Art. 39. An Enquiry into, and Remarks upon, the Conduct of Lieutenant General Burgoyne. The Plan of Operation for the Campaign, 1777. The inftructions from the Secretary of State. And the Circumftances that led to the Lofs of the Northern Army. 8vo. 1 s. Matthews. 1780.

This review of the conduct of General Burgoyne, with regard to that unfortunate expedition, which ended in the lofs of his army, is written with keennefs and energy, but with a degree of rancour which marks the fpirit of party.-Perhaps, we may infer, without any great pretenfions to fagacity, that if the lucklefs General had forborne to connect himself with Oppofition, fince his parole return to England, he would have been lefs expofed to the virulent attacks of thofe literary Pandours, who skirmish under the minifterial standard.

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the AUTHORS of the MONTHLY REVIEW.
GENTLEMEN,

Dindicated, tillith the late remarks upon it in the Review
Did not meet with the late book, intitled, The Church of England

November; where you justly call the Author a moft illiberal intolerant.
One thing I took more particular notice of, that he fays,

"The old Will Whifton affirmed, that Jefus Chrift was a mere man, the fon of Jofeph and Mary, in the fame manner as he was the natural product of a male and female Whifton.”

Now, as grandson to Mr. Whifton, and well acquainted with his opinions, I will take upon me to affirm, that that was not his belief; and the Author has no right to charge him with it, unless he can produce one paffage, at least, out of his numerous writings, which fays fo; which I hereby call upon him to do. And if he does not know the difference between a Socinian, which Mr. Whifton was not, and what is called an Arian, which he owned himself to be, this Author is not qualified to write on that controverfy.

Mr. Whilton's opinions, which I fhall neither deny, nor am afhamed of, will be beft feen by fome quotations from his own writings: I fhall take them from his Account of the Primitive Faith, in the fourth volume of his Primitive Chriftianity revived; where he fays as follows:

Art. 5. Jefus Chrift is the Holy One of God, a Being or Perfon, of fupereminent and divine perfections, knowledge, power, and authority; and fo far fuperior to all fubordinate creatures; i. e. to all the thrones, dominions, pricipalities, powers, cherubim, feraphim, archangels, angels, and men, which are made fubject unto him.'

Art. 6. Jefus Chrift is the hoyos Os goats, The first begotten of all creatures, The beginning of the creation of God. i. e. a Divine Being or Perfon, created or begotten by the Father before all ages; or before all fubordinate creatures, vifible and invisible.'

Art. 7. God the Father by his Word, by his Son, or by Jesus Chrift, as his minifter or active inftrument, at first created, made, ordered, or difpofed; and ftill governs all the fubordinate creatures, vifible and invvisible.'

Art.

Art. 9.

Jefus Chrift, the Word and Son of God, was very frequently fent by the Supreme God, the Father, in the ancient ages; and again, more apparently at his incarnation; as his fervant, his vicegerent, and minifter, into the world.'

Art. 13. Jefus Chrift, the Word and Son of God, did in his Divine nature, in the most ancient times, properly defcend from beaven, and appear at feveral times, and in feveral places, to the patriarchs; perfonating the Supreme God, or acting wholly in his name, and as his deputy and vicegerent in the world.

Art. 14. Jefus Chrift, the Word and Son of God, defcended properly again from heaven, in his Divine nature, and became man ; being by the power of the Holy Ghoft, conceived in, and born of, the bleffed Virgin Mary; and increafing afterward in wifdom and ftature like other men.'

From thefe quotations, to which more might be added, let any impartial perfon judge, whether Mr. Whifton thought our Saviour a mere man; who he fays was far Superior to angels and men, and as God's minifter created and governs them (Art. 5, and 7.), or that he did not exist before Jofeph and Mary; who, he fays, was before all ages, and in the most ancient times appeared to the patriarchs (Art. 6 and 13.). T. BARKER.

Lyndon, Jan. 17, 1780.

We are forry that any thing we have faid concerning Dr. Delany, in our Review of the Supplement to the Works of Dean Swift, fhould have drawn on us the fufpicion of hafte or partiality. We refpect the abilities and learning of Dr. D. and we efteem his general character. In quoting fuch paffages as occurred in Lord Orrery's letters, refpecting the Doctor, we meant rather a compliment to his virtues, than a reflection on his memory. If his LordThip mifreprefented fome parts of the Doctor's character, at the time when he bestowed fuch liberal encomiums on other parts of it, we are not answerable for the miftake. From the anecdotes preferved of the Door, and published by Mr. Nichols, we fee enough to convince us, that the best men have their peevish and fplenetic hours; and unlefs Lord Orrery can be fufpected of an illiberal falfehood with refpect to the man for whom he profeffeth fo much good-will, we must give credit to the complaint he made of the harsh treatment he had met with from Dr. Delany.

We acknowledge the politenefs of C. D's letter, and thank him for his obliging Mint refpecting a General Catalogue.

N. B. If C. D. can produce fufficient proofs to invalidate the reflections of Lord Orrery, or will communicate any particulars to illuftrate the character of Dr. Delany, we fhall probably have no objection to laying them before the public.

†† In your Monthly Review for Dec. 1779, I find a mistake † in P. 444. It is there related, in the Article Hiftorical Account of

*See Review for November, Art. IX.

+ Not of the Reviewer, but of the Author there quoted.

the

the Rife and Progrefs of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia,”. that a frolling Moravian preacher came to Carolina, to the family of Dutartres, and filled their heads with wild and fantastic ideas, which produced mifchiefs, for which three perfons were defervedly hanged in 1724. Now it happens, that none of the Moravian Brethren, whatever nonfenfe they may be accused of, ever came to Carolina, till ten years after that date, at least. Mr. Garden, on whofe exaЯnefs the Author of that book relies, may, in 1738, have heard of a Moravian being at Puryfburg, and confounded his ideas. Certain it is, that none of the Moravian Brethren were in Carolina fo early; nor could I ever learn that any of them were used to spread Jacob Behmen's books, whatever their merit or demerit may be. I am, Gentlemen, yours, &c.

Feb. 5, 1780.

AN OLD CORRESPONDENT.

If I fee in your Monthly Review for Jan. 1780, an account of an Article in the Philofophical Tranfa&ions, relating to a machine which Mr. Le Cerf, watchmaker at Geneva, pretends to be the inventor of. It was not of his invention; Mr. Louis Preudhomme, of Geneva, was the inventor. Le Cerf arrogated to himself the invention of an inftrument he does not even understand, but has spoiled. Some papers relative to this machine, are in the hands of the Prefident of the Royal Society, and I believe Lord Mahon has, fince the communication of Le Cerf's paper to the Royal Society, been informed by fome of his friends at Geneva, of the true ftate of the facts relative to this machine; but I know not whether the Royal Society, confiftent with its ufages, can now do any thing in the matter. When the Transactions of the Geneva Society of Arts shall appear, the fact with regard to Le Cerf will, I am informed, be fet in its true light. However, I should hope, Lord Mahon will, if he has received true and fatisfactory information, give it to the Royal Society. I am, Gentlemen, yours.

Feb. 6, 1780.

J. H.

$15 In anfwer to an application which we have received, relative to a paffage in our Review for laft month; we need only refer our Correfpondent to the late publications of Dr. Priestley, for inftructions relating to the methods of imitating, and even excelling, with refpect to their medical qualities, the waters of Spa, and others of that clafs.

Itt Dr. FRANKLIN's Political and Mifcellaneous Pieces in our next. Alfo Mr. FELL'S Demoniacs.

The defign of a General Index to all the volumes of The Monthly Review, is poftponed for the prefent.

An accident has prevented Mr. Hey's Letter from appearing in this Month's Review. It will be given in our next.

THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For MARCH, 1780.

ART. I. Dæmoniacs. An Enquiry into the Heathen and the Scrip ture Doctrine of Dæmons. In which the Hypothefis of the Rev. Mr. Farmer, and others on this Subject, are particularly confidered. By John Fell. 8vo. 5s. Boards. Dilly. 1779.

WHE

THEN we began to read the preface to this publication, we flattered ourselves that we were about to peruse, at leaft, a candid difcuffion of the fubject mentioned in the title. We fufpected, however, before we had finifhed it, that we were miftaken and now that we have gone through the whole work, we find ourfelves obliged to confider Mr. Fell as a prejudiced and conceited writer, whofe performance is equally de - ficient in judgment and in candour. We have had occafion, heretofore, to reprove Mr. Fell for his pertnefs and arrogance; but he has not profited by our admonition. In his present publication, Mr. Farmer is treated with an air of fuperiority and contempt; which would have been unjustifiable, even if Mr. Fell had been as much fuperior to Mr. Farmer, with refpect to judgment and learning, as Mr. Farmer is to moft writers on this contraverted fubject. The opinions of this Author are, in general, advanced with the confidence of infallibility, and the principles and fpirit of thofe against whom he writes, are arraigned and condemned with equal feverity and prefumption. Mr. Fell has yet to learn, that modefty and humility are qualities neceffary to give a writer of his moderate abilities and attainments a claim to attention, and that judicious inquirers will not take confident affertions for conclufive arguments, but will ever fufpect the foundness of that writer's judgment, and the goodness of his caufe, who, inftead of proving that the fyftem which he opposes is not well founded, is perpetually declaiming on its tendency and confequences, and inveighing against its

abettors.

VOL. LXII,

The greater part of the publication before us is little more than a vehement declamation upon the tendency and confequences of denying the agency and influence of fuperior evil beings in the natural and moral world. To affert, that the world is under the fole government of God, and that no other Being has any power or dominion over the course of nature, is prepofterously reprefented as ftriking at the foundation of both natural and revealed religion. The Reader may judge by the following inftance, how well qualified our Author is, critically to examine, and fairly to ftate, the opinions of others.

Near the beginning of his first chapter, the defign of which is to prove, that the greatest part of thofe Deities to whom the Heathens facrificed, were by them confidered as exifting prior to the creation of man,' he has quoted a paffage from the beginning of Hefiod's Theogony, containing a poetical and allegorical account of the origin of the immortals always exifting,' and of the earth in its prefent form, &c. In his remarks upon it, he fays, among other things, The ancient Greeks acknowledged one Supreme Deity, the Creator of the universe, whom they confidered as incapable of any evil, and to whom they afcribed every perfection, while, at the fame time, they worshipped a multitude of other gods as intelligent beings, fuperior to the nature of human fouls; and thought these deities to have been brought into being by the Firft Caufe, along with the different parts of nature, prior to the exiftence of mari. This is evident from thofe paffages in Hefiod's Theogony, which we have juft quoted.'

、

Without inquiring into the truth of this obfervation, which may easily be contraverted, we have only to remark, that in the paffages quoted from Hefiod, no mention is made of a Supreme Deity, the Creator of the univerfe, incapable of evil, and poffeffed of every perfection,' or of any Firft Caufe, by whom other deities were brought into being.' Mr. Fell has several times in this chapter repeated this title, the Creator of the Univerfe, as given by the Heathen to their chief deity, but has not produced a fingle paffage from any of their writers in fupport of his affertion. Ovid's Ille Opifex Rerum-Mundi Fabricator, will bear no fuch interpretation. It is doubtful at least, whether even those philofophers, who allowed that the world had a beginning, had any proper idea of a creation. Mr. Fell is confident that they had, and arrogantly declares, that to affert that he is called,' in a paffage not quoted, the fource of nature, who - had once been a man, and that,' in another, he is reprefented as being filled with terror, whom the Heathens confidered as the Creator of the Univerfe, must be evident proof, either of

* Hor. lib. iii. Od. 4. v. 42, &c.