But I doubt, whether any man understands it at all. For it is so dark and indeterminate, that I have not found any two persons in England, who understand it alike. I thought, if any man living understood Behmen, Mr. Law did. "No, (says one who has been studying him these forty years,) Mr. Law never understood a page of him."

IV. The whole of Behmenism, including both phrase and sense, is useless. It stuns and astonishes its admirers. It fills their heads; but it does not change their hearts. It makes no eminent Christians. For many years I have diligently inquired, concerning the grand patrons of it. And I have found none of them who were burning and shining lights; none who adorned the doctrine of God our Saviour.

V. But it is not barely useless: it is mischievous and that in a high degree. For it strikes at the root of both internal and external religion, (suppose Mr. Law understood it,) by sapping the foundation of Justification by Faith. For Jacob affirms, "God was never angry at sinners." But if so, he was never reconciled to them. His wrath was never turned away, if it never existed. And admitting this, there is no place for justification: nor consequently, for faith in a pardoning God, which is the root of both inward and outward holi

ness.

More particularly it strikes at the root of humility, tending to make men admire themselves, and despise others. Never was a more melancholy proof of this than Mr. Law, who seriously believed himself the most knowing man in the kingdom, and despised all that contradicted him, even in the tenderest manner, as the mire in the streets. It strikes at the root of charity, inspiring into its strictest votaries deep censoriousness toward the world in general, and an inexpressible bitterness toward all who do not receive their new Apestle. This may be observed, in all the Authors of the Memoirs, though, in other respects, good men; and in all have conversed with in my life who were thorough Behmenists.

Above all, it strikes at the root of external religion, by destroying zeal for good works: by laying little stress on either works of piety or mercy, and still less, upon Christian society: it particularly tends to make all men of sense and learning bury their talent in the earth, the natural effect of continually declaiming, in a loose and indiscriminate manner against reason and learning.

It strikes at the root of all revealed religion, by making men think meanly of the Bible: a natural effect of thinking Behmen more highly illuminated than any or all of the apostles. So Mr. S. frankly acknowledged, "While I admired him, I though St. Paul and St. John very mean writers."

Indeed it quite spoils the taste for plain, simple religion, such as that of the Bible is, and gives a false taste, which can relish nothing so well, as high, obscure, unintelligible jargon.

December 22, 1780.

THOUGHTS UPON BARON MONTESQUIEU'S SPIRIT OF LAWS.

1. AS some of my friends desire I would give them my thoughts on "The Spirit of Laws," I do it willingly, and in the plainest manner I can; that if I am wrong, I may be the sooner set right. I undertook the reading of it with huge expectation, hoping to find an invaluable treasure; as the author is seldom spoken of, but as the phoenix of the age, a prodigy of understanding, and the book is every where spoken of, as the highest effort of genius that ever was. Accordingly, as late as it has appeared in an English dress, it is already come to the eleventh edition. And who knows, but in a few years more, it may come to the two and twentieth ?

2. Yet I cannot but observe, that in several places the translator does not seem to understand the original: that there is in the last London edition, a great number of typographical errors: and that, not in a few places, either the translator or the printer has made absolute nonsense.

3. But whence is it, that such a multitude of people, so hugely admire, and highly applaud this treatise? Perhaps nine in ten of them do this, because others do: they follow the cry, without why or wherefore. They follow one another like a flock of sheep; they run on, because many run before them. It is quite the fashion: and who would be out of the fashion? As well be out of the world. Not that one half of these have read the book over; nor does one in ten of them understand it. But it is enough that "every one commends it. And why should not I too?" Especially, as he seems greatly to admire himself; and, upon occasion, to commend himself too though in a modest, decent way; not in that fulsome manner, which is common among modern writers.

4. Others admire him because of his vast learning, testified by the ni merous books he refers to: and yet others, because he is no bigot to Christianity, because he is a free and liberal thinker. I doubt whether many gentlemen do not admire him on this account, more than all the others put together: and the rather, because he does not openly attack the religion of his country, but wraps up, in the most neat and decent language, the remarks which strike at the root of it.

5. But it cannot be denied, that he deserves our commendation upon several accounts. He has an extremely fine imagination, and no small degree of understanding. His style is lively and even under the disadvantage of a translation, terse, and elegant. Add to this, that he has many remarks, which I suppose are perfectly his own: at least, I never remember to have seen them, in any either ancient or modern writer. Now when all these things are considered, is it any wonder that he should be received with so high and general applause?

6. "Why then do not you concur with the general voice? Why do not you pay him the same admiration?" Without any preface or apology, I will tell you my reasons. And then let you or any candid

man, judge whether they are not sufficient.

I do not greatly admire him, 1. Because so large a part of his book, I believe little less than half of it, is dry, dull, unaffecting and unentertaining at least to all but Frenchmen. What have I, or any Briton to do, with the petty changes in the French government? What have we to do with a long, tedious detail, of the old, obsolete feudal laws? Over and above, that we cannot find any use therein, that the knowledge of these things answers no one reasonable purpose, it touches none of the passions: it gives no pleasure, no entertainment to the thinking mind. It is heavy and tedious to the last degree. It is as insipid as the travels of Thomas Coryatt.

7. I do not admire him, 2. Because I think, he makes very many remarks that are not just, and because he gives us many assertions, which are not true. But all these he pronounces as ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility: as though he were the dictator not only of France, but of Europe; as though he expected all men to bow before him.

:

8. But what I least of all admire is, his laying hold on every opportunity to depreciate the inspired writers-Moses in particular. Indeed here his prudence and decency seem to fail him, and he speaks of the Jewish lawgiver with as little respect or reserve, as he would of Lycurgus, Romulus, or Numa Pompilius.

9. These are some of the reflections which readily occurred to me, from a cursory reading of this celebrated Author. I add but one more, What is the meaning of his title-page? I am afraid of stumbling at the threshold. What does he mean by "The Spirit of Laws?" After reading the whole book, I really do not know. The words give me no idea at all. And the more I study, the less I comprehend them. The author never defines them at all. I verily believe, he did not comprehend them himself. I believe he had no clear or determinate ideas affixed to those words. And was he not likely, when he set out with his head in a mist, to go on in a wonderful manner? Other talents he undoubtedly had but two he wanted, Religion and Logic. Therefore he ought to be read warily by those who are not well grounded in both.

10. Upon the whole, I think Baron Montesquieu was wholly unworthy of the violent encomiums which have been bestowed upon him. I think he excelled in imagination, but not in judgment, any more than in solid learning. I think, in a word, that he was a child to Monsieur Pascal, Father Malebranche, or Mr. Locke.

THOUGHTS ON THE CHARACTER AND WRITINGS OF MR. PRIOR.

1. A VERY ingenious writer has lately given us a particular account of the character and works of Mr. Prior. But it was not likely to be a just one, as he formed it chiefly on the testimony of very suspicious witnesses. I mean Mr. Pope, and Mr. Spence: I object both to one and the other. They depreciated him, to exalt themselves. They viewed him with no friendly eye; looking upon him, (particularly Mr. Pope,) as a rival: whom, therefore, they rejoiced to depress.

2. Mr. Pope gives it as his opinion, That "he was fit only to make verses." What can be more unjust? He was fit for transactions of the most difficult and delicate nature. Accordingly he was intrusted with them at Paris, and acquitted himself to the full satisfaction of his employers. He was really fit for every thing; for writing either in verse or prose; for conversation, and for either public or private business.

3. But Mr. Spence says, "His life was irregular, negligent, and sensual. He descended to the meanest company. The woman with whom he cohabited was a despicable drab of the lowest species. One of his wenches, perhaps Chloe, stole his plate and ran away with it."

I do not believe one word of this: although I was often in his neighbourhood, I never heard a word of it before. It carries no face of probability. Would Bishop Atterbury have kept up an acquaintance with a man of such a character? Would that accomplished nobleman, the then Earl of Oxford, have given him a place even in his friendship? I am well assured, my eldest Brother would have had no acquaintance with him, had he been such a wretch as Mr. Spence describes.

4. Others say, "His Chloe was ideal." I know the contrary. I have heard my eldest Brother say, Her name was Miss Taylor, that he knew her well: and that she once came to him (in Dean's Yard, Westminster,) purposely to ask his advice. She told him, "Sir, I know not what to do. Mr. Prior makes large professions of his love: but he never offers me marriage." My Brother advised her to bring the matter to a point at once. She went directly to Mr. Prior, and asked him plainly, " Do you intend to marry me, or not?" He said many soft and pretty things; on which she said, "Sir, in refusing to answer, you do answer. I will see you no more.' she did see him no more to the day of his death. But afterwards she spent many hours, standing and weeping at his tomb in Westminster Abbey.

And

5. As to his Writings, I cannot but think Mr. Prior had not only more learning, but a stronger natural understanding, than Mr. Pope. But this is the less observable, because Mr. Prior always wrote, curVOL. 10-Q

rente calamo, having little time to correct any thing. Whereas Mr.
Pope laboured every line, and polished it with the utmost exactness.
Prior's praise is by no means "that of correctness.”
He has many
unpolished, hasty, half-formed lines, which he would not (or did not)
take the pains to correct. I can, therefore, by no means subscribe
to that sentence, "What he obtains above mediocrity, seems to be
the effort of struggle and travail." Surely not. What he frequently
obtains, as far above Pope's Messiah, as that is above Quarle's Em-
blems, seems to be the effort of a genius not inferior in strength to
any beside Milton. But "his words are put by constraint into their
places, where they do their duty, but do it sullenly." Nay I reply,
most of his words are so natural and unconstrained, as even those
of Waller: though they would certainly have done their duty better,
had he taken more pains with them. "He extends his sense from
one couplet to another; but without success." I think with great
success. I will give the first instance that occurs to my memory:

"Happiness, object of that waking dream,
Which we call life, mistaking; fugitive theme
Of my pursuing verse; ideal shade,
Notional good, by fancy only made,

And by tradition nurst: fallacious fire

Whose dancing beams mislead our fond desire:
Cause of our care and error of our mind!

O hadst thou ever been by heav'n design'd
For Adum and his mortal race, the boon
Entire bad been reserv'd for Solomon."-

Were ever lines extended from couplet to couplet with more success than these? Is there any constraint here? What lines can flow more freely? More easily? More naturally?

6. But his numbers commonly want ease, airiness, lightness, and facility." I cannot possibly be of this opinion. Wherever this is proper, as in all his tales, and in Alma, his numbers have certainly the greatest airness, lightness, and facility. Nay, "but even what is smooth is not soft." No? What think you of the Lady's LookingGlass, (to take one instance out of fifty.) Where will you show me any softer numbers than these?

"Celia and I the other day

Walk'd o'er the sand-hills to the sea:
The setting sun adorn'd the coast,
His beams entire, his fierceness lost;

And on the bosom of the deep
The waves lay only not asleep.
The nymph did like the scene appear,
Serenely pleasant, calmly fair:

Soft fell her words, as flew the air."

In truth, the general fault of Prior's poetry is this; it is not too much, but too little laboured. Pope filed and polished every line: Prior set his words down as fast as he could write, and scarcely polished any of them, with any accuracy, at least only here and there. And the reason is plain: Pope lived by his writings; Prior did not. And again: Pope was a man of much leisure: Prior a man of much busi

ness.