THE LONDON MAGAZINE, For JANUARY, 1764. To the AUTHOR of the LONDON MAGAZINE. SIR, T O reconcile providence with the free agency of man may be above our ability, however the attempt is laudable, but as the proofs of both are not matters of demonstration, it would be fruitless to fet about it with any other defign than to fhew the probability thereof. And I do not think there writers have had the fuccefs they may have imagined, who fuppofe a providential plan originally framed, and to be carried into execution by fecondary causes, without any further immediate interpofition of the deity; because I am of opinion there are no fecondary or final caufes, and all those things we are apt to pronounce to be fo, are only inftruments in the hands of an efficient caufe. If by fecondary or final caufes, fhould be meant the exertion of the power of a created being, which I think to be efficient, and confequently free, then I think it cannot be made appear, that any original plan can be carried on with certainty, with out the future immediate interpofition of the author of the plan. Neither can I apprehend, how the will of man, if it be fuppofed to be any caufe at all, can be any other than an efficient one. Indeed we have been told, that the will is a final caufe, and cannot act without a motive as an efficient caufe, the former only being confidered as free, and the latter as neceflary; but how one January, 1764. exertion of power can be the effect of another, I do not comprehend, as it feems to me, to be making the fame thing both caufe and effect. Befides, fuch an opinion, if purfued, would carry us up to a firft caufe, on which the Deity would be dependent, according to the argument made ufe of by thofe writers, who take the efficient caufe to be neceflary, and the final only free. For it has been faid, if a man was to defire his friend to pull down a window-fafh, that his friend would be the final caufe and free in doing of it; but that the man who defired it, and without whofe requeft it would not have been pulled down, would be the efficient caufe and neceflary. So by the like manner of argument, the Deity mult only be a free caufe, when acting from a motive, fuppofe the good of the creature, and here the motive is made the efficient caufe of what is done. Now, is not this making omnipotence dependent on motives as a first caufe, and prior to the acts of the Deity; and whom than are we to thank for our creation, the Deity, or his motives. Befides, is it poffible to conceive any motives prior to the act of the Deity; and if it be faid, that the good of the creature may be eternal in idea, this I much question, because an idea is an act of the mind, but fuppofing it eternal, it cannot be prior to the perception, for the creature, nor its good are actually exifting, and therefore the idea can be nothing elfe, in my opinion, than perception itself, nor any thing prior to it, but the perceptive being, and confequently no happinets can be a cause of perception. A 2 A 4 Jan. account for his freedom, than by fuppofing man only a final caufe, confequent on the motive or fancy, can any thing appear more free than an original caufe, where no power overrules, nor any power can obftruct it, but a fuperior power; and fo far as that does, indeed it takes off from man's liberty, and nothing else can deprive him of it. Of PROVIDENCE A motive does not appear to be the caufe of any thing; a ball in motion ftriking another ball at reft,, is not the caufe of this latter ball's exiftence, nor is the motion in one ball the cause of the motion in the other, for motion does not create motion, no more than pain caufes pain; neither is there any more motion after the striking of the balls against each other than before; no motion caufes any man to act, it is not the fire that caufes one man to worthip it, and another to extinguish it, because, experience tells us, each man can do the contrary; it is not the candle that caufes the child to run his fingers in it, and the man to avoid it, for, upon trial, the man finds he can do it as eafy as the child. As I faid before there are no final caufes, but every caufe is efficient, and that being who is a caufe, was free to make himfelf one, and there is no neceffity but of the existence of that being who is without caufe, and who makes himself the caufe of all other exiftents. If we have a mind to play with words, we may indeed affirm, that every cause is neceffary to its efect, and every effect neceflary in refpect to its caufe, and if there be any freedom either in caufe, or effect, while it is, it may be faid to be neceffarily, but what has this to do with the freedom of man in the exertion of his power? Man may be the neceffary effect of the Deity's power; but the exertion of man's power is an efficient act of his own, and not any effect of motives, or of the act of the Deity, and this he can have no other proof of, but what his experience affords him, which bars all demands from demonftration. To affirm, as fome ingenious writers have done, that the effence of freedom, or liberty, is folely the abfence of constraint, and restraint, I take to be a defective account thereof, for in this cafe two balls lying on a billiard table which appear under neither one, nor the other, might then be fuppofed to be free, each to move itself, or the other, which furely will not be affirmed, because they want an efficient power of their own to act. So likewife to affert that fancy or whim are the caufe of a man's actions, feems quite as defective, in proving him free, for who, or what is the caufe of his fancy but man himfelf; and, if fo, does not this better We have been told, that the immediate interpofition of providence, would only be declarative of goodness and power at the expence of wisdom, but what inftances have we of goodness and power that does not difplay wif dom in effecting it? Is not all that we enjoy communicated to us by means, which are effects of the Deity's wifdom, as well as power? Indeed if any one could prove that thofe means could affect us, without the immediate exertion of the divine power, or that power could make us happy, or we ourselves could communicate any good to one another without thofe means, they would then appear needlefs, and goodness for ought I fee, might be difplayed without wifdom and happiness be the fole effect thereof. Our being diffatisfied with every thing lefs than demonstration has a good deal embaraffed the philofophic world, which fixes first principles of their own invention, and then finds itfelf puzzled to reconcile them to nature; we often talk of infinite power and infinite goodness in the abstract, and then look upon them as incompatible, because infinite goodness seems to exhauft omnipotence. Now whether infinity be properly apply'd to goodnefs and power, I do not take upon myfelf to determine; but fuppofing goodness to be an act of power, and to be infinite, it must then exhaust onnipotence; for where omnipotence is omnipotent, there it must be exhaufted; when power is infinitely applied would we have more of it, because we erroneously think it inexhauftible; we would take a part of infinity and then fuppofe it inexhauftible; but in this way we can never reach infinity, to talk of omnipotence being inexhaustible is having a wrong notion of it; it is like speaking of a line infinitely extendable, or of matter infinitely divifible, as if one could be infinitely extended, and the other infinitely divided, but no and FREE AGENCY. 1764. thing capable of farther extenfion or divifibility, can ever be infinite, for if a thing was infinitely extended or divided, it would be no longer extendable or divifible, it cannot be infinitely divided and infinitely divifible. Would those who are afraid that goodness may exhauft omnipotence have us believe, that omnipotence can do any thing elfe but goodness? Yes it may be faid, there is evil in the world, from whence does that come? Why from the efficient caufe of the creature's agency.But why was it permitted? Has it been proved that -permiffion of evil is a moral evil? Is there any evil in making a free creature? Can there be any creature made capable of happiness without making it free? Would an invifible power, acting contrary, and oppofing all free evil acts, appear confiftent with wisdom? If man had never felt natural evil, he could never have known what acts might occafion it, and must have been ftrangely perplexed to be invisibly controlled in his power, when he knew not why nor wherefore.But why were things made that are hurtful? What is hurtful in one degree is good in another, and it is the abuse in the ufe of things that makes them hurtful, whereas every thing would be good, if rightly made ufe of, and without the things that be, we could receive no good.-But why was man made free to abuse his power?-Because elfe, as a fenfible creature, he would be miferable in the prefent conftitution of things, which it was not poffible to make better by any power, or it had been done.- -But nothing is impoffible to God.What is poffible or not poffible with him, is beyond the line of our understanding, and we can only fay it is impoffible for omnipotence to work contradictions. I think we may fafely pronounce, there is no evil but what is caused by the creature, and there would be no good happen to him, if he was not the efficient cause of his own actions, because we know of no goodness in nature, any farther than is confiftent with, and in proportion to, the creature's free acting and thinking. I am, fir, yours, The Author of Chriftianity cller than the Religion of Nature. 5 A Genealogical Abftra& fbewing theConfanguinity between her Royal Highness Princefs Augufta, and the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick. Hwilliam Ferdinand, hereditary IS moft ferene highness Charles prince of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttle-Bevern, to whom the princefs Augufta of this kingdom is now efpoufed, is the eldest fon of the prefent reigning duke of that dominion, by the princefs Philippina Charlotta, fecond fifter to the king of Pruffia, and is in the 29th year of his age, being born the 9th of October, 1735. He has two brothers and five fifters now living, viz. prince Frederick Auguftus, aged 23, a lieutenant general, and prince William Adolphus, aged 18, a colonel, both in his Pruffian Majefty's fervice; and the princeffes Sophia Carolina Maria, aged 26; Anne Amelia, aged 24; Elizabeth Chriftina Ulrica, aged 17; Frederica Wilhelmina, aged fifteen, and Augufta Dorothea, aged fourteen. A third brother, prince Albert Henry, who would now have been coming of age, was flain on the 20th of July, 1761, in a fkirmish with a body of French. There were three more children, who died in their infancy. The reigning duke has three brothers and fix fifters, uncles and aunts to the hereditary prince : 1. Anthony Ulric, born 1714, who married a daughter of the late duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and has three fons and two daughters. 2. Lewis Erneft, born 1718, field marshal in the Dutch fervice, and governor of Bois le Duc. He is the guardian of the young prince of Orange, and was formerly duke of Courland. 3. Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, born 1721, late commander in chief of the allied army in Germany. His most ferene highnefs is likewife governor of Magdebourg, and a knight of the gar ter. 6 Confanguinity between the Pr. and Princess of Brunswick. Jan. 6. Therefa Natalia, born 1728, a canonefs of the protektant Abbey of Heryorden. 9. Juliani Maria, born 1729, the prefent queen confort of Denmark. Prince Auguftus William of Bevern, a Pruffian field officer; prince Frederick George of Bevern, Canon of Lubeck; and prince Frederick Charles of Bevern ELDEST SON, Francis Otho; fucceeded, 1559, by his brother Henry; fucceeded, 1598, by his fon Julius Erneft; fucceeded, 1636, by his brother Auguftus; fucceeded, 1666, by his fon Rudolph Auguftus; fucceeded 1704, by his brother Anthony Ulric; fucceeded, 1714, by his fon Auguftus William; fucceeded, 1731, by his brother Lewis Rudolph, fucceeded, 1735, by his first coufin Ferdinand Albert; succeeded, 1738, by his fon Charles, the prefent duke, father of the hereditary prince. in the Pruffian and Danish fervice, are coufins to the reigning duke. The houfe of Brunfwick is divided into two branches, Brunfwick-Wolfenbuttle, and Brunswick-Lunenburg. The founder of both thefe lines was Erneft the confeffor, who first introduced the reformation into his dominions, and was fucceeded, in 1546, by YOUNGEST SON, Lunenburgh line, William; fucceeded by his fon ther Auguftus; fucceeded, 1636, by his bro. ther Frederick; fucceeded, 1648, by his nephew Christian Lewis; fucceeded, 1665, by his brother George William, elector of Hanover; fucceeded, 1705, by his nephew and fon in law George I. of Great Britain; fucceeded, 1727 by his fon George II; fucceeded 1760, by his grandfon George III, brother to Augufta, princefs of Brunswick. Chronological Memoir of the Military Actions WHE HEN the Hanoverians refumed their arms, in confequence of the infraction, on the part of the French, of the convention of Clofter Seven, prince Ferdinand of Brunfwick, brother to the reigning duke of that title, was appointed commander in chief of the army of the king of Great Britain. In this army the hereditary prince entered into action in his twenty-third year, and diftinguished himself in many engage ments. Feb. 23, 1758. His ferene highness ftormed the town of Hoya, capital of the county of that name, and obliged the French commandant, count de Chabot, to furrender the place by capitulation, after a lofs on the part of the latter of So men. June 23. At the battle of Crevelt, in which the French army, under the count de Clermont, was entirely routed, the hereditary prince, at the head of two battalions of grenadiers, made an attack on the French, who were in a neighbouring wood, and maintained a fire for two hours and a half without ceafing, till the enemy were thrown into confufion, and entirely defeated. It was 4 of the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick. in this battle that count Gifors, only fon of marshal Belleifle, was mortally wounded. He was fon-in-law to the duke of Nevernois, the late French minister at this court. July 29. He diflodged the French from Bruggen, and took poffeffion of the town. Aug. 3. He attacked a strong French poft at Wachtendonk, and drove the enemy away with the lofs of only two grenadiers. April 1, 1759. He took poffeffion of Meiningen, and made two battalions of the Cologn troops prifoners. He reached Wafangen the fame day, took it, and made prifoners the battalion of Nagel. He likewife obliged count d'Arberg, who was coming to its relief, to retire, 5. He repulfed a body of Auftrians from Smalkalden and Thuringia. July 28. He diflodged the French from Lubeke. August 1. He made an attack on 8000 French at-Thornhausen, under M. de Briffac, whom he routed, and took five pieces of cannon, and near 2000 prifoners. 17. He diflodged a French corps under 1764. Military Allions of the Prince of Brunswick. under M. &Arnentieres from Wofshagen. Sept. 2. He furprized a party of French at Nieder Weimar, took two cannon, and feveral prisoners, without any lofs. Nov. 30. He attacked a body of French at Fulda, under the duke of Wurtemberg, cut feveral of them to pieces, and took the reft, with two cannon, two colours and the baggage. Dec. 25. He arrived with his troops at Chemnitz, in Saxony, and Jan. 12, 1760. Was at Freyberg with the king of Pruffia. Having continued a little time in Saxony, he left that electorate, and, with his army, Feb. 26, Paffed the Frontiers of Thuringia. June 28. He arrived in Hefle, after feveral fuccefsful fkirmishes. July 10. He engaged 10,000 French at Corbach; but being inférior in men and artillery, it became neceffary to make a retreat, which was accomplished with fome lofs. In this action he received a flight wound in his fhoulder. 16. He gave battle to the French under gen. Glaubitz, at Emfdorff, and took two battalions, and the commander, prifoners. 22. He took Dillenburg, and made the garrifon prifoners. Aug. 1. In the battle of Warburg he attacked and forced the enemy's flank, and drove them to the town. 5. He made an attack in the night upon Ziegenberg, and brought off 40 officers and 300 men. Sept. 36. He paffed the Rhine, after having fcoured the country, and taken Rees and Emerick. Oct. 16. He attacked M. de Caftries, and was engaged from five in the morning till nine at night, but was obliged to retire. His highness received a flight wound in his leg, and his horfe was killed under him. March 2, 1761. He diflodged the French from Budingen. May 20. He routed feveral French advanced pofts at Wefel, &c. July 16. In the defeat of the French at Mooenover, his highnefs was prefent, and formed part of the right wing. 20. He had a smart skirmish with the French, in which his brother, prince Albert Henry, received a wound, of which he died on the 8th of Auguft át Ham. Nov. 13. He routed a large French detachment of Cavalry under M. de Clofen, near Katlenbourg. 7 April 19, 1762. He took the caffle of Arenberg, the garrifon of which, confifting of nine officers and 231 men, commanded by M. Muret, furrendered at Difcretion. June 24, He was prefent at the battle of Grabenftein, when the French were defeated, with the fofs of near 5000 men. July 24, He arrived at Mark, near Ham, after diflodging fome French detachments from Ofnabrug, and Barraffing the prince of Conde in his march. Aug. 25. Being on a march with fome light troops near Franckfort on the Main he fell in with the main body of the French, and loft 30 men and three cannon. 31. He engaged count Stainville, near Friedberg, in which, after a brave refiftance, he was unfuccessful, and received a musket ball in his fide, which made a deep perforation. He was conveyed fucceffively to Homberg, Fritzlar, and Munden, at which laft place the wound was opened. This operation which was very painful, was fucceeded by a fever, occafioned by the working of a splinter; but in about three weeks he was declared to be out of danger. His highness was attended by Dr. Woftoff, the king's physician; and was vifited, during this confinement, by his father the reigning duke. This was the last action in which the hereditary prince was engaged; as in lefs than three months after this event hoftilities céafed. Prince Frederick, the next brother to the hereditary prince, has likewise diftinguished himself in military life. This prince, after the furrender of Wolfenbuttle to prince Xavier of Saxony, in October 1761, marched with General Luckner to the relief of Brunfwick which was then befieged by the French. His highness, while the general marched to Peina, attacked the enemy in their entrenchments, forced them, made above 200 prisoners, and took poffeffion of the town; in confe quence of which fuccefs, Wolfenbuttle was likewife evacuated in a few days. He had likewife the comfhand at the invefting the town of Caffel in 1762, and in fome fucceeding expeditions; and was prefent with his elder brother at the battle of Grabenstein: He is now in his twenty-third year. The hereditary prince, after his recove ry |