water, or elfe diffolve it and moisten his meat with it, which, will prove a prefent remedy..

All that is to be faid more concerning this melodious bird, is touching the length of his life; fome live but one, fome three, fome five, and others unto eight and twelve years; and they fing rather better and better for the firft eight years, but then they decline by degrees, but if they have good keepers, it will prolong their lives three or four years: and where there is one kept in a cage until that age, an hundred die; yet the care of fome have been fuch, that it has been known nightingales have lived to be fifteen years cld, and to continue finging, more or lefs, for the moft part of the time."

In a work fo multifarious, a uniformity of execution is not to be expected; but upon the whole, we may recommend this mifcellany as an entertaining and useful book to the young fportfman; and it is the more valuable, that it preferves many ancient paftimes which are now disused.

We wish, however, that the editors had not fuffered fuch paffages as the following, fo inconfiftent with the practice of a true sportsman, to escape their notice. Under the head, Hare-hunting, we are advised, according to the season and the nature of the place where the hare is accustomed to fit, there beat with your hounds, and start her; which is much better sport than trayling of her from her relief to her form." Likewife, under the article, Shooting; whether the game be flying, or in a hedge, or tree, always endeavour to shoot as near you poffibly can, with the wind, and rather fideways or behind the fowl than in their faces; nor shoot at a single bird, if you can compafs more within your level.'

We also wish, that many of the ancient, and now illegal methods of destroying game had been treated less explicitly ; . as poachers may thence be rendered more expert in their clandeftine practices, and their number perhaps be increased.. This objection, however, affects rather the tendency than the merit of the work, which, it must be acknowledged, contains more useful information, in lefs compafs, than any other book on the subject in the English language. The volume is furnished with various plates of nets, pitfals, traps, &c. and the frontispiece exhibits the representation of a beautiful horse, which, being marked in its different parts, with figures that are explained in the course of the work, ferves at once for ornament and use,

An Ellay

An Efay on the Immateriality and Immortality of the Soul, and its Inftinctive Senfe of Good and Evil; in Oppofition to the Opinions advanced in the Effays introductory to Dr. Priestley's Abridgement of Dr. Hartley's Obfervations on Man. To which are added, Strictures on Dr. Hartley's Theory; Thoughts on the Origin of Evil; and Proof of the contradictory Opinions of Dr. Priestley and bis Author. With an Appendix, in Arfwer to Dr. Prieftley's Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit. 8vo. 51. boards. DodЛley.

THE

'HE defign of this writer is to fhew the falfity, and the pernicious confequences of fome of the doctrines, advanced by Dr. Priestley, in his Effays prefixed to Hartley's Obfervations on Man; particularly his arguments in favour of the materiality of the human foul. This notion, he apprehends, is inconfiftent with the creed of a deift, and with that belief of a future ftate, which is derived from the light of nature; inconfiftent likewife with revelation; and attended with fome abfurd confequences, arifing from the changes our bodies continually undergo; which, upon the principles of Dr. Priestley, would deftroy our identity, &c.

It is now generally allowed, that every living creature is endowed with an immaterial intelligence. Because, if it be admitted, that brutes have a material foul, it must also be affirmed, that the power of moving, and the faculty of think ing, are not incompatible with matter. If matter be capable of rifing to a certain point of knowledge and understanding, by fubtilizing this matter farther, it may rife to a higher degree of perfection; from an oyfter it may reach to a dog, from a dog to a peasant, from a peasant to a philofopher. Our.author has made a remark, relative to this point, which we fhall quote, as it falls within the notice of the most ordinary obferver.

• I have been often greatly entertained by taking flies out of water and obferving all their endeavours to relieve themselves from their diftrefs. At firft-whilft quite wet-they content themselves with only crawling-and trailing their wings, which have clung close to the body-till, by proceeding fome way, a good deal of the water has been left behind in their track. The little animal, (having stood ftill feveral times, as if to confider whether he was yet free enough to hope for fuccefs from his attempts) then crouches down close to the ground, and moves a little forward, in order to wipe his belly-this he repeats feveral times. He then ftands ftill-and raifing himself on his legs, twifts his two fore legs across each other, frequently putting them over his head, and round his neck, and conftantly afterwards rubbing his legs against each other, to remove the wet which they had wiped from the head, &c. He next does the fame with his two hind legs-and with them he wipes his wings

on

on both fides-and having at laft fucceeded in getting them loose from his body, he shakes them, and wipes them with his legs,-again walks on every now and then preffing his belly to the ground, and cleaning himself with his fore feet, and his hind, alternately-till finding himself fufficiently dry, he flies away. The greatest philofopher could not poffibly take more effectual methods to clean and dry himself; and perceiving fuch evident proofs of thought, even in a fly, I conclude it to have fomething in its compofition-diftinct from matter."

Though this writer admits of an immaterial principle in brutes, he disbelieves their future exiftence, because, he says, they are evidently incapable of enjoying mental pleasures.

Having pointed out fome of the pernicious confequences, which, he fays, attends the doctrine of materialifn, he proceeds to examine the principal arguments urged by Dr. Prieftley in fupport of his opinion, that his mind is no more in his body than it is in the moon."

Dr. Priestley, fays he, muft appear to every thinking perfon a ftriking example of that infatuation to which human nature is liable, when he fo far lofes fight of his reafon, as to argue in fupport of the doctrine of vibrations, and affociation of the ideas, and yet deny our having thinking principles, diftinct from mat. ter; though the idea of fuch vibrations and affociation neceffa→ rily implies a mind, which is to be fenfible of those vibrations, and is to affociate those ideas.

His not being able to comprehend how matter can confine fpirit, and yet be diftinct from it, feems to be his chief reason for disbelieving he has a mind any more in his body, than in the moon; yet he makes no difficulty of believing what he is certainly as unable to explain, how more matter can think, reafon, and adore. He ridicules our credulity in believing, that we have immaterial, thinking principles, merely on account of the incomprehenfibility of the creed, and yet he prefents us with another in its ftead, which he must confefs is at least as incomprehenfible!'

The author, in the next place, endeavours to fhew, that conscience is not, as Dr. Priestley represents it, the refult of education, habit, and cuftom; but an instructive sense of good and evil, interwoven in our nature by the Creator.

Among other arguments, in favour of this opinion, he infifts on the abfurdity of fuppofing, that the Creator would im. prefs the whole irrational creation with various inftincts, pointing out to them what is neceffary for their welfare, and the continuation of their fpecies, and yet leave mankind without any internal fenfe of what may promote his present and future happiness.

• Why

Why (continues he) fhould we fuppofe that the Deity never acts upon our minds, when we know that he is never a moment abfent from us?----We are certain that he is continually within us, and around us, or our hearts muft ceafe to beat--and that it is his energy, alone, which every inftant prolongs life---Is the fuppo fition, then, of his impreffing pain and pleasure on our minds (according as we offend, or please him) fo very unreasonable in Dr. Priestley's opinion, when he recollects that the Deity fills all fpace with his prefence, and that we breathe in the midft of his effence? If he is expanded throughout the. univerfe, and pervades every particle of matter, how can Dr. Priestley imagine it poffible for minds, fo intimately blended with his effence, (as ours must be) to be infenfible of his approbation and difpleafure? The idea appears to me as unphilofophical as it is irreligious!'

Dr. Hartley was fully convinced, that if the doctrine of affociation of ideas is admitted, it must infeparably draw after it that of neceffity; and therefore, he laboured to reconcile neceffity with the divine juftice, goodness, and mercy. For this purpose he divided free-will into two kinds, philofophical and practical, or popular; admitted our poffeffing the latter, but denied our having the former; imagining that by this expedient, he had fet men at liberty to do good or evil, and, at the fame time, maintained that neceffity, which was the confequence of his hypothefis.-In oppofition to this notion our author undertakes to demonftrate, that Dr. Hartley's distinction between the two kinds of free will, is imaginary, and that if we poffefs the one we muft neceffarily poffefs the other.

If, fays he, we are influenced by motives, we have a power within our breasts, by which we can at pleasure have recourse to other motives, and examine by which motives it is best to be influenced; we then by recovering popular free-will, regain poffeffion of philofophical.

In the next chapter the author accounts for the origin of evil upon this allowed principle, that man is a free agent.

Dr. Prieftley has declared, that his chief motive for having abridged Dr. Hartley's work was, in order to render the doctor's theory more intelligible and more inviting. This writer however infifts, that Dr. Priestley has maintained opinions directly opposite to Dr. Hartley's, with refpe&t to the immateriality and immortality of the foul; and that fo far from having rendered his work more intelligible, or more inviting, he has made it unintelligible, by endeavouring to remove the immaterial principle, which must be prefuppofed to affociate ideas, and to be confcious of vibrations; and uninviting, by leaving out the most entertaining, as well as inftructive pages of Dr. Hartley's two volumes; and by giving us only the most abftrufe

8

trafe parts, with his very cenfurable opinion about the doctrine of neceffity, which cannot be believed without doing great mischief.

To this effay is fubjoined an appendix in anfwer to Dr. Priestley's Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit.

Though there are fome points in this controverfy, on which different writers may entertain different opinions, without abfurdity; though it may be faid, in oppofition to what is here advanced, that the fcheme of Dr. Priestley does not neceffarily exclude the deift from the hopes of another life, yet the author has undoubtedly fuggefted many juft obfervations; and in the course of his enquiry, has given us fome animated reflections on the natural evidence of a future existence, the providence of God, the abfurdity of imputing the fin of mankind to the fall of Adam, the wisdom and goodness of the Deity in the conftitution of human nature, and other important topics, which occafionally fell in his way.

FOREIGN

ARTICLES.

Jus Ecclefiafticum vetus, five Thorlacoketillianum, conftitutum Anno Chr. MCXXIII. Kriftinrettr Hin Gamli edr Porlaks oc Ketils Bifcupa.-Ex MSS. Legati Magnæani cum Verfione Latina, Lectionibus variantibus, Notis, Collatione cum Jure Canonico, Juribus Ecclefiafticis exoticis, indiceque vocum edit. Grimus Johannis Torkelin, (In.) 8vo. Copenhagen.

NEXT to the laws of Canute the Great, this ecclefiaftical law of

the Icelandic church, is the most ancient of all the extant northern laws. It was originally drawn up by the bishops Thorlac Runolf, and Ketill Thorstan, and ratified and confirmed in 1122, by a full affembly of the states of the then commonwealth of Iceland. It contains a great variety of characteristical features of the age and nation for which it was enacted, and will therefore prove interefting, not only to antiquarians and northern hiftorians, but also to philofophers.

The editor has collated five different MSS. of the original, and accompanied it with an elegant Latin tranflation and inftructive

notes.

or

The fpirit of thefe laws is indeed in general the fame which prevails in the ecclefiaftical laws framed for other countries during the fame age, but modified by many principles peculiar to, and dictated, or, at least, occafioned by, the climate of Iceland; fuch are for inftance, the cafuiftical regulations, how far fea water, even fnow, may be used as a fuccedaneum to water in baptifm? The prohibition of intermarriages amongst relations is here also extended fome degrees farther, than in the common canonical law. It is likewife remarkable that the difcipline of the Icelandic church was not enforced by the fame kind of punishments then usually prescribed by the ecclefiaftical laws of other countries, fuch as the excommunication, &c. but by pecuniary fines, and by exile; a dreadful punishment, it feems, for natives of even Iceland itfelf! VOL. XLVI. Sept. 1778.

Traité