Perhaps you may think the present doleful subject here concluded; but, alas! the horrors of the 1st of November are sufficient to fill a volume. As soon as it grew dark, another scene presented itself, little less shocking than those already described: the whole city appeared in a blaze, which was so bright, that I could easily see to read by it. It may be said, without exaggeration, it was on fire at least in a hundred different places at once, and thus continued burning for six days together, without intermission, or the least attempt being made to stop its progress.

I could never learn that this terrible fire was owing to any subterraneous eruption, as some reported, but to three causes, which all concurring at the same time, will naturally account for the prodigious havoc it made. The first of November being All Saints' Day, a high festival among the Portuguese, every altar in every church and chapel (some of which have more than twenty), was illuminated with a number of wax tapers and lamps, as is customary; these setting fire to the curtains and timber-work that fell with the shock, the conflagration soon spread to the neighbouring houses, and being there joined with the fires in the kitchen chimnies, increased to such a degree, that it might easily have destroyed the whole city, though no other cause had concurred, especially as it met with no_interruption.

But what would appear incredible to you, were the fact less public and notorious, is, that a gang of hardened villains, who had been confined, and got out of prison when the wall fell, at the first shock, were busily employed in setting fire to those buildings which stood some chance of escaping the general conflagration.

The fire, by some means or other, may be said to have destroyed the whole city, at least every thing that was grand or valuable in it, and the damage on this occasion is not to be estimated.

quake the sea rapidly retired to a considerable distance; then returned with equal rapidity, whelmed thirteen vessels which it had left dry in the port, carried four others far into the interior, and completely razed Callao, swallowing up all its inhabitants to the number of five thousand, with many persons of Lima, who were on the road.---ED.

The whole number of persons that perished, includ. ing those who were burnt, or afterwards crushed to death, whilst digging in the ruins, is supposed, on the lowest calculation, to amount to more than sixty thousand; and though the damage, in other respects, cannot be computed, yet you may form some idea of it, when I assure you, that this extensive and opulent city is now nothing but a vast heap of ruins; that the rich and poor are, at present, upon a level; some thousands of families, which, but the day before, had been easy in their circumstances, being now scattered about in the fields, wanting every conveniency of life, and finding none able to relieve them.

A few days after the first consternation was over, I ventured down into the city, by the safest ways I could pick out, to see if there was a possibility of getting any thing out of my lodgings; but the ruins were now so augmented by the late fire, that I was so far from being able to distinguish the individual spot where the house stood, that I could not even distinguish the street, amidst such mountains of stones and rubbish which rose on every side. Some days after I ventured down again, with several porters, who, having long plied in these parts of the town, were well acquainted with the situation of particular houses. By their assistance I at last discovered the spot; but was soon convinced to dig for any thing here, besides the danger of such an attempt, would never answer the expence.

On both times, when I attempted to make this fruitless search, especially the first, there came such an intolerable stench from the dead bodies, that I was ready to faint away; and though it did not seem so great this last time, yet it had like to have been more fatal to me, as I contracted a fever by it, but of which, God be praised, I soon got the better. However, this made me so cautious for the future, that I avoided passing near certain places, where the stench was so excessive, that people began to dread an infection. A gentleman told me, that going into the town a few days after the earthquake, he saw several bodies lying in the streets, some horribly mangled, as he supposed, by the dogs; others half burnt; some quite roasted; and that in certain places, particularly near the doors of churches, they lay in vast heaps, piled one upon another.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE POCKET MAGAZINE.*

A REPLY

TO THE

DEFENCE OF CLERICAL PLAGIARISM. FROM the angry remarks of your correspondent, J. A. page 39, it appears that an article in the lighter department of your entertaining miscellany, Vol. I. page 17, provoked his spleen, and he has had the goodness to launch his invectives against those unhappy mortals who unthinkingly display, "at the very porch of the church," "their utter ignorance of the purpose for which they should visit that sacred edifice.'

Indeed, Mr. Editor, begging J. A.'s pardon, I must confess myself one of those who compose "the young and inconsiderate part of an audience," which is, perhaps, the latent cause of my attempting to defend myself and brethren; not but that I join with J. A. in reprobating all levity and giddiness in those places, more peculiarly dedicated to the services of religion, and which are deemed sacred by all classes of society, but that I conceive it is neither impious, cruel, nor unjust, to notice and comment upon really false and ungrammatical expressions. As this opinion, however, appears to be admitted not only by striplings of boys and girls," but by " mature age," let us examine the arguments brought against it.

J. A. deduces, as the necessary consequences, I suppose, of this practice, the contemptuous treatment of the precepts of religion, and the disrespect shewn to its ministers, i.e. by those persons who have acquired the habit of criticism. Supposing this to be the case, where, I would ask, is the mighty injury? What! can "the young and inconsiderate part of an audience,' titled with youth and ignorance," convey any very

It is not our wish to fill the pages of our Magazine with controversy, which is generally more amusing to those who are engaged in it, than to those who read it. The advocates on both sides have now had a hearing, and we hope that the question will be suffered to drop.

"severe censure," by the "public exposure" and "ridiculous exaggeration" of the actions of the minister? Are those, who" display their utter ignorance," possessed of such power as to blind the eyes of the whole congregation? The class of "pious sensibility," and of honest and liberal minded persons, who (I hope, for the honour of mankind) compose, at least, a majority of christian assemblies, would not surely be induced to withhold from the minister his reward, his well-earned praise, by any exaggeration of the young and inconsiderate! and, if it is from them alone that the minister finds the reverence due to him withheld, surely he cannot for a moment suppose that their ridicule will be worthy of notice, or be worth dignifying with the title of a severe censure."

It is a great loss to your readers, Mr. Editor, that J. A. did not communicate the logical process, by which he makes ignorance the accompaniment of youth. "Youth and ignorance" is certainly very emphatic, but, perhaps, not very correct. It cannot, surely, be a proof of ignorance, to be able to canvass a "false emphasis," or a period inelegantly turned; or, if it is a proof, the charge lies rather with the individual who commits the error, than with the person who recognises it. Again, ignorant as youth may be, those who have received an education, sufficient to enable them to point out the faults or errors of a preacher, will never mistake the precepts of religion for the blunders of its ministers; no one, excepting, perhaps, the sapient J. A. would suppose that religion would be treated with contempt, because its ministers may commit some trifling errors; and who, that possesses common sense, would conceive that false emphasis, inelegant periods, or accidental intonations, are identical with the precepts of the Gospel, or ascribe the faults of the clergyman to the influence of the Bible?

After concluding his attack upon "the young and inconsiderate," J. A. proceeds to defend those ministers who, it appears, possess neither the graces of oratory, nor even the talents necessary for composition. If it be a 66 common practice" to notice the errors of the preacher, it must be as common with the preacher to commit those errors, consequently he is not quali

fied for the pulpit; and if he cannot express his ideas with perspicuity, force, and elegance, he is in an equal degree unfit for composition. These, whatever J. A. may suppose, are the essentials of a preacher, and if he possess them not, he has assumed a station in life for which he is unqualified, and provokes justly merited criticism and public exposure."

66

But, Mr. Editor, in the eagerness with which this redoubtable champion of the clergy seizes every argument which bears upon the subject, he unfortunately produces some which will not bear comparison. For instauce, if it be allowed what he is so desirous of proving, that a man need not, in the present age, possess those abilities which were once deemed requisite, and indispensably necessary for a minister, inasmuch as he is possessed of stores of "sublime, eloquent, and energetic eloquence," from the volumes of his predecessors; yet, I would ask, why must "they labour to give expression to ideas, and force to sentiments," if these are not required? if we must not "listen to a sermon for grammatical precision, or unblemished pronunciation?" "If it is not the language, but the subject, in which we are concerned; and sound argument, apt illustration, forcible application, and distinct utterance, is all we have a right to expect?" If the subject be all, why adopt the eloquence of others? Again, the perceptive organs of J. A. must be excessively keen, to be able to distinguish the principles just enumerated from the graces of oratory; was it not for these that "Sherlock, Tillotson, and Blair," were so eminently distinguished? and does not J. Á. in fact, tacitly condemn those individuals who do not possess these qualifications?

To crown this curious defence we are seriously told, that the minister, who is a "skilful splicer and dovetailer of the expressions of his ancestors," deserves praise instead of blame; and that a thing, thus com posed of shreds and patches, dubbed a sermon, "could only deserve censure, was it published without the due acknowledgments." Certainly J. A. is strangely bewildered, to wander from cause to effect, from the author to his sermon. The sermon, individually considered, never would deserve censure; but the man who