will be evident, by affuring the reader, that a vindication of philofophical polytheifm, as embraced by the wisdom, and supported by the general voice of antiquity, is the ultimate tendency of its execution.'

We are willing to allow Mr. Taylor's claim to novelty of defign, in its utmost extent. We know that the religion of ancient Greece and Rome has always been an interefting objec of curiofity to every fcholar; but we do not recollect that, in the number of those who have inveftigated its doctrines with patient attention, or explained them with philofophical precifion, any perfon has been found hardy enough to avow his ferious belief in their excellence and truth. We do not remember that, in modern times, any one has employed himself in collecting and arranging the fcattered and incongruous materials which compofed the temple of heathen theology, with a profefled view of rebuilding the edifice on the ruins of the Chriftian church. The prefent age, however, is confeffedly an age of religious improvement. Befide a multitude of lefs daring adventurers, to its immortal honour, it has produced at least one advocate for atheism, and one for philofophical polytheifm.-" Whereas fome have doubted," fays Mr. William Hammon of Liverpool, "whether there ever was fuch a thing as a proper atheift; to put that out of all manner of doubt, I do declare, that, upon my honour, I am one. Be it therefore remembered, that in London, in the kingdom of England, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty one, a man hath publicly declared himself an atheist *.” The religion of the heathens,' says Mr. Taylor †, has indeed, for many centuries, been the object of ridicule and contempt: yet the author of the prefent work is not ashamed to own, that he is a perfect convert to it in every particular, fo far as it was underftood and illuftrated by the Pythagoric and Platonic philofophers.' Mr. Hammon has one friend, it feems, equally enlightened with himself; but he is felfith enough to forbear from diffeminating his opinions, left he fhould leffen his own enjoyments by a numerous divifion of his privilege with others." Mr. T. is infinuely more liberal in his fentiments and views; and though he does not inform us of the fuccefs which he has hitherto met with in the propagation of truth, yet, we apprehend, he can boast of one female convert at least 1.

He

See Dr. Priestley's Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever ;-and an Undergraduate's Letter to Dr. Priestley, page 14.

+ Life of Proclus, page 17.

The Platonic philofophy, as it neceffarily combines truth wish elegance, is naturally adapted to captivate and allure the female

Y 3

mind,

He feems, indeed, to entertain a very proper fense of the difficulty and danger of his undertaking in these days of barbarous impiety and folly *.

The theology of the ancient, as well as of the modern vulgar, was, no doubt, full of abfurdity; but that of the ancient philofophers appears to be worthy of the highest commendations, and the molt affiduous cultivation. However, the prefent prevailing opinions forbid the defence of fuch a fyftem; for this must be the bufinefs of a more enlightened and philofophic age. Befides, the author is not forgetful of Porphyry's deitiny, whofe polemical writings were fuppreffed by the decrees of emperors, and whofe arguments in defence of his religion were fo very futile and easy of folution, that, as St. Hierom informs us, in his preface on Daniel, Eufebius anfwered him in twenty-five, and Apollinaris in thirty volumes +!'

If it will afford any confolation to Mr. Taylor, we will venture to affure him of our firm belief, that his works are in no danger of being fuppreffed by the decrees of emperors, or refuted in fifty five volumes by the prefent fathers of the church. Perhaps, however, he will not thank us for this confolation, fince, notwithstanding the defponding air of the paffage which we have now quoted, he appears, from other parts of his work, to have, by no means, abandoned himself to despair. We have heard of a perfon who was accustomed to bow to the ftatue of Jupiter, from an idea that the god might be one day reftored to his honours, and reward the attention which he had fhown to his image in the time of his difgrace. This reftoration is confidered by Mr. Taylor as certain. (Pref. to Vol. II. P. I.)

I am well aware,' fays he, that nothing has been fo much the fabject of ridicule and declamation, of ignorant afperfion and impotent contempt, as the theology of the ancients. It has fupplied the harangues of the pulpit with an endless variety of popular argument, and an exhauftiefs fource of priestly elocution. It has been equally derided by the man of learning and the merchant, by the noble and the vulgar, by the peafant and the priest. But it ftill lives in the mind, in which the love of fymmetry and gracefulness is generally predominant. Hence, in every age, except the prefent, many luftrious females have adorned the Platonic fchools by the brilliancy of their genius, and an uncommon vigour and profundity of thought. This too would doubtlefs be the cafe in our own country, if all the works of Plato and his difciples were but once faithfully and elegantly tranflated into English; but till the obftacle of Greek is removed, we may in vain expect thinking females, and I had almost faid Platonic philofophers among men.' I have, however, the happiness of being intimate with a lady, who is a noble exception to this remark, and is both an excellent Greek fcholar, and killed in the Platonic philofophy.' Reftoration of the Plat. Theol. p. 225. *Refloration of the Plat. Theol. p. 316.

+ Life of Proclus, p. 17.

works

works of the ancients, it is fill capable of being fupported by found reafoning and fublime philofophy; and its intrintic excellence and truth will extend its existence beyond the wreck of modern fyftems, and the defolation of ages. Like a ftrong and capacious fhip, it fails with majeftic fecurity through the ocean of time; and fuftains with careless dignity the ftorms of oppofition that roar round its wellcompacted fides. The blafts of calumny may indeed impede its progrefs, but are unable to fhatter its indiffoluble fabric; and the profperous gales of philofophy will always fucceed the tempefts of folly, and waft it with rapidity to the enlightened regions of mankind. The time perhaps is not far dillant, when this fortunate change may commence. Above twelve hundred years have elapfed ince the veffel of ancient wifdom vifited the civilized parts of the world, and the nations were bleft with its invaluable contents: and during this dreadful interval, ignorance and delufion, jargon and reverie, have held an undisturbed and univerfal reign. The depravity of the times is the fubject of general complaint: genius no longer foars; learning has evaporated into words; and philofophy is but a name. Yet, though the restoration of ancient theology is the object of my moft ardent defires, I much fear that a period till more barbarous, with refpect to philofophy; that an age ftill darker and more debafed, muft precede its establishment on the earth. Prodigies and destruction attended, as we fhall obferve in the enfuing hiftory, its departure from mankind; and defolation will doubtles be the harbinger of its future appearance. The orb of viciffitude produces renovation and decay in regular fucceffion; and marks, as it re volves, the dormant events of future periods with the rainous characters of the paft. Let us, therefore, patiently wait for, and joyfully expect the happy moment when the breezes of philofophy thall arife with abundance and vigour; and impel the veffel of theology, laden with the riches of wifdom, en our natal coaft. The revolution

is certain, however remote: and the profpect is of itself fufficient to increase the vigour of exertion, and animate the expectations of hope; to enable us to brave the forms of ecclefiaftical perfecution, and vanquish the refiftance of folly.'

Sucn are the hopes, and fuch is the defign of Mr. Taylor. And now, perhaps, we fhall be expected to give fome account of the Differtations, the titles of which we have already recited in their proper order. This, however, is a task which we fhall beg leave to decline, from a conviction, that to thofe whom the author honours with the title of the truly philofophic, no analysis of ours could poffibly be fatisfactory; and that to the unenlightened, it would certainly afford little entertainment, and lefs edifica

tion.

But while we pafs over the more abftrufe parts of Mr. T.'s Differtations, it may not be improper to ftate his opinion of the merits of fome great literary characters, in his own words: though, poffibly, the perufal of the following paffages may excite fome fmall fhare of indignation in the breaft of him, whofe mind has not yet been illuminated by the beams of true philofo

Y 4

phy,

phy, and who has hitherto looked up, if not with blind re verence, yet, at least, with grateful admiration, to the venerable names of Bacon, and of Locke; of Cudworth, and of John fon.

There are two egregious inftances in our own country of this daring prefumption' (viz. that of philofophizing without the affifance of the ancients); I mean Bacon and Locke. The former of thefe is celebrated for having deftroyed the jargon of the schoolmen, and brought experimental enquiries into repute; and for attempting to investigate caufes through the immenfity of particular effe&ts. Hence, he fondly expected, by experiment piled on experiment, to reach the principle of the univerfe; not confidering that his undertaking was as ridiculous as that of the giants of old, who attempted to invade the heavens, by placing Offa upon Pelion, and Olympus upon Offa; and ignorant that

Heaven fill, with laughter, the vain toil furveys,

And buries mad men in the heaps they raise.

The latter of thefe, Mr. Locke, is applauded for having, without affiftance from the ancients, explained the nature, and exhibited the genuine theory of human understanding. But that this applaufe is falfe, the preceding comparison between his and the ancient philofophy, may evince; and the variety of other felf-taught fyftems which, like nocturnal meteors, blaze for a while, and then vanish in obfcurity, abundantly confirms. Had thefe men, indeed, when they justly derided the barbarous writings of the schoolmen, explored the works of antiquity, penetrated the wisdom they contain, and enriched their native language with its illuftration, they had doubtless been celebrated by the lateft pofterity: but, defirous of becoming mafters in philofophy by intuition, they difdained the inftruction of the ancients, and vainly attempted to foar on artificial wings to the very fummit of science. They are, however, defined, like Icarus, to a precipitate fall; for the influence of time, which is continually diffolving the cement of their plumes, is likewife continually weakening their force, and will at last effect their final feparation *.*

I am afraid there are few in the prefent day, who do not confider tactics as one of the most principal parts of mathematics; and who would not fail to cite, in defence of their opinion, that great reformer of philofophy, as he is called, Lord Bacon, commending purfuits which come home to men's bufineffes and bofoms. Indeed, if what is loweft in the true order of things, and best adminifters to the vileft part of human nature, is to have the preference, their opinion is right, and Lord Bacon is a philofopher ↑ !'

I find my indignation roufed by the following words of Dr. Cudworth, in his Intellectual Syftem. p. 306. Proclus (fays he) had fome peculiar fancies and whims of his own, and was indeed a confounder of the Platonic theology, and a mingler of much unintelligible ftuff with it." I muft confefs (and I am neither afraid, nor athamed of the declaration) that I never found any thing in Proclus, but what by patient thought, accompanied with a fincere and vehement thirst after truth, I have been able to fathom. Had

*P. xxxiii. vol. I.

† Note, p. 76. vol. I.

Dr.

Dr. Cudworth been endued with thefe requifites, he would doubtless have had equal fuccefs; but without them, the fublimeft truths will certainly appear to be unintelligible ftuff. Befides, this confideration is not to be omitted, that a modern prieit makes a bad philofopher*.

The knowledge of common things, is alone the province of common, or uncultivated minds; and men of great genius in every age, have been diftinguished by their happy ignorance of the trifling puriuits, and empty attainments of the vulgar. Indeed he who mixes much with the multitude, neceffarily imbibes falte opinions, and engages in puerile occupations: the ftrength and activity of his mind is continually weakened, or unworthily exerted, by a general diffufion; and he at length lofes all that intellectual energy, which nature first implants, but retirement calls forth into the bloffoms of elegance, and the perfection of vigor.

The late Dr. Johnson is a striking inftance of the truth of these obfervations; and a laiting example of the wretchednefs of a mind unenlightened by philofophy. His talents were indeed vaft and uncommon, but degraded by falfe cultivation, and ruined through neglect. Hence he employed himself folely on fubjects of vulgar' fpeculation, and thought deeply on nothing but the vices and follies of the illiterate and the bafe. Like a giant in the dark, his ftrokes were indeed powerful, but often ineffectual; and were never directed by the band of wisdom, or affifted by the irradiations of truth. Thus he conftantly displayed ftrength without fkill, and exertion without knowledge, abilities without genius, and grandeur without a grace. He appears to refemble indeed nothing fo much as the eyelefs Polypheme. Deprived of the cheering light of fcience and philofophy, he wandered in the caverns of fenfe, wretched through the want of fight, and avoided by the timid multitude who trembled at his ftrength. To approach him too near was generally deftructive of the order of fociety, and often fatal to the peace of bold but ignorant individuals.

His piety too, as well as his literary talents, fhews how little of felicity is to be expected where philofophy is wanting. For though he profeffed to believe in the immortality of the foul, he was a perpetual flave to the dread of death: and though he was continually exercised in the externals of religion, he could find no confolation when alone, There is nothing indeed whofe certainty is fo generally admitted in difcourfe as the foul's immortality; and yet nothing at prefent is fo generally difbelieved. For I will not difgrace the word belief, by fuppofing it poffible that a man can be firmly affured of this important truth, and yet continually feek for arguments in defence of its reality. This is however the cafe with modern believers. They profefs reverence for the decifions, and faith in the doctrines of revelation; but are glad to feek for conviction in the arguments of philofophy. Faith is found fufficient to fupport the mind, while it reclines on the bofom of the church, or clings round the pillars of orthodox opinion. But when it is once thaken by enquiry and ftaggered by doubt; when it leaves the enchanted enclosure of faith, and ventures on the wide ocean of enquiry; it can