any greater degree of perfection than was abfolutely requifite for laying out the different portions of land, where the boundaries were obliterated by the overflowings of the river.

After the revival of learning in Europe, the art of furveying, as well as other branches of the mathematics, was greatly improved, though not carried to the perfection that might reafonably have been expected, as its principles are few, evident, and eafy to be understood; and its practice depends more on a robuft conftitution than on genius. But we know not how it has happened, that, among the many treatifes on furveying, not one, that we know of, can be called a fyftem of the art; fome being defective in one part, and fome in another. Indeed, with regard to measuring, laying out of land, and drawing sketches of fmall demefnes, few of them are deficient; but these do not conftitute the whole art of furveying though these are the only particulars explained in the work before us.

In the first part, namely, that of taking dimenfions, Mr. Gray has made ufe of no other inftruments, than the chain with poles and pins; off-fet ftaves; a femicircle or graphometer of his own conftruction; and an improved quadrant. With regard to the other inftruments, as the theodolite, &c. Mr. Gray has abfolutely difcarded them from any farther use in furveying, and condemned them to perpetual oblivion. If it should be afked why inftruments fo long in use, should now have so fevere a fentence paffed upon them? Mr. Gray will answer, because an angle cannot be taken by them to nearer the truth than 10 minutes. But furely every writer, before he condemns an inftrument, fhould be well convinced, that he has fufficient grounds for his cenfure. Now this is fo far from being the cafe with regard to the theolodite, that an angle may be taken by fome of thefe inftruments to a fingle minute. Indeed, formerly, theolodites, and other graduated inftruments, were all made in the manner mentioned by Mr. Gray; and several writers have supposed, that an angle taken within five minutes of the truth is fufficiently exact. But certainly this is no reafon for condemning the theolodite as now generally made, it being poffible, by the help of a nonius divifion, to measure the quantity of an angle by it to the greatest exactness.

It will however be granted, that the method Mr. Gray has laid down for taking dimenfions by the chain only, is very exact, and has always been recommended by furveyors in small parcels of land. But this method, in large tracts, is infupportably tedious, and, confequently, fome inftrument must be used; and as the theolodite, as now improved, will fufficiently answer the intention, we will take the liberty of reftoring this useful inftrunent to the poft it has fo many years enjoyed,

C3

We

We entirely agree with Mr. Gray, that nothing short of the greateft exactness, that poffibly can be attained to, fhould fatisfy any man who teaches and practifes any useful art.' And though we muft differ from him with regard to the theolodite, &c. for the reafons mentioned above, yet the care he has taken to guard his reader against committing errors in taking the dimenfions of land is truly commendable, and well worth the attention of every land-measurer.

As Mr. Gray has exploded the theolodite, he has alfo done the fame by the protractor, and for the fame reafon; directing the practitioner to find all his bafes, altitudes, &c. not measured in the field, by calculation. It must indeed be acknowledged that this is a fure method, provided no error creeps into the work, an accident too often unavoidable; but it is, at the fame time, fufficiently tedious; and as protractors are now made, by which an angle can be laid down to a fingle minute, thefe tedious operations may be fafely omitted. Perhaps the Author himself would not have recommended calculation, had he known that it was poffible to lay down an angle fo accurately by a protracWe would however advise those who are not furnished with fuch curious inftruments, to follow Mr. Gray's method, or measure all the bafes, perpendiculars, &c. in the field.

tor.

In the third and fourth parts of this treatife, concerning the laying out and divifion of land, the reader will find more useful instructions than in any treatife we have feen. For as the Author very juftly obferves, feveral of the methods laid down by furveyors, are abfolutely impracticable in the field. This error Mr. Gray has avoided, and inftead of difficult and impracticable methods, given a feries of directions for performing thefe parts of the land-meafurer's talk, equally eafy to be underftood, and reduced to practice.

The fifth part contains the neceffary and proper rules for making a fair draught or reprefentation of any field, farm, &c. after it is furveyed, and its contents found; of any ground that is laid out or divided; and of the remarkable things, as towns, houfes, woods, or planting, rivers, lakes, or ponds, hills, rocks, hollows, remains of antiquity, &c. that may be seen within or near about the ground: and for doing the fame when the content is not required; but the plan or map only, as of a parish, county, &c. expreffing the true figure, fituation, and proportion of the whole, and all the particulars, fo as they may be eafily diftinguished, their magnitudes eftimated, and diftances computed; but not to be meatured for finding the contents. If it were poffible to make a plan exact enough for this purpose, which I doubt very much, I do not know the leaft ne

ceffity

ceffity for any fuch thing, nor any ease or advantage of any kind to be gained by it. I mean a plan made by the dimensions taken in the field; and fhall except a plain-table draught, from a feale of 200 links in an inch, at least, which may come pretty near to the content; but I know no other exception. Neither is the planning, which I propofed to explain, defigned for a landskip or perfpective view: for I think a land-meafurer is not obliged to be an architect and a painter, nor a compleat geographer neither; for it is not maps of kingdoms, &c. that I intend."

From this quotation, the Reader will perceive, that he is to expect, in this fifth part of Mr. Gray's performance, merely the manner of drawing a plain map or plan of a farm or demefne. But we cannot help thinking, that though it is not to be ex-. pected that every perfon who meafures a parcel of land, fhould be an architect or a painter; yet thofe who make furveying their business, should not be wholly ignorant of either. That is, they should be capable of drawing a perfpective view of any remarkable object that may happen within the limits of their maps; for if this be wanting, their performances will have a very mean appearance, and in all probability render the artist contemptible in the eyes of his employer. It is known to be at common practice for furveyors, after they have finished their maps, to have recourfe to others for decorations; but furely, it would be much more to their credit to ftudy the art of perfpective themselves, than meanly to borrow the hand of a painter ! And it is natural to think, that if those who have written on furveying, had endeavoured to infpire their readers with a notion that fomething of perfpective is neceflary in a land-meter, and laid down a few plain and eafy inftructions for attaining it,. furveyors in general would have acquired a fufficient knowlege of that elegant art, to have decorated their maps themselves, with the true appearance of every remarkable object fituated in, or near, the limits of the land furveyed.

B.

Human Nature furveyed by Philofophy and Revelation. In tw Elays. I. Philofophical Reflections on an important Question. II. Efay on the Dignity of Human Nature. With Aphorifms and Indexes to both Effays. By a Gentleman. 8vo. 2S. Whifton.

Th

O these Effays the following advertisement is prefixed by the Publisher. The Author of the following Effays did not at first intend to let the second of them appear by itself, having defigned it as a part of a much larger work; in which he propofed to itate, in a more direct manner, the truths of re

velation as they ftand in the facred records, without regard to human fyftems.

But having, about a year ago*, allowed the firft Effay to be published in the form of a pamphlet, the defign of which he now finds has been mistaken by fome of the friends, and mifrepresented by the enemies of the cause he meant to fupport by it; and though he is still of opinion, that it is abundantly obvious to the thinking and unbiaffed part of his readers; yet, to obviate all mistakes, he hopes he has, in the Effay on the Dignity of Human Nature, fully cleared and illuftrated the native confequence of the argument in the Philofophical Reflections.

The reasoning will appear to many entirely new: but if it is juft, that can give no prejudice againft it. An attempt is made to reduce the whole controverfy anent [concerning] revelation, and the self-sufficiency of human realon, into a narrow compafs, and fuch as admits of no evafion. All intellectual knowlege is deduced from that ONE MEDIUM, which has been difcarded by fome of our mightieft reafoners, as the greatest hindrance to a fair and impartial enquiry.

There is one pofition which the whole argument seems to turn upon, namely, That the intellectual nature of man (his fpiritual part) is formed for dependance on what is exterior to it, as certainly and as properly as his body, which cannot fubfift but by the influence of that system in which it is placed. As this is undoubtedly of the utmost importance, it deserves the moft particular attention.

As the Authors of the London Review are of the number who had miftaken the defign of the Reflections, and were therefore pleased to put their ftigma upon it; it is not doubted, if they are not like the children in the market-place (mentioned in a certain book) who would neither lament nor rejoice with their fellows, but that they will now be difpofed to a more favourableview of that piece.'

After laying the foregoing advertisement before our Readers,we have little to fay in regard to the work itself; for this plain reason, that we really do not understand it. We have attentively per ured it, and we perceive in feveral parts of it, ftrong marks of the Author's acuteness and difcernment, but can form no clear or diftinct idea of his fcheme, upon the whole. He charges us with mistaking the defign of his firft Eflay, published about a year ago, and with putting a figma upon it. In anfwer to this we can only fay, that it was never our defign to ftigmatize

*See Review, Vol. XVIII. p. 296.

any

any performance that was intended to promote the interefts of religion or virtue; but if an Author writes unintelligibly, he has no juft reason to complain that he is not understood.

The important question on which the Philofophical Reflections are made in the firft effay, is this-Is the mind of man for the ufe of his body, or his body for the use of his mind? The fecond effay is a fequel to the Philofophical Reflections, and intended as a folution of those difficulties in relation to man, which philofophy could not determine,

The following advertisement by the Author is prefixed to the Aphorifms. Whatever is very uncommon, muft appear prepofterous; for which reason a copious index to a small treatise will readily be accounted fo: therefore I am obliged in civility to affign my reasons for this fingularity. A fmall chart or map of any kind needs always the moft diftinct and plaineft references, and diminutive objects need the medium of glaffes to diftinguish their members to our fenfes. I think it is an impofition on the good nature of readers, to fwell an argument or fingle thought into a volume, or volumes, as fome Authors I could name have done; to avoid which oftentation, I have thrown as much as I can into as narrow a compass as poffible. A more ingenious and entertaining Writer might, with pleasure enough to his Reader, have made every article of the Index a chapter. But I have neither time nor inclination for managing fuch an undertaking. Therefore fearing left, by ftudying brevity and concifeness, I may have fallen into confufion and obfcurity, I have endeavoured to remedy it by the diftinctness of my references, which may be understood as majors of fyllogifms, and the aphorifms belonging to each effay may be taken as the conSequences.'

We shall conclude this article by laying a few of the aphorifms before our Readers. The consciousness of our own Being is not derived from the knowlege of ourselves, but of other things.---Our powers are made for receiving, but not for inventing knowlege.-Certainties are not expofed to us merely to rouse in us ideas of poffible or even probable uncertainties.-The contrivance of nature is like a leffon fet to our capacity, but it is not made for the enjoyment of our mind. Even as to natural things, we generally abandon what we may difcover, in queft of things we cannot difcover.-Calculation is an appeal of the fenfes to the understanding.-Analogy bears the fame relation to teftimony as calculation does to fenie. -Analogy is an appeal of the understanding to the fenfes.-Man is born not a rational creature, but a creature capable of becoming rational.-Society is the foil of reafon; information, and not unafiifted penetra