and imperfections which he fays Mr. K. obferved, (during his refidence abroad) in that gentleman's grand English dictionary: fo numerous, indeed, and fo important, in the Reviewer's eftimation, that he thought the honour of literature, and of his country called upon him to take every proper occafion of fpeaking of them as they deferved."

Having, fays our Author, been fo egregioufly disappointed, as to the philological abilities of Dr. J. the Reviewer's expectations were greatly lowered from the height to which they had been raised, with regard to his proposed edition of our incomparable poet. His enthufiaftic veneration for Shakespeare, however, it is added, could not be reftrained within the bounds of filence, on finding this Editor had taken every opportunity to depreciate the merit of that incomparable bard; on whom Dr. J. hath, in repeated inftances, (as is fhewn in Mr. Kenrick's Review) endeavoured to fix the charge of in capacity, folly, vulgarity, immorality, and impiety."

To aggravate all this, adds Mr. R. R. Dr. J. falls with equal violence on the only commentator on Shakespeare, that, by his own confeffion, hath acquitted himfelf with reputation; charging him with weakness, ignorance, meanness, faithlessness, petulance and oftentation.'

Here our Author would have us draw the parallel. • Thofe, fays he, who complain of Mr. K's feverity, and charge him with fcurrility, ill-manners, and abuse, would do well to look through his work, and fee if they can find any paffage wherein he hath called Dr. Johnfon mean, faithlefs, immoral, or impious."

In his third fection, the attack on Dr. J. is carried farther than it was in Mr. K's Review; for here is an implied charge, from which he would feem to have it inferred, that the Editor of Shakespeare had formerly taken fome invidious steps, toward depreciating the merit of other great poets, the ornaments of English literature: particularly with regard to Lauder's infamous attempt to defame the excellent Author of PARADISE LOST. Dr. J. is here reprefented as the encourager of that execrable attempt; and a query is put, in which it is demanded, who actually wrote Lauder's pamphlet against MILTON? The Dr. is likewife taxed with endeavouring to lefen the poetical reputation of Mr. Pope, by carping criticifims on fome of the moft admired paffages of his writings. From thefe charges it is. hoped, Dr. J. will be fully vindicated, by himself, or by fuch of his friends to whom it may be best known whether there is any foundation for them, or not.

In his fourth fection, wherein this queftion is difcuffed, whether Dr. J. deferves the treatment he hath received, and how: far Mr. K. is excufable in having fo treated him? We have

the

the following juft conceffion: If the Reviewer, in the height of his zeal for the honour of Shakespeare, hath given too great a loose to his paffions, and hath expreffed himself unbecoming a scholar and a gentleman, he hath in fo doing, injured his own reputation more than he hath done that of Dr. J. Nor is it, adds our Author, any juftification of Mr. K's feurility to fay it is a degree lefs fcurrilous than that of the Doctor's J-n or W- -n.'-We believe moft of Mr. K's friends will fully acquiefce in the juftnefs of the above remark. Mr. R. R. however, endeavours to palliate this matter.

If their fault lays he, however, be no juftification of his, it is fome excufe for the latter that it appears to be the natural effect of a refentment excited by nobler and lefs interefted motives.

To attack a man, in the warmth of refentment, however rudely, who is alive and able to defend himself, is certainly lefs exceptionable, in point of honour and fpirit at leaft, than a premeditated defign, conceived and executed in cold blood, to ftrip the dead of thofe honours which fucceffive ages had beftowed on their memory.

It is to be observed alfo, that it is not very eafy for men of warm paffions, when affected with their fubject, to express their refentment in terms always confiftent with the common forms of politenefs. Experience fufficiently evinces this, as we may be convinced by turning to almost any polemic writings, even on thofe fubjects which in a peculiar manner require the appearance at least of the highest degree of temper and benevolence.'

In this fection alfo, we have an apology for a flip of Mr. K's pen, which has been cenfured as the moft illiberal ftroke in his whole Review: "[his waving noddle,] &c."

There is one circumstance, indeed, fays the defender of Mr. K. in which the Reviewer feems juftly to have incurred the cenfure of impolitenefs and want of urbanity. This is the reflection he hath made on a certain natural infirmity of Dr. J. In answer to this charge, however, it is to be observed, that Mr. K. being perfonally a ftranger to the Doctor, and having formed the ideas of his character purely on the reprefentations of the Doctor's friends, he really miftook that infirmity for an affected habit; as thofe very friends, in repeating Dr. J's bons mots, conftantly made ufe of the fame habit or infirmity to heighten the joke; and therefore may be as juftly faid to have ridiculed it themselves, as it is pretended Mr. K. has done. Nay, the Doctor's acquaintance are ftill more inexcufable, as they must be fuppofed to have known the real fate of the cafe, and ought not to have given occafion for fuch a mistake, in a writer who is matter of fufficient acrimony of ftile, without

defcending

defcending to ridicule perfonal effects, which he never could conceive to be ridiculous.'

We shall avoid entering into the points contested between Mr. R. R. and the feveral critics on Mr. K's Review; giving up, for the fake of brevity, even the particulars objected to our own article, relating to that work. What we have faid is before the public; and it is not our custom to entertain our Readers with altercations concerning ourselves.

There are fome lively and fenfible obfervations in the section. relating to the modefty of men of letters ;' and in that which treats on literary knowlege, with fome remarks on ignorance and inattention; the Author ftill bears, with all his weight, on the Editor of Shakespeare: concluding in the following

manner:

The late Mr. Fielding, speaking fomewhere of those gentlemen, who had tied themfelves up, as it was then called, from fubfcribing to works of genius and literature, expreffes his refentment against them, by faying, it is a pity they were not tied up in good earneft; but what do those Authors deserve, who firft gave occafion for people entering into fuch illiberal engagements?

And what doth Dr. J. in particular deferve, for having obtruded on the world the worst Commentary on Shakespeare that ever appeared? and, at the fame time, for having, by his procraftination and neglect, fo effectually difgufted the public with editors and fubfcriptions, that it is prefumed the ableft commentator in the kingdom would find little encouragement for a fimilar undertaking?-Here is, perhaps, a difcovery of at least one cause of Mr. Kenrick's enmity towards Dr. J. The Writings of Shakespeare, it feems, have been many years the favourite object of Mr. K's reading and ftudy;-how if he hath long fince accumulated materials for an Edition of Shakespeare?" But, alas! General Johnson food in his path; to borrow a figure from Mr. K's friends the Cherokees: and though it may now be faid, the enemy hath at length retired, yet what availeth it to Mr. K. if, to prevent being followed, they have spoiled the roads, and broken down the bridges after them?

Mofes and Bolingbroke: A dialogue, in the manner of the right hon. *******, author of Dialogues of the Dead. By Samuel Pye, M. D. 4to. 3 s. Sandby.

WE

E have here a fairer, more rational, and, we believe, a more effectual method of defending the character and writings of Mofes, than that of a King's bench prosecution,

with all its train of fines, imptifonments, and corporal fufferings. Argument may perfuade, while authority threatens in vain; and truth will convince and reclaim, while the magiftrate. inflicts penalties and punishments, without the power of converfion. Hence the pilloried At ftill lives, the I-he was, before his fufferings; and only thinks fo much the worfe of the Jewish lawgiver, for his having fo many friends in Weftminfter Hall.

In our author's introductory difcourfe, he thus opens the defign of this new Dialogue of the Dead: If Mofes (fays he). was not an infpired writer, he must have been an Imposter.-How long fhall we halt between two opinions!If he was really fent with a meffage from heaven, it must have been of the highest confequence to mankind :-Let us then receive him. But if, like. "other legiflators, he has imposed a revelation he knew to be false," let us, in the name of God, reject him.

'Once more, then, let his pretenfions be examined; but examined thoroughly. Let his credentials be infpected, but more narrowly than ever: for if he was, indeed, the amanuenfis of the Creator, when he writ the book of Genefis, or, at leaft, the first chapters of it †, the Divine Author must have ftamped those first chapters, at leaft, with fignatures, of fuch fublimity and majefty, as may be fufficient to fatisfy us, of their authenticity, who know nothing of the meeknefs, or the miracles, of the writer, but from his own pen :-He was no cotemporary author ‡." His pretenfions have been examined, and re-examined, times without number and his credentials, for want of proper and expli cit proofs of their authenticity, have been as often rejected."

'It is natural to ask, Can nothing be done to remove this scandal, by putting an end to this perpetuated, and fruitless conteft?I will prefume to anfwer, Nothing; unless the Mofaic account of creation could be made intelligible; unless it could be rendered worthy of Mofes-worthy of God. Nor can this be effected, but by Mofes himself. For, though a second book of Genefis, fhould be published to the world, in vindica

"Zoroafter, Zamolxis, Minos, Charondas, Numa, and Pythagoras, I need mention no more, for I will not offend by adding Mofes to the catalogue; -Thefe men impofed revelations they knew to be falfe."--Bolingbroke's pofthumous works, Vol. I. p. 307. 8vo edit.

"It will be asked, what materials Mofes could have before him when he writ the book of Genefis,-or, at leaft, the first chapters of it, wherein he relates moft circumftantially, the creation of the world, and the whole progrefs of that great event." Bolin. Vol. V. p. 335.

"To conftitute the authenticity of any hiftory-it must be writ by a cotemporary author, or by one who had cotemporary materials in his hands." Bolin. Vol. V. p. 337.

REV. Jan. 1766.

E

tion

tion of the honour of Him, who made the heavens and the earth of Mofes, it would meet with no more credit, in this refined age, than the firft; nor would he be believed, though Moses fhould rife from the dead.

"Let us take things then as we find them, more curious to know what is, than to imagine what may be ."-" Shall we take things then as we find them, in the book of Genefis; and leave Mofes, to be judge in his own caufe ?"—'Tis not the cause of Mofes, but of God. The teftimony of Mofes, in fo-long depending a caufe, is all we want.. "The tefti

mony of one accufed of impofture, will not eafily be admitted in any cause."Be it fo;-but let not Britons be lefs generous than Romans; "They never condemned a man, before he that was accused, had the accufers face to face, and had licence to answer for himfelf, concerning the crime laid against him." Before, therefore, Mofes is profcribed as an impoftor, let him be heard. And, to do his accufers justice, let them have equal liberty: let them-let the late admired lord Bolingbroke, in their name, have free liberty to "speak out, and to push the inftances and arguments they bring, as far as they can be carried;-Let him employ all his ftrength t. +."

For, fince eminent writers, though dead, yet live, in their works; (Mofes, in his Pentateuch, and Bolingbroke, in his, will live for ever,) there will be no difficulty in bringing these remarkable perfonages together, and giving them a fair hearing. Let their works then, fupply the place of the authors; and if their fentiments are taken from their respective writings, it will be as easy to present their true characters, to the public, as it would be to produce their perfons, in open court, if they were living, and cotemporary writers.Mofes will speak for himfelf. Bolingbroke needs no commentator.'

Such is the general view of our author's scheme, in which he has candidly supported the part of the late noble and ingenious Sceptic, by fair extracts from his lordship's philofophical writings: for of fuch only do the arguments of lord B. confift, in this post-existent conteft with the illuftrious Hebrew. With respect to the part of Mofes, it is alfo very well fuftained, fo far as the argument goes; which does not extend fo much to the

Bolingbroke, Vol. IV. p. 1.

*Acts xxv. 16.

"Another caution is, that they [our divines] fhould make war rather defenfively than offenfively; that they fhould take the only true advantage of the difcretion of their adverfaries, which would be to return it with difcretion: for their adverfaries feldom freak out, nor push the instances and arguments they bring, as far as they might be carried. Inflead of which thefe orthodox bullies affect to triumph over men who employ but a part of their Arength." Bolingbroke, Vol. V. p. 335.

profs