and meritorious clafs of the community, who deferve much of their country, and ought to labour under no profcription or difqualification whatever: but when their opponents undertake their historical memoirs, their character is fadly darkened, and their very virtues are made to take the deepest tinge of vice. From the preface to this pamphlet, we were induced to expect a candid difcuffion of their merits; for the able writer, though he is inimical to the repeal of the Teft and Corporation acts, profeffes himself to be one who has the real interefts of Proteftant Diffenters much at heart." What he means by their real interefts,' it is not our business to develope; and, indeed, after reading the pamphlet, it would be rather a difficult task, for he appears to have little inclination to do them common juftice. He labours to ftrip them of every plume of which they boaft, and will not allow them the fmalleft merit. What they urge as a proof of the fincerity of their attachment to the principles of the conftitution, and as an evidence of their unfhaken loyalty, this writer attributes to mere felfishness. Why did they confent to the difabilities of the Teft A&t? This writer tells us; Not from motives of pure difinterefted patriotism, but because they preferred Proteftantifm to Popery, and civil liberty to arbitrary power.

The principles of the Diffenters he confiders as fraught with fedition and rebellion; the riots of 1780 he lays, in a great measure, (we believe very unjustly, for it has never appeared that any Diffenters were in the leaft concerned in them,) at their door, and reprobates their late attempt as full of indecent violence. He regards their application to parliament, to obtain a repeal of the Test Act, as entirely proceeding from a wish to have one pluck more at the whore of Babylon's red petticoat.

We never before found it objected to Diffenting minifters, (fee p. 66.) that they attempt to inftill into their congregations a diftafte of all ordinances, civil and religious. If this was the real cafe, how comes it to pass that they exclaim fo vehemently against what they esteem a profanation of the facrament of the Lord's Supper?

The author of this pamphlet has an able pen, but he has fuffered his prejudices too much to guide it. He allows that there are many among the Proteftant Diffenters who are eminent for their virtue and moderation; yet, at the fame time, he takes care to remind his readers, that

"The mildew'd ear may blaft his wholesome brother." SHAKESPEARE. Art. 56. A Letter to Dr. Priestley, in confequence of his "Familiar Letters addreffed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, &c." occafioned by a Sermon preached at St. Philip's Church in Birmingham, Feb. 14. 1790. By the Rev. Spencer Madan, Rector of St. Philip's. 8vo. pp. 48. IS. Birmingham.

Had Mr. Spencer Madan been left to the calm and gradual inftructions of time and experience, we are perfuaded he would have feen reason to have renounced altogether fome of the pofitions laid down in his fermon: but, attacked by Dr. Priestley, he flicks close to them, and is unwilling to abate one iota of their force. Not Pilate himself was more tenacious of what he had written, than

Mr.

Mr. Madan seems to be. It might have occurred to him that he was at least liable to fome error in deducing political from religious tenets, and that it was uncandid to affert, on the ground of a fact perpetrated by a few, from motives of ambition and felf-prefervation, that the doctrines of the fect to which these individuals happened to belong, infpired hatred to their king: but these obvious confiderations have no weight with a man who has fettled his conviction; he therefore re-afferts that the principles of the Diffenters are unquestionably republican;' and that the extent of their loyalty has been delineated in the blood of a king.' It would have done Mr. Madan much more credit, if, instead of attempting to justify, he had apologized for thefe charges, as proceeding from the wamth of his zeal in a caufe to which he was conscientiously and ftrongly attached.

After the decided vote in the houfe of Commons relative to the Teft Act, he deems it unneceffary to argue the great question; he contents himself with complaining of the unfairness of his adversary, with animadverting on fome expreffions in the Familiar Letters, and with attempting, (in which he fometimes fucceeds,) to give the Dr. a Rowland for his Oliver.

Art. 57. Familiar Letters addreffed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, in refutation of feveral Charges advanced against the Diffenters, by the Rev. Mr. Madan, Rector of St. Philip's, in his fermon, &c. &c. Part IV. By Jofeph Priestley, L. L. D. F. R.S. 8vo. PP. 48. 1s. Johnfon.

The letters contained in this 4th Number, are, for the most part, employed in commenting on Mr. Madan's letter, noticed in the preceding article. Dr. P. acknowleges it to abound with wit, but most with anger;' and as a proof of the temper in which he wrote, concentrates in the first letter of this feries, letter vii. the various charges which Mr. Madan has brought against him. In letter viii. and ix. he animadverts on Mr. Madan's apology for his treatment of the Diffenters, and difcuffes his pofition refpecting the unquestionable republicanifm of the Diffenters; here he takes an opportunity of affuring his readers that he is himself a zealous advocate for a limited monarchy.

His 10th letter is on the Ecclefiaftical conftitution of Ireland. In the 11th he endeavours to acquit himself of the charge of loving controversy. The 12th and 13th treat of the principles of the church of England, and of fubfcription to the articles; in the latter of which, the Dr. expreffes a wish that, inflead of merely fubfcribing their names to the articles, the clergy were obliged to declare their belief of them upon their honour. The 14th and last letter combats Mr. Madan's pofition, that Socinianifm is no lefs dangerous to the State, than any of the tenets of Popery :' for this purpose, Dr. P. exhibits a brief account of the Socinian doctrine, and afks, What has the belief of one God, or of the humanity of Chrift, to do with any principle of the English conftitution?' Art. 58. Familiar Letters, &c. Part V. By Jofeph Priestley, L.L.D. F.R.S. 8vo. PP. 71. 1s. 6d. Johnfon.

The first letter of this 5th part, or letter xv, contains a plain de

fence

fence of Unitarianifm*, or reasons for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from the pofitive declarations of fcripture; and as the queftion might naturally occur; Whence came Chriftians by this doctrine, if not from Scripture? he points out its origin, and directs his readers to the three creeds in our liturgy as afcertaining its progrefs. The firit, called the 4ofiles' Creed," "obferves Dr. P. is Unitarian; for in it God the father Almighty is fpoken of as quite diftinct from Jefus Christ our Lord. In the fecond, called the Nicene Creed, compofed A. D. 325, Chrift is called God of God, Light of Light, the meaning of which is, that Chrift, though truly God, is not God of himself (avrobes) which the father alone was then called, but that he derived his divinity from the father, and therefore was fubordinate to him: but in the third, or Athanafian Creed, (compofed, nobody can tell when, or by whom, but certainly after the time of Athanafius, who did not believe any fuch thing,) all idea of fubordination is entirely taken away, and of all the three perfons, it is declared, that none of them is greater or less than the other; none of them afore or after the other.

The next letter (No. xvi.) we fhall notice in the fubfequent article.

A fhort hiftory of the Diffenters and their principles occupies letter xvii. This is followed by Dr. P's account of the fituation of the clergy of the established church. In this difcuffion, the Dr. very ingenioufly exhorts bis townfmen and neighbours to make a proper allowance for his prejudices. He delivers his fentiments with great freedom, on the obvious defects of our established fyftem, to which, for the fake of fcience, religion, and the clergy, we ardently with a fpeedy, but quiet, remedy could be applied.

The calumnies contained in a pamphlet entitled Theodofius, (written, we believe, by the late Dr. Withers, and noticed in our Review for February laft, p. 233.) merited no reply; yet Dr. P. has made them the fubject of a diftinct letter; adducing various evidence to prove, what was manifeft to us on the firft reading of the pamphlet, that the whole ftory, relative to Mr. Silas Deane, and himself, was an infamous fabrication.

These familiar letters conclude with feriously recommending to churchmen and diffenters, mutual candour and benevolence. The Poftfcript, containing an account of Dr. P's intercourfe with the late Mr. Badcock, has no connection with the fubject of the letters, and might have been referved for a future publication.

Art. 59. Letters to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, in Vindication of those already addreffed to him, on the Infallibility of the Apoftolic Teftimony, concerning the Perfon of Chrift. By the Rev. Edward Burn, A. B. 8vo. pp. 71. 1s. Rivingtons.

Dr. Priestley, in his letters to Mr. Burn, (fee our New Series, vol. ii. p. 241.) charges him with mifreprefentation; Mr. Burn, in this reply, retorts the accufation, and complains of his opponent as

Why do Socinians appropriate to themfelves the name of Unitarians? Arians believe alfo in the proper unity of the divine

nature.

REV. OCT. 1790.

R

an

an unfair and artful difputant. We fhould pity him more, had he not, by giving the firit blow, provoked this redoubtable champion of Unitarianifm, to turn his fpear against him. Thefe letters before us are written with fpirit: but the fubject is not well argued, as the author does not relrict his ideas to what we properly understand by the word tefimony, which the title of his pamphlet, and his controversy with Dr. P. required him to have done. He maintains infpiration to be neceffary to the infallibility of the teftimony of the Apoftles, concerning the perfon of Chrift; while Dr. P. contends that they could give a true or infallible evidence as to the perfon of their mafter, without infpiration. Had Mr. Burn entitled his pamphlet "Letters on the Infallibility of the Apostles, as Interpreters of the ancient Scriptures," he would have made a much fairer attack on fome of Dr. P's pofitions, and would have precluded him from urging many things that he has admitted into his reply; whereas the title, as it now ftands, while it is unfuitable to the argument of the letters, conveys an intimation, (at which the Dr. might well take fire,) that he had been labouring to invalidate the credibility of the Apoftolic hiftory.

On this fecond publication by Mr. Burn, Dr. P. has bestowed a few remarks, in the 5th part of his Familiar Letters, (letter xvi). In point of reafoning, he has evidently the advantage of his opponent: but we cannot compliment him on the mildness of his expreffions; on the contrary, we must condemn him as abundantly too fevere, and as arrogating a province that does not belong to him, when he tells Mr. B. (F. L. part v. No. 16.) that he is at prefent in a ftate of mind which difqualifies him for receiving forgiveness of God.

or man.'

No difpaffionate reader can approve fo ha:fh a condemnation. One would hence fuppofe, that continued oppofition to Dr. Priestley is like finning against the Holy Ghoft.

SINGLE SERMON S.

Art. 60. The Will of God the Ground and Principle of Civil, as well as Religious, Obedience. Preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, October 25, 1789, being the Anniversary of his Majesty's happy Acceffion to the Throne. By Ralph Churton, M. A. Fellow of Brazen Nofe College, and one of his Majetty's Preachers at Whitehall. 4to. pp. 14. IS. White. The good old doctrine of the jus divinum of princes is here revived. Of civil government, (fays the preacher,) the forms are various, and thefe forms are of human appointment; but in every government the authority is the fame, and it is from Heaven.'To oppofe the delegate, is to rebel again the principal: to honour the meflenger, is to honour him that fent him.'

* The opinion of Dr. P. concerning the liability of the Apostles to error, in their application of paffages in the Old Testament to perfons and circumftances in the New, Mr. Burn confiders as tending to injure their credibility as witneffes: but this does not neceffarily follow. The teftimony of a perfon may be accurate, though he may err as a reafoner or an interpreter !

This is the language of ancient times, now feldom heard; and when heard, thanks to the general prevalence of liberal principles, little regarded.

Art. 61. The Evils which may arife to the Conftitution of Great Britain from the Influence of a too powerful Nobility, confidered. Preached before the Univerfity of Cambridge, May 29, 1789, being the Anniversary of the Refloration of King Charles II. By W. Purkis, D. D. F. S. A. late Fellow of Magdalen College, and one of his Majesty's Preachers at Whitehall; nov Re&or of Carlby and Anderby in Lincolnshire. 4to. pp. 18. 15. Cadell, &c. 1790.

After an explicit acknowlegment of the excellence of the British conftitution, Dr. Purkis points out the dangers to which it is expofed, from the ufurpation of the Commons, in aiming to direct the executive power, inftead of cenfuring it; from the tyranny of the King; and from the influence of a too powerful Nobility over both King and People. This latter occafion of danger, he maintains, is molt to be apprehended in the prefent ftate of the British government; in which he perceives a gradual progrefs toward an over-grown Aristocracy.

Its effect on the national reprefentation is clearly and forcibly ftated in the following paffage:

The evils of Aristocracy affect particularly the reprefentation of the Commons. If perfons of property are by degrees removed into the Upper Houfe, the Members in the other will be little elfe but the nominees of the Peers, who are brought in to fupport their intereft; and the voice of Parliament will only be the echo of the Nobility. Any diffolution would be ineffectual, as the fame intereft would return the fame fupporters. A House of Commons would foon become a piece of idle mockery in the caufe of liberty, as was the name of Conful and Senate in the lower ages of the Roman empire. Still more, the Houfe itfelf would grow into contempt; for what man of worth, independence, or integrity, would go there to be out-voted or jeered at by a majority who have received their mandate from thofe who appointed them? If ever œconomy, or a fondness for money, fhould become fashionable amongst the great, (and fashion changes every day,) the of the prefent peerage would go near to abforb the influence of the property kingdom, and we should have few independent reprefentatives. But difpation, and a love of play (the employments generally of a diffolute, an unimproved, or feeble mind) have hitherto prevented us feeling the weight; and the dangerous effects of vice have as yet counterbalanced its natural tendency. Yet as extravagance and a love of play will foon fpread amongst the lower ranks of our people, and of course a want of principle grow up, a general fale of intereft to the best bidder muft arife, and the nobility may dictate the terms of every election. Thus will our fair Fabric of Liberty fall to decay; and that goodly manfion, in which the pooreft perfons finds fecurity and comfort-in which the cottager fmiles, and the widow and the orphan almoft forget their woes-will be exchanged for the gloomy caftles of feudal tyranny, where our wants are relieved at the door with an infult, and charity is difpenfed by

R 2

the