their motives to hoftility, are far from priding themselves on wantonly violating the tranquillity of mankind. To the honour of the better maxims of the age, they are even constrained to produce their injuries and their claims, before they let loose their dreadful hofts to maffacre each other, and ruin unoffending thousands. Where there is yet fhame, there may in time be virtue. The period may at length arrive, in which policy and morality fhall be reconciled when nothing effentially unjust fhall be regarded as adyantageous; and when contiguity of fituation between countries fhall no longer be held up as a fubject of mutual jealousy, but as a motive for drawing fill clofer the ties of fraternal concord.'-It was most natural for Dr. Coombe, when defcanting on thefe fubjects, to fpeak of the shores of Africa, where this barbarous ufage,' which Christianity would exterminate, ftill prevails: he rejoices that humanity has directed its attention hither, with an earnestnefs that adds honour to the British name and character. May (fays he,) its inquiries iffue in the general conviction, that no gains, however great, are to be put in competition with the unalienable rights of man; and that, as a nation is exalted and established by righte oufnefs, fo it is equally debased and debilitated by the revenues of injustice.'

The revolution in France could not fail of obtaining notice in a difcourfe like the prefent. We fhall only infert one fhort paragraph, in which, after obferving, that charity appears to flourish in our own country, as in her favourite foil, he thus proceeds:— Here, as the refult of liberal invefligation, the rubbish of scholastic fyftem hath been removed from the Gospel, and our religion fhewn to be a law of grace and benevolence: whilft, in a great neighbouring monarchy, a change hath taken place that hath mocked all human conjecture on the theory of government, and rendered it probable that the minds of men, fharpened by fuccefsful enquiry, may proceed, from the examination of their civil rights, to their full claim of privileges as Chriftians, and finally to the establishment of a purer fyltem of religion.'-We the rather cite this paffage, becaule it approves the wonderful change which is taking place in the French nation; whereas we fometimes hear those both of the clergy and laity among us, who affect to cenfure and condemn it: but we should fuppole, whatever may be the event, which no human forefight can determine, that the friends of truth, liberty, and virtue, would behold the ftruggle with applaufe, and cordially wish it fuccefs.

To the foregoing remark it is properly added: The diffolution of the alliance (between tyranny and fuperftition) hath ever been regarded as aufpicious to the caule of true philofophy; and there is no extravagance in fuppofing that the fall of fuperftition may eventually fucceed the overthrow of defpotifm.'

We shall clofe our account of this difcourfe with a brief and general remark; viz. that its ftyle is unexceptionable, and its lan

Johnson.

guage

guage accurate; and, which is of much greater confequence, that it contains many useful and excellent obfervations.

Art. 59. Preached at St. Dunstan's in the Weft, March 28, 1790, for the Benefit of the Royal Humane Society, by the Rev. Jofeph Holden Pott, A. M. Prebendary of Lincoln, and Archdeacon of St. Alban's. With an Appendix, containing Reflections on the Importance of establishing general Receiving-houses for the Reftoration of Perfons apparently dead. Svo. pp. 40. Is. Cadell. 1790.

From the words, "Is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives," (2 Sam. xxiii. 17.) Mr. Pott directs the attention of his readers to the importance of human life, and to the utility of an inftitution, which has fo fuccefsfully laboured for its prefervation. His manner of treating this fubject is light and flowery; more fo, perhaps, than he would have judged proper on a different occafion.

Art. 60. The Scripture Idea of Herefy. Preached in the Country. By a Minifter of the Church of England, 8vo. pp. 16. 6d. Johnfon. 1790.

Though a minister of the church of England, this preacher has been taught theology in the modern Unitarian fchool. He speaks with great freedom on the fubjects of herefy, and subscription to articles of faith.

Art. 61. The Snares of Profperity: To which is added, An Effay on Vifiting. By John Clayton. 8vo. pp 43. Is. Buckland. 1789.

The admonitions of this preacher are well fuited to the ftate of the present time. They are delivered in a lively, and rather peculiar manner. The text is, Pfalm xxx. 6. The Effay on Vifiting is alfo worthy of attention.

Art. 62. Preached in the Cathedral Church of Hereford, at the meeting of the three Choirs of Worcester, Hereford, and Gloacefter, September 9, 1789. By John Napleton, D. D. Canon Refidentiary of Hereford, Chaplain to the Lord Eifhop of Hereford, and late Fellow of Brazen Nofe College, Oxford. 8vo. PP. 25. 15. Cadell.

On the exhaufted fubject of Charity, it is fufficient if a preacher inculcates juft fentiments with fome degree of energy, and applies them pertinently to the occafion: fuch is the merit of this difcourse.

CORRESPONDENCE.

**A polite Correfpondent, under the fignature of H. L. after making fome remarks on our review of Mr. Holmes's Effay on the Materiality of the Soul, in our Number for Auguft laft, p. 382, &c. requests us to declare, which we think moft confonant to found reafon, materialifm.or immaterialism; or, to fpeak more plainly, atheism or theism: for he will not,' he fays, pay fo ill a compli

ment

ment to our acknowleged abilities, as to fuppofe that we are unaware that materialism terminates as inevitably in the former, as immaterialifm in the latter ?'

Now, though we are glad, on every occafion, to gratify the reafonable defires of all our Correfpondents, yet we do not confider it any-wife incumbent on us, nay, we think it would be highly improper, to comply with a request to declare our private opinion on any controverted point which does not come regularly before us. This, to fay no worfe of it, would greatly increase a labour which we find fully fufficient already. Accordingly, if in the regular, ordinary courfe of reviewing, we at any time briefly ftate our own fentiments, we mean to abandon them entirely to the judgment of our readers, without any defign of entering on a further explanation, or vindication of them, in future. We may deliver our opinions, en paffant, without deviating from the line of our profeffion: but it would be wandering widely from our road to say all that we can in their defence. On the prefent controverfy, however, we did not deliver an opinion: we barely afked a few questions, for the ufe of the difputants on both fides, in order to fhew the confequences of their respective fyftems. These questions every one is at liberty to answer according to his own impartial judgment; and to determine for himself on a fubject which we left, and fill leave, undecided.

As to any danger refulting from what we have remarked, in our ftrictures, we must fay, that all our Correspondent's deductions appear to us to be "moft lame and impotent conclufions ;" and if we had time and room, we are confident that we could eafily fhew them to be fo. Which-ever way the point be fettled, we apprehend no danger from the decifion; and we wish that those who undertake to difcufs the fubject, instead of fetting themselves to fhew the danger, would endeavour to shew the falsehood, of either fide. Unless they do this, they may poffibly only raife a clamour againft an imaginary mifchief, while they promote a real one-the milchief of perpetuating error, by cafting a damp on free inquiry..

The compliment which our correfpondent's delicacy will not permit him to pay to us, our own impartiality obliges us to pay to ourfelves. We really are not aware that materialifm terminates inevitably in atheism. We have met with no arguments that have convinced us of this circumftance. We recollect fome facts, that perfuade us there is no fuch inevitable connection. Mr. Holmes, though a materialist, is evidently no atheift. Those who have attended to the controverfy may call to mind the names of other advocates for the fame doctrine, who are not atheists. Among those who have never taken up their pens in defence of their fyftem, we know materialists who are firm believers in the existence and attributes of the Deity; and many, we doubt not, who are much converfant with metaphyficians, could fupply our correfpondent with fimilar inftances. We are, indeed, well aware, that materialism has been fupposed to lead to atheism: but perhaps this will be found to be one of those cafes, in which men are disposed to fear, where no fear is.

+*+ Pert

+*+ Pertnefs is generally the concomitant of ignorance. A letter, figned Obfervator, for which we had the postage to pay, produced this reflection.

The writer of this modeft letter thinks that we are mistaken, (P. 515 of our last Appendix,) when we fay Colonel Pearfe propofes to determine the arc of a leffer circle correfponding to a degree of longitude: for he propofes to find the arc of a great circle, or difference of longitude between two or more places;' and Obfervator fancies Colonel Pearfe's method will be much preferable to ours by fky-rockets. He expects to be informed where the rockets must be fired, to determine the difference of longitude between Madrafs and Greenwich.'

Whether we or he be mistaken, in what Colonel Pearfe propofed to do, let the Colonel's own words determine: "By this mode," fays he, a degree of longitude may be MEASURED with as much accuracy as a degree of latitude: and it is what I have in contemplation to perform." Now, every person who knows what is meaned by measuring a degree of longitude, muft know that Colonel Pearfe intended to measure it on the arc of a leffer circle; because the equator, which is the only great circle that has any thing to do with a degree of longitude, does not pass through any part of the continent of India, where Colonel Pearfe was: but whether Colonel Pearfe measured an arc of the equator, or an arc of a parallel of latitude, makes no difference in the matter: our objections lie to the method by which he proposed to determine the angle at the pole, contained between the meridians which pafs through the two ends of his meafured arc; and which is fo far from being capable of determining the quantity of that angle with the fame exactnefs that the latitudes of two places can be determined, (as the Colonel afferts,) that it is, perhaps, one of the most inaccurate that could have been propofed for the purpose: for every aftronomer knows, that the observations of the ingrefs of the fatellites on the body of Jupiter, their egrefs from it, as well as their immerfions behind it, and emerfions from it, are fubject to much more uncertainty than the obfervations of their ecliples; and even these are very far from being the most accurate means of determining the point in question.

As we are uncivilly urged to defend what we have written, we fhall add, that as a general method of determining the longitudes of diftant places, (for which Obfervator contends,) Colonel Pearfe's method is ftill more improper; becaufe, to the errors mentioned above, there will be added another, arifing from the imperfections of the prefent theory of Jupiter's motions, on account of which his place in the heavens is imperfectly known; and this error in his place will affect his diftance from the meridian differently in different latitudes, and at different diftances from the meridian; a circumftance which must add confiderably to the errors mentioned above, and which, alone, affect the determinations of the difference of the longitude of places which are on the fame parallel, and not very diftant one from the other.

As we did not propofe fky-rockets for the purpofe of determining the difference of longitude between Greenwich and Madrafs, nor

between

between any two places which are more than 60 or 80 miles afunder, Obfervator's wit o'erfhoots the mark.

The article after which Obfervator enquires, was fent to the press before we received his letter.

** E. P. thinks we misunderstand the words of the 35th Article of the Church, in our account of "the Obfervations on the Homilies." (See Rev. for September laft, p. 110.) The declaration in that article does not, he fays, refer to the prefent period, but is to be reftrained to the times in which the Articles were firft promulged :' but if men, by their fubfcription, do not declare their unfeigned affent, that the doctrine of the Homilies is now "godly, and wholesome, and neceffary," why do they now fubfcribe that article? Does E. P. fuppofe that fubfcribers are now required to declare, that the Homilies were" wholefome and neceffary," when the Articles were originally drawn up? If fuch were the cafe of fubfcription, the burthen would be aggravated, inftead of being lightened. In that cafe, to a thorough acquaintance with the doctrine of the Homilies, the young candidate for orders must add the knowlege of an antiquary, and be completely verfed in the genius and wants of his forefathers. Indeed, this mode of conftruing fubfcription might, with equal reafon, be extended to all the other articles; and it might be faid, that the church does not hold out these propofitions as declaratory of her prefent doctrine, but only of what her doctrine was in former times: he does not now maintain thefe doctrines, nor require fubfcribers unfeignedly to believe them but only to believe that he did maintain them two centuries ago. Whatever foundation there might be for this affertion, in fact, on the fuppofition that the preient doctrines of the church of England were to be afcertained and eflimated by the real fentiments privately entertained by a majority of its members, yet we believe that E. P. will not be able to perfuade our church-governors to adopt, and pub. licly avow, this plea for fubfcription. It is curious to fee the shifts to which men have recourfe, to get rid of the difficulties attending a practice which, in our idea, is neither an honcur, nor a fecurity, to the church. "It is pity" (to adopt the words of the pious Jeremy Taylor,) to fee them fweat in anfwering fome objections, which they know not how to do, but yet believe they muft, becaufe the church hath faid it."

66

tit J. B.'s wishes were gratified, before we were made acquainted with them.

If We should have been glad to have obliged a Correfpondent who dates from Portsmouth: but we must refer him to the 2d page of the Cover of our Review for July lalt, for an anfwer to his letter.

ERRATA in our laft Number.

P. 226. line 12 of Art. 43, for affection,' read, affectation.. 233.24, for ingenioufly,' read, ingenuously.