph, that even Malebranche and Locke, the muft rational of the metaphyficians, are daily lofing ground. As a tafk they are attended to in public feminaries, where fome obfolete plan of ftudy requires metaphyfical exercises; but the multitude of more agree able works feldom leave time or inclination to the ftudent who is at liberty to chufe his books for the controverly concerning innate ideas.'

We have too much refpect for Mr. Locke's writings not to regret that they are falling into neglect. If the fact be fo, we

* Mr. Knox is guilty of the fame inaccuracy when he talks of bufinefs civil or profeffional.' With no propriety can profeffional be diftinguished from civil, unless he means the profeflion of the fword.' In this cafe civil or military would have been better.

fhould

should 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 despise the improvements of his own times and nation, is more likely to think and act with dignity, than the man who believes 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 miftake 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 difturbed by this fingular fuggeftion. We muft however do our Author the juftice to obferve, that he is here declaiming against the profeffed 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 artillery at a set of fashionable or modifh philofophers, against whom he might think declamation the most effectual weapon. Taken in this view, the following expreffions will not perhaps appear too warm.

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 balenefs, 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 fhall become ge neral, there is no doubt but that the over ruling Providence which left not one stone upon another in Babylon, fhall fweep away the na. tion in which it prevails, with the befom of deftruction.'

It is eafy 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 disturbed, and whofe religious conviction has been fhaken by books of controverfial divinity, and who unfortunately believed lefs as he read more. The picture of a mind thus thrown off the hinges is drawn with much fancy, and well fultained 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 telling us, that he has refolved to lay afide proofs, demonftrations, and illustrations 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 pretty copious.

I had received (fays he) all the notions ufually inftilled 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 exift 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 injuftice, as ftrongly as the difference between black and white, and fweet and bi.ter. I never dreamt of calling in question the authenticity of the fcriptural writers, the doctrine of the trinity, the divinity of our Sa viour, 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 demonftration. The steady light of common sense 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 see no great merit in believing them by rote, without any knowledge of the arguments by which they are fupported. Though there fhould 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 moft 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 lofs.'

We have already taken notice of Mr. Knox's enmity to logic and metaphyfics. In his Effay On Speculative Criticifm 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 itfelf 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 thefe 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 fubjects to whom we could have objected fo little. We ftill adhere to the fame favourable fentiments which we at firft formed of this gentleman. It were a want of candour to exclude him from that indulgence which in his concluding Effay he has folicited for other literary adven

turers.

The fpirit of adventure in literary undertakings, as well as in politics, commerce, and war, muft not be difcouraged. If it produces that which is worth little notice, neglect is eafy. There is a great probability, however, that it will often exhibit fomething conducive to pleafure and improvement. But when every new attempt is checked by feverity, or regarded with indifference, learning ftagnates, and the mind is depreffed, till its productions fo far degene

* Vide Review above referred to, for the account of the first vo lume of Eflays Moral and Literary.

zate

sate as to justify difregard. Tafte and literature are never long flationary. When they ceafe 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 praife. For the fake of encouraging fubfequent endeavours, lenity fhould be displayed where there is no appearance of incorrigible ftupidity, of affuming ignorance, and of empty conceit. Severity chills the opening powers, as the froft nips the bud that would elfe have been a bloffom. It is blameable morofenefs to cenfure those who fincerely mean to please, and fail only from caufes not in their own dif ofal.

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 alfo 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 Affociation to the People of Great Britain, concerning the probable Tendency of the late Act of Par liament in Favour of Papifls. 8vo. 6d. Dodley. 1779.

E hold the principles of popery in as much abhorrence,

WE

zealous member of the Proteftant Affociation. But fince a bill hath paffed both Houfes of Parliament, and gained the royal affent, in favour of Roman Catholics, we are apprehenfive 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 fpirit;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 ourselves, 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 difposition is as benevolent as Christianity, and our object as extenfive as Human Nature. This conduct would, in the nobleft sense 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 deftroy 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 oppose Popery because it is a fyftem of errors and abfurdities; but be caufe of its ftate-maxims, and the malignant afpect which it bears on the eV and religious rights of mankind. Hence,

F 2

what