logy, and phyfiology, are misplaced in a work of which the profeffed object is an examination of the grounds and principles of civil hiftory; but with these gentlemen's permission, we beg leave to affirm, that this is not the whole of Herder's object, which comprehends, as well the natural as the civil history of man. The fpeculations, however, are certainly mifplaced, and would have been fo in any work; for they are a farrago of impious abfurdities, for which we are aware of no proper place. But the Reviewers have no unfa vourable opinion of the fpeculations themfelves, and only regret that they are out of place. "The cofinogony of Herder," fay they, "is built on a competent knowledge of facts developed by preceding writers;" and it must be confeffed, that he himself refers to BOYLE, BOERHAAVE, HALES, S. GRAVESENDE, FRANKLIN, PRIESTLEY, BLACK, CRAWFORD, &c. for many discoveries made on heat and cold, on electricity, and on air; but who, that has ever looked into the works of thefe eminent philofophers, can need to be told that, as their difcovered facts bear not the flighteft refemblance to his, they can afford no fupport to his airy theories. BLACK, we may venture to say, would have thought of his theories with contempt, and BOYLE with abhorrence. "But the author," continues the Reviewer, "fhews a vividness of imagination and ingenuity, which is requifite in a conftructor of theorics." If by ingenuity and vividnefs of imagination, be meant verbositj, ambiguity, and an intricate arrangement of words and fentences, Herder certainly difplays thefe qualities in a fuperlative degree; and there can be no doubt but fuch qualities are requifite in a conftructor of theories, which be ing, for the most part, nonsensical fictions, would have no charms if exposed to view in their own hideous nakedness. "Some theologians," fays the Reviewer, " may probably accufe the author of being unfriendly to theifm, because he afcribes more effect to phyfical agency than divines have ufually allotted." He does not directly so state it, but it would SEEM that he confidered vegetables, animals, and even men, in their first formation, as refulting from natural proceffes, as effects arifing out of the course of nature at a particular crifis: but he may fay that this is by no means excluding a creator from the univerfe; for who endued nature with these fublime generative powers, and who fixed the epoch at which they were to operate?" 66 True, he may fay all this; but who will believe him, after he has taught us that his organic powers are ETERNAL; that they are INDWELLING ORGA NIC OMNIPOTENCE;" and that "in the kingdom of fupreme wisdom and goodness every thing is connected, and power acts on power in ONE ETERNAL CHAIN?" Herder's fyftem, as far as it is intelligible, is nothing else than the antient PANTHEISM; and we fhould as foon fay "it would SEEM that the monthly Reviewers mete with the fame measure to Chriftians and infidels," as that "it would SEEM that the late fuperintendant of the clergy of Weimar believed in God as the MORAL Governor of the univerfe!" "The notions of an immortal foul," fays the Reviewer," and of an endlefs happy exiftence, have often called forth fine and animating declamation; and that which we have perufed in these pages has not often been excelled." Indeed! Our readers have got a large fpecimen of this declamation, which was not vouchfafed to the readers of the Monthly Review, the limits of that publication having " obliged the Reviewer to resist all inclination to extract any specimen of it" and if it animate them, we fhall certainly be furprized. Why fo, may the Reviewer atk ? "The "The author's hypothefis may be faid to be free from fome of the objections to which fpiritualism is liable; and to avoid the languor and frigidity attaching to the fyftem of modern materialifm, which reprefents the mind as in a state of annihilation for an undefined period, namely, that which intervenes between death and the general refurrection: but it may be asked, why, when the matter of the organs crumbles, fhould not the powers diffipate; why thould not the coherence of the latter cease, when that of the former terminates; why, when the body perithes, should not the powers merge in the vast reservoir from which they were taken; or, in the language of ancient philofophy, why does not the foul unite with that univerial fpirit, the anima mundi, of which it originally formed a part? We cannot, therefore, difcover that this fyftem is on the whole more fatisfactory than those which it would fuper ede?" Pray, Sir, is it equally fatisfactory with the fyftem of the GOSPEL which is certainly one of thofe that it would utterly fuperfede? The origin of death, and the doctrine of redemption, as taught in the Old and New Teftaments are altogether irreconcileable with the dreams of Herder; and yet it might here become a Chriftian critic to compare the theory of a Lutheran bishop with these two fundamental articles of the Chriftian faith, as well as with the opinions of CLARKE and PRIESTLEY. But we will go a fiep farther, and affirm, that it is much less fatisfactory than either of thofe opinions. With refpect to the opinion of Clarké compared with that of Herder, there can be no controverly among thinking men; and even the doctrine of Priestley, when taken entire, is infinitely more comfortable than the ravings of this oracle of Weimar, of who'e friendship fome of our Prefbyterian divines have been wont to boaft of as of their greatest honor! Pieftley fuppofes that the original ftamina of each man, though material, remains unchanged, without being affimilated with the matter either of other animals or of vegetables; and that when new matter fhall be added to thefe stamina, and properly organized at the last day, the man will rife the same perion that he was in this world, with bodily organs, of which the matter was perpetually changing. If this doctrine could be believed, there would be in it nothing uncomfortable; for thefe metaphyfical nurflings know, or ought to know, that time unperceived is of no duration; and that though a million of years fhould intervene between death and the refurrection, the mind when it shall wake (for it is not annihilated) will appear to itself to have slept but one inftant. Upon this hypothefis then, which affuredly is not ours, a future state of retribution may be confidently expected by him who believes in the resurrection of the body, and man muft ftill confider himself as under the moral government of God; but on the hypothefis of Herder, there is no moral government of God, and a future ftate of retribution is utterly impoffible. Since power acts on power in one eternal chain, the powers which at prefent animate us, when they pals into new organs and another state, will have as little remembrance of what they did or fuffered in human organs, as they now have of what they did or fuffered in the organs of plants and oxen. The Reviewer fays, that in this part of the work " he meets with practical inferences, and eloquent apoftrophes." The eloquence is not very brilliant, but the practical inference is most obvious; for he, who cordially embraces this theory of immortality, must perceive that he is under no moral restraint whatever. Much, however, as we abhor fuch impious abfurdities, we are ftrongly inclined to hope with the tranflator, that no Englishman will attentively read this part of thefe outlines of the philofophy of bistory," without being able to fay, that he is a happier and a better man." Much of human goodness, and almoft the whole of human happiness, confift in being content with the ftate in which Providence has placed each individual; and he, who reflects that the author of this nonfenfe was fuperintendant of the clergy of a Proteftant ftate, efteemed and careffed at the court of his Sovereign, must have a head and heart fingularly formed, if he feel not a glow of gratitude more than ufually warm to that Providence which hath placed him in the British empire, and in the bofom of the Church of England. (To be continued.) Y SIR, TO THE EDITOR. YOU have lately opened ftrong, well appointed, and well ferved bat teries against a fortress that Jacobinifm has recently conftructed, and given to it the name of the Edinburgh Review. The directors of that work by no means acknowledge that it is devoted to the fervice of Jacobinilin: no, that would not at present anfwer the purpofe; they muft not, if they would be read, fpeak in the open ftyle of their friend Paine, or the Analytical Review. The democratic and diffenting tribe now make high pretenfions to loyalty,, and under that mask can more fecurely attack_its real friends and fupporters. From the profeffions of the Edinburgh Reviewers, and alfo from my thorough knowledge, that all the able literary men of the Scottish metropolis are warm friends to the King and Conftitution, I entertained hopes it might add to the number of valuable works. But in the very first number I obferved many strong objections, which I fhall not particularize, as the work is in your much abler hands. Indeed had I read no other part of the Edinburgh Review than the article in number three on the account of the Egyptian expedition, I should have been perfectly fatisfied concerning its fpirit and wilhes. The great object of the criticifm is to fupport Reynier's account, which, with fuch grofs and impudent falihood, denies all military merit to the troops of his Britannic Majefty. I could not, and never can think, that the Edinburgh Reviewers, tarnishing to the utmost of their power the atchievements of British heroifm, are really the votaries of loyalty and patriotism. They are not fatisfied with reviling the foldiers who were employed in that expedition, but the calumny extended, and ftill extends to all British foldiers. The reviewer, in the face of our victories, and the complete atchievement of our purpose, affumes that we did not effect our object, and in his candour pretends to apologize for the failure., "The English expedition (he fays) was oppofed to their immortals, to troops covered with trophies and fears, who in every new climate had breathed the fame courage-who had triumphed alike over the tactics of Europe, and the furious crowds of the East. We were upon an element not natural to us; unfkilful, because we were without experience; and unexperienced, becaufe we had no opportunity of improvement. The whole bent of our genius, our refources, and our pride, is turned to another (pecies of glory. In that war we were, and in every war we are, not foldiers but difembarked mariners, dragged out of our fhips to effect a particular object; doubtful creatures, hardly sure of our feet, and exposed to all the inconvenience of amphibious aukwardness." Such is the language that this Edinburgh Review dares to ufe refpecting the heroes that fought under Abercrombie Abercrombie and the whole British army. To adduce inftances to prove that British foldiers are not fuch doubtful, helplefs, and awkward creatures as this slanderer reprefents them, would be merely to repeat the moft ftriking and fplendid facts that are recorded in military hiftory, Will our gallant army tuffer fuch calumny? Will the friends of the British army fuffer their valiant defenders to be so ignominiously branded? The reviewing calumniator well deferves that every officer in the service should join in reprobating a production which has tradused the whole military body. I fhould not, indeed, have been furp ized if a motion had been made in the various regiments that none belonging to them should countenance the EDINBURGH REVIEW WHICH DEF MES THE ARMY. Other loyal and patriotic Britons would readily join in proscribing the Edinburgh Review as a vehicle of such false and malignant abuse against the troops of their country; and if thefe critics had the fcope of their criticilm properly exposed, I have that opinion of the difcrimination, principles, and tentiments of the bulk of our countrymen, that I am convinced the Edinburgh Review would foon follow the fate of the Analytical, and other productions which were adverse to their country; and, I trust, that as one of the firft glories of the Anti-Jacobin Review was to filence the Analytical, it will be equally fuccessful in filencing the Edinburgh, which croaks the fame tune, though in a different key. No part of his Majefty's fubjects can be more loyal and patriotic than the great majority of the city of Edinburgh, and none, if the cale were properly impreffed upon them, would more readily join in discountenancing fuch calumny than the moft relpectable citizens and bodies of this metropolis. Thefe all admire your Anti-Jacobin-I truft from it they will receive a full expofure of a publication which will certainly ceafe to be current as foon as its fcope and tendency are pointed out. As the object of the Edinburgh Review is the depreciation of whatever tends to elevate, or to support our country, a natural and obvious branch of their plan is, to vilify every writer who fupports conftitutional loyalty, patriotiin, and order. The mode of execution it varies, but molt frequently affumes the appearance of friendly coincidence. The kind of warfare, however, that it employs against the friends of their king and country, in reviewing their works, I thall, for the prefent, content myfelf with illuftrating in one inftance-The review of a poem entitled, "The Defence of Order." In the first paragraph, the critic exprelles his fatisfaction with the political principles of the poem. This furprized me exceedingly, for the evident fpite and malignity which runs through the whole of his ironical attempt, gives him all the appearance of one who is fore befet in an argu} ment on politics, and who takes refuge in miltatement, milquotation, and falfhood. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that there may be fome small difference in political opinion between the poem and the critic; but admitting that there is none, and that the paflions of the latter have been irritated only by the lame execution of the former, and by his terror, left fome unworthy foot thould trespats on that Parnaffus, of which he has named himfeif the guardian, let us try to weigh the merit of his animadverfion. His next paragraph implies that the language of the poem is ungrammatical; but, in his heat and agitation, he forgets to cite any examples, which certainly does not add to the credibility of fuch an affertion. He fubjoips a lift of obfcure pallages; and although thefe chiefly confift of detached parts of a train of thought, which, like half fentences, might be made to appear abundantly nonfenfical, I own I felt no fuch labour as the critic Fe 3 feems feems to have suffered, in catching the author's meaning. Of the paffages quoted as ludicrous, but at which I never thought of laughing, till directed by the critic to do fo, I found only one materially objectionable. Unfortunately, however, for the candour and the credit of this Review, it does not exift in the poem, and yet my edition is the fame with that which is specified as under examination. But this is not only the pious fraud into which the indignation of the critic has betrayed him. He fays Lord Nelfon is compared to a small crofs. This is falfe. He fays Lieutenant Price is compared to a bomb. This is falfe. He fays (if any meaning can be extracted from the obfcurity of his wit,) that the conduct of Lord Duncan, at Camperdown, is compared with that of Leonidas at Thermopylæ. This too is falfe. With equal contempt of truth, he fays, that the perfon to whom the poem is dedicated, is reprefented as relieving the poor of the parish, instead of the people of a country, thus unfairly trying to reduce a very fplendid to a very ordinary act of munificence. He fays, further, that the author thinks himself dealing out immortality; an inference which his fingular logic probably drew from the following lines, "Yet far from him the raflı abortive aim, In dying verfe to embalm a deathless name: And he, by chufing an immortal theme, Thus, in feven pages, we have fix deliberate falfhoods; and are these the critics to whom the public truft for a faithful account of new productions? The Reviewer next complains that the author has praised obfcure characters, because living in his own neighbourhood (Perthshire). How the captor of Malta, and the victor of Camperdown, are to be included in the clafs of obscure men, it is for the fagacity of the critic to explain. If, in a poem of two thoufand lines, and compofed, as it must have been, during the fhort period of our fugitive peace, there be no worfe rhymes than thofe which the critic has quoted as the worst, it is certainly giving it no small praife. An Edinburgh Reviewer, I think, ought to know that "claim" forms a perfect rhyme with " 'Graham," unless he chufes to affert that a Scotch name fhould not be pronounced as it is in Scotland. On the whole, it appears, that though entertaining the same political sentiments with the author, he was as willing to do the poem all the mifchief in his power, as if this had not been the cafe; but, finding a fair examination of it not favourable to his views, he was driven to milreprefentation, and to that fpecies of irony which is a teftimony of difpofition, not of talents; which is too easy for genius, and too mean for generofity to employ; but into which human weakness, particularly when feconded by concealment, is too apt to fall. I have heard this poem praifed by men as good, and almoft as wife as the critic himfelf, but the greateft compliment it has yet received, is the anger of the Edinburgh Reviewers. Such difengenuous and fraudulent artifices muft proceed from a defign of mifrepresenting; and, as the attempted ftrictures, ferious and jocular, are levelled, without exception, againft paffages conducive to the juft praises of the conftitution, and the chief champions of the country, we may very fairly conclude that it is this tendency which makes them reprobate it by the Edinburgh Review. If the critic merely wished to cenfure literary faults, |