or derived an opinion from a source equally impure, we may conclude each to be bad: but we take up both truth and falsehood on the authority of others, and in comparatively few cases can we draw even a presumption of the soundness or the fallacy of an opinion from a knowlege of the means by which it was acquired. Truth,' Mr. W. observes, p. 19., usually lies at an equal distance between the two extremes of partyspirit.' It would have been more correct to have applied the first part of the sentence to moderation, or the last to partyopinions. In the enumeration of the causes of error which follows, the description of the effects of controversy deserves to be extracted:

A man, whose opinions have been quietly formed, will usually find that each point is more or less conspicuous in his system according to its intrinsic consequence. But no sooner does he issue forth into the field of controversy than this equitable balance is in imminent danger of being destroyed. The particular doctrine that is attacked instantly becomes a favourite, as an afflicted child is usually preferred to all the rest. The very habit of defending a point invests it with unwonted importance; so that it is scarcely possible to open a polemical work without being informed that the subject under consideration, whatever it may be, is about the most momentous that was ever discussed. The writer was possibly at one time as indifferent to it as his reader; but the constant act of defending his position has impressed it upon his mind with a power not its own. He has every moment perceived some new argument in its favour; and has been equally sagacious in discovering the ill effects of the system of his adversary. Thus has he proceeded till his favourite tenet has eclipsed all others. Symmetry, which is as indispensable in a system of opinions as in an architectural design, is entirely forgotten. His descriptions become harsh and overcharged; so that what was perhaps substantially true and laudable, is rendered false and dangerous by his distortion and extravagance.

To this natural effect of controversy may be ascribed many of the unguarded statements even of pious and learned men upon subjects connected with religion. Perceiving, perhaps, that a scriptural doctrine was much neglected, they have felt it necessary to shew its importance; but while they have eagerly pursued this laudable end, they have forgotten the equal importance of all the rest. In arguing against a common error, strong language must sometimes be employed; nor can we wonder if this language has been sometimes stronger than the occasion seemed to require. Were we to judge of the relative importance of the thirty-nine articles of religion by the controversies which have existed upon the subjects therein discussed, we might imagine each one in succession to have been the most important. Controversy disturbs the natural order of distances and magnitudes. The individual truth, the insulated error under consideration, occupies the whole sphere of vision, so that other truths and other errors of equal or superior importance are in danger of being overlooked.'

REV. DEC. 1817.

Bb

In

In the three essays which ensue, and which are more exclusively doctrinal, we perceive proofs that the author is in the habit of quoting Scripture with very little reference to its connection, and as if every sentence of it contained an absolute and universal proposition. The prediction of Isaiah, "all thy people shall be taught of God," is alleged as a proof that the human understanding is incapable of comprehending the truths of religion, without supernatural influence: but we might argue in the same way that, because it is predicted "they shall no more teach every man his neighbour, saying, know the Lord," it is useless to attempt to give religious knowlege to our neighbours by Bible-Societies, National Schools, or the publication of Christian Essays.' The term philanthropy, applied to the love of God as manifested in the redemption of man, (p. 71.) struck us as a startling novelty; and the use of suavities in the plural in the same page is one of those corruptions of our idiom against which we must enter our protest. Milton has consecrated charities in the latinized sense of affections: (" omnes omnium caritates una patria complexa est." Cic.) but we cannot admit suavities on the authority of a poetical licence which is contrary to the analogy of our language. Plerophory of hope' (p. 147.) is "an ill phrase, a vile phrase."

Mr. Wilks would have been more fortunate than his predecessors, if he had come safely out of that dark labyrinth of metaphysics and theology which he endeavours to explore in these volumes: but the following passage from the Essay on Christian Obedience contains a very unsuccessful attempt to shew the reasonableness of God's requiring a perfect obedience from an imperfect creature, and punishing him for not attaining it:

Reasoning upon the principles of natural religion, it may be fairly assumed, that if by being angels is meant being perfect in` holiness and obedience, God does expect man to be as holy as an angel, for he originally made him such, and never super-induced any thing to render him otherwise. If by our fall we became incapable of perfect obedience, it is our crime and our misfortune, but by no means our excuse. God made us "very good," and capable of performing all that he required. Our sins and infirmi ties are entirely self-derived.

The question then still recurs, and must be answered some other way. Natural religion being foiled in its attempts, modernized Christianity enters, and thoughtlessly professes to solve the difficulty. "We live under a lenient dispensation. The obedience and death of Christ have great weight; so that, if our conduct be upon the whole moral and sincere, all is well. A few thoughtless amusements, a few venial faults, a few giddy follies

of youth, will never be regarded by our Creator as unpardonable

Might we not as reasonably be expected to live through seven or eight centuries, in virtue of the longevity of our first parents, as to be perfect by their innocence, seeing that neither of these qualities has descended to us? If a man's ancestor has alienated a demesne which he should otherwise have inherited, he must bear the consequence of that improvidence: but it would, be hard that he should be called to do suit and service for it, as if it were in his possession. We are at a loss to know to whom Mr. W. alludes in the latter part of our extract. We are acquainted with systems of Christianity which teach that the obedience and death of Christ have great weight,' so that in consideration of them God forgives the most heinous sins of those who receive and rest on his righteousness; and with others which teach that, on sincere repentance and amendment, God of his own mercy forgives the transgressor: but, if there be any system which, as Mr. Wilks intimates, considers the death of Christ as procuring for us the remission only of our minor sins, it is certainly so modern as not yet to have obtained a public advocate or a discriminating name.

The last essay in the first volume, on the subject of true and false repose in death, is intended to prove that the doctrine of justification by faith is, in the language of the articles of the Church of England, "a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort;" and that no other doctrine can afford any solid consolation at that crisis. The instances of persons dying in tranquillity and hope without this belief, which might have embarrassed the author in supporting his thesis, are discarded by referring them to ignorance and affectation; and it is certainly not difficult to prove that there is no true repose in death but by believing in these doctrines, when the belief in them enters into the definition of true repose. The dying experience of Dr. Johnson is urged at great length by the author: but the religious notions of that moralist were tinged by the gloom and severity of his own character. He who could stand bare-headed in the street in a shower of rain, as an atonement to heaven for some former transgression, must have conceived of God as exacting suffering for sin without the smallest reference to the offender's amendment and repentance; and he would naturally think that, for every offence, its penalty must be paid in suffering of some kind, present or eternal, personal or vicarious. To a mind in such a state, the doctrine of the atonement is certainly "full of comfort:" but whether it be wholesome we may be allowed to doubt; since, if its opiate-virtues may in some instances calm the morbid fear of death, on the other hand it frequently Bb 2

raises

raises visions of acceptance and salvation in those to whom the terrors of dissolution are only the just recompence of an immoral or vicious life.

Of the second volume, the larger part is occupied with an essay on Natural and Revealed Religion. We meet with a passage in it of which we should wish for some explanation from the author:

Against this doctrine of repentance being a natural atonement for sin, it is no trivial objection that such men as Socrates himself, the very high-priest of Deism, did not make the discovery. He candidly allowed that he could perceive no way in which God might consistently forgive human transgressions. He felt that there was a radical defect in the religion of nature, and, in consequence, doubted not but that the Deity would at length condescend to reveal, by some divinely-taught instructor, that most interesting of mysteries, how he will see fit to pardon sin. This hope it might almost be denominated this prophecy of Socrates, has been realized by the Christian dispensation.'

No reference is given, and we are at a loss to conceive where Mr. W. found this prophecy of Socrates, unless it be in the following passage of Xenophon, Memor. iv. 4.: Δικην γε τοι διδοασιν οἱ παραβαινοντες τους ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν κειμενους νόμους, ἣν ἐδενι τροπῳ δυνατον ἀνθρωπῳ διαφυγείν· — and a little farther on ; θείοις ταῦτα παντα εοικε" το γαρ τους νόμους αὐτες τους παραβαίνεσι τας τιμωρίας έχειν, βελτιονος ή κατ' ανθρωπον νομοθετου δοκεί μοι εἶναι. Here is not the smallest allusion to the forgiveness of sin. If this be not the passage which Mr. W. had in view, he must blame himself for not removing all doubt by quoting his authority; if it be, he must translate more accurately before he again introduces Socrates evangelizans to his readers.

ART. VI. A Descriptive Catalogue of recent Shells, arranged according to the Linnæan Method; with particular Attention to the Synonymy. By Lewis Weston Dillwyn, F.R.S. and F.L.S. Honorary Member of the Geological Society of London, the Linnean Society of Philadelphia, &c. 2 Vols. 8vo. pp. 1030. Il. 18s. sewed. Arch. 1817.

A

SHORT and modest advertisement intimates at once the origin and the design of this laborious undertaking.

In the course of an attempt to arrange a small cabinet of shells, the author had occasion to observe, that in Gmelin's edition of the Systema Naturæ, the same species frequently appears under two or three different names; and, on the other hand, that in many instances, two or three different species are confounded together under one specific character.

· By

By a careful examination of the synonyma, he has endeavoured to correct these errors, and hopes that other conchologists, who have a more frequent access to the extensive cabinets of the metropolis, will proceed to examine the specific characters, of which he has sometimes been obliged, where their accuracy is very doubtful, to give only a translation from other works.

Without the use of Sir Jóseph Banks's extensive library, no writer on Natural History can hope to attain any tolerable degree of perfection; and the advantages which the author has been permitted to derive from the liberal use of it, demands this public expression of his warmest thanks. He also with pleasure acknowleges the very friendly assistance which he has received from Silvanus Bevan, Esq.

and

In a work containing more than five thousand specific names synonyma, and probably four times that number of references, the author hopes that no apology will be thought necessary for the extent of the corrigenda.'

Prefixed to the work, also, is an alphabetical catalogue of the books consulted or quoted. Under the title of each genus are exhibited its Linnéan characters; and under each species are given, first, its technical definition; secondly, its synonymy, with references; thirdly, its habitation, when known; and, fourthly, descriptive or critical remarks, which evince the author's considerate attention to a very minute and complex department of natural science. Most of the improvements in nomenclature, suggested by Montagu, Wood, and others, have been adopted, and most of the recent discocoveries distinctly recorded: but various species noted by Gmelin, being too obscure to be retained, have been discarded.

The number of species described under Chiton is 36, including four which have been detached from Squamosus, and the rare Tunicatus, Castaneus, Lineatus, and Sulcatus. Some of the species, though apparently quite smooth, are found to be minutely shagreened, when examined by the microscope.

Lepas is commodiously distributed into sections, and into 42 species. The Hemispherica of Wood is the Balanoïdes, var. ß, of Gmelin. Among the rarer sorts are the Costata, Violacea, Porcata, Palmipes, Radiata, Spongeosus, Sulcata, and Villosa.

Pholas, as here expounded, comprizes eleven species; the Chiloensis and Teredula of Gmelin being rejected, and the Falcata introduced from Wood's Conchology. The very irregular family of Mya, as instituted by Linné, is subdivided into four sections, according to the structure of the hinge, and embraces 38 species, among which several are of recent discovery. Thirty-two species of Solen are particularized, exclusively of Gmelin's Macha, which has not been con

Bb 3

firmed.