« ElőzőTovább »
Epiftola Commerciales; or Commercial Letters, in five Languages, viz. Italian, English, French, Spanish, and Portuguefe, with their respective Idioms diftinctly pointed out, written on various interefting Subjects, in a modern mercantile Style, as now practifed; all which are carefully felected from original Letters, as they stand in the Copy Books of the most eminent Merchants in Europe, and are here exhibited under fictitious Names, &c. The whole is methodically digefted fo as to ferve as Models for a regular Correfpondence, &c. To which are added, mercantile and maritime Vocabularies of each Tongue, &c. &c. By Charles Wifeman, Notary Public and Tranflator of all the above Languages. Printed for the Author, and fold by B. Law, in Ave-Maria-Lane. 6s. boards, 1779. An apparently useful collection.
Exercifes upon the different Parts of Italian Speech, with Referrences to Veneroni's Grammar. To which is fubjoined, an Abridgment of the Roman Hiftory, intended at once to make the Learner acquainted with Hiftory, and the Idiom of the Italian Language. By F. Botturelli, A. M. 12mo. 2s. 6d. Nourfe.
A pleafing and judicious collection of exercises.
A Treatise on the Elegance of the Latin Tongue. Vherein Rules on every Part of Speech, the most obvious in good Authors, and the most necessary to be known, are fet forth in the fborteft and plaineft Manner, and fupported by Examples, all taken from Cicero, proper to be perufed and learnt by heart, by young People who have acquired a fufficient Knowledge of the Syntax. To which is added a very concife Treatife in Numbers, fhewing in the fulleft Light, the IVay of expreffing them in Latin, with the Roman Manner of counting the Days of Months. By A. De Burcy. 12mo. 1s. 6d. Printed for the Author. Sold by Fielding and Walker.
A ufeful companion to a learner of the Latin tongue.
The Dyer's Affilant in the Art of dying Wool and Woollen Goods. Extracted from the philofophical and chemical Woris of Mers Ferguson, Du Fay, Hellot, Geoffrey, Colbert and Julienne. Tranflated from the French; with Additions and practical Experiments. By James Haigh, Silk and Muflin Dyer, Leeds. 12mo. 5s. 6d. fewed. Leeds, printed, and fold by Rivington, London.
A judicious and ufeful compilation.
To the London Reviewer who signs W.
Your kind of answer to the letter I fent in November, addreffed in general to the writers of the London Review, i. e. to the whole body of your colleagues, requires fome notice from me. However fort this epiftle may prove, I will endeavour to digest ic into clear, methodical order.
1. It is expedient, that I should inform you, why I made ufe of the word "feeining," on which you have deigned to animad vert. It is my defire on all occafions to fhew to every one, whom I do not certainly know to be particularly undeferving of it, a proper degree of refpect, to avoid every thing that would have a tendency to irritate, and to prefent a charge of any thing that may be erroneous in as inoffenfive terms as poffible. The Chriftian inftitutes, I conceive, dictate, and the Christian spirit or difpofition fuggefts this manner of conduct. For which reason, instead, of ufing the word obvious, I preferred the expreflion feeming inconfiftency, that there might be nothing which fhould found barth or grating to fuch as may be justly supposed to be jealous of their literary reputation. It appears upon the very face of my letter, that I used a decent moderation, a pacific refraint, a tempered, chaftifed form of expreffion; not, I affure you, from fear, or pufilanimity, but from a better motive, from principle.
2. It is neceffary to remark, that you do not appear to have paid a common attention to the purport of my letter. For you fay, you “never knew till now, that a man could be inconfiftent, unlefs it were with himfelf." In the beginning, I had intimated, that it might be naturally fuppofed, that the gentlemen engaged in the u'eful publication of the London Review, would chufe to have a confiftency preferved throughout their work, Now, furely, Sir, it is plain to common fenfe, that a literary performance, whether compofed by a fingle hand, or by many conjointly united, may have the excellency of confiftency ftamped upon it, or may lie open to the charge of the oppofite quality, which manifeftly argues a deficiency. This defect, the writers, who are or were your col leagues, have in fome former reviews, I well remember, charged
pretty home upon a certain rival body embarked in a fimilar undertaking. You are not, I am fure, to be told (it would be an af front to your under@anding) that a periodical work may be confistent, or inconfiftent with itself.
You acknowledge, that had your prefent editor been that of the Review to which I allude, you fhould have joined in part of the charge." I alluded, Sir, evidently to more Reviews than one, but one only I quo:ed. Do you feriously intend to infinuate, that your prefent editor means actually to depart from the fentiments, and the principles, of his very able predeceffor? If fo, I fear his Review will fink in value, and may perhaps fomewhat decrease in fale too.
3. With regard to your last paragraph, it is proper to observe, that you may find a complete answer to your queries and objections in Mr. Jonathan Edward's treatife on Free-Will, to which I referred in the preceding letter. The whole title is this, "A care. "ful and ftrict inquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that "freedom of will, which is fuppofed to be effential to Moral "Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praife and "Blame" the 3d. edition, octavo (on good paper, I add, for there is a wretched edition of it on, bad paper.) In this argumenta tive tract every thing neceffary refpecting free agency and divine grace is included, is handled with that admirable exactnefs that will ever confer honour upon the author, and is difcuffed with uncommon ability at fome confiderable length. But there is an other author, to whom I must now refer you alfo, for no lefs com-plete a folution to your imagined difficulty. This is Mr. Maclau rin, brother to the philofophical gentleman that writ upon Algebra and Fluxions. In his "Effay on Prejudices against the Gof pel" from page 187 to page 194, and in his "Effay on the Scripture Doctrine of Divine Grace, page 347, and fome few following pages, your questions are concifely aniwered, and your objections clearly folved. It would take up too great a portion of the Review to give you their arguments in detail: but if you will inspect them with a careful and strict examination, and then attempt an anfwer to what they have advanced, I pledge myfelf to you and to the public, (if Divine Providence fhall continue to me the health, which I have from my youth up hitherto enjoyed) to follow you, in reply, with clofe (I truft) and not defultory reafoning, page after page, and paragraph after paragrah. But till you have done this, it is to little purpofe for me, whilft fufficicient anfwers are already in print, to wafte both paper and time. Befides which, I now leave you to yield the palm," to men who were far my fuperiors, and whofe removal out of this world may give lefs occafion to any unfriendly paflions. Since it has been wifely remarked by a modern genius, improying upon the fuggeftion of Horace, that death increafes our veneration for the good, as "well as extenuates our hatred for the bad. For thofe virtues, which once we envied, becaufe they eclipfe our own, can now
no longer obstruct our reputation, and we have therefore no intereft to fupprefs their praife."
It cannot be deemed impertinent to add, that the doctrine of meceffity, which from Mr. Toplady and Dr. Priestley, the London Reviewers have repeatedly maintained, feems to be more expofed to the imputation of clashing with man's free agency, and the juftice of God, than the doctrine of grace as delivered by Mr. Gurdon.
To conclude. To confider all men, who, from a fincere embracing the inftructions of divine revelations, where the influence of grace is fo expreffly taught, acknowledge its reality; as fanatics (a term expreffive of irrational wildnefs) is to accufe as vifionary, and replete with a fort of intellectual wildfire, fome of the greatest men, and greateft ornaments of our country, from Archbifhop Uther down to the Bishops Proteus and Hurd, with very many intermediate names of various ranks.
If you, Sir, ate the fame gentleman, who, under the fignaof W. have writ the ftrictures on philofophical fubjects in the London Review, I can with pleafure compliment you as an able philofopher, but cannot admit you to be an excellent theologiant I am, however, Sir, with refpect, Roche, Cornwall, Feb 25, 1780. Your obedient Servant, S. FURLY. P. S. In this remote county, we are often, (efpecially in bad weather) many weeks before we receive a book or pamphlet from London. It was not till yesterday I had the January Review, or I fhould have writ and fent this time enough to be inferted in your Review for February.
N. B. The pages referred to in Maclaurin are in the last edition published 1772, they are different in the edition that came out 1755.
To Mr. S. Furly.
I am favoured with your letter, to which I beg leave to offer the following as a conclufive anfwer, unless you are more pertinent to the fubject in difpute.
Your reafons for using the expreffions of feeming inconfiftency are as delicate as they are juft. But, if it were not trifling on a fimple expreffion, I should obferve-that the feathered arrow fleals into the breast, while the fhield is lifted to ward off the blow of the fword. I will not fay that you feathered your words, that they might glide the more fure and filent to their deftined aim. Yet, this I will obferve, that under cover of that pacific refraint you mention, pufillanimity is oftener concealed than principle.
In respect to my not having paid a common attention to the purport of your letter, I believe it will be found. I paid a much greater attention than you thought I fhould. Although you did
not individually addrefs the letter to our Editor, but collectively to the London Reviewers, I am fure you are not to be informed it was tacitly meaning him: elfe, I fhould ask you---In what body of perfons, from the loweft fociety to the national affembly, do we not perfonally addrefs the prefident, fpeaker, or chancellor? Befides, Sir, it would be a bad compliment to your good sense were I to fuppofe you could accufe a fociety of what its Editor can only comYou must know---it is his immediate business to infpect the different Reviewer's articles, and to receive or reject fuch as he confiders inconfiftent with the credit and intereft of the work.
I not only agree with you---that every literary performance, whether focial or individual, may be confiftent; but unless it be confiftent its stability will be baseless.
As to the charge brought by my colleagues against a rival body, &c. I fhall only fay--it is an invariable maxim with me not to bufy myself in others affairs farther than my employment engages me: I must also add---our correfpondence had not been, had all others obferved the fame maxim.
I must next confefs that with, all the great attention I boast of having paid your letter, I fhould not have known, unless you had taken the pains to inform me, you had meant any other Reviews than ours--fo evident were your allufions.
Now, Sir, although you think it too much trouble, to answer my propofitions, I will take the pains to anfwer your question, and add one or two attendant obfervations---Our Editor has too much fenfe of his predeceffor---his father's diftinguished abilities, for me to infinuate that he means to deviate from either his fentiments or his principles; therefore you may banish ali fear of the Review's not preferving its fale or value. But pray, in fo multifarious a labour as a Review, do you fuppofe any HUMAN ability can preferve it uniformly from error? I doubt even your INSPIRED would find it impracticable. Therefore, in turn, let me prefume to dictate. Do not call the avoiding fuch errors---departing from the sentiments and principles of his really able predeceffor. At the fame time, if poffible, ufe a more "chaftized" mode of expreffion, than to infer. fuch hafty, and, I again fay, harsh conclufions from such vague principles.
Could I have fuppofed, when you attacked my criticism, you were not prepared to anfwer my questions, I fhould not have thought your letter worth the notice I gave it. It is a trifling beneath the puerile wranglings of fophifters. It is an affront to the public, to force upon their view any thing fo uninteresting. In the name of wonder, did you, at firft, mean to lead me through the manfions of the dead that you might awe--.by reason you could not convince me? I am at a lofs how to term your behaviour. If you have read those works on which you pay fuch encomiums, how can you want anfwers to what I have, in fo few lines, afked? In faying, then anfwers would take up too much of the Review, you pay me a fort of a compliment not very intelligible. If you mean they require volumes to be read and tranfcribed, I must return you