of neceffaries to a third may be yet a competence to a fourth: unlefs, indeed, by perfons in the want of neceffaries, we mean fuch as actually fuffer the pains of cold and hunger. In which cafe it cannot be fuppofed they will efteem themselves poffeffed of a competency. Thofe who are really freezing or ftarving, must be confidered in the fame view as those who are fick, or otherwife in pain. But we know that neither the pains of hunger, cold, or ficknefs, can be borne beyond a certain degree; nor longer than a certain time, without intermiffion. We know, alfo, that all intervals of ease or gratification give pleasure, in proportion to the intenseness of the pain remitted, or the severity of our neceffities. It has, indeed, been faid, that the transports of recovery only prove the intenfenefs of the pain: but pray, though they do prove this, are they the lefs pleafing on that account? On the contrary, does not the intenseness of the pain prove too the pleasure of our transports? And are they not reciprocally the measure of each other? We are much mistaken, if this be not the cafe.

As to mere poverty; where is mirth, vivacity, and good humour to be found, in fo great a degree, as in the lowest claffes of mankind? Indeed, the feverity fome poor wretches feel is extreme: they have neither bread to eat, clothes to wear, bed to fleep on, nor home to fhelter them from the infults of superior mortals, or the inclemency of the feafons. How miferable and unhappy! What compenfations have thefe? In the firft place, fuch extreme wretchedness feldom perhaps lafts long: and indeed when it comes, it is generally the effect of our having enjoyed, in luxurious plenty, what we afterwards experience the want of. If this be not the cafe, you will find these wretches, in a great degree, infenfible of their being in a ftate exposed to fo much severity. They do not pine in the morning, because they know not where to get a dinner; but wait till dinner-time comes, before they liften to the cravings of appetite: nay, perhaps, appetite itself waits, in a great degree, obfequiously on their neceffities. They do not lament in the day- time their want of a lodging at night; but complain not, till the evil hour of darkness and fatigue lays them under the neceffity of making ́a bulk their pillow.'

The opinion that human life is, on the whole, neither happy nor miferable, is, by our Author's fcheme, neceffarily connected with that of the reward and punifhment of virtue and vice, in the ordinary courfe of Providence; and, by confequence, fuperfedes the moral neceffity of a future ftate of retribution: the doctrine of which has been ever justly esteemed of the highest importance to the intercfts of morality. This Writer, however, takes upon him to fay, there is an abfurdity in fuppofing the • doctrine

• doctrine of future rewards and punishments more effectual to moral purposes than that which affures us vice and virtue are respectively punished and rewarded in this life: fince hourly experience teaches us what preference men of all ranks and opinions give to their prefent concerns, when clashing with the future.'

• Will it be urged,' fays he, that this doctrine, taking away the fear of future punishments, will encourage immorality? How! will any one fear punishment more at a distance than when at hand? Doth the thief dread Hell fo much as the gallows? Is not the libertine more afraid of difeafe than the Devil? Doth hot even the religious hypocrite fear detection here more than hereafter? Nay, may we not seriously afk, whether devout Chriftians, in general, do not, in fact, feel more restraint from their being under the eye of the world, than under that of God. Daily experience, we fear, will determine more than is necessary for us here. Can, then, any motive whatever bid fairer, to reftrain the immoralities of mankind, than a rational conviction, that the inordinate gratification of our paffions will certainly disappoint our expectations in the enjoyment; or, in proportion to the intemperate fallies of pleasure, mortify us with distaste, regret, and repentance? Surely not! No, reader, were men once fully convinced of fuch a truth, we might truft their morality to the dictates of their own confcience; whofe voice would not be filenced by the idle obfervance of mere religious forms, ceremonious confeffions, and abfurd penance. Nothing, in such a case, would do to atone for paft offences, but their utmoft endeavours in the way of retaliation: nor would any fufficient excuse offer itself to ferve us for the future. Nothing less than true repentance, and a real amendment of life, would, in this cafe, fatisfy an accusing confcience.'

With respect to that much controverted point, the nature of phyfical good and evil, there are fome arguments in this little piece, more perfpicuous and fatisfactory than any thing we remember to have met with, even in the most laboured differtations on this fubject. They are not, however, of a nature to be readily extracted: we fhall therefore clofe this article with what our Author has faid, on the expediency of publishing philofophical enquiries in general, and the work he undertakes to defend, in particular.

It should be confidered, fays he, that the prefent age abounds with fhallow thinkers, and fuperficial reasoners on these fubjects; numbers of which make shift to pick up fo much argument as to fit them out for deifts, fceptics, and infidels: a set of men who believe, if they believe any thing, that human nature is hardly

a de

a degree better than the brutal; that we are fent into the world to eat, drink, propagate our fpecies, die, and be forever forgotten. The number of thefe men are daily increafing, from the prepofterous methods run into, on the other hand, by the fanatics; who, if we may ufe the expreffion, are enough to make men fick of Chriftianity. Of late years, alfo, we have seen, and daily fee, numbers of these fanatics holding forth in the churches by law eftablifhed. So that we appear in fome danger of being divided into a nation of fanatics and infidels.

At fuch a time as this, to offer a fyftem of religion and morality, founded on the univerfal principles of humanity and the conftitution of nature, our author might reasonably think would conduce to the public good; cfpecially if it were attended with any degree of literary merit, that might procure it to be read. To think of reclaiming either infidels or fanatics by means of fcripture, we are afraid would be a vain attempt: for bring what arguments you will, the one will fee the truth inverted, and the other will shut his eyes, and fee no truth at all. Whatever is true, in the nature of things, never can affect the truth of divine revelation; fince both come from the fame God, immutable and perfectly confiftent, at all times, and in all places, with himself.

That the author's work is not immediately calculated to support the doctrines of Chriflianity, can be no reasonable objection to it, unlefs it had a contrary defign. But neither the one nor the other is profeffedly his intention; because, by fuch a profeffed intention he would have miffed his aim: he must have espoused some particular party, and by that means have made enemies of all the reft. We muft all, however, be fenfible, that to keep the deift and infidel within bounds, no method more proper can be taken, than to fhew him, on his own principles, that, carry scepticism ever fo far, we fhall never be able philofophically to deny intelligible and confiftent revelation. And, as to the fanatics, nothing is wanting to make them men and Chriftians, but to reduce them to reafon. As to the moral tendency of fuch writings as our author's, in general, and his own in particular, it must be confidered therefore, for what people, and in what age they are publifhed. The means that will effect either a reformation, or depravation, of manners, are continually thifting under the influence of the opinions and circumftances of the world. The expediency of exclufively teaching any doctrine, or recommending any motive, does not therefore follow, from the plaineft proofs, that fuch doctrines and motives had a falutary effect at the time they were first inculcated or put in practice. The laws of Solon and Lycurgus are not those which are juftly esteemed to compofe the best legifla

3

tive conftitution now in the universe. Nay, the advice of many a fox-hunting member of a country borough might be more useful, in the House of Commons, than many of the wifeft inftitutions of those excellent lawgivers. Such meafures might alfo now be treated as impotent, and fuch penalties be derided as ridiculous, which, a thousand years ago, or in a different nation, might awe mankind into the ftricteft difcipline of religion and morals. The world, in the greater divifions of mankind, hath its periods of puerility and manhood, as well as the individuals of our fpecies; and there is a time when the bug-a-boo and the blind beggar have the effect, which at others attends only on capital punishments. The abfurdity, also, of not properly timing them, may prove as dangerous in fact, as it is ridiculous in appearance.'

In fact,' fays he, to prove the danger of rational enquiry, and the immoral tendency of fetting afide the fcriptures in philofophical investigation, it is required we fhould firft prove, that benevolence, moderation, integrity, with those other virtues which are the bonds and ornaments of civil fociety, are the ftriking characteristics of the pretenders to Chriftianity. It is required, that we prove Chriftians poffefs thefe diftinguishing virtues exclufively, or, at least, in a degree fuperior to the rest of mankind. Could Dr. Leland, or any other worthy and learned champion in the Chriftian caufe, produce proof of a point of this importance; could they filence the blood that cries out fo loud against the zealots, who have occafionally offered up hecatombs of human facrifices, to the God of mercy and loving kindness; nay, could they, even on the authority of their reverend brethren, the ordinaries of Newgate, prove the want of faith to have brought one in a thoufand to the gallows: fuch proof, we fay, would be a more valid objection to the freedom of philofophical enquiry, than all our elaborate difquifitions, founded on the diftant and obfcure evidences of antiquity. But while fuch proofs cannot be brought; while a zeal for the faith is the diftinguishing characteristic of a Chriftian; and while even the hiftory of Chriftianity itself presents fo melancholy a picture of complicated robbery, murder, and ingratitude; fure ly men may be permitted to take other means, while not inconfiftent with the religious views of that fyftem, to improve our understandings; without being cenfured as promoters of vice and immorality, or condemned as enemies to mankind.'

K-n-k

Ver-Vert;

Ver-Vert; or, the Nunnery Parrot. An heroic Poem, in four cantos. Infcribed to the Abbess of D***. Tranflated from the French of Monfieur Greffet. 4to. I s. 6d. Dodley.

ROM the fhameful neglect into which we have feen works. of real tafte, and folid merit, of late, unaccountably fallen; while the fuperficial productions of fhallow reafoners, and affected witlings, have been almoft univerfally admired; we are induced to conclude, in fpite of other appearances to the contrary, that vive la bagatelle! is, in fact, the general cry of the town. Should the Reviewers run counter to the rest of the pack, they might draw on themselves the imputation of too much fingularity. In compliance with public opinion, vive, done, la bagatelle! We do not mean, however, in any cafe, to facrifice our judgment or integrity to the vitiated tafte of the times, or fubject our review to circumftances almoft as changeable as the feafons or the weather. It is, neverthelefs, neceffary, that thofe who write for general entertainment, fhould conform, in fome degree, to reigning opinions, and enter into the spirit of public amufements, without obftinately oppofing their futility, or impropriety, by a fruitles and too rigid centure.

We have already hinted our opinion of that familiar file, and jaunty mode of verfification, for which Greflet, and other French Writers, are admired; and which has, more than once, been attempted by our English poets. That the French fhould fucceed in this loofe and trippery method of writing verfes, is the lefs to be wondered at, as it feems peculiarly calculated for the genius of their language; which, in our opinion, is, with all its boasted correctnels, leis adapted to the fublimer fpecics of poetry than most others in Europe. The Italian and Spanish, from the great ftrength which they still retain of their common original, the Latin, are equal to the nobleft fubjects. The northern tongues, which retain any great portion of their primitive ftock, the bold Teutonic, are alfo admirably adapted (however fometimes rough and uncouth) to the purposes of the heroic and fublime. Even the Low Dutch, which the wits of other nations fo ridiculously affect to defpife, without knowing any thing of the matter, is capable of fuccefs in almost every kind of poetry. For the truth of this we appeal to the most admired of the Dutch poets, from Vondel down to Feytama. The English language, being a compound of many others, is poffeffed, in a great de gree, of their feveral advantages; and though we cannot think it equal to the French in that very particular, to which the latter

See our Review for January, 1758. p. 74.

REV. March, 1759.

is