and is accompanied by neat engravings of the arms, frontispieces, &c. and the particulars mentioned in the title-page.

THEOLOGY.

Art. 71. A Difcourfe on Prayer, addreffed to an Affembly of Proteftant Diffenters, Auguft 19, 1787, at the Old Meeting, Birmingham By John Hobfon, Minifter of a Congregation of Proteftant Diffenters at Kingfwood, Worcestershire. 8vo. 6d. Dilly. 1787.

Prayer, in the more limited fenfe of the term, as it denotes petition, is here talked about in a tone of familiarity not very fuitable to the fubject. The Author feems to have given fome offence by the difcourfe, and appeals to the Public to determine whether he has afferted that a man ought, or ought not, to pray to the Deity. As the writer is not very clear in his affertions, or accurate in his reafonings, we fhall not take upon us the decifion of the queftion in difpute.

Art. 72. Jefus Chrift the true God, and only Object of fupreme Adoration. By. Hodfon, M. D. 12mo. 2 Vols. 5s. fewed. Deighton. 1787.

Miftaken, or otherwife, it must be faid in favour of this writer, that he manifefts the beft intentions. Convinced himself, as he apprehends, of the truth, and perfuaded also of the importance, of the fentiment for which he contends, he wishes to convince or to confirm others. Dr. Jebb's reasons for refigning his preferments in the church, we are told, led our Author to an oppofite view of the fubject; and Mr. Robinfon's plea for the divinity of Chrift rendered him neutral. In this unpleafant fituation, he determined to enquire and judge for himself; and these volumes are the product of his deliberations. In general, we think, he writes with the candour that he profeffes; yet fome expreffions are too much of a fneering and farcastic kind: and we must think him uncautiously and unjuftifiably fevere, when, fpeaking of the introduction to St. John's Gofpel, he obferves, it has been brought forth by the opponents of Chrift's divinity in "fuch queflionable fhapes," that fo far as it is poffible for human learning and dexterity in criticifm to "wreft" this part of" fcripture to their own deftruction," it has been done.'

The first of these volumes is employed to eftablifh his opinion; the fecond to answer objections: and an Appendix is added, containing obfervations on an Examination of Mr. Robinson's Plea. Of his fcheme and arguments the following fhort remarks may, perhaps, convey a flight idea: That the felf-exiftent Deity is unapproachable; that the Son, or glorified humanity, is the medium by, through, or in, which we worship the Father, or Divinity; that in worfhipping the Lord Jefus Chrift, we worship the One true and only God, in whom is a Trinity of nature, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, united in one glorified Perfon.' Dr. Hodfon does not aim at criticism, or pretend to much acquaintance with the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written, yet furely fome knowledge of this kind is requifite to a full and fair difcuffion of the fubject. He contents himself with the common English verfion; and though what can properly be called new is not to be expected in a track fo repeatedly

traversed

traverfed and examined, the reader may obferve fufficient marks of attention and ingenuity.-Concerning the words of Christ, In that day ye shall ask me nothing, he offers confiderations to prove that the phrafe that day refers to the time of their heavenly happiness, when their joy would be full and perfect. He feems alfo to think that asking in the name of Chrift, is intended to mean addreffing the One living and true God, who was anciently made known by the word Jehovah, or God Almighty, under this name of Jefus Chrift-But we must not enter into the fubject, although we have thought it right to give some general account of the performance. On mature and impartial reflection, fome readers will, perhaps, be led to conclude, that the difputants on this and other fimilar points, are nearer to each other in their fentiments than they themselves apprehend. What this Author fays concerning the Holy Spirit appears to amount to little more than divine influence or operation, and it would by no means be ftrange, if his account of the humanity and in-dwelling Deity fhould be conftrued into fomewhat very like Sabellianifm, or Socinianifm.

Art. 73. The Imperfonality of the Holy Ghoft; an humble Endeavour to refute the Opinion that God and his Spirit are two distinct Perfons. By J. Marfom. 12mo. 98. Marfom. 1787.

This little tract, we are told, was firft written for the information of a friend, at his particular request, and is now publifhed with a view of leading the attention of the ferious reader to a diftinguished branch of divine truth. The opinion here maintained, that the Spirit of God means God himself, or the divine influence, is not news but this writer confiders the fubject like an enquirer after truth, and not like one who is actuated by party zeal. He coolly produces the arguments, and endeavours to obviate the objections that may be raised. He profeffes a defire that the fentiments he advances may be candidly examined, and if they should appear to be fupported by reafon and fcripture, he would then indulge a hope that they will meet with a cordial reception.

Art. 74. A full Confutation of the Rev. Mr. John Fletcher's Appeal to Matter of Fact and Common Sense. By Nicholas Manners. 12mo. 6d. Marfom. 1787.

A continued difpute about free-will, grace, original fin, &c. which begins to grow tedious and irkfome. This writer pronounces on Mr. Fletcher's book, and many others, intended to prove original fin, as written to prove a non-entity. We have only to obferve, that we think it might be as well to lay afide the pen.

Art. 75. The Chriftian Scheme, or Gofpel Method of Salvation, fully opened and clearly fhewn. In a Series of Questions and Answers, in which the fundamental Principles of the Chriftian Religion are laid down in a plain and eafy Manner, and fo arranged as to form a regular Plan or Syftem; a Plan founded on Divine Authority, and equally confonant to Reafon and Scripture. By the Rev. Jofeph Nelfon, Vicar of Skipwith, Yorkshire. 12mo. 1s. Robinfons. 1787.

A well-intended performance; the commendable employment of a clergyman for the benefit of his par fh. He writes as a minifter of

the church of England, but feems to be rather perplexed with fyftem-atical divinity. Though we applaud his defign and his diligence, we do not therefore approve all the fentiments and affertions his work contains-for inftance-it is afked in one place, When are we born of the fpirit ?'-the answer is-- According to the church of England, when we are baptized for the church maintains, that every infant is by baptifm regenerated with the Holy Spirit.'-Now to fay nothing of the doctrine here advanced-what thoughtful perfon can avoid feeling fome objection to the argument offered in its fupport?-The church of England maintains it ;-therefore-it muft be true! Another church, with like authority, may happen to maintain the oppofite !-This has more the appearance of ftate-divinity, than of Chriftianity; and we must think that Mr. Nelfon's Scheme is not always fo confonant to reafon and Scripture as the title-page expreffes. At the fame time, we hope, and think, that this wellmeant performance may contribute to promote virtue and piety among thofe for whom it is intended.

Art. 76. The Spiritual Privileges connected with the primitive Chriftian's Faith, Worship, and Practice; as founded on the Unity of God, the Precepts and Example of Jefus the Mediator of the New Covenant. By James Strephon, Author of Epaphras's Letters in Defence of the Unity of God. 12mo. 15. Johnson. 1787.

This writer, with every deference to divines, juftly confiders the ftudy of divinity as the common bufinefs of every man for himself, the plebeian, as well as the divine or philofopher.' His defign is to fupport the principles of the Unitarians, not merely as oppofed to the doctrine of the Trinity, but other points, of vicarious punishment, imputed righteoufnels, fatisfaction, &c. He earnestly wishes to form a fociety on the plan which he here briefly propofes: at the fame time that he speaks very handfomely of the congregation in Effex Street, he adds, It is too refpectable, to afford a fuitable fociety to men walking in a more humble fphere of life than themtelves.' He intimates that this has been proved to him by a number of inftances. Concerning this we have nothing to fay; except that it would be a reflection on any Chriftian fociety to feem to neglect those in inferior ftations. Mr. Strephon appears to be a pious and good man, and well acquainted with his fubject, though his language is not always the most elegant.

I. On the Influence of the prefent Purfuits in Learning as they affect Religion; preached before the University of Cambridge, on Commencement-Sunday, July 2, 1786. By William Purkifs, D.D. F.S. A. 4to. 18. Cadell, &c.

[This article has been delayed, in confequence of an accident.] The fubject of this difcourfe is admirably fuited to the occafion, and is fo important in itself that it would have afforded us fingular pleasure to have seen it difcuffed more at large. The influence of learning on religion is one of thofe points which appear to us not fufficiently confidered; and hence individuals are charged with con

fequences

fequences which do not arife from any fingle effort, but from the general diffufion of science. As true philofophy advances, the errors of our old theological fyftems will difcover themfelves, and our creed will be brought more to the ftandard of pure fcripture and truth.

In the dark ages, when there was no learning, nothing exifted worthy the name of religion; during the age of the fchoolmen, a fcholaftic theology prevailed; but as foon as the lamentable igro. rance of the one, and the perplexing fubtleties of the other, began to give way to the light of real fcience; when our phyfics began to be facts, our metaphyfics common fenfe, and our ethics human nature opinions once held facred were foon abandoned, and authorities once venerated, defpifed.

*

To the revival of learning in Europe we owe the Reformation; and as learning advances, it is reafonable to conclude that we may improve on the improvements of the Reformers They did much; but who can fuppofe that, juft emerging from popery, and 、 having many violent prejudices to contend with, they fettfed the public faith on the immutable bafis of truth? By the attentive and critical examination which the Scriptures have fince undergone, and the additions made to almost every other branch of knowledge, the opinions of fenfible men have now varied from the Reformers' standard of orthodoxy. A philofophical fpirit of enquiry has deftroyed implicit faith even in the higheft human authority, and generated a variety of opinions. Dr. Purkifs confiders there as evils; but if fo, they are evils which are the neceffary appendages of an invaluable bleffing; they are the fhadows which the fun of fcience occafions. In an age like this, we must expect bold opinions to be advanced, and men ready to espouse and defend them; but if unfounded in truth, they will die away, like the vapours of the evening at the approach of light. The abettors of fixed fyftems of doctrines have reafon to declaim against free enquiry; but their declamations against it, as tending to unfettle the mind, will not now contribute to keep men from it. Authority is no longer allowed to mould and fafhion our faith. Heterodoxy, it is granted, may be Truth, and fenfible men will examine for themfelves whether it be fo or not. Whatever be the question, the appeal must be made to evidence and to reason.

Dr. Purkiss, in this ingenious fermon, does not defcend to the full difcuffion of the particular points of controverted theology, but obferves, that the modes of our prefent purfaits in learning, as they affect religion, may be claffed under the three following heads: first, A philofophical plan of reducing the whole of our being into a fyftem of natural effects; fecondly, A fceptical defire of, arguing away the phrafeology of Scripture, when it feems to convey doctrines above our comprehenfion, in order to reduce them to the level of our own opinions; thirdly, A growing indifference for religious fentiment concealed under the facred name of toleration.

What he has advanced under the first head on the fyftem of the materialists, and under the fecond, on the mode of explaining the phrafeology of Scripture, is upon the whole extremely judicious,

* See Hurd's Dialogues.

and

and deferves much confideration. If (fays he) Chrift was but a preacher of righteoufnefs fent from God, let us at least give what he taught, its full and genuine meaning. But if man's redemption and the mediation of our Lord are to be done away, it feemeth to have been useless that expreffions fo powerful and fo numerous, as to perfuade almost every unbiaffed reader with refpect to the truth of these doctrines, should have been in any wife admitted into Scripture.' It is not for us to fay what reply Socinians would make to this and other reasoning of Dr. Purkifs; but of this we are confident, that the more the language of Scripture is ftudied, and the precife meaning of its phrafes fought out and compared with each other, the fooner we fhall come at the true fenfe of Scripture. Innovators, by promoting this, may render effential fervice to Chriftianity. Truth needs not fear any attack or any investigation. Under this persuasion we did not much relish what Dr. Purkiss has advanced on toleration. He is not for extending toleration to the difbelievers of the Gofpel, affigning this reafon for it, The religion of Jefus manifeftly excludes every other, and we must adhere to this exclufive principle if we affent to its divine authority.'

But here Dr. P. has not fairly flated the cafe. The religion of Jefus fo far excludes, as it claims the pre-eminence over, every other religion, but it nowhere commands any degree of intolerance, or perfecution, as a prudent measure to enforce its claims. No affiftance does it afk from the fecular arm. Its Founder indeed fays, whofoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father; but no where requires his followers to deny them any earthly privilege. On the other hand, when the intemperate zeal of his difciples prompted them to forbid one who followed not them; his command was, Forbid him not.

Christianity has nothing to fear from the most unlimited toleration. We must therefore in this refpect adopt (however we may differ from them in other points) the fentiments of thofe multifarious writers * (Drs. Price and Priestley) who would allow it in its utmost extent.

*This is what Dr. Purkifs calls them.

CORRESPONDENCE.

** Amicus Juvenis requests that we would oblige our Readers with examples of the rules we recommend to be followed' with refpect to the use of the fubjunctive mode. If he will turn to the first article of correfpondence for March laft, he will perceive that our best writers have not furnished decifive authorities; and, on that account, examples would be needlefs; for as many might be produced of the indicative, as of the fubjunctive mode, after conjunctions.

Il J. L.'s polite letter is received; the object of his enquiry will be found in our 73d volume [N° for Auguft 1785], p. 132-135, and [No for December] p. 401-414.