Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

eafiness, think of a tree; of time; of the ocean; of darkness; of a cone; of truth; of a tower; of probability; of Therfites; of love; of Epidaurus; of Socrates; of a mite; of cafuiftry; of the Iliad; of Otaheite; of Tenterden steeple ;'-[we rather wonder Goodwin fands did not here flip in, inftead of what follows it] of a mole; of a mouse-trap. In doing this, I did not find that I was restrained by any law of nature; or impelled by any foreign power. Nor can I at laft perceive that these defultory thoughts have the leaft connection with one another: much lefs with any prior ideas. You affure me, that they must unavoid-. ably have a reference, and that they are dependent upon others, which have preceded. In fhort, according to your principles, they arose fo neceffarily in my mind, that five days hence, or five years hence, in the fame circumftances, and with the fame difpofition, I fhould infallibly make the very fame choice. But this feems contrary to experience: for though I am as precisely in the fame circumftances as we can fuppofe any man to be; and likewife in the fame difpofition of mind; yet, after an interval of a very few minutes, I am not able to go over the fourth part of this feries. And however cogent the neceffity may be, I can recollect very little more than the mole and the mouse.'

The philofophical Reader will anticipate the fubftance of Dr. Priestley's reply to this ftudied flourish of Mr. Bryant's • You think, Sir,' fays he, that the curious affortment of ideas you have prefented us with had no connection, mediate, you muft mean, or immediate. But odd as you, who appear to know fo little of the human mind, may think it, I have no doubt but they really had. Are you fure, that you have omitted no other ideas, that might connect thofe that you have produced? Or, which you may better recollect, did you at first fet them down exactly in the order in which they now ftand? Were not the words, love and a tower, a little nearer together; and did not the ftory of Hero and Leander occur to you: and are you quite fure that nothing fqueezed in between the mole and the mouse-trap?

You fay, you place yourself as precifely in the fame circumftances as we can fuppofe any man to be, and likewise in the fame difpofition of mind. But, Sir, what you may fuppofe to be the fame, may not be precifely fo; and a very flight alteration in the difpofition of your mind, perhaps the pofition of your body, may put the mole in the place of the mouse-trap, or vice verfa.

[ocr errors]

That you have never read Mr. Hobbes, I take for granted. Indeed, if you had, you would have known a little more of the fubject of which you treat than you now do. Somewhere in his writings, but I do not now recollect the place, 'you would

have found a pertinent obfervation to the prefent purpose, and a proper example. Some gentlemen were talking of the Civil wars in England, when one of them fuddenly asked what was the value of a Jewish shekel. To appearance, thefe had as littleconnection as any two in your group. But this gentleman was more ingenuous, or more fortunate than you: for, being interrogated while the whole train was fresh in his memory, he said, the Civil war brought to his mind the death of King Charles, the death of Charles that of our Saviour, and this made him think of the thirty pieces of filver, which he fuppofed were Shekels, for which Judas betrayed him. Now all this procefs might take place in less time than would be fufficient to write down any of the two words in your collection. But you feem to have no idea of the rapidity of thought, or how flight circumftances are fufficient, by the law of affociation, to introduce any particular idea. And yet the connection of the feveral parts of your ingenious System of Mythology is often extremely delicate.'

Having already faid enough of this performance, we fhall not extend this article by dwelling on the grofs and indecent personal imputations and infinuations, which Mr. B. has in different places thrown out against Dr. P. as a man, and as a profeffor of Christianity; and for which he is feverely, and, in our opinion, very properly reprehended.

ART. VI. An Appendix to the Obfervations in Defence of the Liberty of Man, as a Moral Agent; in Answer to Dr. Priestley's Illuftrations of Philofophical Neceffity, &c. By John Palmer, Minifler of New Broad-ftreet. 8vo. 6d. 8vc. 6d. Johnfon. 1780.

ART. VII. A Second Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Palmer, in Defence of the Doctrine of Philofophical Neceffity. By. Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 6d. Johnfon. 1780.

IN

N the first of these two performances, Dr. Priestley meets an antagonist of a different order from the preceding;we mean, however, only with. refpect to this fubject. His prefent opponent is fully mafter of the queftion in debate; and has met him before on the fame ground. When engaged with fuch antagonists as Dr. Price and Mr. Palmer, he has the fatisfaction in arenam cum æqualibus defcendere.

Though we entered pretty largely [in our Review for January laft, pag. 28.] into the contest between Dr. Priestley and Mr. Palmer, on the doctrine of Philofophical Neceffity; we find it difficult to continue the difcuffion of the different fubjects, not very methodically treated in Mr. Palmer's fecond performance now before us, without endless repetitions and references. We think it fufficient, therefore, to refer the Reader to the performances themselves; taking particular notice only of fome parts of REV. Nov. 1780.. Dr.

A a

Dr. Priestley's laft fection, in which, as well as elsewhere, though Mr. Palmer has expreffed his intention of declining the controverfy, Dr. Prieftley with fome earneftnefs invites him to refume it; and propofes to him the confideration of certain points, to which he thinks he has omitted to give a fatisfactory anfwer. The firft of these appears to be of fufficient importance to merit tranfcription.

Mr. Palmer had faid, that a determination of the mind is not an effect without a caufe, though it be not produced by any motive; because the self-determining power itself is the caufe. Dr. Priestley had answered, that, allowing this fuppofed power to be the cause of choice in general, it can no more be confidered as the cause of any particular choice, than the motion of the air in general can be faid to be the cause of any particular wind; because all winds are equally motions of the air, and that therefore there must be fome farther caufe of any particular wind. I defire you,' fays Dr. Prieftley, to point out the infufficiency of this anfwer. This it the more behoves you to do, because it refpects not the outworks, but the very inmost retreat of your doctrine of liberty. If you cannot defend yourfelf against this attack, you muft furrender at difcretion. Neceffity, with all its horrid confequences, will enter in at the breach; and you know that Neceffarians, though fothful to good, are active enough in mifchief, and give no quarter.'Dr. P. here alludes to Mr. Palmer's having before faid, that a belief in the doctrine of necefty tended to indifpofe a man for virtuous activity; though it would not prevent his being active enough in gratifying his vicious inclinations.

Returning to the fame fubject afterwards, Dr. P. defires Mr. Palmer to produce fome direct proof of the existence of the felfdetermining power he boafts fo much of. I mean, fays he, proof from fact, and not from a merely imagined feeling, or confciousness of it, which one perfon may affert, and another, who is certainly conftituted in the fame manner, may deny. What I affert is, that all we can feel, or be confcious of, in the cafe, is, that our actions, corporeal or mental, depend upon our will, or pleasure; but to fay, that our wills are not always influenced by motives, is fo far from being agreeable, that it is directly contrary to all experience in ourselves, and all ob

fervation of others.'

We have obferved in our Article above referred to [M. R. January, 1780, pag. 35.], that Mr. Palmer, in his zeal for human liberty, in fact gives up the Divine prefcience. On this head Dr. Priestley prefles him very ftrongly. You have faid nothing (fays he) to explain or foften your denial of the doctrine of Divine prefcience, which, as a Chriftian, and a Chriftian Minifter, it greatly behoves you to do. You pretend to be hocked at the confequences of the doctrine of neceffity, which

exift only in your own imagination; but here is a confequence of your doctrine of liberty, directly repugnant to the whole tenor of revelation, as it has been understood by all who ever pretended to any faith in it; though they have differed ever fo much in other things. It will be well worth your while to make another Appendix to your book, if it were only to give fome little plaufibility to this bufinefs; and either to fhew, if you can, that the Divine prefcience is not a doctrine of the Scriptures, or that the facred writers were mistaken with respect

to it.'

'If, as I fuppofe will be the cafe, you should not be able to reconcile prefcience with your more favourite doctrine of freewill; be advifed by me, rather than give up the former fo lightly as you do, to keep it at all events: even though, in order to do it, you should be obliged to rank it (as many truly pious Chriftians do the doctrines of Tranfubftantiation, and the Trinity) among the myfteries of faith, things to be held facred, and not to be fubmitted to rational inquiry. On no account would I abandon fuch a doctrine as that of Divine prescience, while I retained the leaft refpect for revelation, or wifhed to look with any fatif faction on the moral government under which I live.'

There are some other material points which Dr. P. ftrongly urges Mr. Palmer to reconfider; at the fame time he entreats him with confiderable earneftness to carry on this controversy a little longer, and to its proper conclufion; particularly propofing the mode of difcuffing the points in debate by diftinct interrogatories, and categorical anfwers, in which each of them may exhaust all that they can now have to say that is material. I am fo happy, fays he, to find myself engaged with a person of undoubted judgment in the controverfy, that, I own, I am very unwilling to part with you foon. I fhall be like Horace's friend; and you must have recourse to as many shifts to get quit

of me.'

ART. VIII. The Canadian Freeholder: In Three Dialogues between an Englishman and a Frenchman, fettled in Canada, fhewing the Sentiments of the Bulk of the Freeholders of Canada concerning the late Quebec Act; with fome Remarks on the Boston Charter Act; and an Attempt to fhew the great Expediency of immedia ately repealing both thofe Acts of Parliament, and of making fome. other ufeful Regulations and Conceffions to his Majesty's American Subjects, as a Ground for a Reconciliation with the United Colonies in America. Vol. III. 8vo. 4 s. 6 d. Boards. White. 1779.

F the two former volumes of this work we have already given an account in the course of our Journal *; and we

OF

* Vols, 57, 58, and 61.

A a 2

now

now proceed to a review of this additional volume, which com prehends the Third Dialogue. The Writer now gives the remaining part of his plan of reconciliation between Great Britain and her American Colonies, which was begun in the First Dialogue. The Author propofed, that the Quebec A&t should be repealed; that fatisfaction should be given to the Americans with respect to the important article of taxation by authority of the British Parliament, by promifing not to tax them by that authority till they fhall be permitted to fend representatives to the British Houfe of Commons; that fatisfaction should also be given them with refpect to the fecurity of their charters for the time to come, by promifing them, by refolutions of both Houses of Parliament, or by an act of Parliament to be paffed for that purpose, that for the future no changes fhall be made in any of their charters, without either a petition from the Affembly of the province whofe charter is proposed to be altered, defiring that fome alterations may be made in it, or a complaint before the Parliament of Great Britain of abuses of the powers and privileges contained in the faid charter, and a hearing of the Agents and Council of the faid province in their defence against fuch complaint; and that the feveral offices of Civil government in the provinces of America fhould be put under fome new regulations. Other particulars are mentioned; but it is the less neceffary to enumerate them here, because fundry events have happened fince the first publication of the Canadian Freeholder, which have rendered extremely hopelefs any fuch plan of reconciliation as that propofed by this Author. But notwithstanding this, many of his obfervations, and accounts of tranfactions in America, well deferve the attention of the inquifitive Reader.

One measure recommended by him is, to take the proper means for removing from the minds of the Americans the apprehenfions they have hitherto entertained of having Bishops eftablished among them by authority of the King or Parliament of Great Britain, without the confent of their own Aflemblies.' On this fubject our Author is very copious. He gives a parti cular account C of the state of religion in America, and the endeavours which have been made at fundry times, by the partifans of Epifcopacy in thefe provinces, to obtrude, their mode of Church government and divine worship upon those of a different perfuafion.'

He obferves, that the people of feveral of the English colonies in North America are diffenters from the Epifcopal Church of England, and are either Prefbyterians, or Independents, or Quakers, or followers of fome other fect, or mode, of the Proteftant religion that is adverfe to Epifcopal government. This is more efpecially the cafe with the four provinces of New England, to wit, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maffachufets Bay, and New Hampfire:

The

« AnteriorContinua »