And tions in the fcripture, after the invention of letters. Alphabetic writing was principally confined to the affairs of religion for a confiderable time after its first invention; how long is uncertain: but it was not, probably, till the establishment of the kingdom under David, that letters were in general applied to the purposes of domeftic concernment, as well as to religion and affairs of ftate.' The Author next examines the truth of the conjecture, that Mofes acquired his knowledge of letters among the Egyptians, and alledges feveral arguments to confute this fuppofition. He proceeds to fhew, that it was not derived from the Arabs; and having with fome degree of probability, afcertained the æra of the invention of letters, properly fo called, to be the fame with that of the deliverance of the Ifraelites from bondage; he adds, that we are no longer at a lofs who the fecretary of an Egyptian King was, to whom the Greek writers in general fo juftly afcribe it; fince we know that Mofes, as the adopted fon of Pharaoh's daughter, and intended to fucceed her father in the kingdom, may be fuppofed of courfe admitted to the knowledge of ftate affairs, and might probably have had the chief adminif tration of civil government, under Pharaoh, in all things. But as the difficulty of determining all the powers of utterance to which a moft exact and critical analysis of the human voice was neceffary; and the completion of the art of literal writing, almoft at once, feem to evince that it was not difcovered by the unaffifted efforts of his own mind; we may not unreasonably prefume it was fuggefted to him, at the inflant, by the divine wifdom, for the immediate ufe of God's peculiar people; or, in other words, that the elements of language (the minutest parts of which it is compounded, and beyond which it is incapable of being refolved) were, as hath already been observed, revealed to Mofes upon the firft arrival of the Ifraelites before Horeb; whilft their characters, with the arrangement of them, might be left to his difcretion. And if the manner in which the divine wifdom aided the difcovery of Alphabetic Writing, thus explained, appears agreeable to his ufual method of interpofal in other cafes; particularly the related one of prophecy, in which the facred Penmen were undoubtedly left to use their own accustomed ftyle, that is, to the choice and arrangment of their own words; it is no way inconfiftent with those facts the facred hiftory records of this tranfaction.' Our Author fuggefts a hint, in order farther to afcertain the period of the invention of letters; viz. as Symbolical writing amongst the Egyptians, may reafonably be prefumed to have been one fource of their idolatrous worship, with which the Ifraelites were infected at the coming out from Egypt; the establishment, therefore, of an Alphabetic Character, at this period, was intended probably to put a stop to the progrefs of the contagion.' And in another place he obferves that a difcovery of this kind, at the period, when providence. thought proper to contract the term of human life within the narrow boundary of feventy years, became neceflary to advance the progress of fcience, as well as to enlighten and prepare men's minds once more for the reception of revealed truths, which had been fo generally perverted, in order to prevent fuch a perverfion of them for the future.' . Should it be objected, that if this be the cafe we fhould cer tainly have had fome account of fo extraordinary an affair delivered to us in the fcriptures. The Author answers, that providence has not thought proper to fix the date of many things as extraordinary, or to give us the reafons of his determinations in others. The abolition of Symbolic Writing, by an exprefs command of God in the decalogue, was fufficiently striking to the Ifraelites, at the time it was given, to perpetuate the era of letters amongst them; and with regard to future ages and other nations, the narration of the fact, as it ftands recorded in all its circumstances, renders what hath been advanced exceedingly probable.' The progrefs of this kind of writing was from the Ifraelites to the Syrians, who lived in their neighbourhood; from the Syrians to the Phænicians, who changed the Hebrew characters into what, we may prefume, were afterwards called the Samaritan' from the Phoenicians to the Greeks: And from Greece, as from another center, the rays of science shot into the weftern world; and the barbarous nations who penetrated into Italy towards the close of the Roman empire, carried arts and learning back into the north.' The Author apprehends, from the forms of fome of the Runic characters, that they are not original: And conjectures, that, if thefe letters were not introduced into the North by fome of those who invaded the Roman empire; however uncertain we are with refpect to the time of their introduction there: we may reafonably conclude, that they were carried by that favage people from the borders of Afia, in an earlier age.' Our Readers will be able to form fome judgment of the merits of this work by the abftract of its contents which we have given; and we leave it with them to decide as to the main question. ART. V. ART. V. Inftitutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Vol. I. Conraining the Elements of Natural Religion. To which is prefixed, an Effay on the best Method of communicating religious Knowledge to the Members of Chriftian Societies. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Johnfon. 1772. Tis fufficiently evident from the writings of this Author, that he is very far from embracing the religious fentiments of the Puritans in regard to doctrine, but at the fame time he appears defirous of uniting fomewhat of their zeal, their manners, and difcipline, with more rational and more liberal opinions. His induftry and application are very fuitable to his station and character, and highly commendable,-as the prefent publication particularly difcovers. It was originally intended, he informs us, to furnifh himfelf with an ealy method of dif courfing upon the fubjects of natural and revealed religion to the young men of his own congregation, whom he formed into a class for that purpose: but when he was induced to publish thefe infiitutes, he tells us, he made them a little fuller, for the fake of others who have little or no affiftance in fuch inquiries; befide which, he apprehends that, poffibly, minifters whofe fentiments are nearly his own, may fave themtelves fome trouble, by making this fketch of his lectures the ground-work of familiar difcourfes to youth, upon thefe fubjects. The prefent volume gives us but a part of the whole defign, which is included under the four following heads: First, the principles of natural religion. Secondly, the evidences of revelation. Thirdly, the doctrine of revelation. Fourthly, an account of the corruptions of chriftianity. The treatife now before us comprizes only the firft of thefe heads, under which the Doctor confiders The being and attributes of God; the duty of Mankind; and our future expectations. Our Author clofes his introduction to the inftitutes of natural religion with fome juft and proper remarks which we fhall lay before the Reader in his own words: It must be observed, fays he, that in giving a delineation of natural religion, I fhall deliver what I fuppofe might have been known concerning God, our duty; and our future expectations, by the light of nature, and not what was actually known of them by any of the human race; for thefe are very different things. Many things are in their own nature, attainable; which, in fact, are never attained; fo that though we find but little of the knowledge of God, and of bis providence, in many nations, which never enjoyed the light of revelation, it does not follow that nature did not contain and teach thofe leffons, and that men had not the means of learning them, provided they had made the moft of the light they had, and of the powers that were given them. I fhall, therefore, include include under the head of natural religion, all that can be demonftrated, or proved to be true by natural reason, though it was never, in fact difcovered by it; and even though it be probable that mankind would never have known it without the affistance of revelation. Thus the doctrine of a future state may be called a doctrine of natural religon, if when we have had the firft. knowledge of it from divine revelation, we can afterwards show that the expectation of it was probable from the light of nature, and that present appearances are, upon the whole, favourable to the fuppofition of it.' In the effay, prefixed to the inftitutes, in which is confidered the best method of communicating religious knowledge to the members of chriftian focieties, our Author laments the fuperficial knowledge, or rather the extreme ignorance of the gene rality of youth, in the prefent age, with respect to religion, by which means they are daily falling a prey to enthusiasm or infidelity. He endeavours to inveftigate the fource of this evil, and here he advances certain pofitions which, perhaps, may rather ftartle and furprise fome of his Readers, but which are nevertheless worthy of very serious attention. Partly, he supposes, (as no good can be expected in this life without its attendant ill) it may be a natural effect of the moderation of the present times, in which no person is even questioned about his religion, the subject is never canvaffed, nor fo much as started in polite company. Though we agree with Dr. Priestley in this remark, we must also observe, that introducing fubjects of this kind in. common converfation has frequently been feen to occafion fuch altercations as ufually tend rather to loofen the principles of piety, and to promote an indifference to religion, than to anfwer any practical and important purpose. But, however this may be, we proceed with our Author. Another fource of this complaint, fays he, is the little care now taken by parents in the religious inftruction of their children. They condemn the severity with which they themselves were treated, and not confidering the advantages which they derive from it, exclaim against fuch exceffive rigour and aufterity, and throw off not only the tutor, but almost the mafler too with refpect to their children; not recollecting that after this, there is little left of the parent that is truly valuable. To this conduct they are, no doubt, at the fame time, fecretly influenced by a regard to their own ease; for upon the prefent fashionable plan, a perfon gives himself very little trouble about forming the minds of his offspring; and fome may think that they have fufficiently done their duty in this refpect, when they have provided them with mafters, to fuperintend their education in general. For my own part, I have not the leaft doubt, but that, though the maxims of our forefathers may have been too strict, we of the prefent age are already far gone in another extreme, oppofite to their's, and much more dangerous. Their method, by reftraining the inclinations of youth, might (though, perhaps, upon the whole, it might not) diminish the happiness of that early period of life; and in fome inftances, I doubt not, the exceffive restraints they were under might ferve to inflame their paffions, and prepare them for the more unbounded and criminal indulgence of them, when they became their own masters; but, in general, habits of fobriety and moderation were, by this means, effectually formed, and a difpofition to licentioufnels entirely precluded. On the contrary our greater indulgence to youth gives them more liberty, but, perhaps, not more real enjoyment even of early life; but whatever good effect this conduct may have upon fome ingenuous tempers, I am fatisfied that, in general, it is fatal to virtue and happiness through life. Our youth having had little or no reftraint put upon their inclinarions, and religious principles not having been fufficiently inculcated, they give the reins to pleasure, at that critical time of life, in which the paffions are peculiarly ftrong, and reafon weak; and the authority of a parent not interpofing, where it is moft wanted, a difpofition to licentiousness is compleatly formed, and fuch bad habits are contracted, as too often end in utter profligacy and ruin. At beft, their minds not having been feafoned with the principles of religion, they become mere men of the world, without vice, perhaps, but alfo without virtue.' Farther upon this fubject the Doctor obferves, With the difufe of family prayer, the regular reading of the fcriptures has also been laid afide, fo that in moft of our opulent families, the youth have hardly an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the contents of thofe books which are the fource of all religious knowledge. When the bible, if there be one in the family, is wholly neglected by the parent, what inducement can the fon have to look into it?-A falfe tafte, and a pretended reverence for the fcriptures, adds this writer, has, likewife banished them from many of our schools; so that except their being read in detached and unconnected portions, in places of public worship, many perfons, it is to be feared, would live and die in the utter ignorance of the contents of their bibles.' Dr. Priestley proceeds to mention the neglect of church difcipline, and the omiffion of catechifing, as a farther cause of the igrance of our youth; after which he obferves that the most complete and effectual remedy for this evil muft confift, in the revival of that difcipline, both in churches and private families, by which, fays he, we ourselves received that inftruction, the advantages of which we are apt to overlook, 'till we fee the dreadful effects of the want of it in others. If the difcipline of our |