bola Criticæ. We have thought it neceffary to be thus diffufe on the fubject of various readings, because it is treated. with lefs accuracy than any other fubject in this ufeful and ́ comprehenfive mifcellany. But though the theory is delivered inaccurately, Mr. B. has made a very correct application to a particular cafe, p. 213-218, and has pointed out to his readers in what manner various readings must be applied, when they with to judge of the authenticity of a given text. Whoever defires to enter deeply into this enquiry, may have recourse to Griefbach's Commentarius criticus in textum Græcum N. T. of which only one volume has been hitherto published. In the eighteenth and last chapter, Mr. B. has given an account of the principal authors from whom he derived his materials. For this he is much to be commended, because he has thus informed young men, who are unacquainted with biblical literature, where they have to feek for further information. In this manner we have endeavoured to reprefent to our readers the contents of a work, which we recommend to their pe-. rufal. We have noticed fuch defects as occurred to us in the examination of it, not with the most diftant view of cenfuring the author, fince, when we confider all circumstances, we have great reafon to wonder that the defects are fo few; but we have noticed them, in order to remove the few inaccuracies of a publication, which in fo many refpects is entitled to our regard. As it is purely critical and hittorical, and controverted points of fpeculative theology are wholly avoided, it cannot give offence to any party, and may be read with equal advantage by all. Laftly, the language is eafy and unaffected; and there runs through the whole a commendable fpirit of liberality, and benevolence. ART. IX. Obfervations on the Union, Orange Affociations, and other Subjects of domeftic Policy, with Reflections on the late Events on the Continent. By George Moore, Efq. of Lincoln'sInn, Burrifter at Law. 8vo. Sopp. 25. Dublin printed; London reprinted, Debrett.. TH HE fubject of the Union is of fo great importance, that it cannot be too much difcuffed. But we have already paid so much attention to very able publications on this queftion, that we might perhaps have påffed over this pamphler, with a notice not proportioned to its merit, if it did not appear to us that it is recommended to public notice, by feveral very peculiar peculiar circumstances. It is the first publication on the fide of the Union, that has appeared from an Irith Roman Catholic, and it contains arguments that well deferve the confideration of the Catholic body. That it is the production of a man of very vigorous powers, no man can doubt who reads it; and it bears evident marks of being written by an author totally uncomected with government. None of thofe topics of vulgar declamation, which are employed against the writings of thofe who are connected with adminiftration in either kingdom, can be directed against this pamphlet. Under thefe circumstances, we may at least hope that Irithmen will perufe it without any prejudice again the character and intention of the author. He has certainly a right to expect a fair hearing for his argu ments. We hall content ourfelves with laying before the public a very few fpecimens of Mr. Moore's powers of reafoning and compofition, because we are convinced that his pamphlet must foon attract a very confiderable degree of public attention, and becaufe it cannot attract the attention, without alfo commanding the approbation of competent judges. The following paffage is an excellent vindication of the prefent conftitution of the English Houfe of Commons, as a reprefentation of the people. "The English Houfe of Commons is not fashioned according to any fyftem or theory, but in point of fact it unites in its bofom the reprefentatives of all the claffes of men in the community, it therefore fympathizes with the feelings, and fpeaks the opinions of a mifcellaneous people. Is a commercial quetion agitated? It reckons in its numbers the moft opulent and refpectable merchants of the country; fo the greatest landed proprietors deliberate upon every point interesting to its agriculture. In my opinion, the Houfe of Commons of England is the fairest reprefentative of public opinion that can be contrived. Divide the whole island into districts, you throw all the returns into mob elections; you exclude all fober, quiet men, all ftudious reclufe characters, all men of large property, indolent and faftidious from their property, who could not endure the vexations of a popular conteft; and if they could prevail upon themselves to enter the lifts, would be conftantly overcome by noify fpecious demagogues, with fluent tongues and empty heads; property would want its due weight, commerce and agriculture in their most important branches would not be reprefented; no part of the nation would be reprefented but the tribe of enterprizing wits and idle talkers, the destruction of every country that is governed by their councils I am convinced that this is one of the great immediate caules of the destruction of France. I conclude, from all these obfervations, that the great caufe of the prosperity of England is the intimate connexion that fubfifts between the members of the House of Commons, and the feelings and opinions of every class of the people; infomuch, that the proceedings of the one, have not for any length of time varied from the confirmed fentiments of the other. Every order of fubjects has, in the boson of the legislature, its most confiderable members who efpoufe its caufe, fympathize in its feelings, and fpeak its opinions. This is what I call a true reprefentation of the people, and not any of those fanciful schemes, which, through the medium of a pretended popular election, would throw the whole power into the hands of one fet of men; perhaps the most fhining, certainly the leaft ufeful, of the various claffes into which a great community is divided." P. 10. The next paffage of this interefting pamphlet which we shall felect, is one which, in our opinion, does no lefs honour to the author's magnanimity, than to his understanding and his eloquence. "At the origin of the French revolution, I acknowledge with fhame and confusion, that I was rafh, ought I to fay impudent enough, to oppofe my fhallow judgment to the opinions of that great man, who took fach a large and comprehenfive view of human affairs; whofe whole life was dedicated to the fupport of genuine liberty, which he beft knew how to diftingufh from defpotifm affuming the name; who fought in her facred caufe againft the oppreffors of their fpecies, whether invested with viceregal government in India, or p flefling fupreme power in Europe; who pointed out, with prophetic witdom, the crimes which now defolate the civilized world in their feeds and first caufes; whofe eloquent indignation will for ever vindicate the majesty of justice, against the chance of arms, and condemn the authors the French revolution to the everlasting abhorrence of mankind, no withftanding the dazzling fucceffes of its fanatic armies. The only a onement I can make for my prefumption is, to confefs it, and to offer this flender tribute at the fhrine which wifdom and virtue are preparing for their votary."" I make no fuch apology (i. e. an apology founded on the change of circumftances) I frankly confefs my error, I admired in the year 1789, what I now think so far from admirable, that it was deteftable." P. 34. If the example of this honeft and magnanimous confeffion were generally followed by all those who have been as much difabused by experience as Mr. Moore, we are thoroughly convinced that the people of England would be found to approach much more nearly to unanimity, than they appear to do at prefent. It is impoffible to offer fo grofs an infult to the understanding of the greater part of the partizans of the French revolution, as to believe that they ftill continue fincere. Many of them are men of sense; fome are men of great abilities. It is impoffible for fuch men to believe, against the testimony of the Revolutionifts themselves, that the French revolution has been a fyftem of liberty. It is impoffible for them to believe, against the evidence of common fenfe, that it is likely to become a fyftem of liberty. Candour obliges us to think that they they are restrained by vanity, by obftinacy, by false shame, and perverted honour, from making an ingenuous confettion of their error. Thefe are indeed great weakneffes; but in the year 1799, to think otherwife of the French revolution than as a fyftem of tyranny and robbery, would be ftupidity and foll, and for thofe who eftimate it justly, to delire its prefervation, and its ex enfion to other countries, would be a degree of incorrigible depravity, for which no human language has an adequate name. The example of a man of genius and literature, like Mr. Moore, refpectable in his character and fituation, and above the fufpicion of interefted motives, will, we truft, encourage others to throw off reftraints, that give them the appearance of fupporting principles which they inwardly derett. candid men will excufe errors which were fo natural and general, and they will applaud retractations which thow true great nefs of mind. All Our limits will not permit us to make a larger criticism on - this pamphlet. It contains many excellent obfervations on the Union, and many poignant animadverfions on the principles and policy of France. In his remarks on the Orange Affociations, Mr. Moore is perhaps influenced by his feelings as a Catholic; but his own prejudices and refentments, as well as thofe of his antagonists, concur in proving the main propofition of his pamphlet-that there is no hope of an impartial government for Ireland without an Union. ART. X. Iter Britanniarum; or, that Part of the Itinerary of Antoninus which relates to Britain; with a new Comment. By the Rev. Thomas Reynolds, A. M. Rector of Bowden Parva, Northamptonshire. 4to. 489 pp. 18s. and Davies, 1799. THIS Cadell HIS is a new attempt at a work, which has been repeatedly undertaken before, and executed in general with fatisfaction to the public. Mr. Reynolds, however, attempts it upon a new plan. But, before we come to this, let us fee the age affigned by him for the Itinerary itself, as much depends upon this. "that "It has been already rendered very probable," he tells us, this work was written in the time of Hadrian, and by one of his tratelling attendants, It is an abfolute certainty, that Antoninus lived 5 in the reign of that Emperor, because he was his adopted son and fucs ceffor in the empire. And as he is, by his adoption, proved to have been one of his moft intimate friends, fo we may fuppofe he would not be often abfent from his locomotive court. Nor is there any thing related of this illuftrious Roman, which renders the fuppofition of his being the author of fuch a work either improbable or impoffible. To be an author was not effeemed a degradation of the high rank of an emperor of the Roman world. A work of his immediate fuccef for, Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, has reached out times, as well as the Itinerary. But Antoninus was nothing more than a Roman fenator* tili fifty years of age, nor had he any reafon to expect to be honoured with the imperial throne, till the fpace of little more than one yeart of the death of his predeceffor. In his private station, therefore, he had full time enough for the construction of this work, which might form a very agreeable amufement of his leifure hours, while attending the peregrinations of his royal mafter. This was an opportu nity alfo uncommonly favourable for collecting materials for a work of this kind. It is not indeed any where pofitively recorded, that Antoninus did attend Hadrian in his travels, but it is a natural inference from his being one of the emperor's particular friends. And though he might not be always with the imperial traveller, yet when he had once formed a defign of fuch a work, it would be an eafy matter for him to employ fome other attendant to collect information for bia during his abfence. But it may be objected, that if Antoninus Pius was the author of the Itinerary, he furely would have added fome towns to it, when, after the death of Hadrian, Lollius Urbicus had built the new wall in Scotland, and his other lieutenants had recovered Dacia, and the other countries beyond the Euphrates. The answer is, that it is not abfurd to fuppofe, that he had folly completed his defign in the life time of Hadrian, before thofe changes had taken place, and that the progrefs of the work ceafed with the fingular cause which had given rife to it." We shall foon affign a better reafon for Mr. Reynolds. "From these premises then I conclude, that it is in a very high de gree probable, that Antoninus Pius was the author of the old Itinerary, which we now have called Antonines, and that there is no evidence fo unexc ptionable, by which it can be attributed to any other person.”Introd. p. 30. Thefe probabilities, urged as they are in an indifferent style, and with a weak manner, even vitiated by a falfe affumption that pervades the whole work, and will immediately provoke our animadverfions, we think to be as just as they are new, coinciding closely with the very title of the work in the ancient manufcripts. Having feen Mr. Reynolds ftate the fuppofed age of the Itinerary, let us now proceed to his mode of commenting upon it, and the new principle by which he directs his movements. "* Univerfal History. Antoninus. + Id. Hadrian." "The |