1997-1 
the celebrated prince and high-prieft of 
Salem. If he was not, as ftated in my 
former letter, a prieft of the Chaldean, 
or Syrian God, Elioun, whofe pedigree 
is related by Sanchoniatho, according to 
the traditions of his countrymen, docs 
G. W. then, allow, that he was pricit of 
the God of the Jews, and, as fuch, de- 
ferving of the high charaéter given to 
him by the author of the Epiftle to the 
Hebrews? This being taken for grant- 
ed, a prevailing opinion would be wholly 
unfounded, that rhe Eaftern world, be- 
fore the callof Abraham, had univertally 
fallen off from the true worfhip, into 
idolatry. 1f- the God of Melchifedek 
was the fame as the God of Abraham, 
Ifaac, and Jacob, how is it probable, 
that he fhould not only forfake this emi- 
nent votary, and his fucceflors, but doom 
them to total deftruétion, in favour of an 
avowedly inferior prieithood, and of a 
peopie who did not adhere to his ordi- 
-nances, but, with obftinate d:fobedience 
conitantly mixed his rites with facrifices 
to Remphan, Afhtaroth, Rimmon, and 
all the Baalim? Is this proceeding war- 
ranted by the change of name announced, 
Exod. vi.3, where it is faid, ‘* I appear- 
ed unto Abraham, unto Ifaac, and unto 
Jacob, by the name of Ei Shaddai; but 
by my name Febvah, was I ‘not known 
to them.’ Noitwithftanding this, the 
following words are referred to Abraham, 
by the author of Genefis, cap. xiv. 22 : 
“ T have lifted up my hands to Febuab 
El Elioun, poffeffor of heaven and earth,”’ 
&c. Now, if the El Elioun, and the 
E] Shaddai, which nearly agree m re- 
{peét to the fignification of the terms, 
were, in faét, the fame, as G. W. fup- 
pofes, it follows, either that Abraham 
worfhipped a fufpicious Canaanitith di- 
_Vinity, or that Melchifedek, and his 
colleagues, officiated as prieits of the 
God of the Hebrews, under a title ufed 
by their own countrymen ; which feems 
contradiétory to many parts of the New 
Teftament, wherein a divine call or 
commiffion to Abraham is faid to have 
been neceffary, from the univerfal pre- 
valence of idolatry. 
If G. W. can folve this dilemma, and 
fome other apparent inconfiftencies, 
above ftated, he will furely perform no 
unworthy tafk. He mutt, however, pro- 
ceed by fair criticifm, and on proper 
hiltorical documents, if he would claim 
attention. His obfervations on Mr. 
Taylor’s verfion, in your laft Magazine, 
do not afford a very fatisfactory {pecimen 
of his mode of reafoning ; fince, in place 
Anfwer to G. W....Modern Hexameters. 
‘neither 
337 
of argument, and nice criticifm, he has 
fubitituted what he withes, or choofes, to 
underftand refpecting the paffage in 
queftion. Unfortunately, his withes do 
not coincide with the plain and obvicus 
fente of the terms employed by the an- 
thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. 
Cumdcn-Place, May 10, 1797. R.M. 
Oe 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SER, 
7OUR Mifcellany draws attention in 
the circles of Weimar. InWiELanp’s 
Deutfcher Merkur, for October, 1796, 
twelye pages of commentary have been 
employed by fome German literato in exa- 
mining the nineteen lines inferted in your 
Firft Volume, p. 404, with the fuperfcrip - 
tion, ‘‘ Hnglith hexameter exemplified.” 
Te prefers thefe verfes to the earlier at- 
tempts of the Germans at the like metres - 
he objects to the frequent recurrence of 
the genitive particles in fuch daétyls as 
light of the, face of the; to the harfhnefs 
of fome f{pondees, fuch as bla/is fevecp, 
Jlect-vext ; and to the incipient trochees 
pale that and although; the latter of which 
ought rather to have been cenfured as an 
iambic foot. Laftiy, he compares thefe 
with the twenty-four German hexame- 
ters by which Denis has rendered the 
fame paffage of Otlan, leaving the pre- 
ference undecided; and concludes, by 
foretelling, that the Englith poets will 
foon be able to forge hexameters on the 
anvil of the Mufes, with as much fkill as 
Klopfteck and Vols. 
In the opinion of Diomedes, to which 
Sulzer fubfcribes, thofe hexameters are 
moft etiphonious whofe feet are inter- 
woven, and are not bounded by the be- 
ginnings and ends of words; like the 
Virgilian line, 
Oceanum interea furgens Aurora reliquit. 
and thofe are leait well-founding; where 
every foot is a feparate word ; as is nearly 
the cafe in the Horatian line, 
Prieter cetera Romz mene poemata cenfes 
Scribere ? 
are thofe hexameters praife- 
worthy, which {plit into two, like halves ; 
where the fecond and third foot, as well 
as the fifth and fixth foot, area daéty1 
and {pondee, terminating a word. 
Aulus Geilius (lib. xviii. c. 15) fays, 
«© M.Varro in libris difciplinarym {cripfit 
obfervaffe fefe in verf hexametro quod 
omnino quintus femipes verbum finiret ; 
& quod priores quinque femipedes seque 
magnam vim haberent in efficiendo verfu 
atque alii pofteriores feptem.”’ [tis not 
probable that all the laws of melody, in- 
ferre 
