תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

ftate, and filling it with the pureft fentiments of benevolence and devotion.

I am fully aware how exceedingly unpopular fome of the opinions advanced in this work will be, not with the vulgar only, but alfo with many ingenious and excellent perfons, for whom I have the highest esteem, and who are difpofed to think favourably of my other publications. But as they have not difapproved of my ufual freedom in avowing and defending opinions in which they concur with me; I hope they will bear with the fame uniform freedom, and love of truth, though it should lead me to adopt and affert opinions in which they cannot give me their concurrence.

As to the doctrine of Neceffity, to which I now principally refer, it may poffibly fave fome perfons, who will think that I would not fpeak at random, not a little trouble, if I here give it as my opinion, that unless they apply themfelves to the ftudy of this question pretty early in life, and in a regular ftudy of Pneumatology and Ethics, they will never truly understand the fubject; but will always be liable to be impofed upon, ftaggered, confounded, and terrified, by the reprefentations of the generality of writers, who, how fpeciously foever they declaim, in reality know no more about it than themfelves.

Those who are not fond of much clofe thinking, which is neceffarily the cafe with the generality of readers, and fome writers, will not thank me for endeavouring to introduce into more public notice fuch a theory of the human mind as that of Dr. Hartley. His is not a book that a man can read over in a few evenings, fo as to be ready to give a fatisfactory account of it to any of his friends who may happen to ak him what there is in it, and expect an answer in a few fentences. In fact, it contains a new and moit extensive science, and requires a vaft fund of preparatory knowledge to enter upon the ftudy of it with any profpect of fuccefs.

But, in return, I will promife any perfon who fhall apply to this work, with proper furniture, that the ftudy of it will abundantly reward his labour. It will be like entering upon a new world, afford inexhaustible matter for curious and useful fpeculation, and be of unspeakable advantage in almost every purfuit, and even in things to which it seems, at firft fight, to bear no fort of relation. For my own part, I can almost fay, that I think myself more indebted to this one treatise, than to all the books I ever read befide; the fcriptures excepted.'

It must naturally occur to every attentive reader of the above Extracts, that Dr. Prieftley, as he intended to facilitate the ftudy of Dr. Hartley's Theory, by publifhing part of his Obfervations on Man, introducing it with differtations of his own, &c. might have faved himself the trouble of the prefent publication. But the examination now before us was not perhaps intended for the more fenfible but the lefs fenfible part of the public; if fo, the Doctor might have thrown it into a more commodious and lefs expenfive form, as he has done fome other of his pieces, of equal if not fuperior importance. Be this, how

U 2

ever,

ever, as it may, the more fenfible part of the public must neceffarily be impatient to fee the true fcience of human nature eftablished, the ftudy of Dr. Hartley's Theory facilitated, and, yet more, the Theory itself improved and extended; especially when we are told, (fee Remarks on Dr. Reid's Theory, p. 2.) that Dr. Hartley has thrown more ufeful light upon the theory of the mind, than Newton did upon the theory of the natural world.

Towards the close of his preface, Dr. Priestley thinks proper to apologize for the freedom wherewith he treats the Scotch Doctors: hear what he fays.

I have a flight apology to make to thofe perfons who have not read the writings on which I have animadverted, for the freedom with which I have fometimes treated them. Those who have read them, and have obferved the airs of felf-fufficiency, arrogance, and contempt of all others who have treated, or touched upon, thefe fubjects before them, and the frightful confequences which they perpetually afcribe to the opinions they controvert (and which are generally my own favourite opinions) will think me to have been very temperate in the ufe that I have made of fuch a mode of writing, as tends to render metaphyfical speculation not quite tedious, infipid, and difgufting. At most I have treated them as they have treated others, far fuperior to themselves.

As to Dr. Ofwald, whom I have treated with the least ceremony, the difguft his writings gave me was fo great, that I could not poffibly fhew him more refpect. Indeed I think him in general not intitled to a grave anfwer; and accordingly have for the most part contented myself with exhibiting his fentiments, without replying to them at all.'

This is a flight apology indeed, and far from being fatisfactory. If Dr. Reid, Dr. Beattie, &c. have given themfelves airs of felf-fufficiency and arrogance, there was no reafon, furely, why Dr. Priestley should imitate them; nay, there was an obvious reafon why he should not imitate them. He has ftrongly condemned their manner of treating their adverfaries, and those who differ from them; he should certainly, therefore, not have practifed himself what he difapproved and condemned in others; and it must feem ftrange to every impartial reader, that he fhould look upon their example as any juftification of his own conduct. Thofe, however, who have read the works of the Scotch Doctors, will, he fuppofes, think him very temperate in the ufe he has made of fuch a mode of writing as tends to render metaphyfical fpeculation not quite tedious, infipid, and disgusting. In this we can affure him he is much mistaken; fome of his warmeft friends and admirers, perfons, of whofe abilities and virtues he is known to entertain the higheft opinion, inftead of thinking him very temperate, we know with certainty, think

him very intemperate, and have expreffed their diffatisfaction with his manner of writing, in the strongest terms. As for us, we have a fincere refpect for Dr. Prieftley's abilities, we admire his genius, but cannot help faying upon the prefent occafion, and hope he will impute it to no other motives but thofe of friendship, that the petulant, illiberal, and contemptuous manner, in which he treats his adverfaries in the work now before us, is difgraceful to him as a gentleman, as a philofopher, and as a chriftian.

Those who read his Examination will clearly perceive that he flatters himfelf he has obtained a complete victory over the Scotch philofophers; if fo, what pity he fhould make, what occafion for making, fo difhonourable an ufe of it, by treating the vanquifhed in fo ungenerous and infulting a manner! If what he tells us, indeed, be true, there was little merit, and, confequently, very little glory in a victory over fuch adverfaries. Dr. Reid's ignorance, he fays, is fo grofs, that it is disgraceful to himself, and to the univerfity of Glasgow.

That our Author, fays Dr. Priestley, is extremely ignorant of what has been written by others on the fubject of the human mind, is evident, not only from his total filence concerning Dr. Hartley, (whofe name, however, appears to have reached Scotland; for his work is quoted with fome degree of refpect by Dr. Beattie) but from his grofs miftake concerning the hints that Newton and others have dropped on the fubject.'

About the time of Dr. Briggs," he fays, p. 278, "the fyftem of the nerves was thought to be a ftringed inftrument, compofed of vibrating chords, each of which had its proper tenfion and tone." I fhall not explain to our Author what kind of vibration was fuppofed to affect the nerves, that I may give him an opportunity of getting a little more knowledge of his fubject by looking into Newton or Hartley himself. But this I will venture to fay, that fuch grofs ignorance in a profeffor of this very fubject, in fo confiderable an univerfity, which has hitherto been diftinguished for the real eminence of its profeffors in that department, is difgraceful to himself and to the univerfity. I will even venture to call upon Dr. Reid to name any writer (that has ever had the leaft fhadow of reputation) who feriously maintained that the fyftem of the nerves does refemble a fringed inftrument, compofed of vibrating chords. If any fuch hypothefis was ever advanced, I own, it has escaped my

notice.

To treat with contempt, as Dr. Reid does, every hypothefis that has been propofed, and to offer another fill more abfurd, merely to laugh at it, and to turn the whole fubject into ridicule, certainly does not become a philofopher, who means to promote an inquiry into the powers of nature. I can compare Dr. Reid's conduct in this cafe to nothing but that of the dog in the manger; for he manifeftly has no knowledge of the fubject himfelf, and does every

U 3

every thing in his power to prevent others from knowing any thing about it, or inquiring into it.'

Our Author goes on to give his readers a fpecimen of Dr. Reid's talent for irony, and after quoting a paffage or two from the Doctor's work, concerning the ufe of the nerves, he tells us, that fuch a mode of writing ought to be treated with indignation and contempt.

It is obvious, furely, that if Dr. Reid's ignorance of the fubject he writes upon be fo very grofs, it was unworthy of Dr. PRIESTLEY to contend with fuch an adverfary, with fo puny a philofopher, with a mere metaphyfical mite. A maftiff never ftoops to fight with a lap-dog.

As Dr. Priestley intended to establish the true fcience of human nature, by facilitating the ftudy of Dr. Hartley's Theory, by improving and extending it, &c. was it not unworthy the dignity and eminence of his philofophic character to take fo much notice of fo very abfurd and incoherent a scheme as that of Dr. Reid?

Our readers, having fo flattering a profpect before them as that of seeing, and fo very foon, too, the true fcience of human nature established, will, we doubt not, readily excufe us for not detaining them with a particular account of what Dr. Priestley has laid in answer to Dr. Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind. His liberal manner of writing, and the fpirit wherewith his answer is animated, will appear very clearly from the extracts we have already given.

As to Dr. Beattie's performance, our Author introduces his obfervations on the Effay on Truth, in the following manner:

Having animadverted fo largely upon Dr. Reid's performance, I fhall have the lefs to fay with refpect to that of Dr. Beattie, who adopts his general fyftem of inftinctive principles of truth, and difcovers too much of his fpirit and manner, which is exceedingly decifive, and infolent to those who think differently from himself; and he even exceeds Dr. Reid in throwing an odium upon those whofe fentiments he is willing to decry, by afcribing to them dangerous and frightful confequences, with which they are far from being juftly chargeable.

I believe, however, that Dr. Beattie wrote his Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth with the very best intention in the world; and that it was nothing but his zeal in the most excellent caufe, that of religion, which has betrayed him into thefe rafh cenfures, and into a mode of reafoning which I cannot help thinking to be very prejudicial to the caufe of that very truth which he means to fupport, and favouring that very scepticism which he imagined he was overthrowing.

I believe farther, and I moft fincerely rejoice in it, that Dr. Beattie's treatife has done a great deal of good to the cause of religion; and I hope it will ftill continue to do fo, with a great ma jority of those who are most in danger of being feduced by the

fophiftry

fophiftry of Mr. Hume, and other modern unbelievers; I mean with fuperficial thinkers, who are fatisfied with feeing fuperficial objections answered in a lively, though a fuperficial manner. Befides, I do think that, in feveral refpects, Dr. Beattie's ftrictures on Mr. Hume are just; and therefore that they will be an useful antidote to the mischief that might be apprehended from his writings.

But there is danger left other perfons, of greater penetration, finding that Dr. Beattie argues on fallacious unphilofophical principles, fhould reject at once, and without farther examination, all that he has built upon them. With respect to fuch perfons, it may be of importance to fhow that religion, though affailed from fo many quarters as it has been of late, is under no neceffity of taking refuge in fuch untenable fortreffes as Dr. Reid, Dr. Beattie, and Dr. Ofwald have provided for her; but that she may fafely face the enemy on his own ground, oppofing argument to argument, and filencing fophiftry by rational difcuffion.

In this opinion I am by no means fingular. Many judicious perfons, excellent fcholars and divines, and whofe metaphyfical fyftem is very different from mine, think Dr. Beattie's book by no means calculated to ferve the cause of truth with philofophical and thinking men; and that it will be doing fervice to truth and religion to point out the faults and defects of it.'

Dr. Beattie's Effay then, in the opinion of Dr. Priestley, is a fuperficial performance, and can be of little ufe but to superficial thinkers. Are all thofe, therefore, who have approved and warmly recommended Dr. Beattie's Effay, fuperficial thinkers? Are there no philofophical and thinking men, in the very nume. rous and refpectable clafs of his admirers? If this be the cafe, how happy was it for the unenlightened world, that our meek and patient Author was not, like Mofes of old, provoked to dafh the torch of Wisdom on the ground, and leave a generation so stupid, purblind, and perverfe, to grope and blunder on, in the darkness which they feem to love, rather than the light?

There is danger, we are told, left perfons of penetration, finding that Dr. Beattie's principles are fallacious and unphilofophical fhould reject, at once, all that he has built upon them, But may it not be fairly prefumed that fuch perfons as have penetration enough to fee the fallacy of Dr. Beattie's principles, should likewife have penetration enough to difcover the real foundations of truth, and be able, of themselves, without Dr. Priestley's affiftance, to filence fophiftry by rational difcuffion? If this prefumption be well founded, there was little occafion for our Author's remarks on Dr. Beattie. If there are no grounds for fuch prefumption, we can only fay, that we shall moft fincerely rejoice to find that philofophical and thinking perfons can difcover no fallacy in Dr. Priefley's principles, and are fully convinced by the arguments he employs in fupport of truth and religion.

In regard to Dr. Ofwald's Appeal, though our Author's strictures upon it take up more room than his remarks upon Dr.

U 4

Reid

« הקודםהמשך »