of genuity, that ridicule is a fpecies eloquence; that reafon alone is the detector of falfehood, and the teft of truth; that ridicule can never pretend to this character; that it is one of the most powerful engines, by which error can be maintained and eftablished; and that its proper object is folly of conduct, and chiefly affectation. What Dr Brown main tained, was not admitted without controverfy. Several writers appeared in defence of the Earl of Shaftef bury; and among others, Mr Charles Bulkley, an ingenious and learned diffenting minifter, who published a tract, called A Vindication of my Lord Shaftesbury, on the Subject of Ridicule. In a work which was afcribed to the late Mr Ramsay, the painter, the author attempted to fhow that ridicule is of two kinds, and that it may be applied to opinions as well as to manners. The ufual objects of ridicule are, indeed, certain improprieties and peculiarities of character and conduct, and to affert, in general, that it is the test of truth, is advancing a falfe pofition. Reafon is undoubtedly the genuine and proper teft of truth. Nevertheless, ridicule may in fome cafes be justly applied to opinions. There are tenets fo flagrantly abfurd, that is is not eafy to refrain from viewing them in the light of humour and raillery; and perhaps the best way of expofing them may be to difplay them in that light. That fome of the doctrines of popery cannot stand this mode of trial, has more than once been evinced, and particularly appears in Tillot fon's Rule of Faith. We confefs, however, that ridicule, when applied to grave and important fubjects, is a very dangerous weapon; that it ought to be adopted with the utmost difcretion, and that it hath often been made use of in an improper manner. In the third work, the Solilo quy; an Advice to an Author,' the Earl of Shaftesbury rifes in his liter for there are not many character; ary things in the performance which are liable to much cenfure. Dr Brown fpeaks of this treatife in terms of high applaufe, yet Dr Kippis thinks that the encomium is carried higher than frict truth and justice will warrant, and that on a re perufal of it in his advanced years, he was not struck with that admiration of it which he experienced in his younger days. There appeared to be too many things in it of a defultory, not to fay of a trifling nature. He allows, however, that it contains a variety of excellent matter; and what the noble Lord has advanced in recommendation of felf-examination, and in defence of critics and criticifm, is particularly valuable. 6 The fecond volume of the Characteristics opens with the Inquiry concerning Virtue,' for the introduction of which preparations had been made by many fentiments occafionally delivered in the former treatifes. On the whole, it is a valuable perfor mance, being finely written, and containing an excellent difplay of the nature, tendency, and effects of virtuous and benevolent difpofitions and actions. Here, if any where, Lord Shaftesbury must be allowed to ap pear to great advantage. We do not mean, however, to affert that the work is perfect, or that it is not in fome respects liable to cenfure, or, at leaft, to juft criticifm. Though from its first appearance it was much admired, and continued long to be held in admiration, it was, nevertheless, early the fubject of animadverfions. In the Inquiry concerning Vir tue,' the Earl of Shaftesbury appear. ed in the clofe, the logical, and the didactic form. But in the Moralifts, a philofophical Rhapfody, he affumes a higher tone, and figures in a new character. Here he prefents himself in the mode of dialogue, and is the emulator of the ancients, and parti cularly of Plato, in the boldeft poeti cal ་ cal manner of that eminent philofopher. Whatever may be thought of fome things in the Moralifts,' and efpecially of the rapturous kind of language into which his lordship is frequently carried, it is, upon the whole, confidered as a work of great and extraordinary merit. Dr Brown has afferted, that the noble author has ftrangely attempted to ridicule and dishonour religion in every shape. But Mr Bulkley, already mentioned, has obferved that this affertion is fo far from being true, that the whole treatife we are speaking of is written in defence of a deity and providence'; and that the cause of pure, genuine, and perfect theism, is maintained in it with fuch ftrength of judgment, fuch fuperiority of reason, fuch invincible force of argument, fuch a commanding eloquence, and fuch a fublime strain of piety, as cannot but naturally and justly recommend it to the ftricteft attention of all, who intereft themselves in that highest and moft momentous fubject. With regard to the mode of compofition adopted in the Moralifts,' the present bishop Hurd ranks it among the best of the kind, which we have in our language. There are,' fays the bishop, in English three dialogues, and but three, that are fit to be mentionedall of them excellently compofed in their way, and it must be owned by the very best and politeft of our writers. The dialogues I mean are, the Moralifts,' of Lord Shaftefbury; Mr Addifon's Treatife on Medals; and the Minute Philofopher,' of bishop Berkley. 6 deferving of any great applaufe. It is written, on the whole, in a defultory manner; and there are in it many exceptionable paffages, efpecially with refpect to revelation. Lord Shaftesbury's advocates have taken great pains to fhow the connection that fubfifis between his different works. That there is a connection between our noble author's treatifes, and that it was intended by himfelf, cannot be denied ; but whether that connection be fo accurate and clofe as the authors of the General Dictionary have reprefented it, may juftly be called in question. Perhaps the Letter concerning Enthufiafm,' and the Effay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour,' might have been spared without any loss to the most valuable part of his defign, and the fame may be faid of his Mifcellaneous Reflections.' The Advice to an Author,' may be confidered as in fome degree preparatory to the Enquiry concerning Virtue,' and between this laft and the Moralifts,' there is a real and apparent union. This union has been fully infifted upon, and well difplayed in the laft of the works now mentioned. The Hiftorical Draught, or Tablature of the Judgment of Hercules,' and the letter concerning the art or fcience of defign, are two adventitious pieces, which have been annexed to the Characteristics,' ever fince the edition of 1713. With respect to thefe pieces, it may be fufficient to obferve, that they afford fpecimens of the noble writer's love for the fine arts, and of that degree of tafte in them to which he had arrived. On the whole of the Earl of Shaftefbury's character as an author, much has been faid to his praife, and much to his difadvantage. Mr Bulkley, Lord Monboddo, and others, have bestowed upon him the highest commendation. Several of the au thors who have distinguished them. felves by their direct oppofition to many many of the fentiments which occur in the Characteristics, have, never. theless, mixed no fmall degree of ap. plaufe with their cenfures. Among thefe, may be reckoned Mr Balguy, Dr Brown, and Dr Leland. The fentiments of the latter we recommend as a complete antidote to whatever may be objectionable in his lordship's writings. The grand point in which our noble author has rendered himself justly obnoxious to the friends of religion, is his having interfperfed through the Characteristics a number of infinuations that appear to be unfavourable to the caufe of revelation. There have not, however, been wanting many, among his admirers, who have thought that he ought not to be reckoned among the deiftical writers. In fupport of his lordship having been a believer in our holy religion, may be alleged, his preface to Whichcot's fermons, and his letters to a ftudent at the university; in both which works he constantly expreffes himself in fuch language as feems to indicate that he was really a Chriftian, And with regard to the Letters,' it may be remarked, that they were written in 1707, 1708, and 1759, not many years before his lordship's death. The infinuations that have been thrown out by the Earl of Shaftefbury, to the prejudice of the fcriptures, have been frequently animadverted upon, and fully confuted. That a man of his excellent character, and whofe principles were, in various refpects, fo favourable to piety and virtue, fhould, in any degree, have been hoftile to revelation, has been matter of regret to many of his admirers, and muft, indeed, to all who value his talents and his character. The file of Lord Shaftesbury's compofitions is a point upon which various and contradictory fentiments have been entertained. For a confiderable time he was deemed one of our most polite and elegant writers. A recent authority in his favour is Dr Knox. On the other hand, Lord Orford (better known as Mr Horace Walpole) obferves, concerning our noble author, that his writings are much more eftimable on account of their breathing the virtues of the mind, than for their stile and manner, and that he delivers his doctrines in extatic diction, like one of the magi inculcating philofophic vifions to an eastern auditory. It is obvious to remark, that this stricture can only be deemed juft with regard to a small part of his lordship's works, and efpecially the rhapsodies that occur in the Moralifts.' But of all the criticifms that have been made upon Lord Shaftesbury's ftile, that of Dr Blair is the most full and the most judicious. Our readers will find it in the first volume of his Lectures on Rhetoric and the Belles Lettres.' The fate of Lord Shaftesbury as an author, may furnish useful inftruction to thofe, who build their expec tations on literary fame. For a confiderable time, he stood in high reputation as a polite writer, and was regarded by many as a ftandard of elegant compofition. His imitators, as well as admirers, were numerous, and he was esteemed the head of the fchool of the fentimental philofophy. Of late years, he has been as much depreciated, as he was heretofore applauded; and in both cafes the mat ter has been carried to an extreme. At length, it is to be hoped, that he will find his due place in the ranks of literature; and that, without being extravagantly extolled, he will continue to be read, and in fome degree to be admired. But whatever becomes of Lord Shaftesbury's character as a writer, he was excellent as a man. This appears from every teftimony that remains concerning him. It must be owned,' fays bishop Warburton,' that this Lord had many excellent quali ties, both as a man and a writer. He was was temperate, chafte, honeft, and a lover of his country.' There is a paffage in one of the Earl of Shaftefbury's Letters to Robert Molefworth, Efq. which is worthy of notice. I am perfuaded,' fays his lordship, to think no vices will grow upon me; for in this I have been ever fincere, to make myself as good as I was able, and to live for no other end.' The man who could speak thus, concerning himself, is entitled to the best applause. CHARACTER OF JOSEPHUS. From Dr Campbell's Lectures on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. THAT Jofephus was a man, who to a confiderable degree of eminence in the Jewish erudition of thofe days, added a tolerable fhare of Greek and Roman literature, is a character which, in my opinion, cannot justly be refufed him. As a compiler of history, it must be admitted, that in every inftance, in which his account, on a fair examination, is found to contradict the account given in holy writ, he is entitled to no faith at all. In cafes wherein he may be faid not to contradict fcripture, but to differ confiderably from it, by the detail of additional circumftances, it will be proper to diftinguish between the earlier ages of his history and the latter ages with regard to the first, we are fure that he had no other authentic records to draw his information from, than those we have at this day in our hands. These are Mofes, and thofe prophets, who came nearest to the time of that law-giver: with regard to the last, though within the æra of the Old Teftament hiftory, we are not fo certain that he might not have had the affistance of credible annals extant in his time, though now loft. There are two things, how ever, in his character, that affect his manner of writing, and require a particular attention: one is, too close an affectation of the manner of the Greek hiftorians. This appears, as in the general tenor of his ftyle, fo efpecially in the endeavours he ufes to embellish his narration with long fpeeches, which he puts in the mouths of the perfons introduced, a filly de vice for displaying the talents and eloquence of the writers rather than of the biftorical characters. I cannot help taking notice of one inftance, in which, through an ill judged attempt to improve and adorn, he hath fpoiled one of the finest speeches in all the hiftory. The speech I mean, is that of Judah to his brother Jofeph, then governor of Egypt, offering to ranfom his brother Benjamin, by the facrifice of his own liberty. It is impoffible for any one, whose tafle can relifh genuine fimple nature, not to be deeply affected with that fpeech as it is in the Pentateuch. On reading it, we are perfectly prepared for the effect which it produced on his unknown brother. We fee, we feel, that it was impoffible for humanity, for natural affection, to hold out longer. In Jofephus, it is a very different kind of performance: something fo cold, fo far-fetched, fo artificial, both in fentiments and in language, that it favours more of one who had been educated in the schools of the Greek fophifts, than of those plain, artlefs, patriarchal hepherds. The other thing that deferves our notice in this author, is the exceffive fear he had of expofing himself to the ridicule of his Greek and Roman readers, whofe favour he very affiduoufly courts. This hath made hina exprefs himself on fome points with fuch apparent fcepticism, as hath induced many to think, that he was not a firm believer in his own religion. But this, on a clofer examination, will be found entirely without' founda : foundation on the contrary, he piques himself, not a little, on the diftinction of his nation from all others, by the knowledge and worship of the true God. But he did not write his history to make profelytes, and therefore chofe to put on thofe parts of his work which he thought would expofe him most to the fneer of the infidel, fuch a glofs as would make it país more eafily with gentile, and even with philofophical readers (for he had an eye to both) among whom he knew the Jews were branded with credulity, even to a proverb. It may be thought, indeed, that with regard to the more ancient part of his hiftory, as nothing in point of fact can be got from it, which is not to be learned from the Bible, that part, at leaft, can be of little or no fervice to Chriftians. But even this conclufion would not be juft. As the hiftorian FRA himself was a pharifee, a contempor ary of the apostles, and one who lived till after the deftruction of the Jewish temple and polity by Titus Vespasian, we may reap inftruction even from his errors. They will ferve to shew, what were the tenets of the fect at that time, what were their notions both concerning historical events, and facred institutions, and what were fome of their principal traditions. All this to the chriftian divine is a matter of no little confequence for the elucidation of feveral paffages in the New Teftament, which allude to fuch erroneous fentiments, and vain traditions. From the time of the rebuilding of the temple under Ezra, to its final demolition, and the total extinction of the Jewish government by the Romans, Flavius Jofephus alone affords almoft all the light we have. CHARACTER OF FRA PAOLO SARPI. [From the fame] RA PAOLO SARPI, the celebrated hiftorian of the council of Trent, was one, who, in my judgment, understood more of the liberal fpirit of the gofpel, and the genuine character of the chriftian inftitution, than any writer of his age. Why he chofe to continue in that communion (the Roman catholic) as I judge no man, I do not take upon me to fay. As little do I pretend to vindicate it. The bishop of Meaux calls him a proteftant and a calvinift under a friar's frock. That he was no calvinift, is evident from feveral parts of his writ. ings. I think it is alfo fairly deduci. ble from thefe, that there was no proteftant fect then in exiftence with whofe doctrine his principles would have entirely coincided. A fenfe of this, as much as any thing, contributed, in my opinion, to make him remain in the communion to which he originally belonged. Certain it is, that as no man was more fenfible of the corruptions and ufurpations of that church, no man could, with greater plainnefs exprefs his fentiments concerning them. In this he acted very differently from those who, from worldly motives, are led to profefs what they do not believe. Such, the more effectually to difguife their hypocrify, are commonly the loudest in expreffing their admiration of a fyftem which they fecretly defpife. This was not the manner of Fra Paolo. The freedoms, indeed, which he used, would have brought him early to feel the weight of the church's refentment, had he not been protected by the ftate of Venice, of which he was a most useful citizen. At last, however, he fell a facrifice to the enemies which his inviolable regard to truth, in his converfation and writings, had procured him. He was privately affaffinated by a friar, ал |