that juftification to the tenets and spirit of the Romish religion, be- Art. 42. Obfervations on the political Influence of the Doctrine of the Dr. Hales taxes Dr. Butler and Mr. O'Leary, with imputing affertions to the Bishop of Cloyne that are not to be found in his pamphlet; the inftances of which he contrafts in oppofite columns. But Dr. Butler infifting particularly, that the confecration oath of the Catholic Bishops is by no means inconfiftent with the allegiance of a fubject to his prince, which is referved by the claufe, Salvo meo ordine; Dr. Hales replies, that whereas Boffuet only laboured to establish the Pope's jurifdiction in fpirituals, you proceed a step farther, and recognize it in temporals alfo; thus proving what has been fo often and so reasonably objected to your church, the actual existence of an imperium in imperio. For if the bishops, in the Pope's territories, fwear fealty to him, both in fpirituals and temporals; and if the Roman Catholic Bishops, all over the world, imitate their example, in taking the faid oath; the inference is obvious. They alfo fwear fealty to him, both in fpirituals and temporals; unlefs an Italian," and an Ultramontane Bishop, take the fame oath in different fenfes ; a fuppofition altogether inadmiffible.' The chief purpose of this pamphlet, which, at the clofe, is only termed Part I. is to cite inftances to fhew, that this conceffion of Dr. Butler is perfectly agreeable to the decifions of the Popes, councils, and canons. As to the faving claufe, Salvo meo ordine, Dr. Hales finds it in the earlieft oath upon record, that of Gregory III. elected A. D. .731; and hence objects to Dr. Butler's expofition of the words, as meaning without prejudice to my STATE, which are nugatory when fworn by a Bishop in the papal territories; and, from various authorities, refolves them into-Saving the privileges of my ORDER; a refervation that impofes fomething different from fecurity of allegiance to the prince, in whole territories fuch a Bifhop exercifes ecclefiaftical functions. Art. 43. Obfervations on the Bishop of Cloyne's Pamphlet: in which the Doctrine of Tithes is candidly illuftrated, and his Lordship's Arguments, for the Infecurity of the Proteftant Religion, demonftrated: to be groundlefs and vifionary. By Amyas Griffith, Efq. late Surveyor of Belfaft, and formerly Infpector General of the Province of Munfter. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Keating, &c. 1787. This whimfical production opens with an odd ftory, of the Author being deluded, by a treacherous friend, into an oppofition to the late legal indulgence granted to the Roman Catholics; and of his being ruined by him. Little method is to be expected from a writer, who declares there are so many ideas floating in my imagination, that, REV. Nov. 1787. Ff оп on my conscience, 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 most of his reprefentations of facts on his own knowledge, and tells his Lordship fome home-truths with a good deal of blunt humour. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY. Art. 44. Letters to Dr. Priestley, in Anfwer to those he addreffed 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. Priestley 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 Christianity. 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 underftands 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, whilft he himfelf acknowledges the perpetual obligation of all the laws of Mofes. He repeats feveral hacknied objections against the miracles of Christ, and against the books of the New Teftament; and concludes with calling upon Dr. Priestley, to enter upon a re-examination of the Jewifh prophecies, in order to determine whether they were fulfilled in Jefus Christ. 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. Is. 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 gospel-history (exclufively of the narrative of the miraculous conception), and the validity of the proof of Christ'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 present state 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 Mefiah: lastly, he again invites the Jews Jews to the confideration of the evidences of the Chriftian faith, as a fubject in which all mankind are equally interested. Art. 46. Letters to Jofeph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. Occafioned by his late controverfial Writings. By the Rev. M. Madan. 3 s. fewed. DodЛley. 1787. 12mo. After infifting on several well-known arguments in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, chiefly drawn from the Old Teftament, 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 glimpse of this great mystery of godliness. In fhort, he fentences the poor Doctor to pains and pe-nalties in this world, and to eternal damnation in the next. 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 Punifhments, 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 fpecified, 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. R. fhould think it worth while to bestow fo much reafoning upon these fubjects, when he declares, that where the doctrines of the gospel 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 Úniversities, on the Subject of Dr. Priestley's Letters to them. 8vo. I s. 6d. Robinsons. 1787. The ftudents in the Universities will learn little more from this address, 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 foremoft of those, whofe deteftable hands were lifted up to destroy the God of their life, the author of their eternal falvation.' What end can fuch virulent abuse answer, but to awaken curiofity and fufpicion in young minds, and to bring into difcredit the fyftem thus fupported? Art. 49. A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Prieffley, 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. Ffz This This country parfon, who amufes himself 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 him felf, for concluding, from Dr. P.'s honorary titles, that he was formerly of the Univerfity of Cambridge, in England. Art. 50. The Reply of the Jews to the Letters addressed to them by Dr. Priestley. By Solomon de A. R. 8vo. Is. 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 should 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 circumcifion, and to add to the number of his titles, Nunc demum curtus inter Judæos. Art. 51. A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley. By an Under-graduate. 12mo. I s. Rivingtons. 1787. Humour and argument are, in this little pamphlet, mixed up by a mafterly 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. 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 first Chapters of Matthew and Luke, and fome Remarks on four Sermons on Phil. ii. 5-11 The first of thefe tracts maintains the moral obligation of orthodoxy, and reprobates improvements in civil or religious eflablishments, 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 manner 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 caufe ought to have protected him. We fee little to admire in our Author's manner of reafoning 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." " Art. 53. Obfervations on the Debate now in Agitation concerning the Divine Unity; in a Letter addreffed to the Rey. E. W. Whitaker, of Canterbury. By J. Wiche. 8vo. 6d. Johnson. 1787. This piece is written in reply to the third of the preceding tracts. The Writer, whilft 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 per ceive that he has contributed much toward bringing the difpute to an iffue. SERMON S. I. Preached before the University of Oxford, at Chrift's Church, on Afcenfion-day, 1786. By Peter Williams, Chaplain of Christ Church. 4to. 1s. Rivingtons. This difcourfe defends, with much ingenuity, the common explanation of our Saviour's words, "What, and if ye fee the Son of man afcend up where he was before?" The Socinian construction 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 popu lar, but unmeaning charge against the Unitarian fyftem, as being borrowed from the Koran: nor can we help expreffing an earnest wish, 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. II. Clerical Misconduct 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. By the dedication of this Sermon, we learn, that it gave much of fence to fome of the audience, and that the preacher had been cenfured for his severity 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-inatten tion 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 |