The fifth chapter contains the Catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan manufcripts, which amount to no less than four hundred and forty; a number, which the Author obferves, is about three times as great as that of the Greek manuscripts of the New Teftament. He affures the reader, that the Catalogue is formed upon the best printed accounts corrected in fome parts by private letters; and that no one manufcript is inferted without authority. It may be proper, however, to obferve, that most of them contain only parts of the Hebrew Bible. In this catalogue they are ranged according to the countries and libraries where they are depofited: but there is another catalogue added at the end of the volume, in which, all the copies of each book are collected together, with the places where they are to be found. It is remarkable, that out of the whole number one hundred and ten are in England. The catalogue is followed with some remarks on a few of the manufcripts, and a vindication of the Samaritan from the objections of Hottinger, who produces feventy-eight paffages, in which it differs from the Hebrew, and which, therefore, he charges upon it as corruptions.

In the conclufion, the Author makes fome additional remarks, tending to confirm the principles he had before laid down, and amongst others, affures us, that upon examining the Hebrew manufcripts of the two copies of David's Song, in Pfalm xviii. and 2 Sam. xxii. he finds no less than fix hundred various readings, including the variations not of the points, but only of words and letters; from whence it is easy to infer, with how little reason it has been taken for granted, that the Hebrew manufcripts now extant, were all uniform. and perfectly agreed with the text. Our Author clofes the whole, with reprefenting the great importance of reviewing the Hebrew text, and publishing as correct an edition of it as can be obtained, in the use of those methods he had pointed out in the progrefs of the work. This, he observes, is neceffary, previous to a new tranflation, and if undertaken here, would be a great honour to our age and nation, as it would be a means of removing fome of the objections made against Revelation, and would tend to il-. luftrate the beauty and strengthen the authority of the Sacred Writings.

From this view of the judge of its importance; with us, in wifhing the

work before us, the Reader may and will no doubt, readily join learned Author may meet with C 3

fufficient

fufficient encouragement in his defign of collating the Hebrew MSS, in our own country; and that the fuccefs of this attempt may engage the learned, in other parts, to follow his example,

An additional Dialogue of the Dead, between Pericles and Ariftides: being a Sequel to the Dialogue between Pericles and Cofmo. 8vo. Is. Davis.

WE

E cannot conceive what could be our Author's inducement for publishing this additional Dialogue, fince that to which it is a fequel, did not, in our opinion, require any addition or explanation whatever. This ingenious Writer, it must be confeffed, is extremely happy in a lively fancy and flowery diction, which render his compofitions grateful to the ear and pleafing to the imagination. But thefe talents, though they may adorn, yet they do not conftitute either the philofopher or the politician; and when his political and philofophical arguments are brought to the test of judgement, they appear to be what the French very expreffively term verbiage. In the Dialogue before us, our Author is more a logomachift, than a reafoner: and, like chil dren who entangle a packthread cradle to fhew their dexterity in unravelling it, fo he has wilfully perplexed the argument, and ftarted difficulties and ambiguities, merely to difplay his fophiftical skill in their folution.

The justly admired Author of the Dialogues of the Dead, in the colloquy between Pericles and Cofmo, makes the former confefs that he rendered the people more intractable, more adverse to virtue, lefs fubject to the laws, and more to impreffions from mifchievous demagogues, than they had been before his time: and that therefore his place in Elyfium, notwithstanding the integrity which he preferved in his whole public conduct, and the great virtues which he exerted, was much below that of those who have governed republics, or limited monarchies, not merely with a concern for their prefent advantage, but with a prudent regard to that ballance of power on which their permanent happiness always depends,'

Nothing, one would think, would be more explicit than this conclufion: neither could a finer leffon be inculcated, than that ftatefmen will be rewarded hereafter, in proportion as they confult the lafting happiness of the people, But our Author

6

6

Author has thought proper to cloud this beautiful fentiment, that he might have the pleasure of fighting with a fhadow of his own making. He makes Ariftides fay that for want of a little more particularity of argument and proof, conclufions ⚫ might be plaufibly drawn which would be very diftant from the truth-That free ftates or limitted monarchies, though they may greatly resemble each other in their external conftruction, may yet be so very unlike in their internal condition, that no juft conclufions would be drawn concerning their profperity and welfare, merely from their external resemblance. Thus' he adds, we will fuppofe two ftates to be equally free, in their legal conftitution: but let us,' he continues, farther fuppofe, that the manners or principles which prevail in these two states are widely different; and, in that cafe, I apprehend, that if you regard only the legal form of the conftitution, without weighing the manners and principles of the members of the ftate, you will be in great danger of impofing falfe conclufions on yourself and others.' To this Pericles is made to answer,

• I did not force any of these conclufions upon you.'----

What is meant by thefe conclufions, we cannot imagine, fince, in fact, there are no conclufions drawn by our Author: neither is it poffible, in our judgement, to draw any falfe ones, from the reafoning in the paffage above quoted from the Dialogues. What is faid concerning the external conftruction and the internal condition of ftates-the manners and principles of the members, &c. is like the folemn trifling of a late eftimate, and is, in truth, no way material to the present argument. For whatever the outward form of constitution, or inward condition, of the state may be; however different the manners and principles of the members may be fuppofed, yet the admirable conclufion drawn by the Writer of the Dialogues will remain unshaken and it is an inconteftible truth, that, under all forms of government, and among members of ever fuch various difpofitions, thofe ftatesmen will have the best title to the favour of heaven, who govern with a prudent regard to the permanent happiness of the whole body. One would wonder what could induce our Author to raise quibbles on a conclufion fo perfpicuous and felf evident. But-Latet Anguis in Herba: and we fhall presently fee this fnake in the grafs wriggle his tail, and crawl, as the ferpent did to Eve, in all the forms of blandifhment and adulation. In plain terms, the ufe of all our Author's fubtle diftinctions is to prove, what nobody will deny, that the state of Athens was very different from the prefent ftate of Great-Britain; and that,

C 4

though

though the eloquence of Pericles was eventually mischievous, yet the eloquence of a British orator cannot poffibly be dangerous; which probably nobody will admit. For these purposes, however, he has raised many fine chimeras on the fantastical basis of his own imagination.

He makes Ariftides, among others, eftablish the following propofition. That an honest and fenfible people never defire more than redrefs of grievances; and, when that is obtained, return chearfully to fubordination, and adore their rulers.' Surely, to adopt our Author's own words, this wants a little more particularity of argument and proof, more especially as the evidence of history throughout all countries is against him. To us this propofition appears falfe and deceptive. If an honeft and fenfible people defire redrefs of grievances, by public remonftrances, or any conftitutional method of praying relief, in such case they do not violate the rules of subordination; but if they are obliged to infringe those rules, that is, if they are under a neceffity of feeking redrefs by force, then, if they are fo happy to obtain it, their good fenfe will tell them that it will not be for their fafety to return to fuch fubordination, or adore fuch rulers again. The honeft and fenfible people of this kingdom, in the last century, after having ventured their lives to obtain redrefs of grievances, thought it fafeft, after they had obtained it, to decollate their ruler, and leave Us to adore him. We would not be thought, however, to approve of that very unwarrantable measure: we only mention the circumftance, to fhew how far their conduct contradicts our Author's position.

In fhort his propofition is fo very loofe and general, that no certain inference whatever can be drawn from it. Thus, when he fays- Suppofing the people to be fenfible and honeft, and the court of AREOPAGUS corrupt or incapable, the only means of faving the ftate, is the power which the people have to check and reform the court of the AREOPAGUS'➡ We reply, that whenever the governed are obliged to use their power against their governors, the government by that act is deftroyed, and the people would be very unwife ever to receive them as their rulers again.

But our Author proceeds to fhew that the republic of Athens was abfolutely void of all fecurity. To this end he makes Pericles confefs that the people whom he corrupted were few in number, low in ftation, and mean in capacity: From whence he draws the following inference- In cafe the court of the AREOPAGUS was delinquent, the people were not of ⚫ fufficient

fufficient capacity or weight to restore the ballance of the ftate. On the other hand, fuppofing that court to be uncorrupt, you fee that the people were liable to be feduced to its deftruction, fuch a republic, therefore, was formed for continual factions while it lafted, and then for a speedy death. Here again, our Author prefents us with quibble and fophiftry, instead of found reafon and argument; for admitting that the people were not, of themfelves, of fufficient capacity or weight to restore the ballance of the ftate, yet, under the conduct of fome difcontented leader of fuperior rank and abilities, they were, as Inftruments, fufficiently powerful for that, or any other purpose: and we believe it will be found that, in all civil commotions and revolutions, the people have been nothing more than bare inftruments. Nevertheless, refting on the foundation of this chimerical conclufion, the Dialogue proceeds in the following strain.

PERICLE S.

‹ Do you think, Ariftides, that, by a change of circumftances, thefe evils could admit of any remedy?

ARISTIDES.

I think they might.-In your difcourfe with Cofmo, you hinted at a limited monarchy. I will therefore leave this imperfect form, this Embryo of a common-wealth, to fpeak of a more auguft image of a government. Suppose therefore, that the Athenian state, instead of a petty province, had been a large, populous, and fertile country, ' governed by a King, and two courts, vefted with higher powers than that of the AREOPAGUS*; that one of them had been hereditary, the other chofen by the body of the people; and that the legislative power was lodged in the united fuffrages of these three

PERICLE S.

You charm me, by the very fuppofition.-What a glorious republic!

ARISTIDES.

Do not you fee, Pericles, that all I have said concerning the state of Athens, would gain new ftrength, under fuch a fuppofition?

PERICLES.

My views must be narrow indeed, if I could not fee fome differences arife: pray go on.

The court of the Areopagus was judicial, not legislative.

ARISTIDES.