in many emergencies, as manifeft, as it was neceffary; and it fills him with a most awful fenfe of God's power and majesty, that he fhould in an efpecial manner prefide upon fuch terrible occasions, and direct the blind fury of man to the accomplishment of his own wife and benevolent purposes. From a well-grounded conviction, that he thus rules the world, and decides every enterprize in it, arifes the pureft and most humble piety, and fweet peace of mind be our fituation, however arduous. Let the preparations of our enemies be the most gigantic, we know that they may imagine a vain thing and we know, that if we adopt interceffion, and fay, wilt not thou, O God, go forth with our hearts? we are confederate with an invincible ally. Yet has Dr. Toulmin afferted, that we are not encouraged to look up to God as the patron of war, as a being who is to be rendered propitious by facrifices and fafts. Let us recommend to the doctor closer attention to his bible, and difmifs him and his difcourfe with an arch obfervation to his Reviewer; what an excellent critic! Had not Dr. Toulmin's excellent difcourfe drawn me unawares into a more copious difcuffion than at firft intended, it was my defign, Mr. Editor, to have entered largely into the merits of Bishop Prettyman and Profeffor Hurdis, in oppofition to this hero of the Monthly Review. But I am apprehenfive that I have already engroffed more room in your truly patriotic journal, than you can conveniently fparc. will, therefore, leave the merits of the Cambridge Bishop to plead for themselves, or to be vindicated by fome member of his own university; while I bestow a stricture or two on the Monthly Review of the Oxford profeffor. And first, I observe, that in order to demonftrate the inferiority of the profeffor, in a paffage which is unquestionably original, the critic has oppofed to him a paffage of Thomion, which is not original, but in a great degree copied from Virgil. I refer your readers to the critique, and beg them to take notice of the following imitations. The stars obtufe emit a fhiver'd ray,* Or frequent feem to boot athwart the gloom, Sæpe etiam ftellas, vento impendente, videbis Sæpe levem paleam, et frondes volitare caducas, Aut fummá nantes in aquá colludere plumas. Georg. I. 365. With broaden'd noftrils to the fky upturned, The confcious beifer fnuffs the formy gale. bucula cœlum Sufpiciens, patulis captavit naribus auras. Stellis acies obtufa videtur. Ibid. 395. Ibid. 375. Even as the matron, at her nightly task, With penfive labour draws the flaxen thread, Nec nocturna quidem carpentes penfa puellæ The tenants of the sky, its changes speak. Ibid. 390 Corvorum increpuit denfis exercitus alis. Ibid. 381 Affiduous, in his bower, the wailing ow! Plies his fad fong -feros exercet noctua cantus. Ibid. 493 The cormorant on high Wheels from the deep, and fcreams along the land.. Cùm medio celeres revolant ex æquore mergi, And blind commotion heaves; while from the fhore peta ponti Incipiunt agitata tumefcere, et aridus altis Montibus audiri fragor; aut refonantia longè Littora mifceri, et nemorum increbrescere murmur Ibid. 361 Ibid. 356 Here are more than twenty fucceffive lines of the paffage quoted by the Monthly Reviewer from Thomson, for which he is manifeftly indebted to the Mantuan bard. It might be fhewn also, that the very beginning of the paffage is borrowed from the Roman poet; if we except only the ftrange blunder of the imitator, in making the moon rife horned, in the caft, at funfet; an event which never occurred in nature. But of this enough, Now, Sir, did the Monthly Reviewer know, or did he not know, that thefe pallages were borrowed, by the author of the Seafons, from the Georgics of Virgil? If he did not know it, he will appear to be deficient in critical qualifications, and his criticism will, of course, be contemptible: if he did know it, he is guilty of deliberate injuftice, in inftituting a comparison where comparison ought not to have G 2 been been made. I am inclined, Sir, to the charitable fide, and verily believe that he did not know it: for there are not wanting other proofs of his incapacity. For inftance; the following line, fays he, contains a violation of accent, which could not have paffed unnoticed. even in a more finished poem: The fight of Winter's fuperb ocean left'— The fault imagined is in the firft fyllable of the word fuperb. But let this inaccurate Reviewer be informed, that nothing is more common, with our beft poets, than this apparent tranfpofition of the accent. Here is Shakespear. Let us open him at a venture : what find we? Again, Again, On his fhoulder and his; her face on fire That which you are, miftrefs o' th' feaft. Come on— Winter's Tale, A&t IV. fc. iii. Did verily bear blood? Mafterly done Ditto, A&t V. fc. iii. Be thy intents wicked or charitable In quantity equals not one of your's- Once more: Hamlet, A 1. fc. iv. Henry IV. A& III. fc. i. I conjure you, by that which you profess Macbeth, A&t IV. fc. i. These are the first instances which occur; and it is needless to feek for more in Shakespear, or in any other poet. I recommend them to the ftudy of the Monthly Reviewers, and also of the Britiske Critics; for the latter were, not long fince, extremely erroneous in their obfervations on English rythm, and stand in need of correction and improvement. And if I may be fo bold as to chide even an Anti-Jacobin Reviewer, I will add, Mr. Editor, that even your own remark, fupported by three blue beans in a blue bladder, has more of wantonnels than of truth. Judge for yourself, whether that proverb might not have been applied, with as much propriety, to the blood-boltered Banquo of Shakelpear, as to the paffage from Hurdis. Yet will no Critic maintain that the great dramatic poet fought Italianifms and affected alliterations. He has even ridiculed the practice, as we well know from his bloody blameful blade that brauely broach'd, &c. for which, fee The Midfummer Night's Dream. The bloot boltered Banquo, therefore, was accidental; and being manifeftly not affe&ed, ought to be tolerated. Verbam Sat- 1 To wafte no more time in dwelling upon these hypercritical minutiæ, I fhall finally observe that the Monthly Reviewer of Dr. Hurdis has manifefted his want of ability, in a more important refpect, by afcribing delicious melody to Thomfon and Akenfide. We may fafely affert, Sir, that delicious melody is not strictly the attribute of either of thofe poets. Thomfon had no ear for mufic. His metre is generally difficult and embarrasled. Take the first sample that occurs. Earth's univerfal face, deep hid and chill Is one wild dazzling wafte, that buries wide Such verfe difdains to amble. We may fay, in the words of ShakeSpear, 'Tis like the forc'd gait of a fhuffling nag. That line is, indeed, admirably characteristic of the hard unmufical manner, in which Thomfon delights to exprefs himself. As much as he laboured to be tardy, so much did Akenside give himself over to velocity. He runs, he gallops, he flies. Delicious melody is not expreffive of the motion of either. If I may draw comparison from an overture of Handel, I fhould fay of the first movement, which is by turns harsh, abrupt, harmonious, heavy, full of wild ftarts and paufes; this is the ftyle of Thomfon: I fhould fay of the fugue which rapidly follows, and hurries us through the richest combinations of tone, till the ear is confounded and the understanding left far behind; this is the flyle of Akenfide: I should fay of the delicate and sweet air which fucceeds this peal of enthufiafm; this is delicious melody, the ftyle of Milton, of Addifon, of Rowe. I have commended Bishop Prettyman to Cantabrigian vindication. I cannot, however, close this letter, without acquainting the Critical Reviewers to whom nothing is more clear than that fome degree of CHANGE (in our Liturgy) is PEREMPTORILY called for,* that I am far from being of the fame way of thinking. If any men are peremptory on this head they must be Diffenters. Were the epifcopal bench to unite in promoting fuch change, I do not believe they would acquire much credit in the view of the NATION AT LARGE: they would undoubtedly gratify the Diffenters; but let them not vainly imagine that they are the nation at large. Neither let Critical Reviewers be too forward in afferting, that the greater part of the members of the bench (or church) wish to liberate themfelves from a thraldom, which cannot but be occafionally felt in the more ferious moments of retirement; to wit, the thraldom of orthodox doctrines and articles, which Critical Reviewers (alias Diffenters) wifh to bend to their own more liberal (alias loofe) creed. The thraldom here come plained of, Mr. Editor, I have never felt; though accustomed to hear the petulant cavils of Diffenters from my childhood. Whenever their invectives have made an impreffion upon me, I have referred to books, and especially to the Scriptures, for better instruc * See their Review of Frend's Letters, G 3 tion, tion. The more I have read, and the more I read, the more I draw near to perfect coincidence with that church to which I belong. Her Liturgy is admirable. I do not commend it, because I am bound to use it, but because I know it to be admirable. I have diligently compared it with every improved Liturgy which has been put into my hands; and I think it highly deferving of preference. Nothing difgufts me more, than that young puppies in divinity should, at any time, dare to foift their high-flown periods, into that fimple, humble, and expreffive ftrain of prayer, which runs through it. The American form did not amend itself by departing from the letter of it; and I have fince had the fatisfaction to fee many fancied improvements in that Liturgy, blotted out by the Americans themfelves. Nevertheless, I will not maintain that it is a compofition free from every defect. The compilers of it were not divine, but human; they were learned, devout, and fenfible, but not infpired. They produced, therefore, a work of man; and what work of man have we ever seen, which (like the works of God) would bear the Atrict fcrutiny of the microscope? But the fpecks and blemishes, which appear in it, are of no great importance. Perhaps fome few chapters might be, with propriety, banished from the series of Sunday leffons, and others fubftituted in their places; for though the former may always be moral and inftructive, they are not always decent. For the fame reason, the matrimonial service might be revised and corrected. But he who thinks he can improve our Litany, or our Communion and Burial services (the latter of which I well remember to have been made the fubject of invective in a Presbyterian pulpit) has the vanity to believe he can atchieve impoffibilities. Indeed the manual of Common Prayer, of the Church of England, viewed with a proper refpect to its general merits, whether canvaffed as to its confonance with the Scriptures, or brought to the teft as expreffive of the duties and wants of mankind, is incompara ble. If the Monthly and Critical Reviewers have fuch confidence in their fuperior difcernment, as to imagine that they can draw up a form of greater excellence, and liable to fewer exceptions, I candidly promise them, Mr. Editor, that I will be one of the firft to adopt it. That they may not fail in their enterprize, I will allow them to call to their affiftance the whole Kirk of Scotland, and the whole host of extempore prayer-fpinners, wherever difperfed. ACADEMICUS. N reviewing a pamphlet on the scarcity, written by the Reverend J. Malham, Vicar of Helton, Dorset, you have very properly reproved the author, for having spoken of barley-bread, in a manner which clearly implies that it is an unwholesome diet. A Clergyman ought to be better acquainted with the Scriptures, than to advance a doctrine so contrary to truth; especially at a time when an evil prejudice |