kind, by whomfoever maintained, is dubious and uncertain, which is not clearly and fully afcertained by the authority of fcripture. Art. 62. Some Account of the State of Religion in London. In four Letters to a Friend in the Country. Defigned to fhew Profeffors of the Gofpel the Greatnefs of their prefent Privileges, and to excite them to a correfpondent Conduct, as the only Means of fe caring the Continuance of them. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Mathews, &c. 1774

We conceive of this Writer as an honest and a pious man ; and we fhould approve his zeal, did it not appear to us that he can hardly admit of piety unconnected with the reception of a certain set of principles which human invention has endeavoured to make the standard of faith. This we infer, and we believe not unjustly, from the general ftrain of his pamphlet, and from his fpeaking of a blow of an uncommonly alarming nature, which, he tells us, has been feme time meditating against our Zion referring, we imagine, to the bill lately propofed for the removal of fubfcriptions to articles of religion. This pamphleteer feems to judge of the rife and fall of religion, by the warmth with which fuch articles are maintained. The methodistical minifters and hearers are chiefly favoured by his pen; but not thofe who follow Mr. Wy. The Rev. Mr. Re comes in for a large fhare of praise, as also do fome others both among the minifters in the establishment, and among the dif fenters, who embrace his principles. There are fome characters drawn from real life in one part of the pamphlet, which may afford a ufeful admonition to those who make profellions of religion.

I. De Davidis in Saulum et Jonathanum Threno. Concio ad clerum habita in templo S. Mariæ coram Academia Cantabrigienfi, Juni 1, 1773. Pro gradu doctoratus in facra theologia. A. E. Churchill, S. T. P. Aula Clarenfis nuper focio. 4to. 19. White, &c. There is nothing very remarkable in this brief oration? The principal criticifm relates to the firft verfe of David's affecting elegy, the beauty of Ifrael is flain on thy high places, &c. The Doctor afks, whom does the poet here address? and he answers, the people of Ifrael. I am fenfible, fays he, that fome learned men think far otherwife; fome fuppofing that David fpeaks to Saul, others that he addreffes Jonathan: O Saule, décus Ifraelis, tuoccifus es fuper excelfa tua! &c. But he adds, we fhall find this exordium very pertinent and proper if we fuppofe that 'David addreffes himself neither to Saul or Jonathan in this verfe, but fpeaks to the Ifraelites concerning them both:

O Ifrael, decus Ifraelis (Saulus nempe et Jonathanus) fuper excelía tua peremptum eft

Quomodo ceciderunt fortes! (cum Saulus et Jonathanus fint pèrempti.)

The obfervation feems juft, and this probably is the fenfe in which the paffage is molt generally anderstood.

II. The Buellift a Bravo to God, and a Coward to Man; and, there

-fore, impoffible to be “A an of Honour ve Being a Difcourfe

preached in the City, and at the Court End of the Town, and

published

圜

publifhed at the earnest Request of the Congregation. By the Rev. William Scott, M. A. late Scholar of Eton. Infcribed by permiffion to Sir William Draper, and addreft to the Army and Navy. 8vo. 1 s. Wilkie, &c. 1774.

By the aid of South, Hildrop, and Delany, Mr. Scott has mustered fome good arguments against duelling; but (through certain affectations and fingularities into which this writer is apt to fall) his publication wants that characteristic propriety and grace which we expect to meet with in a religious difcourfe.

III. Preached at the Opening of the Chapel in Effex-Houfe, EffexStreet, in the Strand, on Sunday April 17, 1774. By Theophilus Lindsey, M. A. 8vo. 6d. Johnson.

Candid and judicious, worthy of the occafion on which it was preached, worthy of the preacher.-Mr. Lindsey difcourfes from Eph. iv. 3.-Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. To the fermon is added, a fummary account of the reformed liturgy, on the plan of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke *, made ufe of in the faid chapel in Effex-houfe.-It may not be improper to acquaint our Readers, many of whom, we doubt not, will fincerely rejoice to hear that there is all the reafon in the world to believe that Mr. Lindsey will be attended by a very numerous and refpectable audience. May his life be long, and may his honeft and wellmeant endeavours to promote the knowledge and practice of pure and undefiled religion, be crowned with remarkable fuccefs! IV. A Covenant God the Believer's never failing Friend.-Occafioned by the Death of the Rev. Edward Hitchin, B. D. who departed this Life January 11, 1774, in the 48th Year of his Age. Preached in White-Row, Spittlefields, January 23. By Samuel Brewer, B. D. To which is added, The Oration delivered at his Interment in. the Burial-ground at Bunhill. By Thomas Towle, B. D. 8vo. I s. Buckland, &c.

Mr. Hitchin was a very eminent diffenting minifter, of the Calvimistic perfuafion; and thefe difcourfes, as is ufual on fuch occafions, contain the highest encomiums on the deceased.

V. On the Death of the Rev. P. Simfon, A. M. at the Meeting House in Vicar Lane, Coventry, July 18, 1773. By J. Dalton. 6d. Dilly.

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the AUTHORS of the MONTHLY REVIEW. GENTLEMEN,

Rely on your candor for attention to a few remarks on the letter. figned Amicus in your last Review. I could fay much on the fubject, but for several reasons, fhall be as fhort as poffible.

For what I faid of Dr. Leeds's obtaining his degree, I had the authority of letters from Drs. Cullen, Home, &c. produced as evidence in the court of King's Bench.-I do not pretend to afcertain Dr. Leeds's medical qualifications, I think the question fo much infifted on, whether he was or was not a good Physician, is quite beside the

matter.

• See Review for February laft, p. 102.

• Concerning

Concerning the reafon affigned by me for the fociety difpenfing with their established rules in this affair, I had my information from fome of their own members-1 knew of no other reafon-If Amicus knew of any other he should have given it. Amicus fays, "the fociety know no man in judgment." I believe in general they decide with much caution and uprightness, but I likewife believe that they are not always clear of partiality; perfonal attachment, intereft, will have weight in human minds: Men naturally favour thofe they have the best opinion of, or are the most obliged to. Dr. F. has great merit, great reputation, great influence.- Amicus fays, "Dr. F. never gave the fociety room to doubt of a just fubmiffion to the rules he fubfcribes to." The rules of the fociety require fubmiffion to awards, even when there is room to think that such awards have not been made judiciously. But Dr. F. refufed to fulfil the award in queftion-Is there reason to think that if he would not fubmit in one cafe, he would have fubmitted in another? The rules of the fociety alfo prohibit lawsuits between their members. But Dr. F. and Dr. L. engaged in a lawfuit. Dr. F. retained counsel before the award was given. L. made the award a rule of court. Dr. F. efcaped the cen fure of the fociety. L. was deemed the aggreffor and disowned. On this circumftance I make no comment.-Amicus fays, "if the appeal had not been published the remarks had never appeared, and if Impartial could have restrained his pen this addrefs would have been unneceffary." I did not write nor publish the appeal. The account it gave of the affair was thought by many perfons a fair one; it contained little more than the award, the affidavits of the arbitrators, and a minute of the yearly meeting, unmixed with any invective against Dr. F. Can it then be justly termed "partial and invidious?"-The circulation of it was much confined to the fociety.The character of it in your Review was fo cautiously worded, that neither party need to have taken offence.-Amicus introduced the affair to the public by an account which I thought too favourable to one fide, to pafs unnoticed. I fent you one in which my design was to tell the truth to the beft of my knowledge-For this I am charged with wilful mifreprefentation, and treated with unneceffary afperity. Whatever Dr. F. may think, I am not his enemy-I have no malevolence to him, nor attachment to L.-I never received favour or injury from either-I never had a mean opinion of Dr. F. or a high opinion of L. or any defign to place them in comparison.But in this inftance I think Dr. F. has been wrong.-I think L. was as fit to practice phyfick as many who do daily practice it; and I think him an injured perfon.-Different men fee the fame objects differently; their fentiments muft of course differ; and I fee no caufe why I should relinquish the fignature of

IMPARTIAL.

"A full detail of this tranfaction fupported by indubitable evidence" could have been published by the arbitrators, and perhaps had been, but for the diffuafions of fome [Impartial was one] who wifhed rather to preferve peace than to produce controverfy..

London, April 21, 1774.

We have inferted the above, to prove OUR impartiality; and swe bope a period will here be put to a controversy that bath infenfibly made

its way in a literary journal, which is by no means a proper receptacle for altercations of a private and personal nature.

A

Letter figned the Editor, complains of the feverity of the ac count given of a late pofthumous tract in our laft. Editors, like Tranflators, are commonly partial to the Authors whose works they would recommend to the favour of the public; and therefore we wonder not that the gentleman who has done us the honour of his polite and candid remonftrance, fhould diffent from the opinion of an indifferent, unprejudiced Reviewer, in regard to the merit of the performance in queftion.

*

The Editor may be affured, that it is not without regret that we ever speak unfavourably of any work intended to promote the intereft of virtue and religion; and that whenever our opinion of the imperfect execution of a good design forces us, in juftice to the honour and intereft of literature, to pafs our cenfure where we wish to ap plaud, we generally do it with referve, and tenderness; fuppreffing the worst that might be faid, if the rigour of TRUTH, rather than lenity to a brother Author, were to prevail.

This was, indeed, the cafe, with refpect to the little piece which gave occafion to the letter before us. We forbear to repeat the title of the work, because we would not, unneceffarily, add to the cenfure already paffed on it, or to the chagrin of a correfpondent who expreffes himself with so much moderation and decency.

The Editor objects to our remark on the want of dignity in the ftyle and diction of a work, of which, familiarity of expreffion is the natural characteristic. But we beg leave to infift that whoever affumes to be the public advocate of religion and virtue, ought to exprefs himself in a manner fomewhat elevated above the familiar ftrain of private inftruction, and fuitable to the importance of the fubject. The plea, that the piece here alluded to, was not written for the public, cannot be admitted: If it was too imperfect for publication, why was it printed without the neceffary improvements?

In every literary performance, a decent attention is furely due to correctness, if not to elegance; but a proper regard to language is more peculiarly neceffary in a work intended for the improvement of youth, left, while we are infpiring them with good fentiments, and teaching them good manners, we inadvertently habituate them to ungrammatical, or vulgar, or provincial, modes of expreffion.

That a work is well intended, is a juft foundation for praife; but good intention alone will not fecure fuccefs to an ill adapted perfor formance. Thousands, and tens of thousands, of what are commonly called good books, have had the praise above mentioned, and yet they have been configned to oblivion, by the general consent of mankind: on whom all the wife counfel in the world will be lavished to little purpose, if it be not conveyed to them in an agreeable form,

Mr. B's letter, dated Edinburgh, December 23, did not come to hand till very lately. The poem to which it relates will be noticed in our next Review.

The Author being totally unknown to us.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For

MAY, 1774.

ART. I. Eunomus; or, Dialogues concerning the Law and Conftitution of England. With an Effay on Dialogue. 8vo. 4 Vols. 14 s.. Boards. White. 1774.

S.

HAT the Author of these Dialogues is, or has been, a T profeffed lawyer, cannot be doubted; and he is fo accuftomed to the language and forms of his profeffion, that he, adheres closely to them, even in his preface. Under the character of Editor, he adopts the idea of confidering the Public as a jury. Placing himself, therefore, for a moment, on the bench, he addreffes the Public, at large, with refpect to the fate of the prefent work; and declares that he lays afide any private regard for the Author, in affuming the impartiality of a judge. The gentlemen of the jury are told that the cause now before them, for their determination, is in the nature of a feigned iffue. It is not a question of damages, but a queflion of right merely; in which the Author is to be confidered as the plaintiff, and those readers who happen to difpute his prefent claim are the defendants. Among other language of this kind, which is carried on to a degree that cannot well be vindicated from the charge of pedantry, the Editor thus bespeaks a favourable verdict:

If you should be of opinion that the fubject interefts the Public; that the form in which it is treated, is not only un.. common, but taken together with the fubject is calculated for a few hours to fupply the place of fuch books of amusement as have nothing but the form to recommend them; if you think the notions the Author has advanced are, upon the whole, supported by the many great names that you obferve he has called as his witnesses on the prefent occafion; if you find that he has diffented with candour where he differs in opinion; if where he cenfures things, he has induftriously fpared perfons, or where he thought himself obliged to cenfure paffages he has fairly cited VOL. L. thema