nobler motive of a hope of usefulness, for even the self complacency of an author cannot conceal from himself that on such a topick, he is adding nothing to what all the world already knows,and that every thing he can say has been at least as well said a thousand times before. We will go no farther with our conjectures, lest we should be led to imagine that this propensity to publish may proceed from a childish vanity of seeing one's-self in print, from which we would will ingly believe our clergy to be exempt.

In these remarks we express our general opinion on the subject, though we would by no means be understood to say, that there are no instances to which they will not apply. The sermon before us we doubt not was heard and deserved to be heard with much pleasure, but we must think, that the world would have lost little, if the author had resisted the solicitations of his friends and forborne to give it to the press.

ARTICLE 23. (Concluded.)

1806.

the particular subject of his studies. The testimony and the practice of other learned men and successful students, are in favour of such a method of research. The attempt to explain and state our knowledge must naturally bring its accuracy and extent to the test. Dr. P.'s employment as a teacher required him to compose elementary treatises. In these he certainly excelled. His works of this kind are distinguished by a simplicity of statement, and aptness of illustra tion, and plainness of style. He never forgets that the pupil is to be supposed ignorant of the subject on which instruction is given.

He wrote an English grammar, which was published just before that of Dr. Lowth, and, after several editions, was superseded by the latter; its author, Mr. Cooper observes,having at that time (in the year 1772) more literary reputation than Dr. P. The editor says that the last edition of this grammar was in 1772. We have seen a new edition, corrected and published, London, 1789, by the Rey. Mr. Bretland, of Exeter, entitled

the Rudiments of English Grammar, adapted to the use of schools, with examples of English composition.'

He thinks the publick obliged by his getting a work reprinted, which he says has been always justly celebrated for the peculiar simplicity of its plan, and though frequently inquired for, was no longer to be procured. What peculiarity there is in this work, consists principally in rejecting the distribution and technical terms of the Latin grammar; an absurdity, which the author admits had much gone out of fashion; but were still so much retained as to injure the uniformity and usefulness of English grammars. A little reflection (he says) may, I

think, suffice to convince any per son, that we have no more business with a future tense in our language, than we have with the whole system of Latin moods and tenses; because we have no modification of our verbs to correspond to it; and if we had never heard of a future tense in some other language, we should no more have given a particular name to the combination of the verb with the auxiliary shall or will, than to those that are made with the auxiliaries do, have, can, must, or any other.' He gives his opinion on English composition as an exercise of schools.

To obviate this inconvenience, [ignorance of our mother tongue] we must introduce into our schools English grammar, English compositions, and frequent English translations from authors in other languages. The common objection to English compositions, that it is requiring brick to be made without straw, (boys not being supposed to be capable of so much reflection as is necessary to treat any subject with propriety) is a very frivolousone; since it is so very easy to contrive a variety of exercises, introductory to themes upon moral and scientifical subjects; in many of which the whole attention may be employed upon language only; and from thence youth may be led on in a regular series of compositions, in which the transition from language to sentiment may be as gradual and easy as possible.'

There is a copious analysis of Dr. P.'s lectures on the theory of language and universal grammar, printed at Warrington, in 1762, and delivered to the students, but never fully published.

The lectures on oratory and criticism have been much commended as exhibiting an ingenious

and successful application of Hartley's theory of association to the phenomena of taste. The lectures of the same author, on history and general policy, make a valuable and pleasing introduction to the study of history. A new edition of this work has been published in Philadelphia, with the addition of a chapter on the constitution of the United States. An extract is giv en, in which the doctrine of the cosmopolitan statesmen is defended, that war is never justifiable to secure the exercise of commercial rights; because it is favouring one class of the citizens more than another; especially the merchant more than the farmer. If the merchant finds his business a losing one, (say they) let him give it up, or do something else, or do nothing; but not urge his country to hazard her blood and treasure to enable him to prosecute his trade. We believe this book contains no other principle advanced as a state maxim, so weak and so pernicious as this. The interest of the parts is the interest of the whole. The farmer is directly concerned in the protection and prosperity of the merchant. If force may never be employed to defend commercial rights, it is vain and ridiculous to pretend to have them. It is not the justice of our claims, but the power to enforce them, and to repel aggression, which gives them value. Till nations have agreed upon some common judge to decide their differences, there must be occasional war.

The chart of biography is a map invented by Dr. P., which shows by a glance of the eye the duration of any eminent îndividual's life, and that of all his contemporaries. It has been engraved in this country, and deserves to make a part of the furniture of every literary room.

After several fugitive pieces on politicks; a vindication of Dr. Franklin; and an accusation of Mr. Burke, for not continuing the friend of Dr. P. to the last, even after he had espoused the French revolution, we come to the theological part of the book.

No. 5 is a summary of Dr.P.'s religious opinions. It is well known that Dr. P. was at the head of the sect denominated Unitarians, or Socinjans, who profess to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a man, divinely commissioned as a teacher of truth and righteousness; and that having been publickly crucified by his enemies, he was raised from the dead the third day. They believe that he was nothing more than a man, possessed of extraordinary powers, and invested with a particular commission, and that he had no existence previous to his birth. The summary under review is, we believe, as far as it goes, a just account of the Doctor's opinions upon most subjects of theology. He believed in of timism; that the system of the universe is the best that could have been devised by infinite goodness and wisdom, and executed by infinite power; that the moral and physical evil, observable in the system, are necessary parts of a great plan, all tending ultimately to produce the greatest sum of happiness upon the whole; not only with respect to the system in general, but to each individual, according to the station he occupies. This system, (he considered) in plies the necessary dependence of

4

He conceived, that the light of nature afforded but imperfect evidence of a future state, and rested it principally on positive revelation. He believed in the occasional interposition of the Deity from the beginning, by teachers supernaturally endowed, to give a true knowledge of God, and of men's duties to him and one another, and to enforce them by authority and motives. He received the books of the Old and New Testament, as containing the history of these dispensations of religion, and the circumstances attending them, so far as it is nesessary for us to be made acquainted with the facts. He admitted that there is convincing evidence of the accuracy and fidelity of the writers of these books, and their substantial truth, though he conceived that they had suffered in passages of no great moment by frequent transcription and interpolation; and that the authors might commit mistakes, and differ from each other in things of minor import, not affecting the objects of their mission. He rejected the doctrines of original sin,atonement, and of election and reprobation, as taught by the system of Calvinistick theology. Future punishment he considered to be of that sort, which a parent inflicts on a child, in its nature and operation corrective ; and therefore he did not admit the eternal duration of future punishment. His opinion respecting the soul, of course led him to reject the doctrine of an intermediate state. In church government he was an Independent. He believed the keeping of the sabbath to be incumbent on all

religion. The Comparison of the institutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos and other oriental nations; of the doctrine of heathen philosophy with christianity; his Answers to Paine and to Volney, are certainly works to be read with benefit and pleasure.

The controversy with Dr. Linn, in which the latter was thought by his friends and by the orthodox publick to have acquired honour, began from a little pamphlet of Dr. P. entitled, Socrates and Jesus compared ; written with a view to confute the Deists.

The Tracts in defence of Unitarianism and of doctrines connected with it, make no small part of Dr. P.'s writings.

In the first place the argument is compressed into small books and pamphlets; one a general view of the arguments for the unity of God, and against the divinity and pre-existence of Christ, from reason, from the scriptures, and from history; then various defences of Unitarianism, from 1786 to 1789; an appeal to the serious and candid professors of christianity;' and 'a familiar illustration of certain passages of scripture relating to the same subject.' His opponents were Dr. Horne, Dr. Price, and Mr. Parkhurst; Dr. Geddes, Mr. Howe, Messrs. Barnard, Knowles, Hawkins, and oth

learned work upon this subject. It remained for a considerable time without any formal answer of importance,till the work of Dr.Jameson.

In the history of early opinions the argument is in a great degree original.* Former theologians have appealed to the fathers as advocates for the doctrines which they themselves espoused, and have endeavoured to support the credit of their respective systems by the authority of the venerable contessors of the primitive church. Dr. Priestley has chosen very different ground. He is the first controver sial writer who has rentured openly to declare, that his doctrine is in direct opposition to that of the great names to whose authority he appeals, and who have hitherto been generally regarded as the authorised expositors of the christian faith. He allows that very few, if any, of these eminent men were, properly speaking, Unitarians in principle. Nay, that they even held the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ in contempt and abhorrence, and that they opposed it to the utmost of their power. He nevertheless contends, that the great body of christians, both Jews and heathens, for the three first centuries, were strenu ous advocates for the proper unity of God, and that they zealously opposed the gnostick, the platonick, and the arian doctrines, as they were successively introduced, and all the other speculations of the philosophising christians, which were invented to shelter themselves from the disgrace of being the disciples of a low-born Jew, who had been ignominiously executed as a common malefactor. He aims to show that this alarm

* Belsham's Reply to Smith.