played, in this celebrated work, with all the acumen of criticism and minutenefs of difcrimination; we find the fecond, which is the more particular and important, almost entirely overlooked. In confequence of which inattention to this appropriate end of scripture ftyle, we have to lament, that, with the pureft and moft liberal intention, this learned author inadvertently led himself and others into a method of criticism injurious to the right interpretation of the holy fcriptures. By this method of criticism, the facred volume has, in all reípects, been brought too much upon a level with human compofitions, and its structure, as well as meaning, is too much judged of and decided by their standard.

In this opinion, I think, I am fupported both by the design and execution of the work. It is distributed into three parts. The first treats of the Metre of the Hebrew Poetry; and to the remark, however just, that whether founded in truth or not it is ingenious and plaufible at least, I have only to rejoin, that, by bringing to the poetry of the Hebrews his ideas of Metre from the Grecian, Roman, and other poetry of more modern date, which

may

may uniformly be in measured verse, he too haftily concluded, that the poetry, and his own vague idea of the metre, of the ancient fcriptures were co-extenfive. By this decifion, he excludes all those parts, which are not thus metrical, out of the poetic province; abridging thereby the Parabolical, which is, indeed, the Prophetic ftyle. In confequence of this confined idea of the Hebrew Poetry, he excludes the whole book of Daniel from being poetical and parabolical, and of course, from being prophetical; for, without its proper vehicle, prophecy cannot exist.

The second part is on the Style of the Hebrew Poetry, in which, after a differtation on what he calls the Sententious kind, he proceeds to the Figurative, which properly forms the Parabolical, Style. He gives a formal fpecification of the different ends it has in view, to explain and to illuftrate, to aggrandize and exalt, the fubje&; in which, it is remarkable that he has totally omitted the peculiar and appropriate end of the figurative style, to conceal the meaning. In

* See the preliminary Differtation to his Ifaiah.

b See the fifth Prælection.

this part he has given a difplay of the figures of rhetorical diction, of the Metaphor in all its variety of poetic imagery; of the Allegory and Parable; and, in the eleventh lecture, he treats of the Mystic Allegory with great ability; in which, he certainly attends a little to the second or fpecific end of the Parabolical Style, as adapted to the purpofe of prophetical concealment: but this attention is only partial and incidental, and confined to one fingle figure. He then proceeds to the different kinds of Comparison, Profopopæia, or Perfonification; and employs four lectures on the fublimity of Diction, Conceptions, and Affections.

In the last part, he gives a minute and critical analysis of the various fpecies of Hebrew or Prophetic Poetry, as they affimilate and accord with the various kinds of claffical compofition; the Elegy, the Didactic poem, the Ode, the Hymn, the Dramatic Poem; excluding out of the poetical calendar the whole books of Daniel and Jonah i.

The whole of this celebrated performance is, therefore, a critique of facred Poetry by the

i Præl. xx.

ftandard

ftandard of profane; it is to judge of divine, by human, compofitions. And, to far as this kind of criticism may be fairly an 1 july employed upon a book of moft folemn «ud fuperior import, which is profeiled'y concealed in its expreffions and myfteris in many parts, with a view of difplaying those poctica ends which may be common to it and other poetical fictions, this work is entit to the praise which has been beftowed upon it. But where can we exactly draw the line? It deferves to be well and maturely weighed, how far a facred critic may go in difplaying thefe claffical ends, and in judging of the poctical means employed, without intruding on the rights, and infringing the privileges, of that other end which is properly divine, and peculiarly adapted to the purpose of holy fcripture. The very pious and ingenious author of the Prelections feems, indeed, to be occafionally arrested in the midst of his critical career, by this awful reflection; as if he were fenfible that he might be sometimes treading with a profane step on holy ground.

Without paying fufficient attention, as a theologist, to that vast system of prophecy interwoven,

interwoven, by means of the Parabolical Style in all its variety and extent, through the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, he indulged the critic with great freedom, and indeed, ability and, it need not offend the numerous admirers of this able author, of which number I profefs myfelf to be one, if I say that this celebrated work betrays more of the claffic than of the divine. After the example of a Longinus, and with the acumen of an Ariftotle, his object was to display the various and diftinctive characters of the facred poets in the Sententious, the Figurative, and the Sublime, to illuftrate their specific qualities, and to trace the peculiar effects which they are calculated to produce on the imagination and affections. With fuch an intention, the Profeffor of Poetry chofe a field of criticism for the fubject of his lectures, as fruitful as it was novel; in which his claffical genius expatiated with equal taste and judgment. But he overlooked the great end which the infpirer of this poetry had principally in view, and which puts a reftraint on our judgment in deciding upon thefe other; and he has confined the Parabolical Style within limits which

are