thufiaft, or he would have fufpected fome deceit, had the not furnished proofs in her favour, of a nature totally foreign to what are required in fuch a cafe, and thofe confirmed him in his

error.

Ptolemy was deceived in the fame manner exactly: he alfo firmly believed, as did all the antients, that no other figure but the circle was worthy of the heavenly bodies to move in: and though it is certain, that the heavenly bodies do not move in circles, yet by the help of geometry, and an ingenious system, he was able to folve the phænomena of the universe almost in every cafe. But, in fome particulars, Kepler affords an example more refembling Tartini. He was, according to Maclaurin's account, all his life in pursuit of fancied analogies; in which Tartini alfo abounds; and we may apply to the latter, what he (Maclaurin) fays of the former; that to this difpofition we owe such discoveries as are more than fufficient to excufe his conceits. Account of Sir Ifaac Newton, &c. p. 49.

What I have already faid, will be a fufficient excufe for my not entering into a detail on this long chapter; as fuch a detail would be extremely tedious to fome, unintelligible to others, and would appear frange to the only men, who are qualified to form any judgment on this matter, I mean the mathematicians. However, in order to vindicate the harshness of this cenfure, I will just mention one or two inftances of his errors. 1ft, he fays, "that it is demonftrable by algebra, that unity, and an indeterminate quantity x being given, no other harmonic mean can be found between them but the number 2;" whereas it is demonftrable, both by algebra and the nature of the hyperbola, that z cannot be an harmonic mean between unity and any other number less than infinite. This would not fuit his purpofe. 2dly, He fays upon this occafion, and others, that though there may be demonstration against him, yet his demonftration may be true, Because he means quite another thing by his x, which he calls indefinite, than what mathematicians mean by their x, which they fuppofe infinite; and adds, that it is known amongst mathemati cians, that this is not the only cafe, where two oppofite propofitions may be demonftratively proved."

We would go on with our author's ingenious and entertain ing comment on this chapter, but as figures would be neceffary for the right understanding it, we muft refer the reader to the book itself, where Tartini's errors of another kind are pointed out; but in Sect. 29, are found to lead to truth. Se&t. 30, and 31, an apology is made for Tartini's prejudice in favour of his method of trying to deduce all from the circle, and the whole is thrown upon the fpirit of fyftem strongly working in him.

Muft fome of Tartini's notes be deduced from the circle, and others from a right line? as well give up the whole, or better; for then all confiftency, the chief merit, is gone. For this reafon, he fet out with endeavouring to prove the infeparability of the circle and fquare. Had he not done this, the inconfiftency I juk ́ mentioned would, he forefaw, be objected to him,'

2

Sect.

Sect. 32. gives the ufe of Tartini's discovery about the Circle, which, for the want of a figure, we cannot infert here, no more than the following fections upon this fecond chapter, which contain many curious deductions from the phenomena of a drum, a trumpet-marine`, a monochord, &c.

It is in the third chapter that Tartini unfolds his musical fyftem, and treats of concords and discords, their nature and definition. Here again figures become neceffary to explain the author's meaning; but as it was never the intention of our critical function to injure authors of merit fo far as to render their works useless to the public, by our extracts from them, which would be little less than piracy; we must refer our rea ders to the work itself, which the author means only as a commentary, and ftimulus to the reading of Tartini in the original. In pointing out the beauty and utility of a good work, we reciprocally ferve both the author and the public; and in ftigmatizing a bad one, though the intereft of an individual may fuffer, yet the public is benefited by it, as a beacon is hung out which may, perhaps, preferve both their time and their money from being caft away.

[To be continued. ]

IX. The Nature and Inflitution of Government; containing an Account of the Feudal and English Policy. By William Smith, M. D. 2 Vols. 8vo. 12s. in boards. Owen.

TH

HE principle on which this treatife is founded, is totally repugnant to reafon, and fubverfive at once of liberty and all political fecurity amongst mankind. It is the abfurd and exploded doctrine of paffive obedience and non-refiftance. The author infifts that our ideas of government ought to be derived only from the Scripture, where no mention is found of any other form of administration than monarchy. It is a fhame and fcandal, he fays, for Chriftians to fearch for the origin of dominion in Plato, Ariftotle, or other ancient writers, who were ignorant of the creation of the world; and to fancy either a community of all things, or an equality of all perfons by nature.' According to him, Adam was inftituted monarch of the whole world; and none of his pofterity had any right to poffefs any thing but by his grant or permiffion, or by fucceffion from him. To, fupport this propofition, he cites the following words from the Pfalmift, The earth bath he given to the children of men; which fhews, fays he, the title comes from fatherhood. However inconfiftent this method of induction may be with the rules of logical argumentation, it can appear no way furprising from an author who determines concerning the natural right of a king to unlimited power, from the etymology of the word monarchy.

• The

• Monarchy, fays he, is compounded of the two Greek words Movos and aguεiv: Movos fignifies alone, which is, that the monarch must have the fupreme power alone without any partner; agun, which fignifies principality and power, doth alfo fignify principium, beginning; which teacheth us, that by the word prince or principality, the beginning of government is meant.'

It might be confidered as an infult on the understanding of our readers to refute this author's tenets at much length; but we are under the neceffity of making a few obfervations on the doctrine he fo ardently maintains.

In the first place, we can by no means admit the position, that our ideas of government ought only to be derived from Scripture. The dominion of Adam over his children, which this author would reprefent as a real inveftiture of monarchical power, was, in fact, no more than the fway of parental authority, which continues to be exercifed under every form of government, whether regal or republican. In that early period of the world, mankind were fo clofely connected by the ties of blood, and there was fo immenfe an extent of unoccupied territory, that there could be little or no neceffity for the existence of an abfolute power to preferve order among the feveral families. It is probable, therefore, that it was not till a more advanced stage of population that men first entertained the idea of forming themfelves into political communities, before which period they were naturally in a state of perfect freedom and independence.

According to this reprefentation, it is evident, in oppofition to the fentiments of this author, that government must have been of human, and not divine inftitution, and confequently, that mankind are bound by no eternal laws to any particular form of adminiftration. Granting abfolute monarchy to be the most ancient, muft it follow that fuch a power, when the abuse of uncontrouled dominion had been experienced, fhould not be circumfcribed by fuch falutary ftatutes as might beft. preferve the advantages which government, was intended to procure?

The author of this treatife, proceeding upon the principle of an inherent indefeasible right of kings, has laboured to evince from hiftory, that every acceffion to the freedom of English fubjects was an unjustifiable encroachment on the facred prerogatives of monarchy, and even a crime that merits damnation. For our own part, as we think it inconteftible that all government was originally instituted for the benefit of fociety, we must be of opinion that the object of political affociations ought always to be more a general than partial hap piness in the community: nor fhall we ever admit the doctrine of paffive obedience, until we can be convinced that millions

of

of human beings were deftined by heaven to depend for the poffeffion of every focial enjoyment on the precarious indulgence of a few tyrants, intoxicated with uncontroulable power, and often the moft abandoned of their fpecies. As this performance has fo much excited our animadverfion, it may not be improper to lay before our readers a fpecimen of the author's manner of argument, which we fhall extract from the moft fundamental part of the work.

It would be a reflection upon the goodness of God to imagine, that it was not his will that justice fhould be administered and vice punished, peace preferved and goodness encouraged in the world; and would be a disparagement to his widom, to conceive that he fhould appoint all these things to be done, whilft he committeth no power or authority to any perfon or order of men to take care of them. On the contrary, government is God's exprefs ordinance and inftitution. If Adam is ordained to rule over his wife, and her defires were to be fubject to his, and as her's, fo all theirs that fhould come of her; I cannot imagine how this right of nature can be conceived, without imagining a company of men, at the very first, to have been all created together, without any dependency one on another; or to have fprung out of the earth like mushrooms, all of a fudden, without any obligation one to another; in that cafe they ought all, to have been princes of their posterity.

But the fcriptures teach us that there was never any fuch thing as an independent multitude, which at firft had a natural right to a community. This is but a fiction or fancy of too many in thofe days, who please themselves in running after the opinions of philofophers and poets, to find out fuch an original of government as might promife them fome title to liberty, to the great fcandal of chriftianity and the bringing in of atheism; fince a natural freedom of mankind cannot be fuppofed, without a denial of the creation of Adam. And yet this conceit of original freedom is the only ground upon which, not only the heathen philofophers, but also our celebrated (I will not fay deservedly) modern authors, Grotius, Selden, Hobbs, &c. with other filly fcribblers, too infignificant to be named, raise and build their doctrine of government. But I cannot find, and I defy any body elfe to find, any place or text in the Bible, where any power or commiffion is given to a people either to govern themfelves, chufe their governors, or alter the manner of government at their pleasure.

"However much this vulgar opinion of original freedom hath of late obtained great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive church; it contradicts the doctrine and hiftory of the holy fcriptures, the conftant practice of ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature; and it is hard to fay, whether it be more erroneous in divinity, or dangerous in policy. If this erroneous principle were once confuted, the whole fabric of the vast engine of popular fedition would drop of itself.

In fcripture, the power of government is fettled and fixed by the commandment of Honour thy father: if there were a higher power than the fatherly, then this commandment would not stand and be obferved. But in all the fcriptures there is neither precept nor practice for any form of government but monarchy; and, to

con

demned the remaining parts of our author's practice, as forcibly as the other commended them. In short, out of the variety of opinions, no judgment could be produced which brought fufficient conviction with it; or by which the reader, who is more folicitous about the furniture of the outfide, than the infide of his head, could at all regulate the future conduct of his comb, powder, or puff. There was, indeed, but one thing in which we unanimously concurred; viz. that if Mr. David Ritchie would accommodate the members of this affociation with a good and fufficient fupply of perukes, fuch as would best become our lean and pale vifages; and, at the fame time, recommend us to fome taylor, endued with a necessary share of faith and patience, that we might be equipped to vifit those places where the fashions of the head are most elaborately difplayed; we would then do our utmost to qualify ourselves to judge of his performance, and give it that applaufe which at prefent we can only fuppofe it deferves. We would then congratulate him on having been born under the star which is called the Coma Berenices; and by way of Appendix to his work, unite in a translation of Salmafius's two treatises de Crine Mulierum, and de Cæfarie Virorum.

To conclude more seriously than we began our Review; we think Mr. Ritchie has fhewn great marks of experience and ingenuity in his performance, which we would very earnestly have recommended to the perufal of our fair readers, had he frequently advised the use of small tooth'd, box, or ivory combs, instead of the application of such compounds as Mirabel talks of in the play, Hog's bones, hare's gall, pig-water, and the marrow of a roafted cat.'

MONTHLY CATALOGUE.

18. Analects in Verfe and Profe, chiefly Dramatical, Satirical, and Pafloral. 2 Vols. 12mo. 5. ferved. Shatwell.

HO' the coafts of criticifm, like thofe of Cornwall, are ftrewed with the shattered remains of veffels which have foundered near them, yet no warning feems to be taken by fuc⚫ceeding adventurers, who boldly steer their little barks by the fame fands, in defiance of the Critical Reviewers, who are fuppofed to plunder the wrecks as foon as they are thrown within their reach. We, however, disclaim the derogatory comparifon, often heartily with it was in our power to fave; and when we cannot, only avail ourselves of fuch advantages as may be juftly taken. Inftead of acting as literary freebooters, we behave only as lords of a manor, and juftly empound fuch cat

Atle