\ 

ap Ek, Ee 
MONTHLY MAGAZINE, 
AND 
BRITISH. REGISTER. 


Nal TViFor 

A IS IIT EE Ta I 

MEAN) 329.6: 
——— Sn aE 
ORLGEN AL * COMMUNICATIONS: 
To the’Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ; 
EE majority of your curious readers 
are, doubtlefs, acquainted with the 
name of Emanuel Kant, profeffor at 
Koenigfburg ; and not a few muft feel 
a defire to become acquainted with his 
doétrines: but nothing has yet appeared 
in our language, calculated to gratify 
this defire.’ Indeed, it will require more 
than ordinary induftry and ingenuity, to 
make a juft tranflation or intelligible ab- 
ftract of his fyftem. A new nomencla- 
xure, more difficult than for the Lin- 
nzan botany, muft be invented. A 
very inteilizent German writer reckons 
the acquifition of a clear knowledge of 
. Mr. Kant’s principles a hard tafk for a 
whole year., 
‘In looking to external! figns, I cannot 
help perceiving, that the fortune of this 
' writer’s doétrines has been fmilar to that 
of mof great difcoveries. They have 
been mucha mifunderftood, and much op. 
~pofed. But while the eftablithed dodtors 
of {peculation appeared in the field of 
controverfy, as adverfaries, many of the 
younger inquirers profefied themfelves 
converts. Vhefe two circumftances you 
may, perhaps, allow to be prefumptions 
in the author’s favour. 
, Were you to take down the neglected 
volumes of I,ocke’s Anfwerers, they 
would not fu-nifh you with a catalogue 
of more ince afitent charges than the a 
lowing, wh’ ch have been brought, by dif- 
ferent per ons, againft Kant. By his dog- 
matic opponents, he has been reprefented 
MonTHLY Mas. No. TY, 
as a /ceptic, trying to fubvert the founda- 
tions of all knowledge: by feeptics, as 
aiming to build up a new dogmatic fyftem 
out of the ruins of all the preceding. 
The fupernatural fi regards his labours as 
a crafty attempt to do away the idea of 
the indifpenfable neceffity of the hiftori- 
cal documents of religion, and to eftablith 
naturalifm, without leaving room for con- 
troverty : the zaturalff treats him as a 
fupporter of the finking credit of faith. 
he material? ranks him with the dif- 
ciples of Berkley : the /p:rituali/, among 
thofe who limit every thing real to the 
material world, which he veils under the 
{pecious title of the territory of experience. 
The example beft calculated, as far as 
I know, to give an idea of the efiential 
part of this new philofophy, is the fol- 
lowing: DMetaphyficians have been di- 
vided into four feéts, each charaéterifed 
by a fundamental tenet, which. is com- 
bated by the remaining three; and the 
propofitions, contradictory of thefe tenets, 
are found to be maintained, each by three 
fects againft one. ~The propofitions, 
which have the plurality of voices, hap- 
pen to be the very refults of Mr. Kant’s 
examination of our intellectual faculties, 
They may be thus diftindtly ftated: - 
-t. The doétrine which characterifes 
the dogmatic atheift, is that the non-ex7s 
iftence of the deity may be proved. This 
is denied by the other feéts. 
2. According to the dogmatic fceptic, 
the quefiion concerning the extftence of the 
deity admits of no fatisfactory anfwer. 
3. According to the fupernaturalitt 
Mm (of 
