blime truths of Chriftianity, cannot fail to fhock both the ear and the understanding of all thofe who make any good pretenfions either to religion or common-fense. ADDITION to the MISCELLANEOUS. Art. 38. A genuine Petition to the King; and likewife a Letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Bute; concerning the very hard Cafe of an eminent Divine of the Church of England. Publifhed from the Originals, by the Rev. Dr. Free. 8vo. 6d. Printed for the Editor. The cafe here laid before the public (tho' we are not clear that the public have any thing to do with it) is certainly a very hard cafe, indeed! It is no lefs than that of a Doctor of Divinity, whofe family having fuffered in their interefts from their attachment to thofe of Church and State, he finds himself under the difagreeable neceffity of appealing to the world, against the fuppofed injuftice and ingrati tude of those, in whose cause so eminent a Divine hath fo eminently fuffered. "The Lord, we are told, hath ordained, that those who preach the Gospel, fhould live of the Gofpel;" and yet, what with the combination of Bishops, Archbishops, Treasurers, and Secretaries of State, the Petitioner complains, he is ftill farving by the ALTAR. Poor, Dr. Free! if this be true, we are, indeed, forry for it. But the ingratitude of Kings and Minifters, is an old fubject of complaint; tho' we think the Right Reverend Fathers of the Church might have paid a greater regard to the above-mentioned ordinance, than to have fuffered fo refpectable a member of their body, to be reduced to fo woeful a plight. It is, however, poffible, that these great perfonages faw not the Doctor's fervices in the fame light as he does himself: and, perhaps, he may think too, that the loofers have, in any cafe, a right to rail. We must be bold to fay, nevertheless, that, in our opinion, Dr. Free has, on this occafion, been rather too free (forgive us the pun) with the names and characters of fome of the first perfonages in the kingdom. At least, we cannot help thinking, his refentments have carried him a little too far, in his endeavours to prove, by dint of logic, that a certain great man was guilty of high-treafon in procuring a penfion for another perfon, while he neglected the Doctor. The Lord have mercy upon all Favourites and Minifters, if they are liable to be impeached for high treafon, for not procuring places or penfions for all that want them! A SINGLE SERMONS. 1. T the Vifitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Sandwich, June 18, 1762. By William Langhorne, M. A. Rector of Hawkinge, and Minifter of Folkstone in Kent. Hitch, &c. 2. Faith in Chrift and Life Everlasting,-on the death of the Rev. Mr. John Auther, who departed this life July 10, 1761, in the feventy-fourth year of his age. By Benjamin Wallin. Keith, &c. 3. Inoculation for the Small-pox confidered, and proved by the Word of God to be finful. In a Sermon preached at Burwell in Cambridge hire, February 28, 1762. By Jofeph Maulden. Keith. If this ftrange Sermon's being replenished with many incoherent and horrible misapplications of Scripture against the practice in question, does not procure the Preacher the Cognomen of Conjurer, which, doubtless, he detefts, the Preface will gain him the reputation of a true Prophet, which he muft approve. It will alfo demonftrate, that he has fome intervals, however fhort, of fenfe and reflection, as it affirms, p. v. exprefsly-"I am very fenfible of the meanness of this performance. I have not the vanity to think it will be applauded by any body. I have more reason to think it will be ridiculed by many, than to imagine it will be applauded by any." There is not only fenfe and reafon, but ferious prediction in this. And as Mr. Maulden, after all this prefcience, has published the Sermon, he may have done it, perhaps, as an exercife of mortification, as a Monk embraces his own lafhing. A different motive, indeed, is profeffed for it, p. vi. viz. "that it has been mifreprefented as a moft blafphemous difcourfe, which made him think it neceffary to expofe it," as he expreffes himself with much propriety. We heartily acquit this Preacher of intending to blafpheme; but when a man who knows not what fpirit he is of, and who appears never to have confidered the fubject he is preaching at, prefumes almost to perfonate his Creator, and puts his own raging deliriums and damnations, as it were, into the mouth of the Deity, we think it approaches too near blafphemy, in effect. Thus he pronounces, without the leaft fcruple, doubt, or hesitation, page 18. "These ftrenuous Contenders for Inoculation fhall one day know, that the practice thereof is a real and fhameful defpifing the divine wisdom of Almighty God, which will not be numbered among the least of their fins. Nor fhall they that ufe this method for their own benefit (as they think) be ever able to make their condition better thereby. But, on the contrary, upon the whole it will be a great deal the worfe.-Nevertheless, it will be one day found a daring and prefumptuons fin [adding, with a horrid adjuration, indeed] or there is no God in heaven. And it is to be feared, it will be found a fin that will tend to harden [by its SUCCESS he must mean] the heart against God. And it will be wel, if they do not commence from thence greater Atheists than they were before. P. 20, 21, This fpecimen molt of our Readers must think very fufficient. He refers the Approvers of Inoculation, (for their eternal conviction, no doubt) to Ifaiah v. 20, 21. which is juft as ftrong and pertinent as all his other perverfions of Scripture on this occafion. But briefly, we would recommend it to our Author, to read a little of what fome Divines, of his own Communion, have faid, with the greatest reverence and gratitude to God, and love of man, in vindication of this practice, before he preaches and publifhes the fequel of this extraor dinary Sermon. We fincerely wish him, in the mean time, fuch a degree of illumination, as may transform fome of his graceless zeal into Chriftian charity; and recommend the Inoculation of good Senfe to his attentive perufal, THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For OCTOBER, 1762. Poems on feveral Subjects. To which is prefixed, An Effay on the Lyric Poetry of the Antients, in two Letters infcribed to the Right Honourable James Lord Defkfoord. By John Ogilvie, M. A. 4to. 1os. 6d. Keith. UR readers are no ftrangers to the name or to the merit of Mr. Ogilvie. The ample account we gave of his Day of Judgment (see vol. xx. p. 141.) and fome extracts from the odes that were printed with the fecond edition of that poem (vol. xxi. p. 467) were fufficient proofs of his abilities both in Heroic and Lyric poetry. Thinking it enough, therefore, to inform our readers that in this elegant and genteel edition of Mr. Ogilvie's works there are feveral original poems, we shall confine our strictures to his effay on the Lyric poetry of the antients; in the courfe of which, however, we fhall take occafion to introduce fome extracts from fuch odes, in this collection, as have not before been published. The cflay on Lyric poetry, addreffed to Lord Defkfoord, begins with fome well-timed ftrictures on genius; which the Author defines to be "The offspring of reafon and imagination properly moderated, and co operating with united influence to promote the difcovery or the illuftration of truth." According to this definition, Genius muft neceffarily imply Judgment; and perhaps this is right: tho' fome have contended that they are very different faculties, and that a perfon may be poflefled of the one without having much of the other. "Genius, fay they, is the offspring of imagination alone, and is ftronger or weaker in proportion to the richness VOL. XXVII. and " and fufceptibility, or the poverty and incapacity of that faculty Judgment is the offspring of reafon alone, and paffes it's cenfure on the productions of genius with the decifive authority of a different power. It is true that both these faculties are alike neceffary to the poet, but it is as true that they are diftinct faculties."-This point we leave to be fettled by the advocates on both fides the question. We agree with Mr. Ogilvie, that a perfect poise of these powers is neceflary to conftitute confummate excellence; and we are fully aware, that where either of them is predominant, fuch productions will, confequently, be regularly infipid, or extravagantly ornate: And it is true that "the poet who attempts to combine diftant ideas, to catch remote allufions, to form vivid and agreeable pictures, is more apt, from the very nature of his profeffion, to fet up a falfe ftandard of excellence, than the cool and difpaffionate philofopher who proceeds deliberately from pofition to argument, and who employs imagination only as the handmaid of a fuperior faculty." "The Lyric poet, adds he, is exposed to this hazard more than any other. Plato, continues Mr. Ogilvie, fays that poetry was originally θεος μιμησις or an infpired imitation of thof objects which produce either pleasure or admiration. To paint thofe objects which produce pleasure was the bufinefs of the paftoral, and to difplay thofe which raife admiration was the tafk configned to the Lyric Poet. To excite this paffion no method was fo effectual as that of celebrating the perfections of the powers who were fuppofed to prefide over nature. The ode therefore in it's first formation was a Song in honour of these powers, either fung at folemn feftivals, or, after the days of Amphion, who was the inventor of the Lyre, accompanied with the mufic of that inftrument. Thus Horace tells us, Mufa dedit Fidibus Divos, Puerofque Deorum. "In this infancy of the arts, when it was the bufinefs of the Mufe, as the fame Poet inforins us, Publica privatis fecernere, facra profanis; Concubitu prohibere vago, dare Jura maritis. Your Lordship, fays our Author, will immediately conclude when when its end was to excite admiration) muft for that reason have been the loofeft and the most undetermined. "The Poet, in this branch of his art, propofed, as his principal aim, to excite admiration; and his mind, without the affiftance of critical fkill, was left to the unequal task of prefenting fucceeding ages with the rudiments of fcience. He was at liberty indeed to range through the ideal world, and to collect images from every quarter; but in this research he proceeded without a guide, and his imagination, like a fiery courfer, with loofe reins, was left to purfue that path into which it deviated by accident, or was enticed by temptation. "Paftoral poetry, he proceeds, takes in only a few objects, and is characterized by that fimplicity, tenderness, and delicacy which were happily and easily united in the work of an antient fhepherd. He had little ufe for the rules of criticifin, because he was not much expofed to the danger of infringing them. The Lyric Poet, on the other hand, took a more diverfified and extenfive range, and his imagination required a strong and fteady rein to correct it's vehemence, and reftrain it's rapidity. Though, therefore, we can conceive without difficulty that the fhepherd in his poetic effufions 'might contemplate only the external objects that were prefented to him, yet we cannot fo readily believe that the mind in framing a Theogony, or in affigning diftinct provinces to the powers who were fuppofed to prefide over nature, could in it's first effays, proceed with fo calm and deliberate a pace over the fields of invention, as that its work fhould be the perfect pattern of just and corrected compofition. "From thefe obfervations laid together, your Lordship will judge of the state of Lyric poetry, when it was first introduced, and will perhaps be inclined to affent to a part of the propofition laid down in the beginning, that as Poets in general are more apt to fet up a falfe ftandard of excellence than philofophers are, fo the Lyric Poet was expofed to this danger more immediately than any other member of the fame profeffion.' Whether or not the preceding can be justly applied to the works of the first Lyric Poets, and how far the ode continued to be characterized by it in the more improved ftate of antient learning, are queftions which can only be answered by taking a fhort view of both." After having taken fome little notice of the barbarous state of Greece, and mentioned the origin of fcience in that famous Q2 |