fequences which do not arife from any fingle effort, but from the general diffufion of fcience. As true philofophy advances, the errors of our old theological fyftems will difcover themfelves, and our creed will be brought more to the ftandard of pure fcripture and truth.

In the dark ages, when there was no learning, nothing existed worthy the name of religion; during the age of the fchoolmen, a fcholaftic theology prevailed; but as foon as the lamentable ignorance of the one, and the perplexing fubtleties of the other, began to give way to the light of real fcience; when our phyfics began to be facts, our metaphyfics common fenfe, and our ethics human nature*, opinions once held facred were foon abandoned, and authorities once venerated, defpifed.

To the revival of learning in Europe we owe the Reformation; and as learning advances, it is reafonable to conclude that we may improve on the improvements of the Reformers They did. much; but who can fuppofe that, juft emerging from popery, and having many violent prejudices to contend with, they fettfed the public faith on the immutable bafis of truth? By the attentive and critical examination which the Scriptures have fince undergone, and the additions made to almost every other branch of knowledge, the opinions of fenfible men have now varied from the Reformers' standard of orthodoxy. A philofophical spirit of enquiry has deftroyed implicit faith even in the higheft human authority, and generated a variety of opinions. Dr. Purkifs confiders thefe as evils; but if fo, they are evils which are the neceffary appendages of an invaluable bleffing; they are the shadows which the fun of fcience occafions. In an age like this, we must expect bold opinions to be advanced, and men ready to efpouse and defend them; but if unfounded in truth, they will die away, like the vapours of the evening at the approach of light. The abettors of fixed fyftems of doctrines have reafon to declaim against free enquiry; but their declamations against it, as tending to unfettle the mind, will not now contribute to keep men from it. Authority is no longer allowed to mould and fafhion our faith. Heterodoxy, it is granted, may be Truth, and fenfible men will examine for themfelves whether it be fo or not. Whatever be the question, the appeal must be made to evidence and to reafon.

Dr. Purkifs, in this ingenious fermon, does not defcend to the full difcuffion of the particular points of controverted theology, but obferves, that the modes of our present purfuits in learning, as they affect religion, may be claffed under the three following heads: first, A philofophical plan of reducing the whole of our being into a fyftem of natural effects; fecondly, A fceptical defire of arguing away the phrafeology of Scripture, when it feems to convey doctrines above our comprehenfion, in order to reduce them to the level of our own opinions; thirdly, A growing indifference for religious fentiment concealed under the facred name of toleration.

What he has advanced under the firft head on the system of the materialifts, and under the fecond, on the mode of explaining the phrafeology of Scripture, is upon the whole extremely judicious,

*See Hurd's Dialogues.

and

and deferves much confideration. If (fays he) Chrift was but a preacher of righteoufnefs fent from God, let us at leaft give what he taught, its full and genuine meaning. But if man's redemption and the mediation of our Lord are to be done away, it feemeth to have been useless that expreffions fo powerful and fo numerous, as to perfuade almost every unbiaffed reader with refpect to the truth of these doctrines, should have been in any wife admitted into Scripture.' It is not for us to fay what reply Socinians would make to this and other reasoning of Dr. Purkifs; but of this we are confident, that the more the language of Scripture is ftudied, and the precife meaning of its phrafes fought out and compared with each other, the fooner we fhall come at the true fenfe of Scripture. Innovators, by promoting this, may render effential fervice to Chriftianity. Truth needs not fear any attack or any investigation. Under this perfuafion we did not much relish what Dr. Purkifs has advanced on toleration. He is not for extending toleration to the difbelievers of the Gospel, affigning this reafon for it, The religion of Jefus manifeftly excludes every other, and we must adhere to this exclufive principle if we affent to its divine authority.'

But here Dr. P. has not fairly stated the cafe. The religion of Jefus fo far excludes, as it claims the pre-eminence over, every other religion, but it nowhere commands any degree of intolerance, or perfecution, as a prudent measure to enforce its claims. No affiftance does it afk from the fecular arm. Its Founder indeed fays, whefoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father; but no where requires his followers to deny them any earthly privilege. On the other hand, when the intemperate zeal of his difciples prompted them to forbid one who followed not them; his command was, Forbid him not.

Christianity has nothing to fear from the most unlimited toleration. We must therefore in this refpect adopt (however we may differ from them in other points) the fentiments of thofe multifarious writers * (Drs. Price and Priestley) who would allow it in its utmost extent. This is what Dr. Purkifs calls them.

CORRESPONDENCE.

** Amicus Juvenis requests that we would oblige our Readers with examples of the rules we recommend to be followed' with refpect to the use of the fubjunctive mode. If he will turn to the first article of correspondence for March laft, he will perceive that our best writers have not furnished decifive authorities; and, on that account, examples would be needlefs; for as many might be produced of the indicative, as of the fubjunctive mode, after conjunctions.

J. L.'s polite letter is received; the object of his enquiry will be found in our 73d volume [N° for August 1785], p. 132-135, and [No for December] p. 401-414.

APPENDIX

TO THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

VOLUME the SEVENTY-EIGHTH.

FOREIGN LITERATURE.

ART. I.

Jai fur la Phyfiognomonie, &c. i. e. An Efay on Phyfiognomony, defigned to promote the Knowlege and Love of Mankind. By JOHN GASPARD LAVATER, &c. Vol. III. 4to.. Hague. 1787.

A

CONSIDERABLE time has paffed fince we have had occafion to contemplate M. LAVATER, expatiating in the wide field of phyfiognomonical fcience. But here he comes forth again (as he fays himself, in the introduction to this volume), full of hope and joy, but agitated at the fame time with fear and anxiety. His fear is, that he fhall not be able to make the rays of his phyfiognomonical light converge fo accurately in the focus of the reader, as that the latter fhall perceive the objects prefented to him in the fame point of view in which they appear to himself. How far this apprehenfion may be well founded, we fhall not determine. We, ourselves, have fome fears about the matter, which are fuggefted by experience. The expreffions of mind conveyed through the medium of body are, indeed, rendered marvellously palpable, by the wife arrangement of Providence, as far as they are neceffary to the purposes of focial life; and thus the peafant, as well as the philofopher, can read the characters which the paffions imprint on the human countenance. Higher and finer expreffions of the calmer affections, of moral character, and intellectual qualities, are also more or lefs perceivable. Here, however, as the neceffity of fuch expreffions begins to diminish, ambiguity begins to take place, and the judgment of the mind becomes liable to errors, fimilar to thofe to which the eye is expofed in optical illufions. But when phyfiognomonical fcience is extended to fuch fubtile details as thofe to which our Author carries it, we do, indeed, think that his apprehenfions of not being always understood, are far from being groundlefs. The initiated may follow him by APP. Rev. Vol. LXXVIII, PP

the

the fuppofed light of evidence, the credulous by the docility of faith or fancy; but fevere inveftigators, whose organization is not in unison with his, will be contented with turning to their profit or entertainment the many ingenious and elegant obfervations which he makes in the courfe of his inquiries, and, with refpect both to the principles of his fcience and his applications of them, will often say, non liquet-the matter, Sir, is not clear.

Our Readers already know that M. LAVATER divides his work into Fragments, and, if we remember well, the propriety of this term has been illuftrated in our former accounts of this fplendid work. Our General Index will point out the preceding articles on this fubject.

The Ift FRAGMENT of the prefent volume contains paffages, drawn from different authors of note, with the remarks that they have fuggefted to our Author. Among these paffages are the ingenious reflections of Lord Bacon, on Deformity and Beauty, on which M. LAVATER makes fome good obfervations, both in the way of illuftration and criticism. Thefe are followed by some miscellaneous observations of one of his friends and brethren in phyfiognomony, whose reflexions on the mouth had almost taken us in, when those of the Author brought us out again.

The opening of the mouth' (fays this friend) cannot be ftadied with too much attention. This fingle feature characterizes the whole man. It expreffes all the affections of the foul, whether they be of the mild, the tender, or energetic kinds. One might write folios on the diverfity of thefe expreflions; but it is better to leave this object to the immediate feeling of the obferver, who has made the ftudy of man his bufinefs. I think I can place the feat of the foul no where fo properly as in the muscles that are near the mouth; thefe do not favour the smallest difguife. Hence it is that the ugliest face ceafes to difpleafe us, when we obferve in it any agreeable lines about the mouth; and hence, alfo, a wry mouth is one of the things that we behold with the greatest reluctance.'

We have a very great regard for the mouth in all its functions, though we do not like to fee it encroaching on the precious privilege of the eye in point of expreffion. As to the article of difguife, M. LAVATER vigorously oppofes his friend, and, applauding in general what he has faid of the mouth, he maintains, nevertheless, that it is the principal feat of diffimulation ; for where,' says he, can diffimulation be more expreffively delineated, than in the most moveable part of the face, in that which receives with more facility than all the others the impreffion of our paffions ?'-Poor eyes again!

The celebrated M. de BUFFON, who was Nature's chief painter, and who is known to have given a particular degree of attention to national phyfiognomonice and characters, is a thorn

in the fide of our Author, more on account of the weight which his reputation gives to his objections against phyfiognomonical science, than of the objections themfelves. M. LAVATER anfwers thefe objections with spirit and dexterity. His obferva tions on genius, in a following article, are excellent. In ge neral, there is a great deal of mifcellaneous good reading in this first Fragment, where we find many obfervations on a multitude of different and heterogeneous fubjects, thrown upon paper, without the fmalleft appearance of order or connexion. The paffages drawn together, by heads and tails, from Maximus Tyrius, the Abbé Winkelman, the Bookfeller Nicolai, Mr. Burke, King David, the Evangelifts, and the Apoftles, fill above 80 large quarto pages; and what is peculiarly to be no ticed is, that a great number of these paffages have no relation to the fubject of this work, which is comprehenfive and complicated enough to fill many volumes, without the interference of foreign materials to fwell the mafs. But among the many good things iffuing from our Author's pen, on Grace, Beauty, and particularly on the prolific article of Nofes, fuch effufions of jargon, phyfical and metaphyfical, come pouring down upon us as make us almost think that

The moon-ftruck prophet feels the maddening hour.

The phyfiognomonical paffages (as he calls them) which He draws from the Holy Scriptures, and his remarks upon them, we fhall notice only to exprefs our wonder how they found a place in his book. They are followed by a collection of paffages in the Gofpel, which he illuftrates, and propofes as a fource of confolation to thofe whofe phyfiognomony has been injured by their own fault. This may be confidered as a pathetic fermon, or exhortation to any diffolute young man, who has degraded the beauty of his countenance and his mind, by the irregular purfuit of pleasure at the expence of happinefs; and what our Author fays on the fubject is fenfible, liberal, and edifying, but perhaps out of its place. No,' fays M. Lavater, I am a minifter of the Gospel, and I am not more ashamed of being fuch in my Fragments on phyfiognomony than in the pulpit of Zurich. Be -it fo-but confider that each volume of your work cofts three guineas, and that we can purchase fermons cheaper, and good

ones too."

The 2d FRAGMENT, which bears the general title of Phyfio logical Mifcellanies, is divided into four chapters. The first treats of temperaments or conftitutions. There is, fays our Author, in the great magazine of God, a particular mould or form for every individual, which determines the duration of life, and fixes the degree of fenfibility and activity; hence it is that every body has its proper individual conftitution, its peculiar measure of irritability and elafticity. The qualities of bodies,

Pp 2

that