which alone we know all that we do know." Now the contrary is the fact. Perception is the moft relative and complex of any thing we know, and if our knowledge amounted to no more than fimple perception, we should know very little, and that little with very great uncertainty indeed!-That fimple perception is the foundation of all human knowledge is certain, but its fuperstructure is raised by reason or reflection: knowledge confifts of the comparative and compound refult of our various fimple perceptions; nor can we with any philofophical propriety be faid to know what we merely and fimply perceive. We are in nothing fo liable to err, as in trufting to the information of a fingle fenfe, or fimple perception; which is the most precarious teft of truth that ever was appealed to.-In fact, the perception which our author terms abfolute and fimple, is, as before observed, a moft complicated affection; that of the external fenfes, even the fimpleft feeling, depending not only on the found ftate of the external organs of touch, but of the concomitant action of the internal organs of attention and reflection. Thus, though fimple perception affords the materials of thought, we cannot even fimply perceive during a total fufpenfion of thought; a proof that fuch perception is by no means fo fimple as is imagined. -The firft volume of this Collection contains also a tranflation of three books of Taffo's Jerufalem delivered; Conftantia, or the Man of Law's Tale, modernized from Chaucer; alfo Redemption, a Poem; of which laft, though we do not much admire it, we will not fay, as was faid of another poet who treated the fame fubject," and of redemption made damn'd work."---Of the contents of the other three volumes we will speak in our next. W.

An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By Henry Edward Davis, B. A. 8vo. 4s, fewed, DodЛley.

Mr. Davis appears to have difplayed great abilities, both natural and acquired, in this examination of an hiftorian, whofe fuperior merit, we venture to fay, will foil the moft elaborate attempts to degrade him in the eye of the judicious and impartial reader. It is not the bufinefs of the hiftorian," fays this writer, "to profefs himself a fceptic in matters of religion; and therefore Mr. Gibbon had nothing

to do with the rise and progrefs of chriftianity, in treating of the decline and fall of the Roman empire. At least," says he," he should not have made fo long a digreffion, which feems to have been wrote with fo much art and care and ingenuity, that we can easily trace the author's predilection for the fubject. He treats it con amore; which has induced many judicious perfons to fufpect, that the rest of the volume was written to introduce thefe two chapters with a better grace and more decent appearance."

Thus all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye. For our own part, we frankly own we are not among thofe judicious perfons who fufpected all this; nor can we conceive the two chapters in queftion so much a hors d'œuvre as our divines affect to think them. Granting the fubject of them to be not abfolutely effential, as Mr. Davis terms it, it is fo nearly connected with that of his history, that it would have been an unpardonable neglect, if the hiftorian had omitted it.—But he dwelt, it seems, too long upon it.-How! too long upon a fubject of fo much importance as the rife and progrefs of chriftianity! Had he treated it in their own way, he might have been as tedious and long-winded as themselves, and they would not have complained.-We cannot, however, as impartial critics, agree with Mr. Davis, in his declaration that Mr. Gibbon ftands up as an avowed champion for infidelity on this occafion. Admitting that, as an hiftorian, he ought, as our examiner infinuates, to have adopted the hypocrify and referve of a Machiavel and a Hume, he might, in our opinion, have faid what he has done without much breach of decorum.-We will not engage, indeed, to defend the hiftorian against the charge alledged against him refpecting unfair and falfe quotation, as it has been fo ferioufly and repeatedly made against him by writers of acknowledged erudition and probity. We make no doubt, however, of his being capable of very handfomely apologizing, if not of exculpating, himself. To induce him to do this, therefore, we shall exhibit the charge, as here produced against him in the strongeft and most flagrant terms.

"The remarkable mode of quotation, which Mr. Gibbon adopts, muft immediately strike every one who turns to his notes. He fometimes only mentions the author, perhaps the book, and often leaves the reader the toil of finding out, or rather gueffing at the paffage.

"The policy, however, is not without its defign and ufe. By endeavouring to deprive us of the means of comparing him with the authorities he cites, he flattered himself, no doubt, that he might fafely have recourfe to mifrepresentation; that his inaccu

racies

1

120

Davis's Examination of Gibbon.

racies might efcape the piercing eye of criticism; and that he might indulge his wit and fpleen, in fathering the absurdest opinions on the most venerable writers of antiquity. For, often, on examining his references, when they are to be traced, we shall find him fupporting his caufe by manifeit falfification, and perpetually affuming to himself the ftrange privilege of inferting in his text what the writers, referred to, give him no right to advance on their authority.

"This breach of the common faith repofed in authors, is peculiarly indefenfible, as it deceives all those who have not the leisure, the means, nor the abilities, of fearching out the paffages in the originals.'

But this is not the only charge brought by this examiner against his author. "Mr. Gibbon," fays he," often propofes fecond, or even third-handed notions as new; and has gained a name among fome, by retailing objections which have been long ago started, and as long fince refuted and exploded.

"In fact, fceptics and free-thinkers are of a date fo old, and their objections were urged fo early, and in fuch numbers, that our modern pretenders to this wisdom and philofophy can with difficulty invent any thing new, or discover, with all their malevolent penetration, a fresh flaw. The fame set of men have been alone diftinguished by different names and appellations, from Porphyry, Celfus, or Julian, in the firft ages of Chriftianity, down to Voltaire, Hume, or Gibbon, in the prefent."

That Mr. Gibbon fhould not be able to produce many objections to Chriftianity that are new, is no wonder. It would be much more to be wondered at, if, with all his ingenuity, he could produce any, at this time of day, that are new. But, as to his retailing only fuch as have been long ago ftarted, and as long fince refuted and exploded; we muft beg leave to obferve, that even his revival of them, and having profeffedly gained a name by fo doing, is an argument against their having been ever fairly refuted and exploded. It is a mighty eafy matter to fay an objection is anfwered; but if men, diffatisfied with fuch anfwer, will ftill recur to the queftion, it is a plain proof it is not answered : and as to a matter's being exploded, it may happen to be exploded by one party and held in high eftimation by another. Nor will the majority of numbers in this cafe, it is presumed, be admitted to decide; as the fentiments of the judicious Few muft, on fuch occafions, be ever held the most respectable. That feeptics and free-thinkers are in general very foolish fellows, there is no doubt; but then it is as little to be doubted that thofe obnoxious appellations have been impudently and ignorantly, as in the prefent cafe, bestowed on men of the firft rank for fenfe, ingenuity and learning. It

cannot

cannot be denied that Mr. Davis hath fhewn much industry and some acuteness in his laborious pursuit of the historian through a prodigious number of authors ancient and modern; in refpect to all of which, he would make him appear to have been guilty of mifrepresentation or plagiarism. In order to do this, he hath felected (to ufe his own words) "Several of the more notorious inftances of mifreprefentation and error; reducing them to their respective heads, and fubjoining a long lift of almoft incredible inaccuracies, and fuch striking proofs of fervile plagiarism, as the world will be furprised to meet with in an author who puts in fo bold a claim to originality and extenfive reading."

We have nothing to fay to Mr. Gibbon's bold claims to originality; if in this refpect he hath been too bold, let the blame light upon his own head; it is not eafy in these times for a writer to be original in point of fentiment; he fhould think himself fufficiently fortunate in being fo much fo, in point of ftile and expreffion, as this hiftorian is univerfally allowed to be. In regard, nevertheless, to the multitude of examples, adduced by this examiner, of his incredible inaccuracy and fervile plagiarifm; we muft honeftly confefs that, were we impannelled on a critical jury, we fhould acquit the culprit at the bar, of any wilful criminality in moft of them. After all, what is all this outcry againft him made for? Why, truly, admitting the fact to be proved intentional and wilful, it is nothing more than the revival of the scheme of accounting for the progress of Chriftianity by natural caufes in the ordinary courfe of God's Providence, "A ftale infidel topic, urged and confuted long fince," it is said, in bishop Atterbury's fermons. We do not particularly recollect what bifhop Atterbury may have done, in refpect to confuting fuch a doctrine; but we own we fee no infidelity in imputing the rife and progrefs of Christianity to the difpenfations of Divine Providence whether ordinary or extraordinary. Our author's quotation from Mofheim by no means proves his point. When, we confider," fays that learned and judicious writer, the rapid progrefs of Chriftianity among the Gentile nations, and the poor feeble inftruments by which this great and amazing event was immediately effected, we must naturally have recourse to an omnipotent and invisible hand, as its true and proper caufe." Undoubtedly we muft! He would be an infidel who fhould impute even the progrefs and wide-extended influence of Mahometanifm to any other cause than the omnipotent hand of Providence. It is to this, as that very VOL. VIII. learned

R

learned ecclefiaftic juftly observes, we must naturally have recourse to, in order to account for the result of all great events from trivial caufes. Nay, granting that the progress of Chriftianity were really fomething out of the ordinary courfe of nature (for which fuppofition, however, we fee neither reafon nor ufe) and that, it was not only effected by the general hand, but the immediate finger, of Providence, what advantage doth Chriftianity now gain by the establishment of fuch a doctrine? Is its own eftablishment either the more or lefs firm and permanent? Granting that the causes of that amazing rapidity, with which the Chriftian religion fpread itself upon the earth really were miraculous, why muft "thofe who pretend to affign other reafons for this furprising event, be faid, to indulge themselves in idle fictions, which muft difguft every attentive obferver of men and things ?"

Modern

theologues may pretend that they only are attentive observers of men and things; but we are apt to think there are other obfervers of men and things equally attentive, who, in tracing the ordinary courfe of Nature, perceive fo many important events arife from apparently trivial causes, that they would not be disgufted at the fuppofition that others, however miraculous, fhould be produced in the fame manner. And, after all, why is this argument urged? Is it to enforce the belief of the more divine nature of Christianity than of other established religions? If the belief, that the immediate interpofition of the Deity was neceffary to affift the ordinary courfe of nature at firft to establish it, be requifite to enforce a rational belief of its divine inftitution, the immediate interpofition of the Deity operating on the mind of the believer, would have the fame effect. Or is the Deity deprived, in these latter days, of the prerogative of working miracles, and the power of fuch immediate interpofition to work on the minds of unbelievers? We cannot help admiring the learning and ingenuity, difplayed in the fupport of theological opinions, even though we think them untenable and often frivolous and useless if they were true.

W.

Providence and Free Agency. A Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, April 17, 1778. By Samuel Horfley, -L. L. D. 4to. Is. Payne.

Another ingenious and fruitless attempt, among the many that have been made of late years, to reconcile divinity and

philofophy,