ART. XI. Letters to Dr. Horne, Dean of Canterbury; to the Young Men who are in a Course of Education for the Chriftian Ministry at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; to Dr. Price; and to Mr. Parkhurft; on the Subject of the Perfon of Chrift. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R.S. Ac. Imp. Petrop. R. Paris. Holm. Taurin. Aurel. Med. Paris. Harlem. Cantab. Americ. et Philad. Socius. 8vo. 3s. fewed. Johnfon. 1787.

THIS

HIS publication, though mifcellaneous in appearance, is not without unity of defign. Its great object is that which Dr. Priestley, in all his theological writings, purfues with indefatigable perfeverance, the fupport of the Unitarian doctrine.

In the Letters to Dr. Horne, the Author exculpates himself from the charge of having refl:ed upon the learning and integrity of the advocates for Athanafianifm, and his brethren from that of intolerant principles and intentions: he invites Dr. Horne to give the argument for the doctrine of the Trinity taken from antiquity a farther examination; affuring him, that, after all that has been done by Dr. Horfley and others, the subject is by no means exhaufted: he infifts upon the neceffity of confidering in what manner three perfons are one, God, upon the general principle, that every propofition, before it can be believed, must be understood in fome fenfe or other and laftly, he examines the Doctor's explanation of feveral texts of Scripture. On the fubject of a reform in the public Liturgy, Dr. Priestley difcovers a better difpofition toward an amicable accommodation, than we have obferved in any of his former works.

We can now' fays he, join in ufing the Lord's Prayer, and in almoft all the fervice of the church of England, except the Litany; fo that there is very little that is offenfive to an Unitarian in the whole of your afternoon fervice. Remove, therefore, only your fubfcriptions to articles of faith, and reform your morning fervice after the model of that in the afternoon, and I believe you will remove the greateft of our objections. We are not, I afiure you, fo fond of schijm as to ftand out for trifles; but do not compel, or tempt us, to pay fupreme worship to a fellow creature, to a man like ourfelves; who, though highly honoured by God for his virtue and obedience, was fo far from confidering himfelf as God, that, with the most genuine humility, he always afcribed every thing that he faid, or did, to his Father that fent him, and worshipped him with the fame deep reverence that he inculcated upon all his followers.'

The Letters to the Students in Divinity at the Univerfities are intended to urge them to a careful examination of the doctrines of religion, to make them fenfible of the difficulties and hardships of their fituation, and to engage them to affociate as petitioners to the Legiflature for the removal of fubfcription, and the reformation of the Liturgy.-Whatever may be thought of the expediency of the measure which Dr. Priestley here propofes, the end which he wishes to obtain is, we have no doubt, an object of earneft de

fire with great numbers, both of clergy and laity, in the established church.

Thefe Letters alfo contain animadverfions on Dr. Purkis's Sermon before the University of Cambridge on Commencement Sunday, 1786, and on a work recommended to young ftudents by Dr. Horne," Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity." The former, he cenfures for mifreprefenting the tenets and conduct of the Unitarians; and the latter, he convicts of weak and abfurd explanations of Scripture.

Our Author treats Dr. Price with great tenderness, as a friend, At the fame time he endeavours to convince him of the improbability of the Arian hypothefis that a created Being was the creator of the world; and to fhew, that all the paffages of Scripture, which the Arians adduce in fupport of their opinion, admit of a fatisfactory explanation on Socinian principles. In the following paffage the Author reafons as a philofopher, against the Arian doctrine:

You fay, p. 143, "This earth, with its inhabitants and connections, includes all of nature that we have any concern with.This obfervation is applicable to the account of the creation in the first chapter of Genefis; that account, moft probably, being an account only of the creation of this earth, with its immediate dependencies." But in that account, the most exprefs mention is made of. the creation of the fun, moon, and ftars. Indeed, if we confider the connections and dependencies of the earth, which you fuppofe to have been made by Chrift, we must admit that the moon, at least, was alfo made by him, on account of its intimate connection with, and dependence upon the earth; and if the moon, furely the fun alfo, on which they both depend for light and heat; and if the fun, the whole of the planetary fyftem, including the newly-difcovered Georgium Sidus, and all the comets, which belong to the fun. if the fun, with all that is connected with it, and depends upon it, was created by Chrift, why should we not fuppofe that he made all that clufter, or fyftem of fears, of which our fun is one; and if those fars, all the habitable worlds belonging to them?

And

In this manner I do not fee how we can confiftently ftop, till we include the whole univerfe, be the extent of it ever fo great, or even infinite. So great is the uniformity in the fyftem of nature, that we muft pronounce it to be one work, and of courfe conclude that the Author of it is one. This indeed, is the proper argument for the unity of God on the light of nature, and this argument refpects the immediate Maker of the world, whoever that Being be.'

Concerning fome of the opinions maintained in thefe Letters, among which is that of the natural fallibility of Chrift, Dr. Priestley fays:

Some of the opinions on which you have flightly defcanted are, I believe, novel, and a step, as you may fay, beyond what other Socinians have gone; and yourself, and others of my best friends, are a good deal ftaggered at them. But in a fhort time this alarm, which is already much abated, will be entirely gone off, and then I shall expect

5

expect a calm difcuffion of what I have advanced; and that doctrine will, no doubt, be established which fhall appear to be most agreeable to reafon, and the true fenfe of Scripture. May whatever will not ftand this teft, whether advanced by myself or others, foon fall to the ground; but let no fentiment, however alarming at the first propofal, be condemned unheard, and unexamined.'

In Mr. Parkhurft's work, Dr. Priestley finds nothing which requires any farther refutation than is already provided in his Hiflory of early Opinions; he therefore enters no farther into the examination of this Writer's arguments, than to expose the futility of his reafoning from the plural form of the word used to denote God in the Hebrew language, and to vindicate himself from the charge of deficiency in the knowledge of the learned languages.

In the preface to this publication, Dr. P. expreffes a pretty confident expectation that the prefent difpute concerning the perfon of Chrift will terminate in a general uniformity of opinion upon this fubject. Perhaps a more vifionary expectation was never entertained. If Dr. Price continues an Arian, and Dr. Horne an Athanafian (as our Author fuggefts) from the influence of early prepoffeflions, and in confequence of their frequently recruiting their faith, by perufing their favourite writers, and not paying fufficient attention to arguments on the other fide, it is probable that others will continue to adhere to their respective fyftems from the fame caufes. The fame • hoftile difpofition towards every thing that is eftablished,' and the fame rapidity of genius, which have led Dr. P. on from one opinion to another-always in the fame direction--and will not allow him to fay when his creed will be fixed,' may pufh others beyond the utmoft verge of Socinianifm, into a country

whence no traveller returns. If, in perufing the fcriptures, particular texts never fail to be accompanied with their usual Jong approved interpretation,' and every one has fome method of difpofing of thofe paffages which feem unfavourable to his opinions, this kind of bias will, probably, always continue upon the minds of different perfons, according to their feveral modes of education and connections in life, and perpetuate different fyftems of theology. From thefe caufes, men of equal ability and integrity will always continue to think differently upon the fe fubjects; and if it be (as our Author pathetically Jaments) too much to be expected of man, that Dr. Price should abandon Arianifm altogether, neither is it to be expected that Dr. Horne fhould abandon Athanafianifm, or Dr. Priestley Socinianifm. As long as the world lafts, the maxim will be true, Quot homines, tot fententiæ.

MONTHLY

MONTHLY

CATALOGU E,

For AUGUST, 1787.

TRADE and COMMERCE.

Art. 12. A brief Effay on the Advantages and Disadvantages which refpectively attend France and Great Britain with regard to Trade. By Jofiah Tucker, D. D. Dean of Gloucester. 8vo. 2s. Stockdale. 1787.

HIS treatife is reprinted from the third edition, which was pub

that France enjoys with refpect to trade, and compares them with the advantages and difadvantages which England enjoys.

Three effays are added, I. On the balance of trade. II. On the jealoufy of trade. III. On the balance of power. Thefe were written by Mr. Hume, and first published in 1751, in a collection of Political Difcourfes, for which fee an account in the 6th volume of our Review, p. 19, and 81. The abilities of the Dean of Gloucester, in regard to fubjects of this kind, are univerfally allowed.

POLITICA L.

Art. 13. Caricature Anticipations and Enlargements; occafioned by a late pious Proclamation; alfo by two celebrated Speeches in Parliament relative to a Repeal of the Teft-Act; one by Lord North, the other by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 8vo. 1s. Kearfley. 1787.

Ironical. Lord North and Mr. Pitt are here the objects of ridicule. Whatever fhare the Author poffeffes of wit and argument, is employed in defence of the Diffenters' caufe; or, in his own words, to affift in promoting the interest of religion and virtue, of truth and liberty;-to raife in the minds of British subjects an abhorrence of intolerance and priestly domination, flavery, and defpotifm.' His plan is formed on the fuppofition that the Diffenters have renewed their application to Parliament, for a removal of the teft-barrier, which feparates them from the establishment.

Att. 14. An Inquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments upon Criminals, and upon Society. Read in the Society for promoting political Inquiries, convened at the Houfe of his Excellency Benjamin Franklin, Efq. in Philadelphia, March 9th, 1787. By Benjamin Ruth, M. D. Profeffor of Chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania. 8vo. 1s. Dilly.

the

Dr. Rufh obferves, that the defign of punishment is faid to be,if, To reform the perfon who fuffers it; -zdly, To prevent perpetration of crimes, by exciting terror in the minds of the fpectators; and,-3dly, To remove thofe perfons from fociety, who have mauifelted, by their tempers and crimes, that they are unfit to live in it. He argues very fenfibly on the inefficacy of public punishments in all thefe points of view; but has experience established the fatt, that when the paffions of men, and their habits of thinking, are become fo depraved as to fubject them to the cenfure of the law, that. Riv. Aug. 1787. punishment.

M

punishment in any mode will reclaim them to fobriety and integrity? Our Author, indeed, in the ardour of fpeculative refinement, is bold enough to declare- I have no more doubt of every crime having its cure in moral and phyfical influence, than I have of the efficacy of the Peruvian bark in curing the intermitting fever. The only difficulty is, to find out the proper remedy or remedies for particular vices.' So Archimedes thought it poffible to move the whole world, if he could but find a fulchrum for his lever; but even then, where was the lever? This confidence in our Author arifes from his profeffion; he firft fuppofes an analogy between diforders of the mind and thofe of the body, and then loofely infers, that a pharmacopoeia might be adapted to the one as well as to the other. But though the doctrine of fpecifics is nearly difcarded from bodily medicine, we have the offer of one for the cure of malefactors, and here is the recipe:

Let a large houfe, of a conftruction agreeable to its defign, be erected in a remote part of the state. Let the avenue to this houfe be rendered difficult and gloomy by mountains or moraffes. Let its doors be of iron; and let the grating, occafioned by opening and fhutting them, be encreased by an echo from a neighbouring mountain, that fhall extend and continue a found that shall deeply pierce the foul. Let a guard conftantly attend at a gate that shall lead to this place of punishment, to prevent ftrangers from entering it. Let all the officers of the house be strictly forbidden ever to discover any figns of mirth, or even levity, in the prefence of the criminals. To encrease the horror of this abode of discipline and mifery, let it be called by fome name that shall import its defign.'

The plan of this prifon appears to have been conceived from a defcription of the dungeon in fome inchanted caftle in romance! Nor is the application of this horrid place lefs romantic- Let the various kinds of punishment that are to be inflicted on crimes, be defined and fixed by law. But let no notice be taken, in the law, of the punishment that awaits any particular crime.' That is, a number of tortures and feverities are to be invented; they cannot be called punishments until they are applied to crimes, and this application is referred to the difcretion of Huctuating tranfitory courts! Is this the boatted land of liberty, that is to give the old corrupted states of Europe models of pure government and fublime legiflation? But to fhew that we are totally got into fairy land, let us, with the aid of a conjunction, fee how the grating of iron hinges, echoes, and private difcretionary difcipline, are to operate.

If crimes were expiated by private difcipline, and fucceeded by reformation, criminals would probably fuffer no more in character from them, than men fuffer in their reputation or usefulness from the punishments they have undergone when boys at school.

I am fo perfectly fatisfied of the truth of this opinion, that methinks I already hear the inhabitants of our villages and townships counting the years that fhall complete the reformation of one of their citizens. I behold them running to meet him on the day of his deliverance. His friends and family bathe his cheeks with tears of joy; and the univerfal fhout of the neighbourhood is, "This our brother was loft, and is found-was dead and is alive."