darkness of ignorance, we are humble and cautious; we feel our way, step by step, and make use of old marks and established conductors, to assist our progress; but in the glimmerings of superficial knowledge, we rush on our danger, because we presume on our light; we dash against difficulties, unseen or misconceived; we mistake forms for things, and shades for substances, and are either terrified to inaction by false fears and erroneous appearances, or stimulated to rashness in the confidence of imaginary safety.

What beneficial effects can result from this superficial smattering of science, at present so prevalent? this duck and drake dip in the profound of physical erudition, which seems calculated only to devest Ignorance of her diffidence, without removing her defects; which flatters Folly and Frivolity with the semblance of Skill; and heightens Affectation by tricking her out in all the airs of Philosophy. Though the author is far from being one of those who would restrict the studies of the fair to the mere economy of the household, the productions of the tambour frame, or the precepts of Glasse's cookery: yet he confesses he has no relish for science in coteries, and professors in petticoats. He thinks the new chemical nomenclature makes an awkward addition to the vocabulary of the Loves and Graces. The very sound of oxygen and hydrogen, and caloric and carbonic, proceeding from the delicate lips of Beauty herself, operate like a chill on the heart, and a check to the ardour of admiration. It is to be feared also, that, as yet, there are no very convincing examples to prove that the fair derive much improvement in person, manners or mind, from dabbling in the crucible with the chemist, or charging a battery with the electrician. The author acknowledges that he is jealous of those favoured rivals, whom he thinks neither sufficiently sensible of their charms, nor grateful for their attentions; he has so much regard for the gentler sex, that he would spare them the pain of traversing the dry and thorny wilds of science; and seduce their graceful steps through flowery paths to the more congenial regions of Taste, and the more amusing bowers of Fancy.

But the accomplished belle of the present day, slights the Muses and Graces for the more alluring charms of physical phenomena; she performs, with a grave face, the farce of philosophical experiment, and terrifies her unscientific papa, with electric shocks, artificial earthquakes, and mimic thunder.

THAT is a very noble speech which the genius of Shakspeare causes Edward the Fourth to utter, when returning from the theatre of his conquests.

Once more, we sit in England's royal throne,
Repurchas'd with the blood of enemies.

What valiant foemen, like to autumn's corn,
Have we mow'd down in tops of all their pride.
Now we have swept Suspicion from her seat,
And made our footstool of Security.
Now what remains but that we spend the time
With stately triumphs, mirthful comic shows,
Such as befit the pleasures of the court.

Sound, drums and trumpets! farewell, sour Annoy!
For here, I hope, begins our lasting joy.

IN the following lines, the genius of Walter Scott shines with resplendent lustre. The poet is describing the court revels of king James, and very archly hints at the coquetish character of the songstress of the party. The whole description is so strictly graphical that the poet's page would furnish a complete examplar to any artist of common ingenuity.

Now in gay Holyrood, the while,
Dame Heron rises with a smile

Upon the harp to play.

Fair was her rounded arm, as o'er

The strings her fingers flew,

And, as she touch'd and tun'd them all,
Even her bosom's rise and fall

Was plainer given to view.

For, all for heat, was laid aside,
Her wimple, and her load untied.

And first she pitched her voice to sing,
Then glanced her dark eye on the king,
And then around the silent ring,

And laughed and blushed, and oft did say,
Her pretty oath, by yea and nay;
She could not, would not, durst not play.
At length, upon the harp with glee,
Mingled with arch simplicity,
A soft, yet lively air she rung,
While thus the wily lady sung.

The price of The Port Folio is six dollars per annum

PRINTED FOR BRADFORD AND INSKEEP, NO. 4, SOUTH THIRD STREET, BY SMITH AND MAXWELL.

Critical Observations on the Poem of Mr. Joel Barlow, the Columbiad, by M. Gregoire, formerly Bishop of Blois, Senator, Member of the National Institute, &c. &c.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

I HAVE received with gratitude, and read with interest, your magnificent work, the Columbiad. This monument of genius and typography will immortalize the author and give fame to the American press; this alone would be sufficient to destroy the assertion of Pauw and other writers, that there is a want of talents in America, if your country did not already offer a list of great men, who will go down with eclat to posterity.

When a book is published, it enters the domains of criticism; you yourself solicit it in the letter which accompanies your present; you solicit it with the frankness which is natural to you. Thus I exercise a right as well as perform a duty, not in addressing literary observations to you, but in repelling an insult to christianity, an insult on which I should be silent, if Barlow was a common writer, or his poem an inferior work, because the book and its author would soon sink together into the stream of oblivion.

Amicus usque ad aras, says an ancient. It is at the foot of the altar, that I blame certain lines in your book, and an engraving which has the following inscription, Final destruction of prejudices. Prejudices!Perhaps no one desires their destruction more than myself. But what do you call by this equivocal name? and what do I perceive in the midst of the heaps in this picture, which serve for emblems? The attributes of the catholic ministry, and, above all, the standard of christianity, the cross of Jesus Christ! Are these what you'call prejudices! If even the excellent works, which have rendered evident the truth of the gospel; if even the principles and the history of eighteen centuries did not formally contradict you, it would be easy to show that this picture is an attack against all christian societies, that it is an act of intolerance, of persecution, which offends God and man.

The unlimited freedom of religion in the United States confers on no sect a character of domination, nor any of those exclusive privileges, that are possessed in different countries of Europe by the churches of the Catholics, Greeks, Lutherans, Calvanists, &c. &c. Let us leave to the partizans of the English church the endless dispute on the prerogatives of the established church, on the utility of those civil establishments which, already shaken, will crumble, perhaps, on all sides, at no very distant epoch. Though I am by conviction, by sentiment, a VOL. II. 3 I

catholic, and honored with the episcopal character, after a deliberate examination, I think that if we owe to the state a guarantee of obedience when it requires it, that nevertheless these civil establishments, which may be in favour of errors as well as of truth, are often unjust, impolitic, dangerous in more than one respect, though Providence may draw good from them, as it does from many other evils which it tolerates.

Let every thing relating to conscience, as well as every thing that belongs to social organization, be freely discussed; truth demands examination, which despotism only can fear: this alone finds it necessary to invoke ignorance, to surround itself with darkness, to repel the light which breaks out from the researches that are directed by good faith and sagacity.

But what will be the result, if, instead of reasoning with calmness and respect on religion, the most important object for man in the course of his fugitive existence, calumny should point its sarcasms, and spread its black colors over historical, facts which it misrepresents; if, instead of speaking to the understanding to enlighten it, we address ourselves to the passions to seduce? This has been the conduct which our infidel Frenchmen have followed, pluming themselves with the title of philosophers. It is important to recollect, and to recollect often, that of those who have combatted christianity, the greater part have vomited the most infamous things against decency and morality; Lamettrie, Voltaire, J. J. Rousseau, Diderot, Mirabeau, of the constituent assembly, P-, &c. Others have said before me, that incredulity almost always has its source in the heart, and that the antagonists of a religion, whose morality is so pure, are advocates who defend their own cause.

Almost all of them have attacked christianity by reproaching it with the abuses it has experienced, as if the abuses were the thing itself; as if, after having directed the wind on the straw, we must still blow away the grain; as if wine and iron ought to be proscribed, because there are debauchees and assassins.

the

In the stormy course of our revolution, the infidels held during some years, sceptre of power; you were a witness of the use they made of it. In an instant, these champions of toleration and humanity were seen to display all the ferocity of Diocletian; to shut up, profane, and destroy our temples; to pursue the religious man even into the asylum of his thoughts; to incarcerate and transport bishops and priests. A great number of catholic pastors were dragged to the scaffold; during eighteen months I feared and expected the same fate; it is well known with what outrages I was loaded, in the midst of the national convention, for having braved the infuriated howlings of impiety; the greatest favour that was accorded us, was only to mark us out as superstitious,

as fanatics; these were the epithets in fashion. For several years we were constantly under the axe of executioners, calling themselves philosophers. Do you hasten to tell me they usurped this title; we are agreed. God preserve me from attributing to philosophy the crimes of brigands, who dressed themselves in her liveries. In the face even of the altar, I have justified her from crimes she abhors;* but will our infidels ever exercise good faith? Will they ever cease to reproach christianity with the abuses which she laments?

What further did they do? They travested august liberty as a bacchante; they exclaimed that no one could be at once a christian and a republican, at once a republican and a moderate; though thousands of examples among us, as well as among you, attested the contrary though a holy and natural alliance establishes itself between those cha. racters. Some pious but unenlightened men, were frightened by these clamours; believing themselves placed between liberty and religion, Could they balance in their choice? It may be seen how our reformers, wishing to associate the republic with every thing that could destroy it, themselves precipitated the vessel of liberty into the abyss, at the moment it was reaching the port.

What would they have substituted for christianity? A goddess, and a temple of reason, man for God himself. They afterwards made temples to the Supreme Being; temples in which theophilanthropy erected her booths, till the period when the worship of the deists found its chapels deserted in France, as that of David Williams was in London.

At this period foreign nations waved among us the banners of discord; they were powerfully aided by all the enemies of the revolution, of whom a part having fled their country when it was in danger, to stir up against it the potentates of Europe, corresponded with those who remained in their homes, to kindle discord and anarchy. By a refinement of perversity, they conceived the plan of destroying the most salutary reforms, by outstretching the object, and forcing every measure; of rendering odious or ridiculous the soundest notions by exaggerating them; in fine, of revolting the people by alarming their consciences.

Who could believe it, if accumulated facts did not attest it, that two classes of men the most opposite were seen at this period, acting in concert to commit the same crimes, and to destroy religion? Pretended philosophers from hatred against it; pretended christians from hatred had submitted to the law requiring an oath? They would rather have seen our altars overturned, our sanctuaries profaned, and covered with filth and sacrilege, than to behold their brethren

to every priest, wha

* Discourse on the opening of the national council of 1801. p. 2.