are forry to think that there may be occafion for fuch reprehenfron but, on the other band, it may be well that, for the fake of religion and morality, a worthy preacher is not afhamed to speak boldly, as be aught to speak, and to rebuke with all authority.

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the MONTHLY REVIEWERS.

L

IN your Review for September laft (p. 211, note), you fay, "The Quakers hold this divine teaching of the understanding; and with perfect confiftence throw away the Bible, as a dead letter, as ufelefs; a divine teaching muft fuperfede human means and authority.”

This is not a juft reprefentation of the belief and practice of thefe people. They hold, indeed, the inward manifeftation and teaching of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men, far fuperior to all human teaching and inftruction: but they do not therefore throw away the Bible, as a dead letter, or as ufelefs. On the contrary, they believe the Holy Scriptures were given by infpiration of God; and they think it their incumbent duty frequently to read them, especially the New Teflament, in their families; both for their own prefervation and improvement, and as the most effectual means of bringing up their children in a firm belief of the Chriftian doctrine, as well as of the neceffity of the aid of the Holy Spirit of God in the heart."

C. $.'

We have inferted the above, entire, as we would not, on any account, be thought defirous of mifreprefenting a very refpectable body of our " Brother Proteftants, and Fellow Chriftians."-The note referred to, by C. S. came from an old Correfpondent, and was inadvertently admitted.

M. B. G. B. and B. W. write to the fame purport with C. S. and the Quakers are fully vindicated, fo far as refpects their " training up their children, fervants, &c. in the frequent reading of the Holy Scriptures." Barclay's Apology for the Quakers is also referred to (Prop. 3.) for farther fatisfaction on this head.

*** Mr. Young, by letters which we have received from him, feems much offended at our account of his Examination of Sir Ifaac Newton, &c. fee Review for Sept. p. 239. He fays, Your partial and mutilated quotations are chofen fuch as might probably give offence to a favourer of the prefent fyftem; without having brought forward a fingle argument whereby I fupport my opinions. I cannot but think your criticifm on the word endeavour trifling in itfelf, and, if admitted, it does not invalidate one argument of mine. You have charged me with logomachy, mistake, and misapprehenfion, without adducing the fhadow of fupport for thefe charges.'

In answer to which, we requeft Mr. Young to reconfider the fubject. As to the word endeavour, it is not to be found in any part of the definition to endeavour is a verb active, and, confequently, implies an action. Sir Ifaac afferts the inactivity of matter, and there fore judiciously avoids ufing a term that is any way applicable to activity; he fays the vis inertia is a vis infita, an innate tendency, a natural propenfity or difpofition, by which ever body remains in the

ftate

ftate in which it is; there is nothing that implies an endeavour in the inactive body. Mr. Young, in his pamphlet, fays, The whole account of vis inertia is a feries of inconfiftencies.' It is somewhat extraordinary that this feries of inconfiftencies* fhould have been admired for an hundred years, by every true philofopher in the world; and that the vis inertia fhould now firft be called a forceless force. This expreffion we objected to, because it is a mere play on words. With respect to the term vis inertie, it may be observed, that the idea annexed to it, or intended to be expreffed by it, was entirely new, viz. an inherent property in bodies never before defcribed; it was neceffary therefore to apply to this new idea a new term, and no one presented itself, nor could be chofen, with more propriety, than vis inertia; because it not only expreffes the innate tendency of matter to remain in the fame ftate, but alfo implies a refiftance which is obfervable in all material bodies to every effort or impulfe made on them in order to alter their state of rest into a state of motion, or the contrary. But, notwithstanding the propriety of the word, every objection must vanish, when the term is defined, and when we know the idea which the Author expreffes by it.

From thefe and fimilar reflections, we thought that Mr. Young had misapprehended or mistaken the true meaning of the great philofopher; and we thought alfo that a logomachy was fufficiently apparent, when a forceless force led the van of a series of inconfiftencies.

*They were first published in 1687.

+++ Dr. Hamilton, Profeffor of Midwifery at Edinburgh, has favoured us with a few lines, occafioned by our notice of the reduced plates of Smellie's Midwifery, p. 240 in our Review for September. The Doctor charges us with a mistake, but he does not clearly inform us in what we are mistaken. From the publication, it was impoffible to learn that the plates, on a reduced fcale, had been published twice, before they appeared with Dr. Hamilton's name, viz. in or about 1778, with an edition of the Midwifery; and again in a 12m0 edition of the fame work at Edinburgh by Elliot, 1784. It is not our custom to review new editions of books, unless they are published with additions, either of the Author, or of a learned editor. The two editions of the Midwifery appeared without the editor's name; confequently they came not before us; and we noticed the prefent edition of the plates (the very fame plates that had been published in the two editions above mentioned) because it appeared with the refpectable name of Dr. Hamilton.

1st A conftant Reader of the M. R.' defires to be informed, which treatife on fhort-hand the Reviewers would recommend, as the moft easy and effectual for faithfully taking down oral eloquence, &c. --Were we to anfwer this enquiry, it would not only be quitting our professional line, but it might expofe us to the refentment of all thofe writers on the fubject, to whom the preference was not given.---We have many times, in our Notes to Correfpondents, requested our Readers to fpare themselves, and us, the trouble of inquiries of this mature, as we are determined never to expofe ourselves to the inconveniencies

16

veniences which might arife from our anfwering them.-Not to infist on the impropriety of fubjecting us to a tax, which no one hath a right to impofe.

The fame Correfpondent wishes to know, whether Dr. Wendeborn's publication [Vid. our Foreign Literature for Sept. last, p. 229] is tranflated into English.-We have not heard of any tranflation.He also recommends a new pamphlet on the unfitnefs of imprisonment for debt, as proper for our notice. We wish the gentleman had mentioned either the name of the author, or publisher: but our collector will enquire for it.-We acknowledge the politenefs of this unknown Letter-writer; and are forry that we cannot oblige him, with respect to the first object of his inquiry.

*

Although we are much pleased with, and obliged by, the friendly admonition contained in the Letter figned Candidus, we fcruple not to declare, to this refpectable Correfpondent, our firm affurance that, were we not more ufefully employed (as we truft we are, in the honeft and immediate discharge of the public duty in which we are engaged), we could'eafily, and fully, defend every fentiment to which he objects, in our account of Mr. Newton's Meffiah: but we have refolved to admit no religious controverfy into the Review, in which the Reviewers themfelves may be confidered as parties. We defire, however, that this Correfpondent, while he holds us excufed from all theological contention with him, will accept our kind acknowledgment of his truly candid letter.

ttt T. C.'s objection relates to Mr. Dawfon, and not us. As far as is confiftent with the limits of this work, we freely made our re marks on the tranflation of, what appears, a more material paffage than that relative to tithes, and which is equally inconfiftent with the account in the New Teftament: thofe remarks will apply to the other paragraph of which T. C. takes notice. By what art of construction the new tranflation can be reconciled with the account in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, we will not enquire. For this Mr. Dawfon is accountable. We will just add T. C.'s farther remark: However ingenious Mr. Dawson's criticisms may be, it fhould feem that they cannot be fupported without fuppofing a palpable contradiction in Holy Writ, rather than admit which, I doubt not he would give up his opinion of the paffage, even allowing that it might bear his interpretation. For our account of Mr. Dawson's tranflation of Genefis, fee Rev. for Aug. last, p. 140.

We have taken fome pains, in our researches concerning Quintus Sextius;-the refult will appear in our APPENDIX.-This to Clericus.

N. B. The Letters of fome other Correfpondents remain to be noticed in

our next.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For DECEMBER, 1787.

ART. I. Hiftorical Memoirs of the IRISH BARDS. Interfperfed with Anecdotes, and occafional Obfervations on the Music of IRELAND. Alfo an historical and defcriptive Account of the mufical Inftruments of the ancient Irish. And an Appendix, containing feveral Biographical and other Papers, with felect Irish Melodies. By Jofeph C. Walker, Member of the Royal Irish Academy. 4to. 13s. Boards. Payne, &c. 1786.

THE

HE prefent rage for antiquities in Ireland furpaffes that of any other nation in Europe. The Welsh, who have no contemptible opinion of the antiquity of their poetry and mufic, are left among the younger children of the earth, by Mr. Walker, and the writers of the COLLECTANEA DE REBUS HIBERNICIS. Indeed there is no antiquity fhort of the creation that can gratify these authors *. In the tenth year of the laft Belgic monarch, a colony, called by the Irifh Tuatha-de-Danan, of the pofterity of Nemedius, invaded and foon after fettled themselves in Ireland.' Now, we hope that every curious reader is well acquainted with this period and perfon; if not, we refer them to Warner's Hiftory of Ireland, vol. i. where they will find the firft mention of the Bardic profeffion. Mr. Walker, more modeftly, fupposes that the true ara of the orders of Druids and BARDS in Ireland, was the landing of the Milefians in that kingdom.This is evident from tradition.-Yet our hiftorians obferve a profound filence (fays the Author) with refpect to the Bards,' till Tighernmas fucceeded to the monarchy, anno mundi 2815. This, our Readers will doubtlefs recollect, was during the middle of the fiege of Troy.

Mr. W. fays, it is the fashion of the day to queftion the an tiquity of Irish MSS.;' and we fee plainly, in England, that it

*It is left to the learned in Bulls, not of the name of JoHN, to determine, whether the Author of Memoirs of Irish Bards, and Irish Music of remote antiquity, as well as of the inftruments of the ancient Irish, can without a folecifm fay, that his work has novelty to recommend it.' Vide Pref.

is the fashion of the day to give them an antiquity and a credence, in Ireland, that we are unable to allow. If the Irish afk too much respect and reverence for these fables, the English will certainly give them too little.

"

Mr. (not Dr.) T. Warton deduces the Bardic inftitution from the Eaft. And Colonel Vallancey fays, that all that was brought into Ireland by the Milefians" has an Oriental origin." Traditions are given as evidences that "the arts of poetry and mufic obtained among the Milefians both before and after their arrival in Ireland." After this we have all the wild and conjectural rites of Druidical colleges and inftitutions of immemorable periods.' Then the fcattered fragments concerning the difcipline and function of Bards are fcrupuloufly collected from the poets, and given as "confirmations ftrong as proofs of holy writ:" the Author indifcriminately fweeping into his Bardic or Poet's corner whatever he can find, be it trae or falfe, probable or improbable. Even the nonfenfe of the Abbé du Bos has not escaped his broom. The Abbé had no doubt but that the ancients accompanied finging and declamation with a basse continue, or thorough bass! So that, befide the difficulty of tranflating and of afcertaining the antiquity of thefe poetical Irish witnesses, the Author's materials for filling a large book being scanty, they have been eked out with the dry, formal compliments to friends, and the parade of great reading, difplayed in the notes, with the pomp and liberality of a German commentator. Even the common-place incredulity of Horace, Credat Judæus, Appella, which would have been an excellent motto for the title-page, has the fpace of three lines allowed to it in the text, with a whole line in the notes for the learned reference of Hor. lib. i. fat. 5. But notwithstanding these innumerable proofs of the Author's acquaintance with books in all the living as well as dead languages, they only remind us that he is a young book-maker, and has not yet read enough to know what has been already often quoted, and what is ftill worthy of a place in a new book written with tafte and elegance.

The drefs of the Irish Bards has been thought as worthy of inquiry and differtation as the wardrobe of an Afiatic prince, or European Damer; as if the luxury of truife, or hoes, was ever known to a wild Irish minftrel.

Next to that, in tracing the extreme antiquity, and folemn use of the Irish Howl, or CAOINE, the death fong, the Conclamatio, Hullaloo, Anglicè Hullabaloo (we fuppofe), the appearance of immenfe learning has been expended.

Bardeffes were not to be found in all thefe enquiries; but the Reader is made ample amends by an account of the melting

* See p. 16, et seq.

sweetness