—1797-] 
is one private bath clofe to the other, it 
is as defeétive from cold, as that ‘is from 
fteam—aveither have antichambers. Vhe 
hhoufes in the town are’at too great a 
diftance from the Bath, particularly in a 
country where they have feldom two 
fucceffive days without rain. ‘The noble 
proprietor of this fpot has certainly built 
a magnificent .row of honfes, and- has 
brought company to them. There are 
cafes in which a patient may not be hurt 
by damp, cold, and noife ,; but as thefe 
mutt. increafe the fufferings of thofe 
“vrhofe affliction is the greateft, I think 
it would be defirable for every patient 
to know, before he leaves a dry, quiet, 
and cheerful houfe, to-what a {cene he 
is going. » 
Tf the duke and duchefs of D—— 
were apprifed of this ftate of things, at 
the place on which his Grace has la- 
vifhed fo much, I cannot but think the 
affiicted, both poor and rich, would have 
eheir wamts more ftudied, and the pre- 
{criptions of the faculty meet with far 
greater fuccefs. I am, fir, 
Your obedient fervant, © | 
Sa 
Lo ihe Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SER, 
ay OUR ingenious correfpondent (No. 
X, page 776, & fuiv.) has furnithed 
you with an elegant paper “ concerning 
fome apologifis of hero worfhip.”’ Truft- 
ang to that impartiality you have hither- 
‘to fhown, I fend you the following re- 
‘marks-upon its contents : 
After perufing the extracts from lord 
Bacon, Milton, Hobbes, Middleton, 
Hume, and Gibbon, ‘‘names ever to be 
efteemed, for having polifhed to the 
‘keeneft edge of refinement, both their 
tafte and reafon ;” I am of opinion, that 
the argument, as drawn from thofe quo- 
tations, is a little forced. 
I confider the extraét from lord Bacon ° 
merely as an hiftorical fketch of what the 
Grecians call apotheofis, and the Latins 
relatio inter dives. In it, he has, with 
-great propriety, ftated the different merit 
of thole who were patriotically active in 
civil affairs, and of thofe who were emi- 
nently fuecefsfulin pacific employments ; 
and applauds the preference given by 
the ancients tothe latter, as being ‘‘done 
juftly and upon. found judgment.” 
In all this T-cannot difcover that the 
Philcfopher of Verulam recommends the 
introduétion of fuch deities in the prefent 
age. ,He fays, ‘it is to Chriftians as 
forbidden fruit ;” and I think it cannot 
_ Monrury Mac. No, XIII. 
. On Hero Wor fife “ 
am 
be very inviting to thofe who are not: 
and, farther, *‘that pacific deities have the 
true charadter of divine prefence ;” an ex- 
preffion which f by no means condemn, 
tor whoever promotes the comforts of 
life, and extends the circle of human 
happinefs, may fo far be faid to retemble 
mine aivintty. 7. eel 
 Your°csrrefpondent does not appear 
to Have been imore fc ctunate in his ex- 
traét from Milton, wh » had recommend- 
ed it only by calling it ‘a civil kindof 
idolatry,” towhich th people, exorbitant 
and exceflive in all their motions,.are 
cftentimes prone.. Milton has praited 
Simon de Montfort and Thomas Plan- 
tagenet, but he has not faid they ought 
to be canonized; he has merely iaid, 
that the memory. of fome other perfon 
ought to, have received execration, in- 
ftead of renown. 
The writer fays, “* Catholic .chapels 
have been confecrated to San Marino 
and to Wilhelm Tell; to fuch canon- 
izations, Milton ic feems would not have 
objected.” If this affumption reft only 
‘on the quotation which he has given, I 
5] 
think it is fuperficial and hafty. - It is an 
affertion which the context will fcarcely 
warrant, and may be either right or 
wrong. | 
As Tam not infenfible of the refpeét 
due to departed worth, to grand at- 
chievements, or’ to {plendid talents, fo 
Tam not difpleafed with any rational 
mark of public efteem, or of private af- 
fection. But we fhould take care that 
our efteem does not degenerate into fer- 
vile veneration, nor our affection into 
flavith fuperftition. We fhould regard 
the greateft characters as exemplars to 
be followed, rather than as faints to be 
canonized. 
The quotation from Middleton feems 
to have no reference to the prefent fub- 
ject, but to be entirely confined to a 
comparifon. between the gods of the an-. 
cient Romans, and the faints of the ma- 
dern Roman catholics. 
But that from Hume is exactly to the 
point. Here modern hero-worthip is en- 
forced without difguife; but in a man- 
ner which will not convince thofe who 
were netconvinced before. Itis a dog- 
ma in modern philofophy to which I 
cannot fubfcribe, that to degrade the 
deity will elevate the mortal. That to 
worthip a being of {potlefs purity and 
inconceivable perfection, fhould debafe 
the mind of the worfhipper, and incline’ 
him to monkifh virtues, is a pofition too 
abfurd. for. deliberate refutation. “The 
higher I place my ideas of virtue, the 
Moe 
87.2 
