society, which their hearers expect. Such neglect of its ministers is dis graceful to the sect. Let it not, however, inspire those who are neglected with envy of the established church. Confined as the circumstances of dissenting ministers are, there are distresses to be heard of among the regular clergy which cannot be paralleled. Let us but cast our eyes on the account given, by the Governors of the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy, of the manner in which they distributed Mr. Stock's donation of one hundred pounds to ten poor curates in December last. It is grievous to learn that for the trifling assist ance of ten pounds, MANY petitions were presented, containing represen tations of MUCH DISTRESS. The ten clergymen selected for relief, have, exclusive of their wives, no less than SEVENTY-SEVEN children; and all their incomes united amount to no more than Two When they had HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR pounds per annum. received Mr. Stock's donation, there were not fewer, perhaps, than NINETY-SEVEN persons, great and small, subsisting upon THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR pounds, for the present year. So that, after having received the benefit of that charity, ninety-seven persons are still compelled to live upon somewhat less than TWEN What heart, which is not piece of the nether millstone, can contemplate, without emotion; such an instance of virtuous difficulty, in times like these! TY SHILLINGS PER DAY. I have at length reached that concluding paragraph of William Turner's long-winded discourse, which, feems to have been peculiarly touching to the Critical Reviewers; a paragraph, which drew from the them feeling declaration, that this inftitution, which the author recommends, is a matter of effential confequence. The new college at Manchefter, fays the preacher, is the ONLY English feminary in which young minifters of the above defcription (that is, Prefbyterian minifters) are at prefent training up. A fimilar eftablishment, in the neighbourhood of London, which was alfo intended to fupply the place of Warrington, has been diffolved through the failure of its funds: and a very refpectable academy at Northampton, which had furnished many useful minifters, bas fince been difcontinued. To us, Mr. Editor, this will be no fubject of regret. Nor would it have surprised us, to have found that the whole body of Diffenters had gradually diffolved, and melted into one mals with the established church. But when we find that, notwithstanding the failure of a fupply of competent minifters, many of them still remain fectaries, we may justly wonder at the little propenfity they fhew to return to the unity of the faith. Rather than return, we find that they have put up with the refufe of Scottish and Welfh feminaries, totally void of refpectability either in the pulpit or out of it; nay, that they have even lent their ears to illiterate lay-preachers. The whole, however, of fuch diffenting congregations, have not acquiefced in this unnatural transition. It has difperfed all the more refpectable members, fays William Turner, and brought the INTEREST to a low ebb. What he means by the latter expreffion, I know not; unless he would candidly admit, that the Diffenters had always political views in keeping themselves diftinct from us. The effect of lay-preaching alfo alfo, among the Prefbyterians, we are informed by the author, is fuch, that many withdraw from their old affociates, and either mix with the eftablishment, or what is MUCH MORE TO BE LAMENTED, decline public worship altogether. Does William Turner here mean to say, that it is in any degree to be lamented, that fuch perfons return to the eftablished church? And does the Critical Reviewer approve of such a fentiment? If fuch be the charity of Prefbyterians, fuch their opinion of our orthodoxy, fuch their inordinate defire to withdraw from all communion with us, I heartily thank God that he has not left us in the hands of these wayward fimplifiers. May he defend us, Mr. Editor, from fimplifiers of every denominationwhether fimplifiers in church, who would fimplify away our bishops, our veftments, our tithes, and our liturgy-the godhead of our divine master, the infpiration of his difciples, and the creed of their followers -or fimplifiers in ftate, who would fimplify into annihilation our king, our aristocracy, our liberty, our commerce, our property, and our laws. Of the miserable effects of fimplification of the latter kind, we have had fufficient experience in the reiterated convulfions of a nation too near to us: the deplorable confequences of the former kind of fimplification, we have felt in our own perfons. Let us bolt our doors to this treacherous and delufive gueft, and admit it in no fhape whatever. If Mr. Frend wishes to fimplify our liturgy, as he has already fimplified the science of Algebra, reforming what he has fondly ftiled the jargon of Sir Ifaac Newton, and fubftituting a new jargon of his own, lefs known and therefore lefs intelligible-let him be informed, that the church of England has long ago declared her opinion of those who would have all things devifed anew, and it is this: in fuch a cafe they ought rather to bave reverence unto antiquity, if they will declare themfelves to be more ftudious of unity and concord, than of innovations, and new-fanglenefs, which is always to be efchewed. Aftronger proof of her found fense she could not have produced. As fhe has repeated the fentiment at another place, I cannot forbear to notice it. Some, fays fhe, are addicted to their old cuftoms and again, on the other fide, fome be fo new-fangled, that they would innovate all things, and fo defpife the old, that nothing can like them, but that is new: it was thought expedient, not fo much to bave refpect how to pleafe and fatisfy either of thefe parties, as how to pleafe God and profit them both. Could an oracle have spoken more judiciously? Hear it, Mr. Frend; hear it, ye fimplifiers of church and state. Again. We know it impoffible (in fuch variety of apprehenfions, humours, and interefts, as are in the world) to pleafe all: nor can expect, that men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits, fhould be fatisfied with any thing that can be done, in this kind, by any other than themfelves. Was the truth ever spoken in terms more plain and forcible? Mr. Editor. The impugners of our Liturgy, peremptorily as they call for change in the perfon of the Critical Re viewers, would certainly be fatisfied with no facrifice whatever. Nothing less than total abolition, and leave to new model (that is to fimplify us after their own fashion, would entirely content them. But of their fimplifiying fchemes, let us acquaint them, in the firm : and and manly language of our church, that we have no need; for we are fully perfuaded in our judgments (and we here profefs it to the world) that the book of common prayer doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the word of God, or to found doctrine; or which a godly man may not, with a good confcience, ufe and fubmit unto; or which is not fairly defenfible against any that shall oppofe the fame, if it fhall be allowed fuch juft and favourable conftruction, as in common equity ought to be allowed to all human writings. ACADEMICUS. A Vindication of the Iter Britanniarum, or that Part of the Itinerary of Antoninus which relates to Britain, with a New Comment. By the Rev, Thomas Reynolds," being a Review of the Review of that Article inserted in the British Critic of Des cember and January last, in a Letter to the Editor of the AntiJacobin Review. SIR, TO THE EDITOR. AM a constant reader and a hearty friend of your publication and will continue to produce, a very substantial benefit to this country by its opposition to those detestable principles, which have been so long spreading themselves in this island, without contradiction or controut, to the great regret of every sober and honest mind. But I am particularly pleased with your Reviews of the Reviewers. This is an article which has been long wanted on two accounts; first and principally to combat those dangerous doctrines, which have been so freely and continually promulgated, safe from contradiction or remark, by some writers of this description; and secondly to afford injured authors a place to vindicate themselves against unfair criticisms upon their works, which often appear to have been dictated by the private prejudices and favourite opinions of the Reviewers, rather than by that candour and impartiality which ought to direct their labours. Such an article, conducted with temper and liberality, must be considered as a very important acquisition by every reader, who can estimate its true value. It has been my misfortune (an author may certainly call it so, when it is considered what an effect such a circumstance may have with regard to the circulation of his work) to have fallen under the very warm censure of one of the Reviews: and of a Review, which I do not complain of without reluctance, because its general principles have my unqualified approbation. But in this Review I have not only been censured, I have been loaded with obloquy and personal abuse, a species of rhetoric inexcuseable in any writer, and much more so in one, who takes upon himself to sit in judgement upon the merits of others. My Reviewer, however, has indulged himself so profusely in this way, that scarce a single paragraph, in his long criticism, is without some personal reflection. By this method he probably probably hoped to give himself more consequence, and add that authority to his decisions, which he was aware his arguments were not likely to produce. If he has succeeded, it must have arisen from the obscurity and difficulty of the subject; in which rew are so conversant as to be able to detect the fallacy of those arguments, which are proposed with so bold an appearance of superiority and contempt. To shew you, that I do not complain without cause of the want of good manners in my Reviewer, I will just give you my character, as it might be extracted from this criticism by some reader of it, who, no doubt, would feel a very ardent wish to be possessed of a work composed by so accomplished an author. "Mr. Reynolds (this ill-fated name is repeated forty times in the two articles) writes against authority and against evidence; contradicts the strongest evidences without discussing them; enslaved to an hypothesis, puts a bandage over his own eyes; acts (in the middle of his work) with an ingenuousness which he had never shewn before; takes refuge behind every bush, and alledges uncertainties, where none appear, to evade reasonings which he could not resist; urges arguments only to puzzle; shuffles with opinions; erects a system, not only false, but the fabrick of his own fancy only; asserts what is known to be historically false; uses his powers of perversion on every occasion; throws down opinions, on which he has rested, and thinks and acts the very reverse; adopts a slight of hand, as disgraceful to the probity, as to the judgement of any writer, with the same injudiciousness of mind; is actuated by a spirit of cavilling in all his reasonings; is a mutable critic; ignorant, blind, presumptuous, of defective judgement; goes beyond the extremity of wildness, and bursts beyond all bounds of sense." It has been hinted to me by a person, whose urbanity of manners forms a strong contrast to the incivility of his colleague, that all this cannot be deemed personal, because the writer could have no acquaintance with me. * But surely personality in abuse does not require a personal acquaintance. Dr. Hey did not think so, when he proposed his canon of controversy against using personal reflections. He explains his meaning by-"what if A. were a dull man, B. a pert forward man, C. a sot, D. a hypocrite," &c. only one of which (if any) could require a personal acquaintance. The Review commences with a short but very injurious preface. Its tendency is to repress public curiosity and consequently prevent the sale of the work. It remarks, "This is a new attempt at a *Happening to know the reviewer of this article in the British Critic, we can assure Mr. Reynolds, that he is incapable of suffering his critical decisions to be influenced by any motives of personal dislike; and that, in the present instance, his mind could not possibly harbour any such motives. The insertion of these remarks of Mr. R. reflecting so strongly on a writer, whom we have every reason to admire and esteem, will, we trust, be received as a proof of our impartiality and justice. EDITOR. work work which has been repeatedly undertaken before, and executed in general with satisfaction to the public." A writer, who enters upon any difficult research, will have credit for a diligent inquiry after all those who have gone before him in the same path. I can not accuse myself of negligence in this particular; but I have not been able to discover one commentator upon the British part of the itinerary, who in the least deserves the character here given. Burton was the only author I could ever hear of, who published a finished work similar to mine. But he lived too near the revival of this kind of learning to give much satisfaction to the present times Talbot's and Gale's Comments are both imperfect attempts. And Horsley has only added a short essay. Many writers, indeed, have touched incidentally upon Antoninus, (as I have shewn in my preface,) and attempted to fix the situation of some of his towns in Britain. But even in this respect no single author has met with much success. Camden ranks deservedly the first of this class, and yet I have not found reason to agree with him in the situation of more than fifty towns, out of the one hundred and thirty, which the Itinerary mentions in this island. I must therefore contend, that the Reviewer had no foundation whatever for saying, that similar works had been " repeatedly undertaken and executed to the satisfaction of the public," and that he must be well aware, that, my work was entirely different from any of my predecessors upon many very essential points, which had never been discussed with any attention, but which were absolutely necessary to be inquired into to establish the value and importance of this curious remnant of Roman antiquity. The greater part of the criticism is occupied in combating two particular opinions, as if the whole structure of the work depended upon the truth of them. These seem to have excited so warm a resentment, by contradicting some favourite notions, and long established prejudices of the critic; that he was determined to condemn the work altogether, and abuse the author with every opprobrious epithet which his ingenuity could enable him to introduce. A more illiberal article does not often disgrace the pages of any of the Reviews, and in the British Critic I never remember before to have seen any thing so unworthy the well known characters of its Editors. After a very long examination and very intimate acquaintance with the subject of my inquiry, I have observed that where the towns lie at a greater distance than the numbers will reach, some of our "first writers have supposed a town omitted, and ventured to supply the vacancy, but that the correction of the numbers is much more natural, because we find many instances, where they are certainly faulty; but I have not met with any thing, that creates even a suspicion, that there is a single town less in the Itinerary now than there was at first." And again I have supposed" Hadrian's Wall the boundary of the Empire, when the Itinerary was written." These two positions the Reviewer has selected as particularly objectionable. The critical idea of the nearly perfect state |