churches as are to be feen in this low part of it.' Mr. G. might have added,-where no ftone was to be found: but, in the fens, the carriage of ftone by water was more eafy and cheap, than land carriage in the higher country. The ditches are very convenient roads for the fen-farmers of the present day.

Page 236. To the brief mention of Crowland bridge, faid to be rarely paffed, might be added, that it was never intended for horfes, and fcarcely for foot-paffengers, who are supplied with more practicable bridges; it being very steep, and to be afcended by rude fteps. Having three ways up to one centre, it was probably built rather to indulge a monkifh conceit, than for general use.

Vol. iii. p. 137. The octagon chapel at Liverpool is quaintly mentioned as a place where God was ferved by a kind of half-compromife between the established church and prefbyterianifm.' This compromife, however, whether half or whole, was not lafting, for the building is now converted to other purposes.

Page 313. In the account of St. Giles's church at Edinburgh, it is faid, The tower is oddly terminated by an imperial crown of arch-work, and containing certain unmeaning mufical bells, played on by the hand.' Why more unmeaning than our English chimes? We have feen a different character of thefe bells, and of the execution on them.

Page 378. The firft Earl of Rothes was George Lesley, fon of Norman, the murderer of Cardinal Beaton, fo created by James II.' This fhould be James VI.

Page 398. At Perth, the Tay is croffed by a handfome bridge of nine arches, the largeft 76 feet wide, built on a plan of Mr. Smeaton. The old bridge had been ruined 1573, 1582, 1589, but completely 1621, after it had been in part rebuilt by Mylne.' Here feems to be a grofs anachronism!

Page 436. In Rofs fhire, Mr. Gough fays, on the authority of Mr. Knox, that there are remains of an ancient furnace, where, as appears by ancient date, cannon were caft, 1168.' Surely this is too early a date! being, if we miftake not, prior to the invention of gun-powder at least one hundred years.

Page 493. From this page we quote the following paffage as a notable curiofity. In the county of Kerry is the great Skelig, a double-headed fharp high rock, on this coaft; the fea is continually demolishing it. To the fummit of the highest head, pilgrims used formerly to afcend with the utmoft difficulty, and beftride a narrow fragment of the rock, projecting from its point over a raging fea 90 fathoms deep.' Truly, this must have been a moft noble effort of pious heroifm; and fuppofing

the penitents to have good thick heads, and unacquainted with nervous weakneffes, it was much eafier accomplished, and fully as effectual, as padding to the fhrine of Thomas à Becket, or even to Jerufalem. Page 630. note. Mr. Pennant is much mistaken in fuppofing that the little ifland of Staffa, whose greatest height is but 120 feet, contains any object equal to the bold promontory of Bengore. Neither are the beft fpecimens of pillars at Staffa at all comparable to those of the Giant's Caufeway in neatness of form and fingularity of articulators.' At Staffa, however, the editor is of another opinion; for at p. 718, he remarks, The stone is a true bafalt like the Giant's Causeway, but in most respects fuperior to it in grandeur.' All that can be faid on fuch a collifion of opinion is, that the prefent object strikes us more forcibly, than what is abfent, and only recalled by memory.

It is no fmall recommendation of this work, that each volume is furnished with a full index to the fubjects treated in it; fo that, on the whole, though judgment may fometimes. drop afleep under fo weighty a tafk, the editor has fulfilled his engagements to the public, with honour to himfelf: particular allowances must always be made in large undertakings, on the principle laid down by a very eminent critic by profeffion,' "Whoever thinks a faultless piece to fee,

"Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er fhall be."

ART. XVII. Defences of Unitarianifm for the Years 1788 and 1789. Containing Letters to Dr. Horley, Lord Bishop of St. David's, to the Rev. Mr. Barnard, the Rev. Dr. Knowles, and the Rev. Mr. Hawkins. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. &c. &c. &c. 8vo. pp. 183. 35. 6d. fewed. Johnson.

DR. PRIESTLEY here pays his cuftomary periodical compliments to his antagonists in the Unitarian controversy. We fhall briefly report fome of the leading particulars of his replies and rejoinders.

The principal force of his battery is directed against the Bishop of St. David's. On his Lordship's defign of " deftroying the Doctor's credit, and the authority of his name, which the fame of certain lucky difcoveries in the profecution of phyfical experiments had fet high in popular efteem, by proof of his incompetency in every branch of literature connected with his prefent fubject," Dr. P. remarks:

This curious plan of your Lordship's to destroy my reputation will probably bring to the minds of many of our readers the story of Crous. When he formed the defign of making war upon Cyrus,

he fent to confult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi; and the anfwer he received was, that, if he engaged in that war, he would overturn a great empire. He did fo, and an empire was overturned; but that empire was his own. This, my Lord, would apply to your Lordship, if that could be faid to be overturned, which was never eftablished.

Had your Lordship reflected ever fo little on the hiftory of literature, you must have perceived that no fuch plan as this ever has fucceeded, nor is it poffible, in the nature of things, that it ever fhould. No work of man, especially one of an hiftorical kind, and of any confiderable extent, ever was free from imperfections; and therefore, upon your principle, the credit of no historical work whatever could ftand; and yet there are many works of this kind in the higheft reputation, with far more acknowledged imperfections than you have pretended to difcover in mine; not to say that you have been completely foiled in all your attempts to discover any error, of the leaft confequence to my main argument. Would it deftroy the credit of the late Dr. Johnfon with refpect to his knowledge of the English language, to point out faults in his ftyle, of which many might be found? Was Newton no philofopher, because he made a miflake in one of his experiments; or no mathematician, because he is faid to have committed an error in one of the demonftrations of his Principia?'

• On the fubject of my philofophical discoveries I fhall not make any defence; for fortunate, no doubt, I have been, as I have always readily confefled. But every philofopher knows, that a feries of fuccefs of twenty years continuance could not be wholly fortuitous; and fome praife is always due to activity in any useful purfuit.',

To the charge of having produced few, if any, arguments, excepting what are found in the writings of Zuicker or Epifcopius, Dr. P. anfwers, that, after applying, without fuccefs, to his Lordship, by means of a common friend, for the loan of Zuicker, which he had never feen, he procured it from a learned correfpondent, and found Zuicker's opinions fo different from his own, that he is confident the Bishop had never read the work. The phrafe, coming in the flesh, the Doctor ftill maintains to denote no more than that Chrift was come in à real body, in oppofition to the notion of the Gnoftics, that he had not real fefh. With refpect to the meaning of the word Idiota, which Tertullian applies to the major pars credentium, to prove that its more proper fenfe is unlearned, he quotes the authority of Bentley, who allows no other fynonimes than illiteratus, indoctus, rudis. Bifhop Horfley having quoted a paffage from Irenæus, (overlooked by Dr. P.) in which the Ebionites are called heretics, the Doctor refers to Jerom to prove, that they were only deemed heretics on account of their adherence to the Mofaic inftitution. The Bishop's explanation of the orthodox doctrine concerning the fecond Perfon in the Trinity, he cenfures as contrary to the general language of

the

the Fathers before the Council of Nice, and as furnishing a fource of multiplication of divine perfons in infinitum. In oppofition to the notion, that a church of Trinitarian Jews exifted at Jerufalem fubfequent to the time of Adrian, Dr. P. infifts on the exprefs authority of Origen; vindicates that father from the charge of wilful falfehood; and offers feveral confiderations to invalidate the oppofite teftimony of Epiphanius. After a free cenfure of his Lordship's conduct with respect to the Diffenters, he challenges him to come forth with the full projection of all his energies,' and, if poffible, overwhelm him at once.

6

The controverfialift's next courfe of letters are addreffed to Mr. Barnard, a clergyman of the Roman Catholic perfuafion. This opponent having expreffed his furprize that Dr. P., a Proteftant, fhould have recourfe to fuch guides as the Fathers, in fettling his opinions, Dr. P. thus explains his conduct:

• Chriftians are not agreed in the interpretation of fcripture language; but as all men are agreed with refpect to the nature of biftorical evidence, I thought that we might perhaps better determine by hiftory what was the faith of Chriftians in early times, independently of any aid from the fcriptures; and it appeared to be no unnatural prefumption, that whatever that should appear to be, fuch was the doctrine of the apostles, from whom their faith was derived; and that by this means we fhould be poffeffed of a pretty good guide for difcovering the true fenfe of the fcriptures.'

The chief point maintained in thefe letters, is, that the orthodoxy of the prefent day differs effentially from that of the Anti-Nicene Fathers.

Dr. Knowles is difmiffed by Dr. P. with a few brief remarks on the inconclufivenefs of his reafonings, and the infufficiency of his authorities.

The principal fubjects, on which he addreffes Mr. Hawkins, are the nature of fubfcription, the grounds of diffent, and the explanation given by Mr. H. of the doctrine of the Trinity, under the notion of diftinctions in the Godhead. On each of thefe topics, Dr. P. fuggefts many juft and important confiderations; for which, however, we muft refer our readers to the work itself.

Dr. Priestley feems willing to fuppofe, that the Unitarian controverfy is now come to an iffue. Perhaps it is true, that the subject is exhausted: but it by no means follows, that the point is fettled. Uniformity of opinion, on matters which depend on ancient teftimony, none but the most fanguine polemic will ever expect.

ART. XVIII.

Introduction to the Knowlege of Germany. 8vo. Pp. 232. 4s. Boards. Hookham. 1789.

THIS work, as ftated in the title page, contains inquiries into the difpofition and manners, peculiar habits and cuftoms, of the Germans, a view of their religion, literature, and governments, with anecdotes of their feveral courts, and a variety of other refearches, tending to afford a complete idea of that country. In the compafs of a small volume, the author cannot be fuppofed to have done much juftice to fuch an extenfive fubject. The performance, indeed, is little more than a felection from the publications of a few modern travellers; fome of whom were little better acquainted with Germany than himfelf. This introduction, however, is agreeably written; and may be useful to thofe readers, who have not leifure to perufe defcriptions more ample, and more fatisfactory.

As a fpecimen of the work, we fhall infert the account given of the Auftrians; a people who have lately been, and are likely to continue, the objects of general attention:

The pride of fome nations, who deem themselves preferable to others, and equal to the moft illuftrious, has no unfolid foundations. Though vain glory deferves rebuke, and modefty becomes nations as well as individuals, yet when famous names are cited, and celebrated atchievements and tranfactions produced in fupport of fuch pretenfions, the world is ready enough to excufe a little excefs of boafting and prefumption. But when a people, in no wife remarkable for thofe confpicuous qualities which exalt some nations fo much above others, have the abfurd confidence to afpire at the highest degree of renown, and to believe themfelves refpe&able beyond all others, then, indeed, they fully authorife the fevereft confutation of their impertinence.

Such is precifely the cafe of the Auftrians, whofe arrogance in this particular is unfufferable; and who, with all their haughtiness, have no other right to the pre-eminence they claim than that of a multitude of fonorous titles, with which the bearers are more elevated here than in any other country in Europe. They feem abfolutely to forget by what means titles are often, or rather ufually, procured here as well as elsewhere, and on whom and from what motives they are commonly beftowed. Provided they can be obtained, they think themselves juftifiable in the opinion they immediately affume of their perfonal merit and importance, and in undervaluing all who are not diftinguished by fome nominal decoration. Though fuch infatuation is not unknown in other European courts, it reigns with double force at the imperial, where an untitled man is a being inadmifible among the great, and cannot challenge the appellation of a perfon of fashion.

Hence it is the people of Auftria look with fo much aft nifhment on thofe foreigners, who are announced among them as perfons of great birth and rank in their own country, and yet poffets

no