too far: it produced the race of Cynics, who are well known. We need only observe, that their contempt of luxuries led them to indecorum and impropriety; but there is no reason to fuppofe that they debafed or injured the caufe of virtue. Diogenes, the most furly of the Cynics, was refpected by Xeniades and his fons, whofe preceptor he was.

The Cynic morality aflumed a milder and more complacent form in the hands of Zeno, founder of the fect of Stoics. It was, however, fcarcely altered; and the fpeculative doctrines of Zeno form the principal novelty in this part of the history. It was the fashionable philofophy of Rome, when in her zenith, and is expanded and adorned by the most elegant of the Latin writers. For this reafon it will not detain us long; and, indeed,' the great bulk of the article, relating to the Stoic philofophy in Brucker, is owing to a comparative abftract of the tenets of different ancient philofophers, which, before the examination of the fyftem of Pythagoras, we are not fufficiently prepared to examine. Zeno, it is faid, was a Phoenician, who went to Athens, in confequence of his fondnefs for philofophy, and attended the different lecturers, with a view of forming a new fect of his own.

The philofophy of Zeno was quibbling and fophiftical ; and the terms often vague and ill defined. Yet there was fomething noble and impofing in the conceptions of the Stoics, and truly moral in their precepts. They certainly perplexed and corrupted in form the morality of Socrates, but if we except fuicide, their doctrines and their practice were highly falutary. Brucker thinks that the pompous words and fplendid fentences of the Stoics are fafcinating only when separated owe their chief credit to their feparation from the context: in their proper places they are idle, jejune, and infignificant. But this is the language of cenfure under the veil of criticism. The latter Stoics have indeed given fubtle gloffes to the doctrines of Zeno, and rendered his fyftem more fpecious, perhaps more valuable. The fucceffors of Zeno were numerous, and of the higheft credit.

(To be continued.)

Elays, Philofophical, Hiftorical, and Literary. Vol. II. (Concluded from Vol. III. New Arrangement, p. 392.)

WHEN

HEN we arrive at the unftable ground of political difquifition, a fubject of fo fleeting a nature as fcarcely to prefent a proper point from which two enquirers may fecurely view it together, and of fo camelion-like a texture, as to borrow a hue from the furrounding lights, or from the fituation of the obferver, with all our refpect for Mr. Belsham,

we

we are occafionally obliged to differ from him. We have already diffented from fome of his doctrines, and we trust that our diffent has been diftinguished by a proper candour, diveft ed of hafty petulance or unreasonable pertinacity. We fhall endeavour to pursue the fame line.

In the 29th Effay on the Government of India,' our author explains Mr. Fox's bill, as well as that of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Fox's plan was bold, open, and decided; but it is with great propriety condemned, for wrefting from the company the whole government, and vesting it in the hands of parliamentary commiffioners, who muft foon become independent of parliament, and fubfervient to the minifter who raifed them; of courfe exalting the minifter above the company and the crown. We agree with Mr. Belsham, that Mr. Fox did not probably foresee the whole extent of the power of the engine which he had conftructed. His meafure was well adapted to the fituation of the company and the kingdom; nor can a man of integrity, on the fpur of the moment, perceive, what cool reflection may afterwards fuggeft, or the crafty unprincipled politician immediately conceive. There was, however, fufpicion or difcernment enough in the house to defeat the measure and the minister, to give room for a new plan, and a very different arrangement. Mr. Belfham gives Mr. Pitt his due credit. The fituation was indeed a dangerous one, and Mr. Pitt met it with trembling indecifion. His board of con trol ultimately depended on the crown, and his declaratory act vefted it with the full command of the government and revenues of India. The influence of the crown may, in this way, be confidered as too much increased; but the author diftinguishes very correctly between conftitutional and unconftitutional influence, limiting the former to whatever is connected with the whole undivided exercife of the executive power. This inftance, however, feems to resemble more the king's power of choofing his fervants, which must be ultimately ratified by parliament. The minifter, with this affiftance, cannot oppofe the fenfe of the nation; and the decifion of the reprefentatives, which can change the political fervant, may change alfo the members of the board. We agree with Mr. Belfham, that there are many conftitutional ways of leffening the influence of the crown, and these ought to be kept in view. But a wife minifter, when the minds of Europe are thus agitated, will be cautious of exerting that influence improperly: if he be really wife, he will keep within the limits, rather than ftep an atom beyond them. Of late, government have not feemed particularly, not indeed fufficiently, cautious in this respect.

On the fubject of the regency, we very unexpectedly find ourselves in oppofition to Mr. Belfham. He first enquires,

7

whether

whether any pofitive law exifts, or even fufficient precedents, to determine the legal and conftitutional method of acting. The precedent of Henry VI. is certainly not fufficiently decifive; and the Revolution, our author contends, was a fubverfion of government, and a re-election; nor can any conftitution provide for cafes which fuppofe its previous fubverfion. On this latter fubject we have had occafion to give a different opinion, and we fee no reafon to change it. The fecond object is, to determine the most conftitutional mode of procedure; and this, Mr. Belfham thinks, was to veft the prince of Wales with the whole undivided fovereignty. The election of a regent implies, we are told, a dangerous power in the houfe of commons: if it can elect a regent, it can elect a king, and the executive power would become subject to the legiflative, or dangerous parties and divifions would be the confequence. In the whole of this difcuffion, however, he confounds a measure, confeffedly temporary, and which, if carried into execution, fhould have been renewed, at short intervals, with a permanent one. Part of the reafoning we shall felect.

It is alleged, indeed, that delicacy to the reigning fovereign ought to deter us from configning to any reprefentative of royalty, a greater fhare of authority than the neceffity of the cafe abfolutely demands; and that a regent invefted with full powers might act in a manner which would prove highly unacceptable to the monarch, should he be restored to a capacity of refuming the powers of government. Delicacy to the reigning fovereign! The conftitution knows no fuch term as delicacy: and in all the treatises upon government which I have perufed, I do not recollect ever to have met with the word. This I am bold to affirm, that delicacy to the fovereign is a motive which ought not to have the leaft weight, when placed in the balance in oppofition to fuch confiderations as are connected with the public utility and advantage. Granting that the regent fhould adopt measures different from thofe of the fovereign, is there any reafon for believing, "a priori," that the regent will be endowed with lefs political fagacity, or that he will be lefs difpofed to employ it for the public benefit than the fovereign? Admitting the nation, under the auspices of Mr. Pitt, to be governed with the highest wisdom and ability, ought the conftitution to be facrificed to Mr. Pitt's continuance in office? or is Mr. Pitt the only man in the kingdom entitled to public confidence? If Mr. Fox was juftly accufed of encroaching upon the prerogative, by an attempt to establish a permanent council for the government of India, independent of the crown, is Mr. Pitt not only to escape cenfure, but to be admired and applauded for his efforts to establish a parliamentary commiflion for the government

of

of the whole empire? Whether Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox direct the helm of the state is of little comparative importance; but it is of the highest moment that the conftitution fhould not be endangered by the violence of the political conflict between them. And it is peculiarly incumbent upon thofe who are totally unconnected with party, and who are upon that account beft qualified to form an ac4 curate and impartial judgment, to confider themselves as guardi ans of the conftitution, and to refift, to the utmost of their ability, every hoftile attack, however fpecioufly difguifed, or from whatever quarter it may happen to originate.'

On the whole, we believe the fubject cannot be difcuffed, at this time, with proper impartiality. The ideas will be influenced by party-confiderations; and thofe who think the beft of the miniftry which was probably to have had the conduct of public measures, will be moft diffatisfied with the limitations propofed. At prefent, we ftep per ignes fuppofitos, cineri dolofo.

Mr. Belfham has thought the late King of Pruffia's Reflections on Religion' worthy of his examination;' and he replies to the fceptical quibbles of the pupil of Voltaire, very fatisfactorily. Indeed, were an author to write on any fubject, fo weakly and indecifively, as Frederic and his tutor have, in opponition to Chriftianity, his reputation would be greatly endangered, or loft. In anfwer to fome of thefe objections, Mr. Belfham fhows, that the king did not advert to the Chriftianity of the gofpel, but to thofe corruptions which philofophy, ignorance, or fuperftition had introduced: in others, he did not confider the various degrees of evidence which different fubjects admitted of. In general the answers are very clear, decifive, and judicious. The whole of this effay reflects great credit on its author.

In the eflay on unitarianifm, our author endeavours to fupport this doctrine from reafon, from feripture, and antiquity. He has compacted the reafoning with his ufual skill and force; but we perceive nothing particularly new in the arguments, and he has fometimes hazarded thofe which are untenable. It is a little furprifing, when he mentioned the Gnoftics, the Platonizing Chriftians, as the first heretics, and noticed fome paffages in the Epiftles directed against them, that he should not, with the generality of commentators, have confidered the language of St. Paul, where he ftyles Chrift a man, to have been dictated by the fame views. The divinity of Christ, as well as his pre-existence, we have had occafion to fay, is fupported by the tenour of the three firft Gospels, by the accufations brought againft Chrift, and by his own language before Pilate: nor is it furprifing that the mode by

5

which

which God became man is not even hinted at, in the unadorned narratives of facts, which in no inftance (we shall confine ourselves to the three first Gofpels) go beyond the facts that they or their informers witneffed. It is well known that the gofpel by St. John is, in its philofophy, often Platonic, and fometimes differing from it, particularly in precifely styling the Logos, God; but we need not for this purpofe, with fome writers, confider Plato as a prophet, nor with our author fupe pofe that the fashionable philofophy had suggested the inno vation. When, in the progrefs of the enquiry, it became neceffary to explain, in fome measure, the communication of the divine power to man, or the incarnation of the divine effence, the language of Plato, which conveyed ideas of the fame kind, and was fo generally known, would of courfe be adopted. But this is a fubject to which we must return on a future occafion; and we can only add, that, though we allow this effay great merit as an able and comprehenfive one, we cannot fay that we found it convincing.

In the excellent effay on virtue and moral obligation,' Mr. Belfham fuffers his own opinion to appear too early, by defining virtue to be the most excellent, or eligible, rule of life and conduct. The two fyftems which he particularly notices are those of Dr. Clarke and Mr. Hume. The former is certainly confused and illogical; for certain neceflary and eternal differences and relations, occafioning moral fitneffes, agreements, and proportions, is at beft a jargon. Every difference, agreement, or relation of two or any number of objects, can have no connection with virtue or vice; for thefe are relative, not abstract terms: the connection must be in the end, fo far as moral and accountable beings are fubject to their influence, and the end or ultimate relation, Dr. Clarke has not noticed not to add that, in his fyftem, the free agency of the Deity is effentially taken away, and these fitneffes, agreements, and proportion, placed on the throne of the univerfe. The fyftem of Mr. Hume, that of utility, is undoubtedly the true one; and Mr. Belfham fupports it with great propriety and accuracy. The chief objection is, that the moft pofitive rules may thus at times be made to yield to general usefulness. In private life, this can feldom happen; and the best moralifts agree that, when a great pofitive good will certainly refult, fome deviation from the eftablished rules may be admitted. In public life, the contrariety may more often occur; and, when the ultimate good of a nation is at itake, the eftablished laws may moft certainly be fometimes difpenfed with, though the deviation fhould be as little as poflible, and the good to be ob tained not only confiderable and general, but icarcely, if at CRIT. REV. N. AR. (IV.) Feb. 1792.

L

all,