Grave divines have been as idly employed, without having had the grace to make fo modeft an apology. Among a number of other dialogues of lefs note, the following compofe the principal part of the prefent volume, viz. Mercury, Vulcan, and Prometheus.-The judgment of the goddefles.-Menippus and Philonides; or a Confultation in the Shades.-Jupiter confuted.-Jupiter in Tragedy.-The Parafite.-The Liar. To thefe Dialogues are fubjoined the Addrefs to the illiterate Buyer of Books; and the Triumphs of the Gout, tranflated into blank verfe, by the late Mr. Gilbert Weft. Many who have a relifh for the wit of Lucian will be pleased with Mr. Carr for faving them the trouble of feeking for it at the first hand and thofe who wish to revive their knowledge of the original, will find the affiftance of this ingenious, and, on the whole, faithful and animated tranflator, of great fervice; though the scholar will find little information from the notes, which in general are unim-receive portant, and in one or two inftances impertinent, and abfurd: the Tranflator feems to have mistaken them for ftrokes of wit. For our account of Vol. I. fee Rev. vol. xlix. p. 161; and of yol. II. Rev. vol. lxi. p. 67. B-k. Art. 45. Indian Verres, a Satire. 4to. 15. Flexney. 1787. It is not, to us, a very clear point who is the Verres of this furious Satirift; but if Mr. Haftings is the intended object of his outrage, the unfortunate Governor may, at leaft, confole himself with this reflection, that of all the mifdeeds of which he can poffibly be accufed, his worst enemy, even Mr. Burke himself, will not fay, that, poet as Mr. H. is, he ever made verses so bad as these. Art. 46. The Pleafures of Retirement: a Poem. By R-t B-n. 4to. Is. Cambridge, printed for Hodfon. 1786. A fondness for rural fcenery, and ftill life, generally befpeaks an amiable, though perhaps n indolent difpofition: it may alfo excite abundance of pastoral and romantic ideas; but all this does not conititute a poet. It was impoffible to read the verfes before us, without recollecting the following well known couplet : Ah! filly I! more filly than my fheep, PHILIPS. Art. 47. The Protection of Providence: an Ode, facred to the Fame of Mr. Howard. 4to. 1s. 6d. Cadell. 1787. Did not the name of Howard (the prifoners friend!) confecrate every thing on which it is ftamped, this wild, and very peculiar panegyric might have drawn from us a few critical obfervations ;-but, it is a well-meant compliment to an excellent man;—and, as such, let it pass. Art. 48. A Congratulatory Epistle to Peter Pindar, Efq; on his various Publications. 4to. 15. Turpin. 1787. An inferior Poet feriously abufes Peter Pindar for his abufive writings. With equal fuccefs would fome grave divine afcend a mountebank's ftage, in order to preach down the Merry Andrew. THEOLOGY. THEOLOGY. Art. 49. Remarks upon Dr. Priestley's Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, with Proofs of certain Facts afferted by the Archdeacon. 8vo. 25. Robfon. 1786. The Archdeacon, in the outfet of this pamphlet, confiders Dr. Priestley as an infufficient antagonist;' and viewing him in that humble light, the ecclefiaftical dignitary feems afhamed of engaging in a contest where even victory would add nothing to his fame. I was well fatisfied, fays the Archdeacon, that in any contest with Dr. Prieftley, I was at liberty to indulge my indolence, without feeming to defert my caufe: that his book, abounding with new fpecimens of confident ignorance (which in thofe fubjects is the most prominent feature in his writings), and in expreflions of fiery refentment and virulent invective, carried with it, as I thought, its own confutation to unprejudiced readers of all defcriptions: to the learned reader, by the proof which it furnishes of the author's incompetency in the fubject: to the unlearned reader, by the consciousness which the fiercenefs of his wrath betrays of a defect of argument." Having produced a few inftances to prove Dr. Priestley's incompetency to write on fuch fubjects as fall within the prefent controverly, our Author fays, thefe and many other glaring inftances of anfinished criticifm, weak argument, and unjustifiable art, to cover the weakness and fupply the want of argument, which muft ftrike every one who takes the trouble to lock through thofe fecond letters, put me quite at eafe with refpect to the judgment which the public would be apt to form between my antagonist and me, and confirmed me in the refolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the fubject, except fo far as might be neceffary to establish fome facts, which he hath fomewhat too peremp torily denied, and to vindicate my character from afperfions which he hath too inconfiderately thrown out. The matters of fact which I mean to prove, are these ; I. Origen's want of veracity in difputation. II. The existence of orthodox Hebrew Chriftians at Jerufalem, after the time of Adrian. III. The decline of Calvinifm, amounting almoft to a total extinction of it, amongst the English Diffenters.' It would afford little inftruction, and ftill lefs entertainment, to our readers, if we were to detail the arguments and authorities by which the learned Archdeacon endeavours to establish his theory. The fubject is hackneyed on both fides, and the curiofity of the public hath been completely exhaufted. B-k Art. 50. Letters to Dr. Horfley. Part III. Containing an Answer to his Remarks and Letters, Part H. To which are added, Strictures on Mr. Howes's ninth Number of Obfervations on Books ancient and modern. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. Is. 6d. Johnson. 1787. Dr. Priestley purfues the Archdeacon step by step, and in his turn neers likewife, though the mode of fneering is different. Dr. Horfley's fneer lurks in his eye-brows. Dr. Priellley's fneer is perched upon his nofe. They little confider, all the while, where is the fneer of the bystanders! O Jane! a tergo quem nulla Ciconia pinfit. I am endeavouring, by all the means in my power (fays our Author), to roufe the attention of thinking men in this country to the corrupt ftate of religion that is established in it; and especially to convince them of the mischievous tendency of worshipping Chrift as God, when Chriftianity difclaims all knowledge of any other God than one, and that the God and Father of Chrift: being confident, that when this is effected (and towards this confiderable progrefs is making visibly every day, and it hath met with no obftruc tion fince the commencement of this controverfy) not only will the prefent forms of Trinitarian worship be abolished, but my countrymen will then thank me and my friends for what we have contributed towards fo glorious a revolution. And I trust that a fire, ftill more deftructive to error and fuperftition, and confequently to all ecclefiaftical establishments in the world, which are built upon, and promote them, will be raised by the concurrence of your feafonable pains in blowing up the flame of this controversy, which will not, I truft, be extinguished, till its end be effectually answered. You will never, then, in this very critical fituation, when the enemy is at the very gate, and fealing every rampart of your old and ruinous fortrefs, indulge yourfelf in your foft couch of preferment, but, together with your brethren, e ert yourself pro aris et focis.' The broad cathedral Sneer will be the ftaunch churchman's comment on the foregoing paffage; while the exulting Non. Con, will be ready to cry out, "Oh! for a pluck at the wh- of Babylon's "red petticoat!" Bak Art. 51. Au Abstract of the Gospel-history, in Scripture Language, 12mo. 6d. Johnfon. 1786. The narrative ftyle of the Gospel,' fays this writer, is peculiarly well fuited to difplay the evidence, purity, and perfection of the character and religion of Jefus, and the excellencies of his manner of teaching; as well as to enforce the Chriftian motives to the practice of piety and virtue.' He therefore concludes, that an abridgment of the hiftory, retaining the fcripture language, is adapted to comprife in a mall compafs an higher degree of thefe feveral advantages than any other method will admit. The fervice of Sunday Schools feems to be chiefly attended to in this little publication. 11. Art. 52. Thoughts on the Progrefs of Socinianifm, in a Letter addreffed to learned, orthodox, and candid Minilters, of all Denominations; with a particular View to the Writings of Dr. Priestley. To which is added, a Letter to Dr. Price, on his late Sermons. 8vo. 15. Buckland. 1787. We are told, in a prefixed advertisement, that though the following letter be chiefly the compofition of one perfon, the thoughts it contains are thofe of feveral, with whofe united approbation they are published.' Accordingly the plural number is ufed throughout. The writer acknowledges, and laments, the rapid progrefs of Socinianifm, which is not here attributed to the fuperior learning and abilities of the Socinians, but to their abundant zeal, and to a want of it in the most able and judicious of the orthodox. The bulk of thofe who efpoufe the orthodox caufe are charged with want of candour toward their opponents, and an injudicious manner of stating and defending the doctrines which they maintain. The letter then calls on the learned and candid minifters to whom it is addreffed, to ftand forth, and defend the injured caufe of genuine orthodoxy, by fhewing plainly what it is, and by ufing fuch arguments only in its fupport, as wili ftand the test of rational inveftigation. Some ftrictures are paffed on fubfcriptions to articles of faith, as tending to promote the cause of herefy rather than of truth. Such is the outline of this well written pamphlet; in commendation of which we shall briefly remark, that we have seldom, if ever, met with a publication, written on what are ufually termed orthodox principles, fo well calculated as the prefent to recommend itself by the good temper, moderation, and truly Christian spirit by which it has been dictated. We have perufed it with pleasure, and we recommend it with cordiality. The additional letter to Dr. Price cenfures him (with what degree of justice we leave others to determine) for the want of impartiality in ftating the fentiments of the Trinitarians; and it also charges him with inaccuracy in reprefenting the peculiar opinions of Dr. Watts. This feeming inaccuracy, however, arofe from a very material typographical error in that paffage of Dr. Price's fermons on which our Author animadverts. The paffage criticifed is, It * agrees with Arianifm in the ftrange doctrine (as Dr. Watts calls it) of a THREE-FOLD Deity. Our Author justly remarks, It appears entirely new that Arianifm maintains a THREE-FOLD Deity.' The paffage in Dr. Price's fermons fhould be read thus: It agrees with Arianifm in REJECTING the ftrange doctrine, &c.' The word rejecting being fupplied makes the fenfe clear. Our Author has properly apologized for this criticifm, in a poftfcript which came to our hands a few days after we had perufed his pamphlet. N. B. Our account of Dr. Price's Sermons will appear in the next SERMONS. I. Preaching Christ crucified, the most useful Method of preaching: illuftrated in two Difcourfes, the Subftance of which was preached before an Affembly of Proteftant Diffenting Minifters at Exeter, on Sept. 6, 1786. By William Lamport. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Buckland. The Author is not one of the cold, dry, didactic race of preachers. He glows with his fubject; and the fubject expands as he purfues it. Mr. Lamport obferves, in a note, that the text which Mr. Bretland chofe to preach from at a preceding affembly, affords not the leaft encouragement to any of the Apoftle's fucceffors to imagine, that they should be guilty of the blood of their hearers, unless they are difcuffing in the pulpit every thing which they conceive to be contained in the Scriptures. Bean fignifies advice given for * i. e. An opinion which Dr. Watts maintained in the latter part of his life. the the regulation of conduct.... The Apoftle did not "fhun to declare the whole counfel of God." He would not keep back any thing that was profitable both to Jew and Greek in common. But doth not this circumftance evidently imply that he made known only fo much of what had been revealed to him as he knew would be profitable, but no more? This was really his conduct towards the Corinthians, whom fed with milk, but not with ftrong meat, because they were not able to bear it. They could not digeft it. Inftead of being ferviceable to them, he found it would prove a fource of greater animofity than was already among them. He did not choose to give full fcope to that curiofity which inclines the mind to fpeculate on fubjects which at prefent we can difcern only through a glafs darkly. Permit me to ask, whether there hath not been too much curiofity among Chriftians in every age, either like the Papift with the Jew, to require a fign; or, like the philofophic Proteftant and the Greek, to feek after wisdom ? Mr. Bretland hath confidered this note as a challenge, and hath put in his reply in the form of an Appendix: See his Sermon, in our laft. B-k II. The Duty of contending for the Faith. Preached at the Vifitation of the Moft Rev. John Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, July 1, 1786. By George Horne, D. D. Dean of Canterbury, &c. To which is fubjoined, a Difcourfe on the Trinity in Unity. 4to. 1s. 6d. Rivingtons, &c. It is much to be lamented, that religious controverfialists, on every fide, are so apt to look upon their own peculiar tenets as the "faith once delivered to the faints," and to "contend for them," as if the "common falvation" depended upon their being univerfally received. Hence it is that Unitarians are fo zealous in establishing the doctrine of the proper Humanity of Christ, and Athanafians, in maintaining his proper Divinity.-Our Author ranks himself in the latter clafs; and, though he wifely difclaims all coercive meafures, confiders it as the bufinefs and bounden duty' of the clergy to employ their learning and abilities in defence of the Athanafian fyftem. Ever fince the days when, as our Author fays (how far confiftently with hiftorical truth we fhall not ftay to enquire), Athanafius flood fingle against the world and prevailed, the conteft has been kept up on both fides with great perfeverance and fpirit. With what effect? Each party, ftill complains of the other as corrupters of Christianity, and appeals to the fame authority to decide the difpute: yet the difpute remains undecided. What is the natural conclufion from this fact, but that the whole question is (what our Author acknowledges one part of it to be) a difputation without ideas, in which, after a long, tedious, intricate, and perplexed controverfy, we find ourfelves-juft where we were-totally in the dark.' Why, then, Should the world be longer troubled with the fruitless conteft, when the contending parties might fo easily meet on the ground of their common principles, expreffed in the language of the New Teftament? But if it muft needs be' that these difputes continue, there is one thing in which we heartily concur with the refpectable Author of thefe Difcourfes, namely, in recommending to writers on both fides, BREVITY, • A great |