« ElőzőTovább »
Epiftolæ Commerciales ; or Commercial Letters, in five Lan
guages, viz. Italian, English, French, Spanish, and Portu-
Exercises upon the different Parts of Italian Speech, with Refera
rences to Veneroni's Grammar. To which is subjoined, an Abridgment of the Roman History, intended at once to nake the Learner acquainted with History, and the Idiom of the Italian Language. By F. Botturelli, A.M. 12mo. 25. 6d. Nourse.
A pleafing and judicious collection of exercises.
A Treatise on the Elegance of the Latin Tongue. IVherein
Rules on every Part of Speech, the most obvious in good Au-
I he Dyer's Alisiant in the Art of dying Island IVoollen · Goods. Extracted from the philosophical and chemical Woris
of Messrs Ferguson, Du Fay, Hellot, Genffrey, Colbert and Julienne. Transated from the French ; with Additions and practical Experiments. By James Haigh, Silk and Muslin Dyer, Leeds. 12mo. 55. 60. fewed, Leeds, printed, and fold by Rivington, London. A judicious and useful compilation.
To the London Reviewer who signs H. Sir, Your kind of answer to the lerter I fent in November, addrefled in general to the writers of the London Review, i. e. to the whole body of your colleagues, requires fome notice from me. However thort this epistle may prove, I will endeavour to digert is into clear, methodical order.
1. It is expedient, that I hould inform you, why I made use of the word " seeining," on which you have deigned to animada vert. It is
defire on all occafions to thew to every one, whoni I do not certainly know to be particularly undeserving of it, a proper degree of respect, to avoid every thing that would have a rendency- to irritate, and to present a charge of any thing that may be erroneous in as inoffentive terms as poilible. The Christian institutes, I conceive, diétate, and the Chriftian spirit or difpofition suggests this inanner of conduct. For which realon, instead, of uiing the word obvious, I preferred the expreffion "feeming inconfiitency, that there might be nothing which Nould found barth or grating to such as may be juftly Tupposed to be jealous of their literary reputation. It appears upon the very face of iry letter, that I ufed a decent moderation, a pacific restraint, a tempered, chastid fonn of expreflion; not, I affure you, from fear, or puflanimiiy, but from a better motive, from principle.
2. It is ncceffary to remark, that you do not appear to have paid · a common attention to the purport of my letter. For you say, you " never knew till now, that a man could be inconfiftent, unjess it were with himself.". In the beginning, I had intimated, that it might be naturally fuppofed, that the gentlemen engaged in the n'eful
publication of the London Review, would chufe to have a confiftency prelerved throughout their work, Now, surely, Sir, it is plain to conmon sense, that a literary perforınance, whether composed by a tingle hand, or by many conjointly united, may have the excellency of confftency itamped upon it, or may lie open to the charge of the opposite quality, which manifettiy argues a deficiency. This defect, the writers, who are or were your cot. leagues, have in some former reviews, I well remember, charged
pretty home upon a certain rival body embarked in a fimilar undertaking. You are not, I am sure, to be told (it would be an af. front to your under landing) that a periodical work may be consilitnt, or inconsiilent with itlelf.
You acknowledge, that “had your present editor been that of the Review to which I allude, you should have joined in part of the charge." I alluded, Sir, evidently to more Reviews than one, but one only I quo:ed. Do you seriously intend to infinuate, that your present editor means actually to depart from the sentiments, and the principles, of his very able predeceffor? If so, I fear his Review will fink in value, and may perhaps somewhat 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 treatise on Free-Will, to which I re. ferred in the preceding letter. The whole title is this, “ A care. “ ful and strict inquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that "freedom of will, which is supposed to be effential to Moral "'Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and " Biame:" 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 respecting free agency and divine grace is included, is handled with that admirable exactness that will ever confer honour. upon the author, and is discussed with unconimon ability at fome considerable length. But there is an.
other author, to whom I nzust now refer you also, for no less com- plete a solution to your imogined difficulty. This is Mr. Maciau.
rin, brother to the philosophical gentleman that writ upon Algebra and Fluxions. In his 66 Essay on Prejudices againit the Gore pel" from page 187 to page 194, and in his " Effay on the Scrip. iure Doctrine of Divine Grace, page 347, and some few following pages, your questions are concisely aniwered, and your objections clearly solved. It would take up too great a portion of the Re. view to give you their arguinents in detail : but if you will iti1pect them with a careful and strict examination, and then attempt an answer to what they have advanced, I pledge myself to you and to the public, (if Divine Providence shall continue to me the health, which I have from my youth up hitherto enjoyed) to fol. low yoa, in reply, with close (I trust) and not desultory reasoning, page after page, and paragraph after paragrah. But till you have done this, it is to little purpose for me, whilst fufficicient answers are already in print, to waste both paper and time. Besides which, I now leave you to “ yield the palm,” to men who were far my superiors, and whose removal out of this world may give less occafion to any unfriendly passions. Since it has been wisely remarked by a modern genius, improying upon the suggestion of Horace, có that death increases our veneration for the good, as "well as extenuates our hatred for the bad. For those virtues, « which once we envied, because they eclipse our own, can now
“ no longer obftru&t our reputation, and we have therefore no in« terest to suppress their praife.”
İt cannot be deemed impertinent to add, that the doctrine of treceshty, which from Mr. Toplady and Dr. Priestley, the Londoni Reviewers have repeatedly maintained, seems to be more exposed to the imputation of clashing with man's free agency, and the justice of God, than the doctrine of grace as delivered by Mr. Gurdon.
To conclude. To consider all men, who, from a fincere embracing the instructions of divine revelations, where the influence of grace is fo exprefly taught, acknowledge its reality; as fanasics (a term expressive of irrational wildness) is to accufe as vifionaty, and replete with a sort of intellectual wildfire, some of the greatest men, and greatest ornaments of our country, from Archa bifhop Usher down to the Bishops Proteus avd Hurd, with very many intermediate names of various ranks.
If you, Sir, ate the same gentleman, who, under the fignaof W. have writ the strictures on philofophical subjects in the London Review, I can with pleasure compliment you as an able philosopher, but cannot adníit 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, (especially 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 should have writ and lent this time enough to be inserted in your Review for February.
N. B. The pages referred to in Maclaurin are in the last edi. tion published 1772, they are different in the edition that came
To Mr. S. Fürly. Sir, I am favoured with your letter, to which I beg leave to offer the following as a conclufive answer, unless you are more pertinent to the subject in dispute.
Your reasons for using the expreffions of seeming inconfiftency are as delicate as they are just. But, if it were not trifting on a fimple expression, I should observe that the feathered arrow feals into the breast, while the shield is lifted to ward off the blow of the (word. I will not fay that you feathered your words, that they might glide the more sure and Glent to their destined aim. Yet, this I will observe, that under cover of that pacific restraint you mentjon, pufillanimity is ofterier concealed than principle.
refpect to my not having paid a common attention to the purpori your letter, I believe it will be found. I paid a much greater atention than you thought I Mould. Although you did
not individually address the letter to our Editor, but collectively to The London Reviewers, I am sure you are not to be informed it was tacitly meaning him: else, I should ask you ---Ia what body of persons, from the lowest fociety to the national assembly, .do we not personally address the president, speaker, or chancellor? Besides, Sir, it would be a bad compliment to your good sense were I to supporr you could accuse a fociety of what its Editor can only commit. You must know---it is his immediate business to inspect the different Reviewer's articles, and to receive or reject such as he confiders inconGstent with the credit and interest of the work.
I not only agree with you.--that every literary performance, whether social or individual, may be confiftent; but unless it be confiftent its bability will be baseless.
As to the charge brought by my colleagues against a rival body, &c. I fall only fay-- it is an invariable maxim with me not to busy myself in others affairs farther than my employment engages me: I must also adu...our correspondence had not been, had all others observed the same maxim.
I mult next confess that with all the great attention I boast of having paid your letter, I should not have known, unless you had taken the pains to inform me, you had ineant any other Reviews than ours.--lo evident were your allufiuns.
Now, Sir, although you think it too much trouble, to answer my propositions, I will take the pains to answer your question, and add one or two attendant observations...Our Editor has too much sense of his predecessor..-his father's distinguished abilities, for me to insinuate that he means to deviate from either his sentiments or his principles; therefore you may banish ali fear of the Review's not preserving its sale or value. But pray, in so multifarious a labour as a Review, do you suppose any HUMAN ability cap preserve it uniformly from error? I doubt even your INSPIRED Would find it impracticable. Therefore, in turn, let me presume to di&tate. Do not call the avoiding such errors.--departing from the sentiments and principles of his really able predecesor. At the fame time, if poffible, use a nore "chaftized" mode of expression, than to infer fuch hasty, and, I again say, barshe conclusions from such vague principles. Could I have supposed, when you attacked my criticism, you
prepared to answer my questions, I should 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 first, 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 loss how to term your behaviour. If you have read those works on which you pay such encomniums, how can you want answers to what I have, in fo few lines, asked? In saying, then answers 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 transcribed, I must return you