return. The Abbé Sieyes and Robespierre have perceived that the edifice, which they constructed, grew feeble under the weight of the crimes which were to have elevated it; that the exercife of the most facred of duties was ftained by fo many murders, combuftions, and anarchical plunderings. They have thrown on the shoulders of the party which they wished to ruin, the mass of atrocities which arofe from the general receffes of the republic, in order to fpread itself among foreigners: by them Briot, and after him Danton, have been charged with every thing: like the unclean animal, the death of which, among the Hebrews, expiated all national iniquities, their punishment was offered as the juft fatisfaction which the republic made at the fhrine of humanity; and, after the produce of their pillages had been taken away, their lives, being become fufpicious or formidable, were facrificed to the revenge of individuals, and converted into burnt-offerings to public indignation.

The Convention had decreed that there fhould no longer be any other divinity than Reafon and the Country: it had legally established Atheism. Thefe abfurd decrees excited univerfal indignation among foreign nations. Danton is alone found guilty; and the infernal genius of the Committee of Public Safety dared to take on itself to revenge the Deity. The dogma of materialifm revolted from common fenfe; Robespierre is become the apoftle of God: in truth, he has created a divinity after his own principles: he has formed God after bis own image. France has had four religions in four years: catholic at the opening of the States General; fchifmatic under the pretended Conftituent Affembly; atheistical under the Convention; deiftical in the vizirat of Robespierre. In the laft inftance, fhe has folemnized the inauguration of this fpeculative idolatry; Robespierre was the patriarch; but the horror, which the perfon of the grand priest infpired, did not extend to the doctrine itself: which was already fecretly embraced by the greateft number. This belief has nothing of constraint, this morality has nothing of rigor; it flatters inftead of combating the paffions: therefore all the paffions will declare themfelves on its fide the government which has confecrated it regulates itself only by these very paffions; therefore it will give birth to them wherever it may penetrate. In all countries, fo commodious a religion and a law will always obtain the secret affent of the multitude, and will consequently form the religion and the law of the ftrongeft. It is no longer doubtful what the conflitutionalists, what the firft republicans, had done, and which they faid could only take place in France. In every country, the number of unprincipled people is greater than that of perfons who have principles; and the number of the poor is greater than that of the rich. In all countries, the majority of the people, incited to murder by impunity, induced to pillage by the law, and freed from the troublesome reins of a felf-denying religion, will not long hefitate between their prefent intereft, which is always placed before their eyes, and true principles, which are never recalled to their minds.'

The Convention, after the death of Robespierre, followed the fame courfe which it took after the death of Danton.'

If

If there yet be perfons, in this or any other country, fo infatuated as not to turn with contempt from the ravings of thefe Anti-jacobins, and fo wicked as to delight in the fresh hot streams of human gore with which they are inundating Europe, it may be well to remind their prudence, that armies are recruited by an appeal to the religion and loyalty of the populace; that the friends of monarchy, hierarchy, ariftocracy, are those who haften to the front of the battle; that the difaffected, from a horror excited by the caufe of the allies, prefer parish-penfions to those of the military cheft; and that every regiment, which difappears before the frown of fate, is equivalent to a maffacre of fo many men attached to the antient order of things, and fufficiently courageous to arm in its behalf.

ART. XII. Commentarius in primam partem, &c. i. e. A Commentary on the First Part of Ariftotle's Book concerning Xenophanes, Zeno, and Gorgias; with a Defence of the Megaric Philofophy. By Profeffor M. G. L. SPALDING. 8vo. pp. 81. Berlin. 1793.

THIS fragment of Ariftotle, in which the most obfcure of all fubjects is treated, is ftill farther obfcured through the corruptnefs of the text. Some valuable corrections are made, by the affiftance of the Leipfic manufcript, in Fabricius's Greek library, book iii. c. 6. Profeffor SPALDING had an opportunity of examining this manufcript, but was unfortunately in fuch hafte, that he could only extract from it a few authorities to juftify his own emendations. Thefe have confiderable philological merit: but neither the commentary, the corrections, nor the defence, have the fmalleft tendency to explain and reduce to common fenfe the doctrine of the To ; that is, that whatever exifts is one, eternal, and immovable; a doctrine nearly resembling that of Spinoza, as abfurd as it is impious, and clearly refuted by Ariftotle, both in his phyfical and metaphysical works.

ART. XIII. Reflexions fur la Paix, c. i. e. Thoughts on Peace, addreffed to Mr. Pitt-and to the French Nation. 8vo. pp. 48. 1s. 6d. Printed at Geneva; Debrett, London. 1794.

ΤΗ HE title-page informs us that this pamphlet was printed at Geneva: but, as French books are as accurately printed at Geneva as at Paris, and as this publication contains several typographical errors, which are evidently of English origin, we are inclined to think that, wherever the work might have made its first appearance, the prefent edition is from the London prefs. Those who are intimately acquainted with the French language will the more readily join with us in this opi

nion, when they see how often the accents are misplaced, and how often totally omitted.

The author has divided his work into two parts, the first addreffed to Mr. Pitt, the latter to the French nation; and his object is to convince both of the neceffity of a speedy peace, and to remove the obftacles which on both fides impede the completion of fo defirable an end. He fays, we ought to apply to Mr. Pitt for an account of the fate of Europe, which depends on the measures pursued by England, at the head of whofe councils he is placed.

England, (fays the writer,) ought to have been the tutelary genius of the combined powers, when the confederated with them to make war on France: her conftitution, the mafter-piece of reafon and of liberty, gave her a right to decide ultimately and authoritatively in this great debate of the world. It was noble in a nation, which is wifely independent, to fpurn from its alliance a people who fullied their caufe by crimes; and to popularize the coalition by fubjecting it to the afcendency of a free government. It was not as the rival of France that fhe fhould have entered into this conteft, but as the protectrefs of focial order, which, being attacked in its very vitals, could not be partially faved; and her allies ought to have derived their principal fupport from the fplendour of her virtues and her wifdom. Has this been the object that really influenced her? Has the obtained this end?'

We wish, for the honour of our country, that we could answer the author's queftions in the affirmative: but truth compels us to say that it was by motives lefs generous, lefs noble, and more selfish, that we were led into the war; that the confederates appear to have had principally in view to fcramble for the spoils of a neighbour, and, inftead of kindly endeavouring to extinguish the flames which were confuming his house, to plunder his effects, and enrich themselves at the price of his ruin.

The part of this work addreffed to Mr. Pitt is divided into three chapters; in the firft, the author takes a view of the actual ftrength of France; in the fecond, he confiders the conduct of the allies; and in the third, he points out the advantages which all Europe will derive from a general peace. He obferves that the whole force of the revolution confifts in the art of fanaticifing (if we may use the word) the public opinion, and then converting it to public purpofes. In this, he remarks, the rulers of France were powerfully affifted by those who profelfed to oppose them; for the allies, by fhewing that they were not acting on one general principle of public good, but pursuing their individual interefts, compelled all men of all parties in France, however oppofite in other refpects, to unite in refifting powers whofe object it was to enrich themselves with the fpoils of France. Royalifts who loved monarchy,

Conftitu

Conftitutionalists who loved the conftitution of 1789,-Republicans who loved a democracy,-much as they hated one another, ftill loved their country, and felt their pride interested in defending it against thofe, who, whatever might be their profeffions, aimed only at difmembering it. The French faw the English proclaim the conftitution of 1789 at Toulon, and yet aid and abet the Vendeans, who were fighting for the reftoration of the old unlimited monarchy; while the Emperor, who affected to have for his fole object the difperfion of the 'spirit of Jacobinifm, was annexing to his own crown all the places which his arms had torn from that of France. Hence it was, as the writer tells us, that refiftance to invafion became, among Frenchmen of all defcriptions, a general fentiment. .He obferves, and (in our opinion) with juftice, that, even if the objects of the allies had been ever fo honourable and difinterefted, it was abfurd in them to attempt to deftroy opinion by force. No fenfible man, he remarks, ever thought of deftroying religion by the martyrdom of its votaries; and the chimerical fyftem of equality he calls a political religion, the fanaticifm of which can be weakened only by time and peace. He thinks that the fyftem of the allies ought to have been to endeavour to influence the public opinion of France, and thus to keep afunder the different parties which diftracted that unhappy country, inftead of driving them into each other's arms for their common defence. The imprisonment of La Fayette, and the treatment experienced by Dumourier, and by the friends of the conftitution, fhewed to all those of their party that they had nothing but unkindness or harshness to expect from the allies: while the rejection of the terms, on which fome republican leaders offered to declare for the confederacy, plainly told them that they could trust to nothing but their union and their arms.

The erection of a royal standard in France, he is perfuaded, will not be attended with the fuccefs expected from fuch a measure. The partifans of the conftitution of 1789, he afferts, are a thousand times more numerous than thofe of the old government, and would oppofe the restoration of an unlimited monarchy, which would never forgive them their attempt to limit it. The way which the allies ought to purfue would be to declare, and to give proofs of their fincerity, that they aim only at enabling the found part of France to pull down the demagogues who have deluged the country with blood, and would then leave the French nation in the full enjoyment of its natural right to make choice of whatever form of government it fhall think beft calculated to infure the happiness of the people. The author next proceeds to obviate one grand objection to peace, arifing from the fears of many individuals that peace

will be attended with greater danger than the war itself; for, (fay they,) the moment the French republic is acknowleged, that very moment infurrections will break out in the confederated ftates! Thefe the writer calls idle fears; for France, it is evident, is able to maintain any government which the may think proper to adopt, whether other nations do or do not recognize it; and therefore we fhould take it as it is, not as it ought to be. A public recognition by foreign powers does not eftablish a government in France; it only declares, by a folemn act, that it already exifts, and is established.

This argument is carried on to fome length, and with ability, by the author; who, though apparently without a blind attachment to any party, poffeffes nevertheless the vanity infeparable from the character of a Frenchman, who thinks his country able to march on with a firm ftep to univerfal empire, and to conquer nations with as much facility and rapidity as others can take towns. A fample of this national vanity may be difcovered in the following paffage, page 23: It is clear that France is now difpofed, of her own accord, to fet bounds to her conquefts: but, if peace be not concluded in this winter, it is impoffible to foresee in the heart of what empire the French will next year refufe to make it.'

With respect to the confequences of peace, the author makes the following wife and judicious obfervations:

If, at the peace, the French cannot or do not know how to found their republic on the true bafis of fociety, the convulfions with which they will be torn will infpire the furrounding nations with horror at the fight of their fituation; and, as every thing in nature has a tendency to rest, after a civil war, after a long feries of misfortunes which will still more deter the neighbouring people from following fu fatal an example, the impoflibility of establishing a republic will bring the French back to their firit with-a limited monarchy. If, on the contrary, the moderate party fhall prevail; if it be poffible to find in the American conftitution a truly applicable form of a republic, the prin ciples of univerfal juftice, the more rigid republican virtue will be eftablished in France; and the other governments will fit down in peace round a neighbour, who fhall no longer retain any thing of royalty or feodality, but who will be delivered from that fyftem of anarchy which alone is fatal to the real tranquillity of Europe.'

After having fhewn that the dread of the French breaking the peace, immediately after we have concluded it, is chimeri cal and unfounded, he thus concludes his third chapter:

It is Mr. Pitt whom the French charge with having been the author of the prefent war; it is for him alone that the English carry it on; we might stop here and reproach him with the numberless faults that he has committed in the direction of it; but what we should afk of him is peace; or rather it is for the nation to judge whether it be better first to bear all the misfortunes which threaten it, than to give

its