440 Mr.Gough’s Correction of Mifreprefentation by theEdin.Rev. [June 1s 
he does no injury thereby to his neigh- 
bour. If a Jew does not believe the New 
Tetiament to be the word of God, he does 
not thereby alter any thing in men’s civil 
rights. If a Heathen doubt of both Tefta- 
ments, he is not therefore to be punifhed 
@s a pernicious citizen.’’ But, hereafter 
of Jews. 
CLXXXiV.—By a STUDENT of JESUS. 
Balfamum in vitro. 
Chaftity’s a balfam—woman’s but a glafs— 
Thar, alas ! haw coftly !—how fragile, this, 
alas! \ 
CLXXXV.—A CONUNDRUM. 
The mention of Dr. Long, at the be- 
ginning of this paper, reminds us of a co- 
nondrum ; which we throw into doggrel, 
perhaps, a§ good as the conundrum, for 
ex nitilo nihil fit. 
What’s Doétor, and Dr., and % writ fo? 
2 
Dr. Long, Dr. Short, and Dr. Afkew, 
CLXXXVI.—LINES 07 DR. GOODRICH, 
Jirmerly BISHOP of ELY, @ud MASTER 
of ST. JOHN’S. 
Et bonus et dives, bene juntus et optimus 
ordo 5 
Pracedit bonitas, pone fequuntur opes. 
NN. B. Thefe lines are copied, but we 
not at prefent recolle&t whence we copied 
them. 
ER. 
rE RB : 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, , 
HEN a man undertakes to place 
any object of art or nature in anew 
light, he may expect to fee his attempt 
oppofed, and a little refle€tion will thew 
him the neceflity of fuch oppofition ; for 
nothing is better calculated to difcover 
the true value of literary and {cientific no- 
veltics than judicious controverly, » be- 
caufe it eftablifhcs thefe theories which 
deferve approbation, and at the fame time 
difcards ail falfe and nugatory doétrinesy. 
On the contrary, if a fccvety of periodical 
critics happen to mifreprefent an author’s 
opinions, either from velign cr ignorance, 
his conduét will require but little apology, 
fhould he refolve to vindicate his fenti- 
ments by expofing the faults of his op- 
ponents. 
The preceding remarks are defcriptive 
ofmy fituation in refpeét of the Edinburgh 
> 
Reviewers ; an aflociation of young wri- 
ters, who refufe quarter,even to the unof- 
fending, and who, on this acccunt, have no 
right to expect their errers to be concealed, 
A Paper of mine appeared in the filth 
volume of the Manchefter Memoirs, the 
defign of which is, to inveftigate the na- 
ture of the faculty which enables men to 
determine the relative pofitions of found- 
ing bodies by the ear. The primary to+ 
pic of the Effay is divided into three dif 
tinct operations, more for the fake of pers 
fpicuity, than to centorm to the plan of 
nature. ‘Thefe are, direét hearing, ob- 
lique hearing, and the perception, which 
difcovers the elevation or depreffien of a 
founding body relative to the head of the 
hearer. The Edinburgh critics feem te 
underftand my demonttrations of the two 
firft cafes, and honour this part of the EC 
fay with fomething refembling heir ap- 
probation ; for they-proneunce it to be a 
mathematical demonttration of a popular 
notion ; but omit to inform us in what 
country this notion is fo prevalent. The 
third head of my paper, however, is 
ftrangely milrepref-nted in the third num- 
ber of the Review in queftion, from mo- 
tives which I leave the condutors of it 
to vindicate or excufe, as they think pro- 
per. 
It is true they have attempted to juftify 
their treatment of this part of my paper by 
prefenting the reader with my own 
words ; but then the artifice, if it be one, 
is not managed with the afual addreis of 
thofe controverfial writers, who make art- 
ful quotations fcr finifter purpofes ; be- 
caufe the extract felected by thefe gen- 
tlemen is far from eftablifhing the ridicu- 
lous fentiments which they endeavour to 
impofe upon the public in my name.— 
This extra&t confitts of an experiment, 
which is intended to prove the head :o be 
a fenfitive folid, tufceptible of topical irri- 
tation, from the -delicate impulfts of - 
founds. It alfo fhews this faculty to be 
more exquifiie in parts adjacent to the 
ears, than in the ferehead, which, in its 
turn, is more alive to vibratory impref- 
fions than the back of the head and the 
lower parts of the face. . 
Had the Reviewer, who profeffes to 
quote my words in full on the fubjeét, pe- 
rufed pages 643-4 of the work he under- 
takes to criticize, he might have feen, if 
he was defirous of being convinced, the 
ufe to which the latter of the two former 
oblervations has been applied by me, and 
for which alone it was introduced in- 
to my Effay. The intention of giving 
gh ae: this 
