THE

ENGLISH REVIEW,

For FEBRUARY 1790.

ART. I. Strictures on the Ecclefiaftical and Literary History of Ireland, from the most ancient Times till the Introduction of the Roman Ritual, and the Establishment of the Papal Supremacy, by Henry II. King of England. Also an Hiftorical Sketch of the Conftitution and Government of Ireland, from the moft early authenticated Period down to the Year 1783. By Thomas Campbell, LL.D. Chancellor of St. Macartin's, Clogher. 8vo. 6s. White, Dublin. 1789.

THE

1HE remark has been long fince made that no modest nation has attempted to carry their claims to antiquity to fuch an extravagant height as has been done by the people of Ireland. The valour, the prowefs, and the accomplishments of their ancestors, in times of the remotest antiquity, and in the days of western savageness, ignorance, and barbarifm, have been the fucceeding themes of the Irifh hiftorians in general. One of their latest writers * dwells on this favourite subject through two ponderous quarto volumes; he there riots in all the caprices of a luxuriant imagination, but difdains to prolong the theme beyond the inglorious declenfion of Ireland-in the twelfth century! Yet to do ftrict juftice, it is neceffary to add, that, from what we have of the works of these gentlemen, of Keating, of O'Flaherty, of O'Connor, and O'Halloran, they, in very few inftances, feem to aim at deception; they appear to be themselves deceived,

* Mr. O'Halloran.

F

They

ENG. REV. VOL. XV. FEB. 1790.

They are borne fo high by their own enthusiasm that they overlook thofe objections which must present themselves even to the fuperficial obferver.

.

This paffion we must alfo add has its origin in a vanity the moft natural to the human heart. The relative fituation of Ireland and Great-Britain, whether the crown of the former be fubjected' or annexed, places that kingdom in a fituation of dependence; and a people,' fays Gibbon, who are diflatisfied with their prefent condition, will eagerly grafp at any vifion of paft or future glory.' Thus being below her neighbours in wealth and power, Ireland confoles her in a proud and penfive contemplation of the figments of antiquity. • She fullenly turns away,' to use the language of Mr. Whitaker, from the light of reformation, and wraps herself in the gloom of her ' own legendary annals.'

6

6

6

It is fortunate for the reputation of Ireland that the gentleman who in this work has fo fuccessfully encountered these phantoms, is himself a native of that kingdom. He has in this performed a tafk which was fuggefted by the late Dr. Johnson, and recommended by Mr. Burke. He has drawn, with an intelligent and fteady hand, the lines between what was merely fiction; what was at beft uncertain; and what was actually capable of proof. We do not mean to fay that Mr. Campbell has done this in every inftance; in fome that tafk was impracticable, and in many the toil is unavoidably left to be accomplished by the labour of others. He examines into the strongest proofs which the partifans of Irish antiquity have adduced from the monuments, the literature, and the manners, of that country; and in general maintains the ground which he has at first occupied with truth, force, and precision.

Of the firft of thefe proofs, the monuments found in Ireland, Mr. Campbell expreffes himself in the following manner:

To fubftantiate our claim to a very remote antiquity, fome writers think it fufficient if they difcover a fimilitude between fome prefent Irish cuftom, or remain of. rude art, and thofe of ancient Gaul, Greece, Perfia, Phoenicia, or other countries celebrated in ftory; not confidering that they, in fo doing, only adduce arguments, for the ancient rudeness of those countries, not for the refinement of their own. For rude monuments and cuftoms, be they found where they may, are the moft indelible tefts of the rudeness of the times in which they were erected or ufed. If they would evince the refinement of Ireland from its conformity to thofe countries of quondam refinement, they fhould point out the veftiges of either ancient mag nitude or elegance in the works of this country.

If then we are to be for ever collecting the beggarly elements of rude monuments, the rudeft upon which the penury of language is obliged to bestow the name of art, our purfuit is puerile, nay childish Vyas indeed,

indeed. If the moft civilifed countries on earth, have still such remains, this only proves that they once were barbarous, elfe fuch monuments would not have been erected. For if fuch things could eftablish antiquity, then all countries which poffefs them would be equally ancient; and we read of fcarce any, without them. If antiquity means any thing honourable to any nation, it must mean that that nation has been for a long period of time removed from the infantine ftate of fociety in which these rude monuments were produced. The purfuit of antiquity fhould go no farther than it is connected with higher efforts of art, and lefs equivocal fymptoms of nafcent civilifation. All beyond are feas of glass, and ships of amber.

It is no fhame for any nation to have been once barbarous; all nations in Europe have been fo, because they once were young, and, like young children, they had nothing worth recording, and like them too, in another respect, they would have been incapable of recording them, even if they were worth notice. Upon this ground the intrinfic glory of Ireland is more firmly established by confidering it as a new, than as an old, nation. For if her fons were once fo accomplished, they must now confefs themselves to have degenerated. If Pagan Ireland was the nurse of heroes and philofophers, is it not the greater reproach to Chriftian Ireland that he has for so many ages groaned in fervitude and groped in ignorance? It muft, upon a difpaffionate estimate, do moft credit to this country to be confidered as an infant ftate, emerging from ignorance and barbarifm, lik Hercules arifing from his cradle, and like him too labouring under a hard task-master.

For fuppofe that our Ogygian writers could trace up their genealogy to Japhet, and could prove that they knew their letters before any nation in Europe, then Spencer's question will return, If fuch old scholars, why fo unlearned ftill?' Suppofe also that it could be true, what is afferted, that our ancestors extended their conquests in Britain, and to the Alps; then let it be asked, after raising this vifion of ancient prowefs, does it redound to the true glory of this country, that in the moft early times, concerning which no two writers agree, our ancestors were fo potent; but that in those less remote, of which there is no doubt, they were the trodden flaves of Danes and Norwegians? Would not the Irish, if a civilifed people, have been the veriest daftards upon earth to fuffer fuch indignities, as they confefs they did, from the Turgefian crew? And if it be argued that they regained their ancient greatness and fplendour by the expulfion of the Danes, yet what mult that greatnefs and fplendour have been, which, almost without a blow, fubmitted to English domination?'

The author then purfues the affertors of Irish antiquity through a long train of allegations and pretended facts, which he is generally fuccefsful in proving to be fallacious and unfounded. His arguments are marked with much precifion, and his illuftrations heightened with confiderable humour. Of both the reader will find a ftrong inftance in his obfervations on the ideal palace

of King Cormac, which was faid to have been 300 feet square, and built upon three towers.

The sketch of the government and conftitution of Ireland, which is added as an appendix, contains much valuable matter, disposed in the best arrangement.

ART. II. Obfervations on the First Part of Dr. Knowles's Teftimonies from the Writers of the First Four Centuries. In a Letter to a Friend. By Capel Lofft. 8vo. 2s. 6d. fewed. Johnson, London. 1789.

WHATEVER comes from the pen of Mr. Lofft must be perufed with a degree of partiality. The known integrity, candour, abilities, and industry, of the author ensure a certain degree of refpect, to which the prefent performance, however we may condemn it, in fome refpects has an undoubted claim. It has been the happiness of Mr. Lofft, in more than this inftance, to concentrate the arguments and authorities of a worn-out fubject into a small space, and by a certain elegance of expreffion, but above all by the evident marks of an honest mind, to render that subject interesting.

In an advertisement prefixed we are told that the author having, to outward appearance, conformed to the establishment, conceives it his duty to acquaint the world that he limits his concurrence to fuch points as, in his opinion, are founded in fcripture. So it is to be supposed all mankind do in this and every other establishment; but if, after long deliberation, Mr. Lofft is convinced that many points supported by the church are to be regarded no otherwife than as corruptions, and ftill is ready to confider himself as not wholly separated from fuch an establishment, it would appear these points, however they may afterwards be represented, are not of fufficient importance to induce him to form a new fociety, or to join any of the numerous ones already formed. If this be the cafe, we cannot immediately fee the neceffity that should induce a fon of the establishment thus to take up arms against a venerable mother, to whose authority he has hitherto fhewn a dutiful fubmiffion; ftill lefs to recommend the opinions of writers who, though her lenity spares them, are endeavouring to deftroy her existence.

Though by the title we fhould be led to expect fome obfervations on the earlier writers of Christianity, yet Mr. Lofft confines himself entirely to the paffages in fcripture adduced by the favourers of the Trinitarian fyftem. His answers to these contain nothing new, except an illustration from Homer, which, for the benefit of his parochial readers, he might at least have tranflated.

tranflated. The following are all the obfervations, if they can be called fuch, we meet with on the writers of the firft century:

• When the opinions and practice of the times nearest to the promulgation of Christianity are examined, we find nothing contradictory to this idea. For of the Apoftolic Conftitutions, as they have been termed (and the title founds highly), I do not think it neceffary to fpeak here; unless their date and their incorruptnefs could be fatisfactorily established; and of the recognitions, which, with proper referve, are faid to be afcribed to Clemens, the very mode of introducing them fpeaks fufficiently.'

• Whether I fhall have leifure and inclination to examine the quotations from the writers of the three first centuries, is very uncertain. I am far from dreading the refult of the difcuffion; or from doubting the fair conclufion in the mind of an inquirer who diftinguishes, as Dr. Knowles admits we ought to diftinguish between the fallibility of human imagination and the certainty of divine truth. I will only now remark that a propofition of the kind stated, which afferts three Perfons to be one Divine Being, if it can indeed be a part of revelation, may be expected to appear and be recognised explicitly from the first; and not to be obfcurely and ambiguously intimated by the writers of the early age, and gradually ftrengthened as rhetoric with her tropes and figures, and fcholaftic learning with her accommodating systems, mixed themselves with the fimplicity of the gospel.

Such a propofition, if it can be fuppofed capable of proof, ought to derive itself, with abfolute clearness, from the fountain of revelation; it ought to prove itself coeval at least with the completion of the fcriptural code. If we find it at the fource, let us acknowledge our conviction; but if it floats on the furface, when the ftreams of fancy rush in upon the waters of truth, let us not haftily refer it to a divine origin. Let us explore more deeply; and we shall yet trace the pure never-failing river, immifcible with the inundations."

In answer to this, we have only to obferve that the opinions of the fincereft Chriftians being divided on the meaning of fcripture, nothing can be more reasonable than to search for in formation from those who lived nearest to the times of the evangelifts; and therefore, though we give our author credit for his induftrious production of a day, we cannot help thinking it an incomplete answer to any part of a work profeffing to fhew the opinions of the first four centuries.

There are feveral learned and ingenious notes fubjoined, which, not having been written at the time the letter was, and to prevent too frequent interruption of the reader's attention, are omitted in the body of the work, Thefe conclude with many juft and ingenious remarks on the true spirit of Christian benevolence, fuch as we fhould expect from fo amiable a character as Mr. Lofft.