indifputable truth, but fo felf-evident, that it does not appear worthy of the learned Profeffor's obfervation. But if he mean, (as the title and general tenor of the work imply) that a genius for reafoning, or the genius proper for philofophy, that the talent which alone qualifies a man for the understanding and improvement of philofophy, is the talent, which occafions the adulteration of it, and without which there would be no error or falfe theory; then fuppofing the fuppofition to be true, which feems to involve in it a contradiction, might we not with just as much reason find fault with our legs as with genius, because though we fhould not be able to walk without them, we fhould not be liable to ftumble. To recognize or review the operations of the mind is undoubtedly the proper employment of the highest faculty, and therefore to prefer Common Senfe, an inferior faculty, to Genius, the higheft faculty of the mind, in the examination of its operations, and to maintain that the former is the best judge of the fubject, is just as incongruous with reafon, as to prefer the glimmering light of a candle to the brightnefs of the fun, and to assert that the former will discover to us better than the latter the works of nature. The defign of the Author's work is, as you very well know, to deftroy the very principles of fcepticism; yet, fpeaking of Bishop Berkeley's Principles of Human knowlege,' he fays, The opinion of the ablest judges feems to be, that they neither have been nor can be confuted: and that he hath proved what no man in his fenfes can believe.' A fentence which I fhould have been fo far from expecting from a writer who profeffedly undertakes to deftroy fcepticism, that was I not fully convinced this was the worthy Author's defign, I fhould from this affertion have concluded, that his intention was to decry reafon, and fap the foundations of science. For one of thefe conclufions muft neceffarily follow from this pofition, either, that the ableft judges of this point are mistaken about it, which is impoffible to be true, because they would not be the ablft: or that, as no man in his fenfes can believe arguments which cannot be confuted,' therefore no man in his fenfes can truft his reafon, or affent to demonftration. Having fhewed the incongruity, and I think I may fay (without of fence to truth or candour) the abfurdity of the learned Author's plan in this work, I fhall finifh my remarks with fhewing the truth of that propofition which the whole work is intended to refute. The propofition is this, That nothing is perceived but what is in the mind which perceives, it; which is even a felf-evident truth when once its terms are defined. The words perception or fenfation have two fignifications; by the one they imply the faculty, by the other the object of that faculty, or, the thing perceived. An olject of fenfe therefore, a thing perceived, and a fenfation or perception, taken in their latter fignification, are fynonimous terms. And as the learned Author himself grants, and every one elfe muft, that a fenfation can not be without a mind or fentient being, it follows, that no perception, object of fenfe, nor thing perceived, can be without a mind; or in other words, that nothing is perceived but what is in the mind which perceives it? 6 I cannot forbear to make one remark more before I conclude; though the Doctor (when he is fpeaking of the fenfe of fmelling) allows, as [ 6 have before obferved in the foregoing paragraph, that a sensation can not be without a mind or fentient being,' yet he confeffes, that if any man should demand a proof of this, he cannot give one.' A confeffion which I am the more aftonished at, as this is perhaps the only queftion in the learned Author's whole enquiry, which may fafely be answered on the Principles of Common Senfe. For every one furely will allow it to be contradictory and repugnant to them, that a fenfation or perception fhould be in an unfentient or unperceiving being. My reafons, Gentlemen, for wishing to infert the foregoing remarks in your Review, is, that I may afford you an opportunity of fhewing: your impartial regard for truth; and because I should wish to prevent the propagation of error in a work which has the most extenfive circulation. I am an entire stranger not only to Dr. Reid's perfon, but even to his character; any further than it may be collected from his work, in which he appears to be truly amiable as a man, and agreeable as a writer. It is only to be lamented, that he did not make choice of a fubject which required lefs clofenefs of reafoning and accuracy of definition, in which he might have fecurely relied on his favourite Principles of Common Sense, and entertained his Readers without any danger of milleading them. I am, Gentlemen, your very humble Servant, S. C. We are fenfible that many of our Readers, as well as the Author of the above Letter, expect more of us than to give the Summary contents of a work without praise or cenfure: they muft do us the juftice to own also, that we very feldom confine ourselves, in regard to books of importance, to fuch narrow and useless bounds. A very particular reason, however, operated with respect to Dr. Reid's work. Mr. Locke, for whofe memory and abilities we profefs the highest veneration, has been of late years frequently attacked by writers infinitely inferior to fuch an attempt. With thefe we fhould ever make little ceremony: but we found fomething fo very sprightly and ingenious in Dr. Reid's performance, that we were willing to leave the field open, and not to foreftall, by any obfervations of our own, thofe of the numerous advocates for the doctrines of that incomparable philofopher. Incomparable! we will call him, even on the fuppofition that future difcoveries and future reafonings fhould prove him to be generally mistaken: which we are pretty certain, however, will not be the cafe. But be this as it may; our Readers must be fenfible that, though they may frequently expect our opinion, and our reafons in fupport of that opinion when given, yet it is not our bufinefs to enter the lifts against every writer who may happen to contradict our fentiments. We are Reviewers of Books, not Dictators to Writers. This would be intolerable prefumption in us, and an infolent affront to the republic of letters, of which we never could be guilty. A confiderable Part of our Catalogue, particularly of the Poetical Articles, is defer'd to our next, for want of Room: Notwithstanding we have given Eight Pages extraordinary. APPENDIX TO THE REVIEW, MONTHLY VOLUME the THIRTY-SECOND. Sur le Destruction des Jefuits en France. Par un Auteur Défintérellé. 12mo. 1765, An Historical and Political Account of the Suppreffion of the Jefuits in France. By an Impartial Hand*. A MONG the many ftriking and fingular events, that have contributed to diftinguish the middle of the prefent century, the catastrophe which hath befallen the Jefuits is not the leaft interefting or extraordinary. Their expulfion from Portugal, and entire fuppreffion in France, cannot fail of giving fome alarm to other nations, for the confequences that may refult from the expatriation of fuch a numerous body of ecclefiaftics; who can hardly be fuppofed to prove good subjects in a foreign country, when they are deemed unworthy of their own. Such alarm, however, will bear fome mitigation from this reflection, that the members of this once formidable fociety are no longer men of fuch refined talents and fuperior abilities, as they have hitherto been imagined, or formerly were. Whether the prefent imbecillity of its individuals be the cause or the effect of the downfall of this fociety, we prefume not to determine; but it appears, even through the impartial account here given us, that the prefent race of Jefuits have had the hardest measures dealt them; and that, whatever criminal intrigues the fociety may have formerly been guilty of, vengeance hath not flept, but *This work is publickly attributed to the celebrated M. D'Alembert; and we have reason to think very juftly. But, let who will be the Author, we are told it hath made fo much noife abroad, as to occafion its being fuppreffed in France. Indeed the Writer appears to be no friend to the clergy in general; having taken frequent occafion to strike at all the religious orders, with a view to wound them through the fides of the unfortunate Jefuits. hath hath vifited the fins of these fathers on their fucceffors, even to the third and fourth generation. It appears, indeed, from this work, that the world in general have been of late much mistaken, as well with regard to the authority and credit of this famous inftitution, as to the capacity of its members. Not that we shall trouble ourfelves here to enter particularly into the merits of their caufe. Our Readers will probably chufe rather to judge for themselves, from the particulars of their hiftory; of which we shall, therefore, give the beft abftract, a work fo concife in itself, and almost incapable of abridgment, will admit. The facts, the Author obferves, are for the most part well known in France, though less fo in other countries, for whose information he principally writes; perfuaded that the fate of fo numerous and celebrated a body, must be at least a matter of univerfal curiosity; while at the fame time he prefumes the reflections, interfperfed throughout his recital, may be equally useful to all nations. The circumstances immediately inducing the ruin of the Jefuits in France, were fo far removed from their original causes, that our Hiftorian hath thought it neceffary to recur to their fource, and trace them from the very foundation of the fociety. It is above two hundred years, he fays, fince it was first establifhed; its founder being a gentleman of Spain, who, having first heated his brain by reading books of knight-errantry, and afterwards of devotion, took it into his head to become a Don Quixote for the holy virgin. To this end, he fallied forth to preach the Chriftian religion, which he knew nothing about; and affociated himfelf with all fuch adventurers as were willing to affift him in his expedition for the conversion of infidels. . It is, indeed, astonishing, that fo powerful and celebrated an order hould owe its rife to fo weak a founder. But it appears that, amidst all his infatuation, he was cunning enough not to enter into any of the orders already eftablished; chufing much rather to give laws to an inftitution of his own. Ignatius was alfo fhrewd enough to reflect, that a fociety particularly devoted to the holy fee, would infallibly be fupported by the fovereign pontiff, and, through his means, by all good catholic princes; whofe power and intereft would thus bear up the fociety till it fhould triumph in the end, over thofe tranfitory obftacles itmight at first encounter. It was with this view, he prescribed thofe famous conftitutions, which have been fince improved, on the fame plan, by his fucceffors Lainez and Aquaviva, men of fuperior talents to Ignatius, and the most celebrated generals of their order. It is to the latter, in particular, that the fociety is more indebted than to any other of its members for thofe political regulations, which have contributed for two hundred years paft to its aggrandifement and glory. It is true ⚫ that that this fyftem ended in being the cause or motive of their deftruction in France; but fuch is the fate of the greatest potentates, and of all human inftitutions. It is in their very nature to decay and fall to nothing, when they have once arrived to a certain pitch of elevation and grandeur. The Company of Jefus (for this is the name it affumed) had fcarce made its appearance in France, when it met with innumerable obftacles to its establishment. The univerfities in particular made the greateft efforts to expel these new-comers; but it is difficult to fay whether this oppofition was most to the credit or difcredit of the latter; who now propofed to inftruct pupils gratis, and had already among them several learned and celebrated men, fuperior perhaps to thofe of the universities: fo that both vanity and self-interest might not a little influence thefe adverfaries at firft to oppofe them. On the other hand, it is very poffible that the fociety, vain of that fupport, which it found amidft fo many attacks, furnished, by its defiance, eveni its enemies with arms against it. Even in thofe early days, it feemed to discover that spirit of rule and domination which it hath fince made more than fufficiently apparent; but which it hath endeavoured to hide under the mask of religion, and a zeal for the falvation of fouls. This defire of extent and dominion had already expanded itself univerfally; the fociety having infinuated itself into the confidence of many fovereign princes, and rendered itself formidable to the bishops, by the dependence it affected folely to place on the court of Rome. In fhort, the more powerful it grew, the more it feemed to juftify, by its importance and intrigues, the fixed hatred its enemies entertained against it. To govern the universe, not by civil or military force, but by religion; feems to have been the Company's device, from its very original: a device that hath been more and more acknowledged, in proportion to the increafe of its fplendor and authority. The Jefuits have never once loft fight of this object, nor of the means, equally efficacious as mild, of attaining it. This is perhaps the only fociety, as the house of Auftria is the only power in Europe, that hath conftantly and invariably purfued one and the fame fyftem of politics; an inestimable advantage this, to bodies corporate, or fovereign families! Individuals are tranfitory beings, and are subjected, during a fhort interval, to a fmall circle of events, which does not permit them to purfue any invariable fyftem. But corporate bodies and great houfes fubfift a long time; fo that by pursuing conftantly the fame projects, the ever-changing fcene of the world will fooner or later prefent fuch circumftances as are favourable to their views. Hence it is, that when any one declares himfelf their enemy, he muft either abfolutely annihilate them or become their victim : for fo long as the leaft breath remains, they will not cease to be Kk 2 formidable |