662 
is addressing—“ One of. these I will men- 
tion to you, because it is one of which you 
might have sometimes heard me speak to 
older people. Do you know the term Soci- 
nian? Have you not heard me say with 
grief, nay, horror, for I felt it, that I had 
been in company with a Socinian—that I 
had heard him, whom I adored as ‘ my 
God and my Lord,’ called a ‘ good man, 
the most perfect of human beings.’ You 
are shocked, perhaps, that any one could be 
guilty of robbing Christ of his glory—of 
calling him who is ‘one with the Father,’ 
a mere man! Yet this is the doctrine of 
Socinianism,” &c. 
Constantius, he tells the same children, 
like his father, professed Christianity,—7f 
that can be called Christianity, which would 
make the great author of our religion less 
than God. 
Again—Athanasius thought, as every 
true believer in Jesus, must think, &c. 
Again, Genserec, King of the Vandals, 
was nominally an Arian Christian,—if the 
coupling of the terms were not absurd. 
Calvin, of course, finds the author a 
staunch apologist. ‘‘ So far,” says he, to the 
‘children he is instructing, “so far from pre- 
curing the death of Servetus, he seems to 
have pleaded for his life, or at least for the 
mitigation of his punishment; and, nof- 
withstanding the odium undeservedly cast 
upon it by this transaction, the name of 
Calvin will ever be great in the Protestant 
church, which by his means was established 
‘not only in Geneva, but in many countries 
in Europe. But, perhaps, you can form a 
better opinion of Calvin from his death than 
from any account I can now give you of his 
life’-_which he then quotes from Fry’s 
Church History. 
We had marked several inaccuracies, the 
results of mere carelessness—where the 
writer, we mean, could have no interest to 
serve by misrepresentation—but we have 
no space,—nor is the book of sufficient im- 
portance to regret the want of it. 
Flowers of Fancy, by Henry Schultes ; 
1829.—These flowers consist of ‘ similes’’ 
used by poets, and those who, like poets, 
write ornamentally—collected and arranged 
with great industry, and apparently with a 
miserable waste of good leisure, into an 
alphabetical list—thus : 
Buinp as ignorance, Beaumont and Fletcher 
—asdeath, Jbid—as hell, Habingdon—as for- 
tune, Dryden—as upstart greatness, Lillo—as 
Cupid, Sir W.Davenant, Fred, Reynolds—as 
love, Mead, T. Killigrew, and others—as moles, 
Beaumont and Fletcher, Silvester, and others 
—as owls amidst the glare of day, Donne’s Tas- 
so—as bats, Sylvester, d. Maclaren—as a buz- 
zard, Otway—as the Cyelop, Dryden—as a stone, 
Chaucer—blind and silent as the night, Sir V7. 
Davenant—&e. ; 
Tn a very elaborate preface, the author—a 
man, nevertheless, of taste and cultivation 
—<Struggles hard, in reality, to find a jus- 
Monthly Review of Literature, 
[J UNE, 
tification or apology for his performance, 
but ostensibly to point out the use and ad- 
vantage of it. In the first place, he dis- 
covers “it will assist (we use his own 
words) the writer, who, following the light 
of truth, is enabled to convey his ideas with 
clearness into the minds of others, and who 
can occasionally illustrate his propositions 
by apposite comparisons formed by allusions 
to natural and familiar objects of the sense.’’ 
It is too obvious to urge that swch a man— 
if illustrations do not rise spontaneously— 
had better leave them alone; and, indeed, 
nobody will know this better than such a 
man. But, besides, the author, by dint of 
close scrutiny, detects a second use—“ it 
will offer a list, by which a writer may dis- 
cover whether the offspring of his mind be 
a new creation, or an adoption.” Un- 
luckily, this is incompatible with the 
former—they are destructive of each other. 
He might as well have said, “ It is of use, 
and of no use ;’’ or, had he said, “ Read, 
mark, learn these similes—to avoid the 
use of them’’—this had been admissible, 
and in accordance with a remark of his own 
in another place—that the second user of a 
phrase cannot escape the charge of plagi 
rism; whether truly or not, he loses, in 
every body’s charitable conclusion, the me- 
rit of invention, and is considered a mere 
imitator. 
In this same preface, the writer quotes a 
few similes which he regards as marks of 
bad taste, or at least negligent composition. 
“ The qualities compared have no just cor- 
respondence,”’ he says, “* with each other ; 
and they evince an erroneous judgment, not 
unlike that of the blind man, who thought 
the colour of scarlet resembled the sound of 
a trumpet.” The spirit of this decision is, 
on the whole, sound enough; but the in- 
stances are not equally liable to the censure. 
There are grounds of comparison, in gene- 
ral association, and in obvious and habitual 
transitions, though the qualities will no 
parallel :— ad 
oe 
His heart was light as a sun-beam ;— 
His heart was light as sunshine on the deep ;— 
Happy as a waye that dances on the sea;— . 
As soft in manners, as the silky fur upon the 
bosom of a playing kitten! !!]— as 
Sounds which are soft as Leda’s breast ;— ee 
Music, sweet as the tears that the dews of 
night distil ;— ob 
A joy, as pure and stainless as the gem that. 
the moruing finds on the blossom of the rose ;— 
Joys, bright as April showers ;— 
The feelings, pure as morning’s dew ;— a 
An empire, which rose like an exhalation. 
Memoirs of the late Rev. W. Goode, 
Rector of St. Ann, Blackfriars. By his 
Son. 1829.—This is a memoir, by the son 
of a very zealous professor, of the Evan- 
gelical class, which can, from the exclusive 
and sectarian tone of it—for the Church has 
its sectaries—be readable by none but those 
