of August for Mr SMELLIE to write a complete answer; but he took notice of it in the last page of the Magazine for that month, vol. iv. p. 504. with a promise of honouring Mr NISBET with a total refutation in the succeeding number; which promise he most effectually performed in the September number of the Magazine, 1775, vol. iv. p. 555. Mr NISBET was thoroughly and completely satisfied with the sound dressing he had received, and never adventured to renew the combat. The several pieces above alluded to are inserted in their due order, and require no farther commentary except this: Mr NISBET actually followed the advice given him by Mr SMELLIE; he transported himself to America, and died there a citizen of the Independent States. In this curious dispute, Mr SMELLIE gives strong instances of his powers of controversial satire, a vein of writing in which he seldom indulged his pen.

REPORT OF MR NISBETS SPEECH.

Edinburgh Magazine and Review, vol. iii. p. 363.

MR NISBET of Montrose made several satyrical remarks on what Dr M'CORMICK had said respecting his zeal for religion, and his trembling for the ark of GOD. He alleged that many of the members appeared to be more violent than even some of the Popes themselves had been in cases of a similar nature; and, quoting some instances from his notes, which he said shewed the great moderation of the infallible pontiff, when compared with the sentiments of those who were for inflicting a severe censure on Mr FINLAY; and thus he endeavoured to throw ridicule on the whole proceedings. He concluded by saying, that having formerly given offence* to delicate minds by quoting scripture in that house, he would at this time submit to their consideration a passage from the great SHAKESPEARE, and there it was.

And very justly, if he quoted scripture ludicrously.-Edin. Mag. and Rev.

He then read * two passages from that poet, relating to the use and abuse of power, which would have been very proper if the Assembly had been going to behead Mr FINLAY, OF even to depose him. He was for giving Mr FINLAY a rebuke.

MR NISBETS FIRST LETTER.

Caledonian Mercury, 19th July 1775.

To the Printer of the Caledonian Mercury. SIR,

SUCH is the condition of our times, that those who have no inclination to trouble the public are forced, by the restless malice of scribblers, to appear in their own defence. In reading the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for June last, I find an account given of my speech in the General Assembly, in the cause of Mr FINLAY, which is equally false

*If it be true, that tragi-comedy is the justest picture of nature, Mr NISBET rather mended SHAKESPEARE; for it was really comical to hear the gentleman read two very sublime passages of that author, in the same flat and woful tone, in which a Fife herd repeats his catechism; and with the same regard, too, to emphasis and punctuation.--Ed. Mag. and Rev.

and malicious. I not only alleged, but proved, from authentic testimony, that the Church of Rome had shown greater moderation, in cases exactly similar, than those who were for suspending Mr FINLAY: I quoted two instances of this from MATTHEW PARIS; the one of a French priest, who published a sentence of excommunication according to his own conscience, and not according to the Popes order, without suffering any censure whatever; the other of ROBERT GROSTHEAD, then Bishop of Lincoln, who peremptorily refused to execute an order of INNOCENT IV. and who was cleared in a full Consistory of Cardinals, summoned upon that occasion. I observed that the great design of Christian discipline was the extinction of offences, and bringing offenders to repentance; and that as Mr FINLAY had, in my opinion, removed the offence by his acknowledgment, we were obliged, by the laws of our religion, to forgive him; in proof of which, I said I could have quoted many passages of scripture; but as I had formerly offended some tender consciences, and had been called to order for quoting scripture in that house, I would give them the same sentiments from SHAKESPEARE, whose divinity I

thought very orthodox; and I still think that the passages I quoted apply to the case of Mr FINLAY, even proposed to behead him.

though it was not Upon this Mr Re

viewer has a short note, hinting that I had been very properly called to order, if I had quoted scripture ludicrously: Most true; but who told him that I had quoted scripture ludicrously? The Reviewer does not say so; and if he did, the entire speech referred to, being still extant in the London Magazine for June and July 1773, if I remember right, will convince any one of the falsehood of his insinuation. If you would grant Mr Reviewer his postulatum, he would be in no pain to establish his conclusion; but, unluckily for him, in the present case, his argument rests upon a lie of his own invention. This dark and sceptical mode of calumniating, I take to be entirely new, and peculiar to this author; though I remember an old logical brocard, posito quolibet, sequitur quodlibet, from which some may think that it had been known in former times. The Reviewer seems to have been greatly at a loss for matter of criticism, when he descends to take notice of my pronounciation, which, though not censured by better judges, he