Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

on my confcience, I cannot pen the half of them :' and ' I will affure you, gentle reader, that I never read a line of my MSS. but fent them to the prefs red hot from my brain.' Mr. Griffith is, of course, a very eccentric penman; he is a great enemy to tithes, contradicts the Bishop with little ceremony, difputes moft of his reprefentations of facts on his own knowledge, and tells his Lordship fome home-truths with a good deal of blunt humour. N.

[ocr errors]

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.

Art. 44. Letters to Dr. Priestley, in Anfwer to thofe he addressed to the Jews, inviting them to an amicable Difcuffion of the Evidences of Chriftianity. By David Levi, Author of "Lingua Sacra,” "The Ceremonies of the Jews, &c." 8vo. 2 s. Johnfon, &c. This learned Jew here meets Dr. Prieftley on the ground of fair argument, in order, as he declares, to convince or be convinced. After difclaiming the knight-erran try of aiming at the converfion of Chriftians, he attempts to justify the Jews in their rejection of Chriftianity. He maintains, that their prefent difperfion is not the effect of their difregard to the pretenfions of Jefus, but a continuation of the Babylonifh captivity. The prophecy of Daniel (chap. ix. 24, &c.) has, he argues, no reference to Jefus, but was intended folely to remove the doubts of the prophet concerning the duration of the divine vifitation of Ifrael. By the anointed Prince, in the former part of the prophecy, he understands Cyrus, and, in the latter part, Agrippa. He denies that the miracles which Mofes wrought, were the chief proof of his divine miffion; and refts the evidence of his authority, principally, on the voice from heaven on Mount Sinai. He judges it unreasonable that Chriftians fhould call upon the Jews to embrace their religion, before they are agreed amongst themselves what Chriftianity is; and thinks it particularly prepofterous in Dr. Priestley, to attempt to convert them to Chriftianity, whilst he himfelf acknowledges the perpetual obligation of all the laws of Mofes. He repeats feveral hacknied objections against the miracles of Chrift, and against the books of the New Teftament; and concludes with calling upon Dr. Priestley, to enter upon a re-examination of the Jewish prophecies, in order to determine whether they were fulfilled in Jefus Chrift.

E Art. 45. Letters to the Jews. Part the Second. Occafioned by Mr. David Levi's Reply to the former Letters. By Jofeph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. &c. 8vo. 1 s. Johnfon. 1787.

In reply to the preceding letters, Dr. Priestley complains of the want of candour, and of learning, in his antagonist; fupports the authenticity of the gofpel-history (exclufively of the narrative of the miraculous conception), and the validity of the proof of Chrift's divine miffion arifing from miracles; fhews that there is no inconfiftency between the doctrine of Chrift and that of Mofes; and maintains, that no fatisfactory account can be given of the prefent ftate of the Jewish nation, without fuppofing them to be under the difpleafure of Heaven for their rejection of Chrift; and that no rational explanation can be given of the Jewish prophecies, without admitting their reference to Jefus as the Meffiah: aftly, he again invites the

Jews

2

Jews to the confideration of the evidences of the Christian faith, as a fubject in which all mankind are equally interefted.

E.

Art. 46. Letters to Jofeph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. Occafioned by his late controverfial Writings. By the Rev. M. Madan. 12mo. 3 s. fewed. DodЛley.

1787.

After infifting on feveral well-known arguments in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, chiefly drawn from the Old Testament, Mr. Madan proceeds to pour forth many grievous lamentations over the undone condition of his deluded antagonist. He addreffes him as a loft finner, who is wholly unacquainted with the faving doctrine of imputed righteoufnefs; and tells him, that the time will come when he would give the whole world for one glimpfe of this great mystery of godliness. In short, he fentences the poor Doctor to pains and pe nalties in this world, and to eternal damnation in the next. E. Art. 47. Revealed Religion afferted: in a Series of Letters to the Rev. Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. Containing more efpecially fome Animadverfions on the Doctor's Opinion of Eternal Punishments, of the Doctrine of Calvin, of the Nature of God and the Human Soul, and of the Atonement of Chrift. By Samuel Rowles. 8vo. 3 s. 6d. Afh.

This good man joins with the Author of the preceding article, in charitably warning Dr. P. of his danger. At the fame time, he takes a great deal of laudable pains to convince him of his damnable herefies, and lead him to the knowledge of the truth. On the feveral topics above specified, he difcourfes with a moft tedious abundance of words; but advances little in point of argument which will appear new to those who are acquainted with the writings of Harvey, Toplady, Edwards, Owen, and Calvin. It is wonderful that Mr. Ŕ. fhould think it worth while to beftow fo much reafoning upon these fubjects, when he declares, that where the doctrines of the gofpel come in question, and the authority of God by which they are recommended to us, he prefers Cobler Howe's fermon on the Spirit's Teaching, to all the erudition in the world.

Art. 48. An Addrefs to the Candidates for Orders in both Univerfities, on the Subject of Dr. Priestley's Letters to them. 8vo. I s. 6 d. Robinfons. 1787.

The ftudents in the Univerfities will learn little more from this addrefs, than that the Writer is full of indignation against Dr. P. whom he charges with difingenuity, malignity, impiety, and blafphemy. He has no doubt that if the Doctor had lived in the time of our Saviour, he would have been among the foremost of thofe, whofe deteftable hands were lifted up to deftroy the God of their life, the author of their eternal falvation.' What end can fuch virulent abufe anfwer, but to awaken curiofity and fufpicion in young minds, and to bring into difcredit the system thus fupported?

E. Art 49. A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, on the Subject of his late Letters to the Dean of Canterbury, the young Men of both Univerfities, and others. By one who is not LL. D. F. R. S. Ac. Imp. Petrop. &c. &c. but a Country Parfon. 8vo. 6d. Dilly.

Ff2

This

This country parfon, who amufes himfelf with ridiculing Dr. Priestley's quotations and his titles, fhould have taken care to read at least the title pages of his antagonist more correctly, or to have procured better information: he might then have escaped the laugh, which is fairly turned against himself, for concluding, from Dr. P.'s honorary titles, that he was formerly of the University of Cambridge, in England. E. Art. 50. The Reply of the Jews to the Letters addreffed to them by Dr. Priestley. By Solomon de A. R. 8vo. 1 s. Rivingtons. Solomon de A. R. though certainly no Jew, fhrewdly maintains, in the name of the Jews, that if they were to become converts to Dr. Priestley's fyftem, they fhould gain nothing, and even, after all, be no Chriftians. He very humorously invites Dr. P. to become a Jew; and. urges him immediately to fubmit to the operation of circumci. fion, and to add to the number of his titles, Nunc demum curtus inter Judæos.

E.

Art. 51. A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley. By an Under-graduate. 12mo. 1 s. Rivingtons. 1787.

Humour and argument are, in this little pamphlet, mixed up by a masterly hand, with the view of providing an antidote against the poifon of Dr. Priestley's herefy; but the dofe is too fmall to produce any confiderable effect.

.E. Art. 52. A Sermon on the Thirtieth of January; and three other Tracts. By the Rev. E. W. Whitaker, Rector of St. Mildred's and All-Saints, Canterbury. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Rivingtons. 1787. This fermon deduces the obligation of fubmiffion to civil authority, from the general principle of doing as we would be done unto. The three tracts annexed, are, a Reply to Dr. Priestley's Sermon on free Inquiry, a brief Defence of the Authenticity of the firft Chapters of Matthew and Luke, and fome Remarks on four Sermons on Phil. ii. 5-11. The first of these tracts maintains the moral obligation of orthodoxy, and reprobates improvements in civil or religious eftablishments, under the notion of innovation-a bugbear, which the Public is at length grown too wife to fear. In the fecond, the Author's defence, &c, is derived from the reference to the introduction to St. Luke's Gofpel, in that of the Acts, and from the abrupt manper in which St. Matthew's Gospel must begin, if the two first chapters be omitted. In the third, he makes a few flight and unfatisfactory reflections on a pofthumous piece of Dr. Lardner's; and treats that refpectable writer with a degree of freedom, from which his eminent fervices to the Chriftian cause ought to have protected him.

We fee little to admire in our Author's manner of reasoning on theological fubjects; and, in the fpirit with which he appears to write, we find much to cenfure. In his polemical capacity, we must therefore leave him in full poffeffion of all the credit he may derive from our disapprobation."

"

E. Art. 53. Obfervations on the Debate now in Agitation concerning the Divine Unity; in. a Letter addreffed to the Rev. E., W. Whitaker, of Canterbury. By J. Wiche. 8vo. 6d. Johnfon. 1787.

This piece is written in reply to the third of the preceding tracts. The Writer, whilst he vindicates Dr. Lardner's pofthumous work, enters into the difcuffion of fome points refpecting the Unitarian controverfy, and gives his fenfe of feveral texts of Scripture commonly quoted in fupport of the doctrine of the Trinity; but we do not perceive that he has contributed much toward bringing the difpute to an iffue.

SERMONS.

E.

I. Preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, at Chrift's Church, on
Afcenfion-day, 1786. By Peter Williams, Chaplain of Chrift
Church.
4to. is. Rivingtons.

This difcourfe defends, with much ingenuity, the common explanation of our Saviour's words, "What, and if ye see the Son of man afcend up where he was before?" The Socinian conftruction of the paffage, the Author maintains to be forced and unfatisfactory; and he particularly infifts that the opinion of our Saviour being taken up into heaven before his miniftry, is an unfupported hypothefis. He likewife argues in favour of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, from the characters which he fuftains, as difpenfer of the Holy Spirit, and as Mediator and Interceffor; high offices, which he judges to be wholly inconfiftent with the notion of the fimple humanity of Christ.

Thus far this difcourfe merits attention in the prefent controversy. But we cannot think it perfectly confiftent with the air of good fenfe which runs through the fermon, that the Author adopts the popular, but unmeaning charge against the Unitarian fyftem, as being borrowed from the Koran: nor can we help expreffing an earnest with, that writers on both fides would have the candour to make mutual allowance for each other's prejudices, and cease to charge one another with perverseness and obstinacy. E. II. Clerical Mifconduct reprobated. Preached at the Archdeacon's Vifitation at Danbury, in Effex, Jun. 11, 1787. By the Rev. William Luke Phillips, Vicar of North-Shoebury. Published not by Requeft. 4to. Is. Goldfmith. 1787.

[ocr errors]

By the dedication of this Sermon, we learn, that it gave much offence to fome of the audience, and that the preacher had been cenfured for his feverity against the conduct and behaviour of many of the clergy. Anxious,' fays the Author, only to exculpate myself from the charge of calumny, I fubmit to be tried by my peers.'The offenfive fermon is now laid before the Public for their infpection, by whofe decifion I fhall be acquitted or condemned.'

The text is, Ye are clean, but not all, John, xiii. 10. Mr. Phillips, after remarking that in a large body of men it is not wonderful if fome bad characters occur, enlarges more particularly on the very great impropriety of immoral conduct-profeffional ignorance-inattention to duty-and too great an attachment to the world, which are too obfervable in fome of the clergy of the established church.

It is a fpirited difcourfe, and reprobates, in animated language, the misbehaviour of fuch of the clergy as are here pointed at.

We

are

are forry to think that there may be occañon for fuch reprehenfion; but, on the other hand, it may be well that, for the fake of religion and morality, a worthy preacher is not ashamed to speak boldly, as be ought to speak, and to rebuke with all authority.

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the MONTHLY REVIEWERS.

[ocr errors]

IN your Review for September laft (p. 211, note), you fay, "The Quakers hold this divine teaching of the understanding; and with perfect confiftence throw away the Bible, as a dead letter, as ufeJefs; a divine teaching muft fuperfede human means and authority."

This is not a juft reprefentation of the belief and practice of thefe people. They hold, indeed, the inward manifeftation and teaching of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men, far fuperior to all human teaching and inftruction: but they do not therefore throw away the Bible, as a dead letter, or as ufelefs. On the contrary, they believe the Holy Scriptures were given by infpiration of God; and they think it their incumbent duty frequently to read them, especially the New Testament, in their families; both for their own prefervation and improvement, and as the most effectual means of bringing up their children in a firm belief of the Chriftian doctrine, as well as of the neceffity of the aid of the Holy Spirit of God in the heart.

C. S.'

We have inferted the above, entire, as we would not, on any account, be thought defirous of mifreprefenting a very refpectable body of our Brother Proteftants, and Fellow Chriftians."-The note referred to, by C. S. came from an old Correfpondent, and was inadvertently admitted.

M. B. G. B. and B. W. write to the fame purport with C. S. and the Quakers are fully vindicated, fo far as refpects their training up their children, fervants, &c. in the frequent reading of the Holy Scriptures." Barclay's Apology for the Quakers is alfo referred to (Prop. 3.) for farther fatisfaction on this head.

[ocr errors]

**Mr. Young, by letters which we have received from him, feems much offended at our account of his Examination of Sir Ifaac Newton, &c. fee Review for Sept. p. 239. He fays, Your partial and mutilated quotations are chofen fuch as might probably give offence to a favourer of the prefent fyftem; without having brought forward a fingle argument whereby I fupport my opinions. I cannot but think your criticism on the word endeavour trifling in itfelf, and, if admitted, it does not invalidate one argument of mine. You have charged me with logomachy, mistake, and mifapprehenfion, without adducing the fhadow of fupport for thefe charges.'

In answer to which, we requeft Mr. Young to reconfider the fubject. As to the word endeavour, it is not to be found in any part of the definition to endeavour is a verb active, and, confequently, im-. plies an action. Sir Ifaac afferts the inactivity of matter, and therefore judiciously avoids using a term that is any way applicable to activity; he fays the vis inertia is a vis infita, an innate tendency, a natural propensity or difpofition, by which ever body remains in the

ftate

m

f

« ПредишнаНапред »