Till from each pore the fweat break out amain, Our author's defcriptions fhow him to be well acquainted with the fyftems and profeffors of the North: his battle is well conducted, and his councils are marked by that grave burlesque which conftitutes the merit of the mock heroic. In the conduct of the poem many paffages are parodied from Virgil, and the fimilies have all the force and fometimes the elegance of the Mantuan poet. In general, our author's powers feem to be fuperior to his labour and attention. Few paffages, even in the best and most animated parts of the poem, occur, without being weakened by an unpoetical word, a feeble line, or an inaccurate rhyme : yet the general excellence of the whole shows that these defects arose from haste rather than inability. We have been much entertained by this performance, and we ought of course to recommend it; but the fubject, we fear, will make its circulation less extensive, and contribute less to the author's fame than his merit really deferves. Letters on Love, Marriage, and Adultery, addressed to the right bon. the Earl of Exeter. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Ridgway. Something of fyftem, a little fentiment, and traits of information, may be difcovered in thefe Letters; but ideas, not naturally clear, are inveloped in affected and obfcure language, with a manner unconnected and rhapsodical, and a turgence that gives the air only of importance. We pass over the introduction as perfonal and reprehenfible. The Letters on Love contain many heterogeneous remarks and obfervations foreign to the fubject. The pofition moft applicable to our author's fyftem is, that men and women, as diftinct beings, are imperfect; to form one complete individual they must be united, when the ftrength and energy of the male are blended with the delicacy, elegance, and fofter graces of the female. The author paints this union of fouls, incorporated by more intimate acquaintance, and cemented by offspring, in whom the parents again live over their youthful days, in the language of enthufiafm; but this ftate of happiness, too perfect not to be alloyed, is broken by the indiffoluble vows which priests, eager to augment their importance, have invented; and fruftrated by the avarice, the ambition, aud confequent tranny of parents. From thefe latter fources the unhappiness of the connubial ftate is faid to proceed, for the hands are joined without the union of hearts: or daughters, fearing fearing they may experience the constraint and compulsion which they may have feen exercised on others, chufe without attention and without difcernment their own partners. A match thus occafioned by a tranfient temporary acquaintance, where the leaft folid qualities are the chief motives between minds probably contaminated by deceit and intrigue, is not likely to produce happiness. In this fyftem, and in our author's arguments adduced to fupport it, there is something to praise and much to condemn. If we allow his fplendid colouring of a virtuous and well directed affection, is it injured by the highest sanction which divine laws can give, or contaminated by its connection with religion? Would mankind be happier if their choice was not irrevocable? and would not that real union of hearts be often fruftrated by light trifling engagements which would be entered into because they might be recalled? Every question of this kind may be refolved by appealing to the general experience of mankind, and the folution will not be in favour of our author's fyftem. Again: if the tyranny and ambition of parents fometimes produce unfortunate effects, do not their prudence, their judgment, and difcernment, often prevent difproportioned, and probably unhappy marriages; when their interpofition by the thoughtless and eager maid is called tyranny, severity, with a train of invectives to be found in every novel? Every part of thefe Letters, relating to the fubjects we have mentioned, is reprehenfible. But to turn to the more favourable fide, there is fome ingenuity in our author's estimating the progrefs of civilization, by an attention to the treatment of women, from the period of their flavery to that of their adoration; and he makes a very proper diftinction refpecting the intermediate period of chival ry, where the delicacy and timidity are heightened from the contraft and from their precarious fituation; where, confequently, they are objects more tenderly loved and more religioufly refpected. We fear too that there may be fome truth in his explanation of the fource of modern gallantry, from the prevention of marriages of choice; but the cause of that prevention we would explain in a different manner. The following obfervation refpecting education, though it may feem to lie on the furface, is truly just and deferves attention. The loweft ftate of barbarifin is indicated by unfeeling negligence, fimilar to that of brutes, from whom barbarians are barely removed. The common tranfition is into the extreme of exceflive care, by which all duties, all arts, all sciences are precipitated into the mind. The industry of parents and tutors fhould be employed to form habits of enquiry, difcernment, and firm integrity; to cultivate a natural and exquifite fenfibility; to form out of it an upright confcience; and to clear the springs of virtuous and happy difpofitions. Youth thus educated would not furprise the ignorant by premature acquifitions; but placed in any fituations their errors would not be material; their minds and hearts being in a right direction, they would answer the purposes of life in their proper feafons, and their progress in knowledge and virtue would be gradual and fure.' There are one or two mifcellaneous paffages which we ought to mention. Bacon has afferted, perhaps with truth, that fingle men only are adapted to undertakings of extent and hazard either of science or patriotifm.' This pofition our au thor oppofes; but though it may be vulnerable, he opposes it without fuccefs, for he only proves that, allowing the fact, men are happier by the lofs of this fplendid reputation if it is to be obtained at the expence of celibacy. The following paffage might afford much difcuffion, but to enlarge on a fingle part of a small work, to an extent difproportioned to the whole, is fcarcely admiffible. We fhall conclude our article by tranfcribing it, but we shall certainly not forget to resume the fubject on a more important occafion. The difference between the states of men governed by their first fenfations, and when governed by combined and reflected fentiments is fo great, that it has given probability and influence to the idea, that man confifts of two different beings, a foul and a body. When he is governed by fimple and grofs fenfations, he is faid to confult only the pleasures of the body; when his attention is to more complicated, more exquisite, and internal fenfations, he is faid to be under the government of the foul. An Attempt to prove the Materiality of the Soul, by Reason and Scripture. With an Appendix, fheaving the Influence of this Opinion upon the Faith and Practice of Chriftians. By the Rev. Edward Holmes. A. M. 8.00. 25. Longman. MR. Holmes has not adduced many new arguments in this work, nor has he brought forward the old ones very advantageously. The fubject, we find, was new to him, and every author knows how difficult it is to arrange arguments till they have been matured by frequent reflection; till they have been furveyed in every different light, and till their various connections and dependences have been accurately examined. Yet we find many traces of ingenuity in this attempt, and fufficient marks of acutenefs to induce us to enlarge a little on it. It is not now neceffary to make an apology for confidering the foul as material, fince from the tenor of the facred writ ings on this fubject, it is only required to confider man as an accountable being. We are taught that the smallest atom of matter depends for its exiftence on the will of the Lord, and the minuteft incident is cognizable by his watchful care. The fame cause which could, therefore, annihilate matter could annihilate fpirit; and if the parts which conftitute the body are not loft, but modified by new arrangements, man may still be restored to his former ftate by the power which first created him, and confequently be at laft accountable, for the deeds done in his days of nature.' Human reafon, which knows fo little of the effence of matter, must be ftill lefs acquainted with fpirit: but as it was known that matter had no power of voluntary motion, the moving principle in us, it was fuppofed, muft be fomething fuperadded to, and different from, matter. This was the first thought; and it may poffibly be as juft as it was obvious. But a farther enquiry into the forms of matter fhowed, that it was not the grofs inert fubftance fuppofed in many inftances it had active powers, and was capable of beginning motions of the most violent and important kind. But when the varied faculties of thought, reason, memory, abstraction, imagination, and judgment, were confidered, it was found that nothing resembling these could be attributed to matter; and therefore, that the foul must be immaterial, for thinking matter was, phyfically, impoffible. Brutes were the next objects of attention: they had nervous fibres to convey fenfations, irritable ones to produce motion: they had a loco-motive power, volition often apparently free, memory, fome portion of reafon, perception, and occafionally fome traits of judgment. The firft diftinction made to account for this was, that they had life; that life, fo far as it was poffeffed by brutes, might be owing to a peculiar organization, and depend not only on this organization, but capable of being deftroyed by various powers. Yet, if a fingle idea was owing to organization, every one was not incompatible with it; and brutes must have fouls of an inferior degree, or in other words, matter might be made capable of thought. To avoid this confequence, it was ingenioufly fuppofed, that God, whofe conftant agency appeared to be neceffary in this world, might be the living principle of brutes, that is, becaufe they must not have a foul, they must have an animating principle of a fuperior kind. In this ftate the question was when Dr. Priestley published his Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit; and his metaphyfical labours are within the memory of every one. Mr. Holmes' firft argument relates to brutes, and this, as we have faid, in our short hiftory of opinions, is not easily evaded. évaded. It is remarkable, as our author has obferved, that they are born with their limited powers almost as perfect as in their more adult ftate: they want only experience; while in man, the powers of the mind are expanded and developed with the faculties of the body. This is ingeniously urged by our author, as an argument that the foul must be material, We have, however, formerly had occafion to observe, that we fee nothing of the foul's feparate exertions: connected with the body the appears only through the corporeal medium: her most abstracted ideas are only derived from the fenfes, and refined, not changed, by her chymic power. The great difference between men and brutes in what refpects the corporeal organ, is found in the fize of the brain; by which, fo far as we can perceive, the extent of communication and the number of combinations are increafed. In children it has not attained this full fize, while its texture is more foft, which the diffections of foolish perfons have taught us is incompatible with its more active and perfect functions. This argument, therefore, is of little confequence; for whatever the foul may be, its ftate of perfection depends in those inftances where we can trace it, on the perfection of the body This circumftance too will answer our author's argument respecting the material organs of fense, which he thinks would only be neceffary to a material foul: the ftate of the fenfes depend on the ftate of the brain, with which the foul is intimately connected, whether it be material or no. That it must be fomething material which is affected by material changes, is an argument founded on our total ignorance of the nature of matter and of fpirit; of course it is not admiffible. Mr. Holmes entangles himself in a difpute with Locke unneceffarily. We feize eagerly every attempt to defend him, as we fometimes are obliged with reluctance to oppofe him. Our author thinks that ideas do not depend on fenfation and reflection only, but fuppofes, with Dr. Reid, that they depend on fenfation and perception. He is not aware (Mr. Locke knew it well) that fenfation is a reciprocal term, implying the activity of the impreffion, and the capacity of the fentient principle to receive it. Without perception there could be no fenfation, for the picture on the retina, or the vibration of the cochlea, will neither convey the idea of images or founds, without the mind's being capable of receiving, or even attending to either. That the mind is paffive in receiving the perception our author raises into an argument of its materiality. But this is a trifling one; we know nothing of mind; and if we substitute the state of the brain for mind, we know it is not paffive in fenfation; but we would not bring this as an |