of matter and the common idea of materialifts in general.The latter, by whom we mean not the atomifts of the fchools, or the monadifts of Leibnitz or Hobbes, but the maffive matter-mongers of Sir Ifaac Newton: Thefe generally conceive fimple matter to be fomething perfectly inert and infenfible; fomething deftitute of every innate principle of action. Now nothing feems plainer than that no modification of such inactive, unimpreffible maffes of matter could conftitute a fenfible, thinking being, however complicated their modification. Man, though a machine, therefore, cannot be a machine made of fuch matter Mr. B. yet objects to his being called a fpiritual machine. But why fo?-It is true the epithet fpiritual is ra ther a theological, than a phyfical, term; and, on that account, may carry with it in phyfics an air of impropriety. Let us ufe, in its flead, however, the proper technical term, Pneumatical, and the impropriety vanishes: for what natural philofopher will fay that man is not, or that he is either more or lefs than, a pneumatical machine ?-Here, indeed, may again arife a difficulty with critics of very nice diftinction: they may query whether, by a pneumatical machine, is meant a machine affected by the common atmosphere, as a barometer or an airpump, or a fire-engine worked by ftream, a thermometer actuated by heat, or any other machine, influenced by a material fubtilis, ftill more refined or fpiritual.-Adopting (for in this we do adopt the theory of Dr. Prieftley and St. Paul) the doctrine of a spiritual refurrection of the whole man, after the extinction of his prefent mortal being in death, we do not think it neceffary to make even the diftinction affected by Helvetius between the Mind and the Soul; efpecially fo far as to fuppofe them effentially different.. It is true there are living animals, and perhaps men, that, from defective organs, think little; and occafionally, as perhaps in fleep, not at all: the principle of life Not that Sir Ifaac Newton, himfelf, ever made the exiftence, of fuch ftupid ftuff of matter (which fills the heads of all the foi-difant Newtonians), any thing more than a mere matter of fuppofition.—It is, indeed, greatly to be lamented, that fo excellent a mathematician did not purfue the fubject of the third book of his Principia farther. It is there only he enters on the principles of pure phyfics, and lays the foundation on which all true phyfical theory muft be built, viz. the mechanical effects of a partial impulfe within a confined elaftic medium. It is on this plan, that Dr. Kenrick recurs to thofe principles, in order to account philofophically for the many phænomena which have hitherto been affumed, as occult qualities; though they can be regularly deduced, from even the mechanical operation of primary elements, whofe exiftence is indifputable.-It is a pity Dr. K. is not a more profound and ready mathematician, or that he has not been fortunate enough to meet with a better mathematician, equally poffeffed of logical and philofophical abilities. Rev. VOL. VI. 3 Q may may not, therefore, entirely accord with that of thought. And yet, as we conceive that death puts a period to their prefent fyftem, as well as power, of thinking, the principles of life and of thought muft be nearly connected. A man may poffibly live without thinking; but, as he cannot think without living, the mind must be dependent on the foul, though the foul may not be dependent on the mind.-Set the mind out of the queftion then, and let us examine that mere animal, a thoughtlefs Soul. What is fuch an unthinking brute but a mere pneumatical machine? What, though its Maker breathed into its noftrils the breath of life, was this any thing more than the giving it a property, the confequence of its organization, of inhaling the external air to fet its lungs going? Was not its animation, or its acquifition of an animal foul, the immediate effect of fetching its first breath? and is not the lofs of that foul the effect of the expiration of its laft breath? A mere animal is infpired with a living foul when it is born, and expires, for want of it, when it dies.-Helvetius, indeed, idly talks of the education of a child being begun in its mother's womb, as if it were poffeffed not only of a foul but of a mind, and could feel and reflect in that flate. But a foetus in embryo bas neither foul nor mind. We have in a former part of this article obferved that there is no fenfation where there is no reflection: for want of ideas, therefore, a fœtus cannot reflect, and for want of reflection, it of courfe cannot feel. A foetus is thus as much a component part of the mother, as the placenta, the uterus, the matrix, or the pudendum. Its motions, however vivacious, are merely convulfive and involuntary; it has no feeling but as a part of its mother; it has no foul, till it fufpires the breath of life and comes into the world. When, for want of air alfo, or through any defect of the refpiring organs, that breath of life expires, it has no longer a foul; the principle of life returns from whence it came, to him that gave it.-Can there be any impropriety in calling fuch a being a pneumatical machine-Derange or mutilate the parts, or extinguish the fire of a team-engine, and will it not refemble fuch a machine in its inaction and decease?-At the fame time, however, even the principle and operation of the latter may be not improperly faid to be lefs mechanical, though as phyfically regular and neceffary, than a machine compofed of palpable wheels, levers, pullies, wedges, &c. It is not to be doubted that many of the phyfical properties of bodies are the effect of an invifible combination of mechanic powers; but as this mechanifm cannot be difcovered, we do not call them material machines; and yet, were fuch me chanifm hanifin equally obvious in both cafes, a magnet might be found to be as mere a machine as an azimuth compaís. The difficulty objected to is, therefore, a mere difpute about words; and yet it is not, therefore, the more eafily fettled. It is difficult to convey new ideas by old words. Mr. B. might have obferved, that we ufe the word potential to diftinguilh a fpiritual fubflance from a material body: by which dif tinction we mean, not an effential difference in the primary quality of fuch fubftance and fuch body; but only, that a phyfical power, fuch as refiftance, or even gravity, may exift in fubftances which are feverally imperceptible, as maffes of matter or palpable bodies. Fer we repeat again, what we have often repeated, that body itfelf is a mere phenomenon. Phyfical power may exift, where there is no other appearances of body than fimple fuperficial refiftance. -Sir Ifaac Newton, indeed, fays, "power without fubftance cannot exift." But if by power he means phyfical power, fuch as is manifefted in mechanical experiments and operations; and by fubftance palpable body of length, breadth, and thickness; the affertion is untrue. All power, however named, is ultimately derived from a firft caufe, confeffedly immaterial; ufing that word in the fenfe of the modern materialifts. Had Sir Iaac faid, power cannot fubfift without Space," he had been nearer the truth. At least he might have faid power cannot be perceived without fpace; because it is only by motion, to which fpace is abfolutely effential, that all phyfical or mechanical power is made manifeft.-But our modern materialifts affe&t not to be able to conceive the exiftence of power, detached from or independent of matter. Do they believe that there is a God? and that he is not fuch ftupid, inert matter?-Locke fays, we may entertain as clear a conception of fimple power as of finple fubftance. We will venture to fay, that, if we may not have a clearer idea of it, we may have a fenfible proof of the exiftence of power, where we can have only a mere fufpicious idea of fubftance: for, however ready the imagination is to keep pace with, or even run before, the fenfes, the immediate objects of thofe fenfes are all fuperficial. As thefe objects are fuperficial, fo alfo is the impr flion made by them on the fentes: the direct refiftance of fuch objects being the only thing immediately perceived. Their other properties, even of length, breadth, and thickness, are the objects of various perceptions and reflections. What reafonable objection then can be made to the calling objects, that have no other percep tible property than mere refiftance (objects that may be totally invifible), unfubftantial, incorporeal or fpiritual?-In reply, 302 there therefore, to our correfpondent, we repeat that, admitting even man to be a machine, he is a spiritual one, and not a material one, according to the fenfe of the word matter, adopted by common materialifts.-Mr. B. harps on the principle of action being innate; confounding the cause of action with the principle on which it acts. Thefe are often widely different. The immediate caufe of action in artificial engines, is the difpofition of the mechanic powers employed in their conftruction; the principles on which they act, are the phyfical powers of gravity, clafticity, &c-In like manner fuch a phyfical machine as man is immediately induced to act, as Helvetius fays, from external caufes operating on his corporeal fenfibility: the principle on which he acts, is the difpofition of mind and fyltem of thinking: the fame, external caufes inducing different men, though of the fame corporeal fentibility, to very different modes of action. Mr. B's allufion to Orffyreus's wheel is hence faulty: the cause of its motion, indeed, was the mechanical contrivance concealed within the wheel; the principle on which its motion continued is that of gravity, of whote acceleration of falling, and retardation of rifing, bodies, fuch contrivance gained a certain quantity of power on every revolution. If fuch contrivance alfo had not been in-. clofed within the wheel, by way of purpofed concealment, it would have operated juft as well if it had been external. In the felf-moving, fpiritual machine, man; if it were not for the better prefervation of fuch delicate organs as are thofe of perception and thought, their internal fituation would have no advantage over an external one. As there are different organs deftined to different ufes, for maftication, digeftion, fecretion, &c. fo among the reft are there peculiar organs deftined to the purpofes of perception and thought. It is true that, in conformity to cuftom, in fpeaking of human actions, we ufe the word voluntary, and that in its ordinary fenfe; diftinguishing the actions, to which an animal is induced from motives of reflection, and the movements of inanimate bodies in confequence of mechanical impulfe. However equally neceffary, thefe a e, for the reafons above given, by no means equally mechanical. But we cannot here enter into a difcuffion of this point, as it would lead us too far into the difpute about Liberty and Neceffity; a difpute altogether endleis, because merely verbal. In antwer to Mr. B's poftfcript, we are defired to inform him that he fhould have been more particular as to the fentiments Mr. Seton may be fuppofed to have reprobated. Whether Mr. S. be, or be not, of his former opinion in any respect, he thinks it no inconfiftency of character to 2 change change any opinion, which appears on better information to be indefenfible and ill-grounded. At the fame time, we muft add, in juftice to Dr. Priestley, that we think him very injuriously treated by thofe who tax him with being a materialift; when he doubts the very exiftence of the dull mafs from which materialists are fo denominated. [The Article of Helvetius's Book will be concluded in our next Review.] THEATRICAL ARTICLE. There have appeared at the London Theatres this month two new tragedies, the one entitled Percy, faid to be written by Mifs Hannah More, author of the inflexible Captive, and other well-received pieces: the other entitled the Roman Sacrifice, penned by Mr. Shirley, author of Edward the Black Prince. As the firft only is as yet published, we shall confine the prefent article to that production. It would be paying Mrs. More a bad compliment, should we profefs a greater degree of lenity in our ftrictures on account of her fex: at the fame time much would be due to her, on account of her youth and inexperience in theatrical matters, were we not given to understand that the received, in the compofition of this play, the moft friendly affiftance of an experienced old ftager. Nobody knows the effects of stage-trick better than Mr. Garrick; by whofe knowledge, of course, Mifs More may have prud ntly profited.-We do not find, however, much novelty of this kind; there being hardly a fituation in the play, which is not perfectly fimilar to many that are to be met in the numerous performances of this kind already published. The author, indeed, profeffes to have taken part of her drama on the famous old French Story of Raoul de Courcy. But the need not have gone abroad to have borrowed any thing from Belloy's Gabrielle de Vergy, when she might have met with better examples at home. As to the conduct of the piece, it is fimple, and fo far commendable: its fimplici y would nevertheless have been more meritorious, were we not obliged to take a number of improbable circumftances previoutly for granted.-As to fpirit and confiftency of character we are forry to lay, we cannot by any means approve that of the heroine of the piece or her father. Percy himfelf |