were neceflary to infure fuccefs. But his ambition, his refentment, and his abhorrence of the protestants, were too violent to fuffer him to act conformably to the dictates of found policy and prudence. He might have prevented the revolt of his Dutch and Flemish fubjects, if after the reformation in the Netherlands was fuppreffed by the dutchefs of Parma, he had left the reins of government in the hands of that wife princefs, and had not fent fo odious a tyrant as the duke of Alva to enflave them. He might, after the defeat of the prince of Orange, have riveted the chains of flavery about their necks, and gradually accustomed them to the yoke, if, by engaging in too many expenfive enterprizes, he had not exhausted his exchequer, and made it in fome meafure neceffary for Alva to impofe the taxes of the tenth and twentieth pennies, for the maintenance of his troops. He might, through the great abilities of the duke of Parma, have again reduced the revolted provinces to obedience, if he had not conceived the wild ambition of fubduing England, and acquiring the fovereignty of France. His armies, in the latter part of his reign, were never fufficiently numerous to execute the various enterprizes which he undertook; yet they were much more numerous than he was able to fupport. Few years paffed in which they did not mutiny for want of pay. And Philip fuffered greater prejudice from the disorders and devastation which his own troops committed, than he ever received from the arms of his enemies. Against his attempts on England and France, his wifeft counsellor remonstrated in the strongest terms. And prudence certainly required, that, previously to any attack upon the dominions of others, he fhould have fecured poffeffion of his own. Yet fo great was his illufion, that rather than delay the execution of those schemes which his refentment and ambition had fuggefted, he chose to run the risk of lofing the fruits of all the victories which the duke of Parma had obtained; and, having left defenceless the provinces which had fubmitted to his authority, he thereby afforded an opportunity to the revolted provinces, of eftablishing their power, on fo firm a foundation, as the whole strength of the Spanish monarchy, exerted against them for more than fifty years, was unable to overturn *. To this hiftory is added an Appendix, containing an abstract of the Prince of Orange's famous Apology, in which are many interefting anecdotes of the private life and character of Philip but for these we muft refer the curious reader to the work itfelf. We have in this laft fentence, an inftance of thofe little defects, in point of language, which have fometimes efcaped our author. Inftead of ufing as he fhould have used that, and added it to the end of the fentence: for he certainly meant overturn the power, and not overturn the foundation. The latter part of the fentence fhould therefore run thus-" of eftablishing their power on fo firm a foundation, that the whole ftrength of the Spanish monarchy was unable to overturn it. Rev Letters on Materialism and Hartley's Theory of the Human Mind, addreffed to Dr. Prieftley, F. R. S. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Robinson. This publication has been fo little advertised (if at all) in the London papers, that, not receiving, as is cuftomary, a printed copy from the author, we were actually ignorant of its appearance, till we received the following letter on the fubject. "To the LONDON REVIEWERS. Gentlemen, HAVING in vain expected, for fome months paft, to fee your animadverfions on a late publication, entitled, Letters on Materialifm, addreffed to Dr. Prieftley; in which my letter to you, in defence of that gentleman *, is moft terribly handled, Í can no longer refrain from taking up the pen to do justice to myfelf, not doubting, from your experienced impartiality, that you will take the first opportunity to give a place to this letter as you did to my former. The author of the Letters in queftion addreffes Dr. P. in the fift of them as follows. "In confequence of your notion of material fouls advanced in the preliminary ys to Hartley's theory, and of the warm fanction that notion received from the authors of the London Review, you was called to an account by Mr. Seton, who, in a letter addressed to you in that periodical publication, warmly, though modeftly, expoftulated with you on its impropriety and evil tendency. It was natural to expect that fo pertinent an addrefs would have roufed your fenfibility, and extorted a reply. Nothing of the kind happened; unless we are to confider a letter, which appeared in the fame Review of September laft, as really Dr. Priestley's, and therefore as intended as the only and beft reply to Mr. Seton's animadverfions. 'Till I have it from unquestionable authority, I will never offer fo flagrant an indignity to your fo jufly admired abilities, as to fuppofe you the author of it. But as no other anfwer hath hitherto appeared, nor have you, as your bonour required, ever publicly reprobated that trifling and infidious production, we are authorized to eftcem it yours, or, which nearly amounts to the fame, to conclude that it came forth under your tutelage and kind protection. In this light I must therefore confider it, and shall with propriety make fome remarks on its contents in the regular course of my correfpondence. Being the writer of the letter thus formally impeached and condemned, you will give me leave, gentlemen, to make my remarks on the Remarker, and to expofe the pretended propriety of his condemuation. In proceeding to do this, let me do Dr. Pricftley the juftice to fay, that he neither at first knew any thing of fuch letter, nor does he, I believe, to this day, know any thing of the writer. If his prefent addreffer, however, really inks it fo trifling a production, I wonder he *See London Review for September 1776, fhould fhould think Dr. Priestley's honour concerned publickly to reprobate it. If the doctor thought it fo trifling, the courfe he took was certainly the wifeft, viz. that of taking no notice of it. His addreffer, indeed, tells us he should have taken the fame course too, "had not that letter been cried up as a metaphyfical compofition." Indeed! by whom? Surely not by trifling or incompetent judges! The opinion of fuch would have been as unworthy notice as the performance itself. No, Sirs, Dr. Priestley's prefent correfpondent would not certainly have thought it worth his while to trouble either the doctor or himfelf with any criticifm upon fo trifling a production; however cried up as a mafter-piece by as trifling readers. It must have been from the high opinion, which fome people, who flood alfo high in his opinion, entertained of my letter, that he was induced to take fuch trouble, In return for the compliment of fuch good opinion, therefore, you will excufe me if I am a little follicitous to maintain my right to it; notwithstanding the modeft affurance of Dr. Prieftley's correfpondent in declaring, againft fuch refpectable authority, that what they deemed a mafter-piece of metaphyfical compofition would be otherwife unworthy notice. I am not indeed fo vain as to fuppofe the hafty production of a vacant hour deferving fuch an encomium; but I am too tenacious of the approbation of the judicious to fubmit filently to the rude reproaches of "writing flagrant nonfenfe-advancing palpable abfurdities," and broaching" fuch puerilities," as the letter-writer" blufhes to repeat." You will foon be able to judge, gentlemen, which of us hath most reason to blush. "On your recommendation (fays this fagacious hypercritic to Doctor Priestley), I have perused Hartley with the greatest attention of which I am capable. I am not even afhamed to fay, that I have read him four times over. I foon perceived he was not an author to be run over in a few hours, à téte reposée, as the French exprefs it; and as, from the first reading, I had entertained a defign of contesting fome parts of his fyftem, it was neceflary, I well knew, to confider it maturely. I now truft, I can fay without vanity, that I understand him thoroughly. In his doctrine of vibrations, and therefore of affociation, I had been long initiated, from having read a French work, which appeared fome years ago (Effai analytique fur les facultés de l'ame), by Mr. Bonnet of Geneva. This ingenious and learned author, fo well known in the literary world for his various and elegant productions in the Philofophical walk, fets out on the fame principles as Dr. Hartley, but, fenfible of their almoft infinite extent, if difcufled analytically, only applies them to one of the human fenfes, the fmell, and from thence gradually rifes, through a feries of metaphyfical enquiries and obfervations, to the most intellectual operations. From the fame premifes, it was natural these philofophers fhould draw the fame inference: they infer that every mental process is a mechanical effect, and therefore that all free free election in man is a chimerical and ufurped prerogative; in other words, that man is no more a free agent in the real fenfe of the term, than the ftone, I throw from me, which goeth, and then returns to the common center of gravitation." What this writer means by the real fenfe of the term free election, appears to be abfolute and arbitrary freedom of will, independent of, and uninfluenced by, phyfical motives in this cafe, however, I muft tell him that fuch freedom of will belongs to no created being whatever; and of course must be chimerical and ufurped in man. He fhould be told also, that in any thing arbitrary and abfolute there are no degrees of comparifon: fo that it is abfurd, if we mean fuch abfolute freedom of will, to say, (6 man is no more a free agent than a flone." But, if we adopt what I conceive to be the real fenfe of the term free election, viz. a capacity of deliberating in the choice, and of declaring that choice in favour of what appears on any account deferving preference; in this cafe, fuch comparifon indeed may be ufed with fome kind of propriety, and fay a man is more a free agent than a fone: becaufe he has a greater capacity of deliberation, and a greater fenfibility of the motives of preference. Will he fay that here comparison ceafes too; for that a ftone has no fuch capacity or fenfibility? To oblige him, I will grant it; but then I fay, man is a free agent and a tone is not. The mistake feems to hinge on the terins mental and mechanical, as if the influence of mental motives were not as regular and certain in its operation, as is the impulfe of mechanical motion. The fucceffion of the effect to the caufe is as neceffary in the ore cafe as the other; thus, though a man may not be under the neceffity of making a choice; when he does make a choice, he is as much under the neceffity of chufing that which he does chufe, as a stone, dropt out of the hand, is to fall to the ground. A man induced by any motives, or for any reasons (voluntarily as we fay), to take sa journey, in effect as neceffarily takes fuch journey, as if he -were bound hand and foot and carried by force, againft his will. The caufes producing the effect indeed are identically different, but not the lefs mechanical. In the one cafe, he is mechanically moved under the direction of his own will; in the other, under the direction of the will of others: for whether he walk or ride, his loco-motion is equally mechanical. If by the term mechanical, indeed, is meant merely the mode of action among palpable bodies, whofe effects are constant and conformable to the known laws of motion, it is certain that the term is rather improperly applied to the mode of action among impalpable fubftances, whofe effects, though equally regular and conftant, are governed by laws as yet unknown. It is not about words, but things and their relations, that philofophers fhould difpute; all that should be meant in this cafe by mechanical, therefore, is, that effects follow their caufes in a regular uniform manner, conformably to certain fixed and conftant laws. At prefent it might be improper to fay, that lagical arguments act mechanically on the understanding, or that fenfual temptations a& mechanically on the paffions; and yet they have as regular and conftant an effect, by means of both, on the will, as hath the moft known and familiar mechanical caufe in producing its mechanical effect. The difference only is, that the machine, of whofe effects we judge, is more complicated. We do not fee the action of the lever, the pulley, the wedge, &c., and perhaps the phyfical agent is not fo mere a mechanic inftrument; its action is, nevertheless, as regular and conftant. Not to carry our novice, however, too deep; let us return to his progrefs after initiation into the myfteries of Bonnet. "From the doctrine of neceffity, which feems the inevitable confequence of Hartley's and Bonnet's principles, if adopted in their ful extent, I began to fufpect fome years ago, when I was almost an enthufiaftic admirer of the Genevan philofopher, that fuch principles were not to be admitted with an implicit confidence. I knew falfehood could never originate from truth, and I knew that man was free." What a knowing genius!-He knew that man was free! He must be a great deal more knowing yet, however, before he knows what it is to be free. And yet, if we believe him, he has taken a world of trouble too, to come at fome little knowledge; which he might poffibly have attained, had not this fame freedom food in his light: for, like a modern patriot, it feems, he is ready to facrifice every thing for Liberty. may "If I fhould be able to preferve Dr. Hartley's principles, as far as be requifite, and withal maintain the grand prerogative of man, Liberty, I fhall be more than amply rewarded for the many hours of clofe application I have given to the fubject. But rather than refign my freedom, I am ready to immolate at her fhrine the most dear and fafcinating fchemes of a Hartley, a Bonnet, or even a Dr. Priestley. You will laugh, I know, at my wild enthufiafm; but why fhould you, if it be the neceffary refult of the affociated fyllem of my brain?" Why laugh? For that very reafon, because it is necessary. "Laugh where we must, be candid where we can:" as the poet fays, not as this pfeudo-philofopher, who tells us he "was pofitively neceffitated fometimes to laugh, and fometimes to be angry."-A bad fign this, when a man finds him"felf neceffitated to be angry, he may fafely conclude (if his rage will let him liften to reafon) that he is got on the wrong fide of the argument. But |
