attended with fuch clafhings of the tongue against the palate, and fuch ftrange poftures of all the organs of fpecch, that, when heard, it has been faid to refemble the noife of irritated turkeycocks, and the chattering of magpies, rather than the language of men. But from the fpecimens which we have feen of it in Kolben, compared with thofe given in this work of the language of the Kamtchadales, Koriacks, &c. we think the latter may claim the preference, at leaft as they appear upon paper, and may even stand in fome degree of competition with that of the Yameos, a favage nation in South America, who, as Condamine tells us, exprefs the number three by the word Poettarrarorincouroac. Fortunately, he obferves, for those who have to do with them, their arithmetick goes no farther. The Kamtchadales however, though they fall perhaps fomewhat below them in the fefquipedality of their words, beat them hollow in notation. They reckon as far as 100: but then, instead of expreffing that number, as a Yameo would, by a word which fhould cover a fheet of paper, they fall off with the poor, pitiful phrase Tchoumkhtouktchoumkhtakan. The following are two or three more famples of this fpeech, if it may be fo called: A girl,' Tchikhouatchoutch: Thirsty,' Tkhtchakhitch: He is up,' Gechigouickintfiliagatch: Hold your tongue," Koichoungichickhoutch.'-We feel ourfelves tongue-tied in attempting to pronounce it. Befides two large vocabularies, a connected fpecimen is given of the Kamtchadale language, in a translation of the Lord's prayer, found in the papers of Mr. Steller, one of our Author's affociates; which however is imperfect the paffages, forgive us our trefpaffes, &c.' and lead us not into temptation,' being wanting. For thefe omiffions M. Kracheninnikow affigns as a reafon, that the Kamtchadales could not be made to comprehend the meaning of the terms. Nevertheless we are told, in the preceding part of this volume, that the greatest part of the nation have been converted to Chriftianity, and which feems mentioned as a fynonimous term, baptifed. We hope the miffionaries have not in their hurry overlooked a very neceffary preliminary step; that of converting

them into men.

From the few fpecimens which we have given above of this unpliant language, it might naturally be fuppofed that the mufick of the Kamtchadales would carry evident marks of its uncouthness and barbarity. The notes of a Kamtchadale air are given at page 105, which, if accurately fet, would feem to prove that the opinion, that the language of a people has a confiderable influence on its mufick, is not to be adopted without fome referve. The air, as it here ftands, appears however to us too fimple, and measured, and has too much of the caft of the European mufick, to induce us to consider it as a genuine transcript

3

tranfcript of the melody of this ftrange people: nor can we, by any hypothesis which we can form of the Kamtchadale profody, even with the affiftance of the long and fhort marks fet over each fyllable, accommodate the notes to the fong which is faid to be fung to it.

We have not yet mentioned the numerous plates which illuftrate and embellish this work, and which are executed in a very capital manner, both with regard to the drawing, defign and engraving. The first volume contains thirty fix relating to Ruffia and Siberia. Of these, seven represent subjects of natural hiftory; two are appropriated to aftronomy, and two exhibit the Author obferving the phenomena of natural electricity. The idols of the Calmuck Zongore Tartars are given in eight plates, and the fubjects of the remaining feventeen are the customs and manncis of the Ruffians, defigned by M. le Prince, who has refided in Ruffia, and must be well acquainted with the fubjects he reprefents. We must confefs, however, that in fome of the human figures the painter appears to have indulged his genius, and his love for la belle nature a little, as we perceive in fome of them a fymmetry, and a certain grace and delicacy which, we own, we did not fuppofe to be fo common in Ruffia. We would not however lay too much trefs on this observation; as we have been informed from another quarter, that this painter has acquired a very great reputation in France, for the truth as well as the beauty of his defigns, and particularly with regard to the Ruffian Costume. In the fecond volume are contained feventeen plates, in feven of which are given different views folely relative to the hiftory of Kamtchatka; and in the remaining ten, the dreffes, dwellings, &c. of the Kamtchadales are reprefented by the fame ingenious defigner.

A noble collection of maps, plans, &c. accompanies this fplendid work, and is bound up in a large form apart. This confifts, first, of eleven maps, in which is laid down the Author's rout from Paris to Tobolfk, together with the adjoining countries. There is great reason to believe, after the perufal of the many proofs, which the reader will find in the body of the work, of the Author's extreme precifion and minutenefs in geographical matters, that their accuracy (fo far at leaft as concerns the Author's particular rout) correfponds with the fingular beauty, neatnefs and delicacy of the engraving. Thefe are followed by ten plates, containing sections and profiles of the whole rout, and reprefenting the elevation of every part of it above the level of the ocean at Breft, on a fcale of fuch a fize, that the whole, extended, measures near twenty five feet. Five plans and profiles of the Siberian mines, and a general map of Ruffia are likewife given. These all refer to the firft volume of the work. To the fecond belong two maps of Kamt

chatka,

chatka, and one of the Kurile islands, accompanied with three others representing fome remarkable hot fountains defcribed in the body of the work: the whole of which exhibits striking specimens of an extraordinary mixture of two very different characters, in the perfon of the ingenious Author; whom, in fome parts of it, we find writing and acting with all the fprightliness of a Frenchman, and in others, measuring and labouring with all the phlegm and perfeverance of a German. B..ry.

A Letter to the Authors of the Monthly Review, which is abfolutely neceffary to be read by every one who would understand their Work. In this Letter, the Claim of thofe Authors to Ingenuity and Candour is particularly confidered, from their account of a Work, entitled, Explanations of fome difficult Texts in the New Testament, in Four Differtations. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Flexney. 1769.

HEN a poor lunatic in Bedlam was once asked how he came to be there, he said, By a difpute': What difpute? Why, replied the lunatic, the world faid that I was mad, I faid the world was mad, and they out-voted me. Something like this, is our difpute with the Author of the letter before us; we fay that he is a fool, he fays that we are fools: and the world must now take part with him or with us. We fhall, in the first place, endeavour to make good our charge. against him, and then to invalidate his charge against us.

He begins his address with an ironical encomium on our candour and ingenuity; but gentlemen,' fays he, though the generality of the world join me in venerating you for your extraordinary exertion of these powers, yet there are fome, whofe judgments are either fo warped by envy, that if they fee them in you they will not acknowledge it; or fo blinded by ignorance, that if they are willing to acknowledge it, they are not able to difcern them.'

That is, there are fome whofe judgments are either fo warped that if they fee candour and ingenuity in the Reviewers they will not acknowledge that they fee them; or fo blinded by igno rance, that if they are willing to acknowledge that they fee them, they are not able to fee them. Who but this Author could thus talk of blind men that both do fee and do not fee? When we say that a man is willing to acknowledge a certain thing, we take the thing that he is willing to acknowledge for granted. Thus when we are here told that fome men are willing to acknowledge that they fee candour and ingenuity in the Reviewers, it is taken for granted that they do fee them; and we may well wonder when we difcover by the words which immediately fol low, that these men being blind, are not able to fee them. Why *See Review for Auguft, 1769.

+ from Cooper of shottisham

9

will

will a man who cannot write common fenfe venture upon difpu tation?

6

This Author proceeds, with great parade, to declare his opi nion, that ingenuity fhould be exerted only in defence of those doctrines which are to be found in the facred writings, and in the refutation of fuch as are not to be found there, by whatever denomination of Chriftians they may have been adopted.' It is pity he does not fee, that faying this is faying nothing. The queftion, What doctrines are to be defended and refuted? recurs in another form, What doctrines are, and what are not, found in the facred fcriptures?' Concerning this question, mankind are by no means agreed; and if the doctrine of infallibility is given up, the Reviewers may as juftly oppose this Author's opinion of the fenfe of fcripture, as he theirs.

The Author fays, in his preface to his differtations, that fo difficult is the undertaking of elucidating and interpreting every part of facred writ, that with all the advantages which nature, art, and the most favourable concurrence of circumftances can beftow upon one man, fome obscurities will still remain unnoticed, fome difficulties unexplained, and fome plain paffages mifinterpreted. This paffage we have contracted thus: to eluci date and interpret every part of facred writ is fo difficult, that no MAN, with all the advantages of nature and art, can effect it! This, the Author fays, is a mifrepresentation. He infinuates that there is an important difference between the words no man and no one man, and that, by omitting the word one, his propofition, in our hands, implies, that the elucidation and interpretation of fcripture is impoffible to all men collectively. But if he underftands language no better, it does not follow that language is not better understood. If we had faid that no man can draw as much as ten horfes, could we be charged with afferting that the united efforts of all men would be equally ineffectual? We did indeed leave but an abfurdity in the Author's propofition, which he has now forced into notice: he tells us, that if one man was to be endowed with all the advantages of nature and art, he would mifinterpret fome plain paffages of fcripture; and his reafon is, that the interpretation of fcripture is difficult. Is it then, in this fagacious Writer's opinion, difficult rightly to interpret plain paffages? fo difficult, that, with the ftrongeft abilities and profoundest learning, no one man can effect it? Did any man ever misinterpret the first fentence in the fourth chapter of Genefis, Adam knew Eve his wife?' Nothing that is plain can be the subject of investigation, any more than of difpute; things become the subject of both by being not plain, but obfcure and questionable, and by no other cause.

A writer who does not understand the fimple import of words, cannot be expected to understand the complicated fense of ma

ny

ny words put together, or to difcern either grammatical on logical diftinctions.

The Reviewers obferved, " that if no man can elucidate.and. explain fcripture, it follows, that no man can understand it." With humble fubmiffion," fays this modeft Author, I fhould: apprehend you have here done what the vulgar would call " putting the cart before the horse," for if no man can elucidate and explain fcripture, it does not follow from it, but muft neceffarily precede it, that no man can understand it.' If this gentleman had any notion of following or preceding otherwife than a cart may follow or precede a horse, he would have referved his pleafantry for a fitter occafion. That may with propriety foliow as an in-t ference from premifes, which precedes in the natural order of things. If the body of Lazarus had begun to putrefy, when Jefus came to the fepulchre, it might fitly be inferred that he was dead, though death muft of neceflity precede putrefaction.

The Author in his Differtations has afferted, that what has hitherto been leaft understood in fcripture is most important. The Reviewers remark, that "if the parts of fcripture which are ftill obfcure contain what is necessary to be known, we may yet perish for want of a revelation ;-if they do not, the time is wafted which is employed about them." This has thrown our Author into great diftrefs and confufion. He fays, that althoughthefe obfcure parts are not neceffary, yet they are neceflary; that though they are important, yet they are not important. He acknowledges that the fcriptures may contain a rule of life.: eafily to be comprehended; it is prefumed he will alfo admit that they contain conditions upon which the Deity will be gracious, that are easily to be comprehended. Let him tell us, in what fenfe more is neceffary: and, thefe being eafily comprehended, how that which is not easily comprehended can be mot important.

The Reviewers think that a meaning which the Divine Being graciously intended to convey by a miraculous infpiration, would actually be conveyed; and, confequently, words of a doubtful import would not be used on this occafion. To confute this opinion, the Author fhrewdly asks if the Reviewers would have the words of revelation contain a meaning contrary to reason !

The Author, in his firft differtation, undertakes to prove, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is plainly revealed: the Reviewers fay, that the Author's very undertaking refutes his pofition; he replies again, in his Socratic method, by asking, Could a writer then prove a doctrine without attempting it?" We fay no: but infift that what is plain neither requires nor admits of proof, which is the deduction of fomewhat that is not plain from fomewhat that is.

That