by which the was to have been placed on a throne to which she had neither inclination nor pretenfions, and by means unknown to herfelf. She was the only child of Charles Stuart, fifth Earl of Lennox, (uncle to James I. and great-grandfon to Henry VII.) was born about the year 1578, and brought up in privacy under the care of her grandmother, the old Countess of Lennox, who had for many years refided in England. Her double relation to royalty was equally obnoxious to the jealoufy of Elizabeth and the timidity of James, and they fecretly dreaded the fuppofed danger of her leaving a legitimate offspring. The former therefore prevented her from marrying Eafme Stuart, her kinfman, and heir to the titles and eftates of the family, and afterwards imprisoned her for liftening to fome overtures from the fon of the Earl of Northumberland; the latter, by obliging her to reject many fplendid offers of marriage, unwarily encouraged the hopes of inferior pretenders, among whom, as we may fairly infer from fome paffages in this collection, was the fantastical William Fowler, fecretary to Anne of Denmark. Thus circumfcribed, the renewed a childish connection with William Seymour, grandfon to the Earl of Hertford, which was difcovered in 1609, when both parties were fummoned to appear before the Privy Council, and received a fevere reprimand. This mode of proceeding produced the very confequence which James meant to avoid; for the lady, fenfible that her reputation had been wounded by this inquiry, was in a manner forced into a marriage, which becoming publicly known in the courfe of the next Spring, the was committed to clofe cuftody in the house of Sir Thomas Parry at Lambeth, and Mr. Seymour to the Tower. In this ftate of feparation, however, they concerted means for an escape, which both effected on the fame day, June 3, 1611, and Mr. Seymour got fafely to Flanders; but the poor lady was retaken in Calais Road, and imprisoned in the Tower; where the fenfe of these undeserved oppreffions operating too feverely on her high fpirit, she became a lunatic, and languished in that wretched ftate, augmented by the horrors of a prifon, till her death on the 27th of September 1615.'

Mr. Lodge is the more circumftantial in his account of this lady, because of fome different representations in regard to her perfon, which have been made in the Biographia Britannica, and which he thinks fufficiently confuted by the engraving affixed to this volume, and by the letter to which his note immediately belongs. If the painter did not flatter her, she was indeed a very fine woman; and her letters, inferted in this collection, fhew that she was both fenfible and sprightly.

The Introduction to this work ends with the following lines:

The editor here concludes a task which hath occupied most of his leifure time for fome years. With no great dread of cenfure, with fmaller pretenfions to praife, with no affectation, however, of indifference, as to that little portion of credit which his humble labours may deserve, he prefents to the public a collection of the works of others. For the feries of ancient papers which is here brought to light he asks no favours. The notices which he has pre

fumed

fumed to add to those respectable pieces, may perhaps ftand in need of much indulgence. Doubtless many errors will occur in numerous details of minute circumftances, abounding with names and dates. He will be thankful for candid correction.'

We regard the editor's notes as a great improvement to this publication, which is in itfelf entertaining and valuable. Numerous readers will no doubt think themselves indebted to him for his accurate labours. Indices, tables of papers, explanations of terms, &c. add to their accommodation; and the prints will increase their amufement and pleasure, Hi...

T

ART. II. Mifcellanies, Philofophical, Medical, and Moral. Containing, I. Observations on the Literature of the Primitive Chriftian Writers. II. Reflections fuggested by the Character of Pamphilus of Cæfarea. III. Hints refpecting the State and Education of the People. IV. Thoughts on the Origin of Human Knowledge, and on the Antiquity of the World. V. Remarks on Profeffor Meiners's Hiftory of Antient Opinions refpecting the Deity. VI. Account of Dr. Ellis's Work on the Origin of Sacred Knowledge. 8vo. pp. 442. 4s. Boards. Nicol. 1792*. HE enemies of political reformation have industriously reprefented modern innovations in policy, as the effect of religious incredulity; and have taken pleasure in promiscuously branding the prefent race of reformers with the odious appellations of infidels and atheifts. The volume now before us furnishes one fact, among many others which might be mentioned, in refutation of this ground lefs charge. It is written, as we are affured, by Mr. Thomas Chriftie, to whom the public are obliged for a judicious account of the French revoJution t. Most of the pieces in this mifcellany are intended to remove fome afperfions which have been caft on Christianity, and to prove that mankind have been much more indebted to revelation, than many are willing to allow.

The firft paper in this mifcellany contains Obfervations on the Literature of the primitive Chriftian writers; being an attempt to vindicate them from the charge of Rouffeau and Gibbon, that they were enemies to philofophy and human. learning. Mr. Chriftie juftly thinks it a matter of fome importance, to determine what opinion the primitive fathers of the church entertained on this fubject; because, if it should be found that thofe perfons, who were the immediate fucceffors of Chrift and his Apoftles, generally agreed in condemning phi

*The date at the bottom of the title is 1789: but the publication of the volume has been delayed till very lately.

+ See Rev. Aug. 1791, P. 444, and March 1792, p. 324.

7

lofophy

lofophy and human learning, as hoftile to virtue, a ftrong prefumption would arife, that they had imbibed thefe fentiments from the founder and firft teachers of the Chriftian religion. In order to prove that the Chriftian fathers were not hoftile to human learning, our author quotes many paffages from their writings, in which they either difcover their own learning, or país encomiums on learning and philofophy. Among these quotations, which are well felected, are an abftract of St. Bafil's homily on the advantage to be derived from profane learning, and of the Grecian Therapeutics of Theodoret. The general conclufion we shall state in our author's own words;

Hence, it appears, that the primitive writers, fo far as they. were free from fuperftition, were no enemies to true philofophy, although there are paffages in their works, which, on a fuperficial perufal, might give countenance to fuch an idea. However, if we confider their fituation, we shall not be furprized that they were fometimes led to fay harsh things relative to human science. In modern times, we have feen prejudiced and mifanthropic writers produce laboured works against philofophy, under a pretence, that they found human learning magnified, to the depreciation of revelation but in the primitive times this plea was real. The fathers daily heard human learning magnified against the gofpel; and were perpetually meeting with the moft injurious treatment from ignorant and vicious men, who arrogated to themfelves the title of philofophers. Yet, though they chaftifed the pride of thefe vain pretenders to fcience; though they expofed the imperfection of their boafted knowledge; and though they fhewed the weakness and infufficiency of philofophy, unaided by revelation, to conduct men to the favour of God and eternal life; they never uttered any thing equivalent to the opinion of Mr. Rouffeau; they never taught that learned nations were neceffarily vicious; or that there was an irresistible tendency in knowledge to corrupt the manners of mankind. If Mr. Rouffeau had taken up the argument in another way; if, inftead of pretending that the great Primitive Writers were on his fide, in difcarding all philofophy, he had alledged, that, they philofophized too much, or, to ftate it more accurately, that they corrupted Chriftianity by erroneous tenets, borrowed from Plato and the Orientals, I fhould not have attempted to have dif proved the affertion: for all the learned converts from heathenifm were defirous of incorporating the doctrines of Plato with the fyftem of the Gospel. It was pleafing to them to discover a coincidence between the opinions they had anciently held, and those which they were now to hold. The fuppofition that they discovered fuch a coincidence, probably contributed not a little to reconcile them originally to the new fyftem, and they would foon find out, that it was a powerful engine to bring about the converfion of others. It is not therefore to be wondered at, if at fome times they carried it too far. This is a charge from which it is impoffible to acquit either Juftin, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Clemens, or Gregory. And the confequence of this difpofition foon appeared. The fim

plicity

plicity of the Christian doctrine was depraved, by an impure mixture of Platonic chimeras. The Gofpel became paganized, while heathenifm was chriftianized; till, at length, matters were carried fuch a length, that Ammonius Saccas propofed a coalition betwixt them; and taught in the fchool of Alexandria, that the one of them was not defigned to fuperfede the other. At this period many perfons, among whom was the Emperor Alexander Severus, ill able to decide on the claims of the feveral pretenders to a divine mission, and wishing to make fure work in the matter, divided their reverence among all the antient heroes, and paid equal honours to Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Jefus Chrift.

Hence arofe a great controverfy, which was long carried on in the church, whether Learning and Philofophy were advantageous to the Gospel or not. The fimple and illiterate Chriftians faw clearly, that their learned brethren had corrupted the fyftem of Revelation, and that they talked of its doctrines in a manner very different from Chrift and the Apoftles. Hence they concluded, that all fcience was detrimental to Religion. It was natural enough for them to fall into this mistake; but a mistake it certainly was. It was confounding the ufe of things with the abufe of them; and alledging the ill effects of falfe philofophy to depreciate the true. Had they lived in an age when true philofophy was cultivated, and when it was employed, as it ever may be, to preferve the purity of Religion, they would have entertained very different fentiments of it, and feen clearly that Philofophy and Revelation proceed from the fame fource, and tend to promote the fame end.'

The manner in which Mr. Chriftie endeavours to account for the inconfiftency that at first view appears in the writings of the Fathers, refpecting the value of philofophy, does not feem to us altogether fatisfactory. The truth feems to be, that the Chriftian Fathers treated the wifdom of the ancient philofophers with refpect, only fo far as they judged it to have been derived from divine revelation. The high regard, which many of them exprefs for the Platonic doctrine, and the readiness with which they incorporated it into the Chriftian fyftem, were owing to an idea, which, whether well or ill founded, they feem to have very generally entertained, that Plato had received many divine truths, either directly or indirectly, from the Hebrew fcriptures.

Farther to establish the value and neceffity of divine revelation, our author maintains, in his fourth effay, that the knowlege which men poffefs of the Deity, of the origin of the world, and perhaps the principles of knowlege in general, were derived from tradition, and are ultimately to be referred to immediate divine communication. Many paffages are here quoted from the ancients to prove, that the Grecian philofophers, and even the Egyptians, referred the origin of their knowlege to tradition; and that, as far as men have departed from the

ancient

ancient traditions, they have corrupted knowlege. On the neceffity of immediate inftruction from heaven on religious principles, the author thus argues :

That nature alone, unexpounded by Revelation or Tradition. fhould be able to teach men the existence and perfections of God, and their duty towards him, is a fond and ill-grounded idea, totally contradicted by the hiftory of mankind. There is no proof that any clafs of men ever acquired their knowledge in this way. The glorious fun, the refplendent moon, and fhining stars, have indeed, in every age, proclaimed their Creator's praife to thofe who already knew him, and had been taught to confider these as the works of his hands. But to others they have told nothing but their own brightnefs. So far were they from being able to teach the existence of God to mankind, that they could not even keep up that knowledge after it had been taught. On the contrary, they became the means of deftroying it; for in all countries, where there were not repeated revelations from the great Source of Wisdom, which at first imparted them, mankind forgot the God whom they had learned to adore, and worshipped that fun, and moon, and stars, in his ftead. The fame hath happened to all the other parts of nature. When contemplated apart and alone, by those who poffeffed no higher knowledge, they have continually been the means of leading men. away from God. Hence the Philofophers became Atheists; and the vulgar deified the elements, and worshipped dead men, frail human beings like themselves, yea, and paid divine adoration to animals, to birds, to plants, and creeping things; fo that there is fcarcely a fingle object in nature which hath not in its turn fupplanted its Creator! The conftant tendency of man, in his native ftate, hath ever been to fink down from the skies, and gravitate, if I may fo exprefs it, to the centre of the earth. Human nature, a feeble and delicate plant, hath always required the frequent interpofition of him who firft reared it, to preferve it from drooping and decay.'

Mr. Chriftie has bestowed much thought and reading on the queftion of the antiquity of the world. The refult is an opinion, that the world itself, and even the race of inferior animals, are much older than the human kind. In a note affixed to this part of the work, many curious facts are collected, refpecting favage life and manners, and the grofs opinions which even civilized nations, not enlightened by revelation, have entertained concerning the divine nature. The fifth essay, in profecution of the fame idea, enumerates the facts and arguments, adduced by M. Meiners in his Hiftoria Doctrine de vero Deo, to prove, that it is far above human nature to difcover the knowlege of God. The fixth, with a fimilar view, gives an abstract of a learned and fenfible work on the fame fubject, "The Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, not from Reason or Nature, &c. by the late John Ellis, D. D.. Vicar of St. Catharine's, Dublin."

After