⚫ much more.' Richard perceiving his carver omit this ceremony, ordered him to perform it. The carver fell on his knees, and alledged what Exton had commanded him on the part of Henry. Richard lofing his patience, ftruck the carver with a knife that was on the table, faying, Go to the devil, thee and thy Lancaster.' Exton came in at the noife, with his seven men armed. At this fight Richard pushed down the table, darted into the midst of the eight affaffins, fnatched a battle-axe from one of them, laid four of them dead at his feet, to the great terror of the others; when Exton, attacking him rom behind, gave him a ftroke on the head. With this he fell, crying to God for mercy; and Exton gave ther ftroke on the head. Thus died the noble King Richard, without having confeffed himself, which was much to be lamented.' him ano The article which fucceeds in the order of arrangement, is The Hiftory of the Reigns of Charles VII. and Louis XI. By M. du Theil.-It is obferveable that this manuscript, which is the production of Amelgard, has not once been cited by any modern historian. M. du Theil feems to have examined it with great attention, and to have carefully noted whatever in his author's narrative appeared either new or different from the teftimony of other writers. From the few paffages of Amelgard's work, in which he speaks of himself, we find that he was a contemporary of Charles VII. and Lewis XI.; that he had frequently the honour of being admitted to the former of these princes, and converfing familiarly with him; that he had cultivated the friendship of many perfons of confiderable rank, and worthy of credit, particularly Count Dunois; that, after the expulfion of the English, he was ordered by Charles VII. to reyife the trial of the Maid of Orleans, and had composed a book on the examination of that iniquitous proceeding. The manufcript is in Latin; and M. du Theil informs us that the ftile is clear, elevated, and precife, though the language is not always pure. He defcribes the English King Henry as harranguing his army in the following words before the battle of Azincourt: Brave and dear companions, the hour is come that you muft fight, not for glory and renown, but for life. The arrogance and cruelty of the French are well known. It is certain that if, through fear and cowardice, you fuffer yourselves to be conquered, they will not spare a man of you, but will flay you like fo many fheep. This will not be my fate, nor that of the princes of my blood; for the enemy will be more careful to preserve us, from the hopes of ob taining a large ranfom, than they will be eager to destroy us. you have no refource but in your courage; nor can you flatter yourfelves that the thirst of gain will induce a nation that bears you the ftrongest and moft inveterate hatred, to fpare your lives. If then you think life preferable to death, remember, like heroes, the blood from which ye fprung, the glory and fame that the English have acquired in war, and fight like brave and valiant men for the preservation of your lives.' But Amelgard Amelgard is evidently inclined to believe that the divine power influenced those events in which the Maid of Orleans was concerned, and that there was fomething fupernatural in that hiftorical phenomenon; but he leaves his readers at liberty to think as their information, judgment, and inclination, may lead them. The next article is An Account of a Swedish Manuscript. By M. de Keralio.-This production, which is likewife hiftorical, and in Latin, is of the feventeenth century. The author begins his chronicle at the reign of Eric I. and has finished it with that of Chriftian II. It is very defective in the early times, but more exact in the middle ages; at which period the author particularly diftinguishes himself by a great regard for truth. The manufcript which follows is An Account of the Criminal Procefs against Robert of Artois, Count de Beaumont, Peer of France. By M. del Averdy.-This process took place in the fourteenth century; it was for forgery; and the account of it appears to be faithfully detailed in the narrative. The laft article in the prefent volume is The History of the Atabek Princes in Syria. By M. de Guignes.This is an Arabian manufcript; and the princes whofe hiftory it relates, are those who have reigned at Mouffoul, in Mefopotamia, from the year 477 to 607 of the Hegira, and from 1034 to 1210 of the Chriftian epoch. Such are the various manufcripts detailed in the two volumes which have now been the subject of our examination. We cannot affign them a very high degree of importance in the fcale of literary productions; but at the fame time we would not be understood to prejudge, by this remark, the hitherto undetermined merit of the numerous remaining collection in the French king's library. We know not what pearls may lie concealed in the yet unexplored mafs of manufcripts, of different languages, nations, and ages. Even fhould knowledge receive but little increase, curiofity will ftill be gratified by a research of fo liberal a nature; and we entertain the greater hope of fuccefs from the profecution of the undertaking, as the gentlemen to whofe care it is committed have discharged their important truft with fo much honour to themfelves, and fo much fatisfaction to the public. ENG. REV. VOL. XIV. DEC. 1789. D d ART. ART. III. Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley upon the Hiftorical Question of the Belief of the First Ages in our Lord's Divinity. Originally published in 1783, 1784, and 1786; now revifed and augmented with a large Addition of Notes and Supplemental Difquifitions by the Author, Samuel Lord Bishop of St. David's. 8vo. 6s. 6d. Robfon. London, 1789. IT T were unneceffary to acquaint our polemical readers that these Tracts have been formerly published fingly, and that the only original ones in the volume are fome occafional notes and fix fupplemental difquifitions. The occurrences which gave rife to them as they feverally appeared in their separate itate, the gradual progrefs of the controverfy between the learned prelate and his Unitarian antagonist, and his motives for revifing, improving, and republifhing them in their prefent form, are concifely and accurately detailed in a well-written preface. His lordship enters not on the argument between Dr. Priestley and the Trinitarians, except occafionally and obliquely. The principal points to which he directs the attention of his readers, and where all his facts, proofs, and conclufions, are brought to bear, are the incompetency of the doctor to correct the opinions of the religious world; his ignorance in the matters on which he writes; his circuitous manner of reasoning; his recourfe to broad, unqualified affertion; his defective evidence and vague conclufions; his incapacity for throwing any light on queftions of ecclefiaftical antiquity; the want of correctness and veracity, which every where difcredits his narrative; and his offering no arguments but fuch as can perfuade those only who are previously perfuaded. This controverfy, it is well known, was occafioned by a critique on Dr. Priestley's Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chrif tianity, delivered in a charge to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. Alban's. Our venerable author thought it his duty, on an occafion where fo many of the younger clergy were offi'cially affembled, to expofe an attempt evidently meant to unfettle the faith, and to break up the conftitution of every religious eftablishment in Chriftendom. The challenge of Dr. Priestley to come forward on the doctrine in difpute, probably that the errors fo rafhly avowed might escape further detection, he repels and declines in these words: • If the inftances of mistake which I have alledged be few in number, yet if they are fingly too confiderable in fize to be incident to a well-informed writer; if they betray a want of that general comprehenfion of your fubject which might enable you to draw the true true conclufion from the paffages you cite; if they prove you incoinpetent in the very language of the writers from which your proofs fhould be drawn, unfkilled in the philosophy whofe doctrines you pretend to compare with the opinions of the church; a few clear inftances of errors of this enormous fize may release me from the task which you would impofe upon me of canvaffing.every part of your argument, and of replying to every particular quotation. A writer, of whom it is once proved that he is ill informed upon his fubject, hath no right to demand a further hearing. It is a fair prefumption against the truth of his conclufion, be it what it may, that it cannot be right but by mere accident. To be right by accident will rarely happen to any man, in any subject; becaule in all fubjects truth is fingle and error infinite." Every competent judge of the matter at iffue who reads the feveral tracts in this collection with care, will probably admit that his lordship's allegations are established. We notwithstanding cordially join in the following reflection, which does much honour to the heart that fuggefts it: It is a mortifying proof of the infirmity of the human mind, in the highest improvements of its faculties in the prefent life, that fuch fallacies in reafoning, fuch mifconftructions of authorities, fuch diftorted views of facts and opinions, fhould be found in the writings of a man, to whom, of all men of the prefent age, fome branches of the experimental fciences are the most indebted.' Much pains have been taken, by various of his opponents, to cenfure the temper and ftyle which mark the author's mode of controversy. His manners are exhibited as starch and unaccommodating; because not accuftomed to accede but from conviction. And that manliness with which he ftands forward in defence of what appears to him to be truth very deeply injured, is afcribed to incorrigible obftinacy, the pertinacity of official fituation, or to high-church principles. In repelling thefe calumnies the author makes fuch an apology for himfelf, and gives the retort courteous in so home a ftyle, as well deferves the perufal and gratitude of every fincere friend both of church and state : Dr. Prieftley,' fays his lordship, hath given free fcope to the powers of his eloquence upon the fubject of my pretended injustice to illustrious characters living and dead; if injuftice may be committed by praife beftowed where it is unmerited, no less than by cenfure injuriously applied; Dr. Priestley may find it more difficult than I have done to refute the accufation. A character now lives not without its eminence, nor, I hope, without its moral worth, which Dr. Prielley seems to hold in exceffive admiration; and upon which he is too apt to be lavish of his praife. Few who are acquainted with his writings will be at a lofs to guess that the character I speak of is himself. As the analifer of elastic fluids, he will be long remembered; but he fometimes feems to claim refpect as a good Chriftian Dd 2 and and a good subject. If upon any branch of Christian duty my confcience be at perfect eafe; the precept judge not' is that which, I truft, I have not tranfgreffed. The motives by which one man is impelled are, for the most part, fo imperfectly known to any other, that it feems to me cruel to fuppofe that the evil which appears in men's actions is always anfwered by an equal malignity in their minds. I have ever therefore held it dangerous and uncharitable to reafon from the actions of men to their principles, and from my youth up have been averfe to cenforious judgment. But when men declare their motives and their principles, it were folly to affect to judge them more favourably than they judge themselves. I fhall therefore not hesitate to fay, that after a denial of our Lord's divinity, his preexistence, and the virtue of his atonement; after a denial, at lait, of our Lord's plenary infpiration; after a declaration of implacable enmity to the conftitution under which he lives; under which he enjoys the licence of faying what he lifts, in a degree in which it never was enjoyed by the firft citizens of the freeft democracies; the goodness of his Christianity, and his merit as a subject, are topics upon which it may be indiscreet for the encomiaft of Dr. Priestley to enlarge.' Of Dr. Priestley's abilities we acknowledge ourselves to be fincere admirers, but inlift, at the fame time, among those who have always regretted their mifapplication to polemical theology. And we congratulate the lovers of our religious establishment upon a republication of the prefent work, well calculated to vindicate the honour of the Church of England, to repel that torrent of licentioufnefs which her enemies have long directed against her, and to check the propagation of what may be almost esteemed blafphemy. ART. IV. Expoftulatory Odes to a Great Duke and a Little Lord. By Peter Pindar, Efq. 4to. 2s. 6d. ftitched. Kearsley. London, 1789. N the prefent Odes Peter pretends to be in great fear for the confequences of his former publications. He alledges that the great duke and little lord, whom he paints fo as not to be miftaken, are laying every scheme to feize him by the fangs of the law; in this he fays they are much to blame, for that he is the quieteit, moft inoffenfive perfon in the kingdom, and that he would not lofe his liege for twenty pound.' O heavens!' fays he, ? can Jenkinfon and Ofborne long, Yet, |