« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
of it in the most able and judicious of the orthodox. The bulk of those who espouse the orthodox cause 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 ministers to whom it is addressed, to stand forch, and defend the injured cause of genuine orthodoxy, by shewing plainly what it is, and by using such arguments only in its support, as wili stand the test of rational investiga. rion. Some strictures are passed on subscriptions to articles of faith, as tending to promote the cause of heresy rather than of truth.
Such is the outline of this well written pamphlet; in commenda. ţion of which we shall briefly remark, that we have seldom, if ever, met with a publication, written on what are usually termed orthodox principles, so well calculated as the present to recommend itself by the good semper, moderation, and truly Christian spirit by which it has been dictated. We have perused it with pleasure, and we recom: mend it with cordiality.
The additional letter to Dr. Price censures him (with what de. gree of justice we leave others to determine) for the want of impar. ciality in stating the sentiments of the Trinitarians; and it also charges him with inaccuracy in representing the peculiar opinions of Dr. Watts. This seeming inaccuracy, however, arose from a very material typographical error in that passage of Dr. Price's sermons on which our Author animadverts. The passage criticised is, it agrees with Arianism in the strange doctrine (as Dr. Watts calls it) of a THREE-FOLD Deity.' Our Author juftly remarks, “It appears entirely new that Arianism maintains a THREE-FOLD Deity," The passage in Dr. Price's sermons should be read thus : 'It agrees with Arianism in Rejecting the strange doctrine, &c.' The word rejecte ing being supplied makes the sense clear. Our Author has properly apologized for this criticism, în a poftfcript which came to our hands a few days after we had perused his pamphlet.
N. B. Our account of Dr. Price's Sermons will appear in the next Review.
$ E R M O N S. 1. Preaching Christ crucified, the most useful Method of preaching : il.
lustrated in two Discourses, the Substance of which was preached before an Assembly of Protestant Diffenting Ministers at Exeter, on Sept. 6, 1786. By William Lamport. 8vo. Js. 6d. Buck. land.
The Author is not one of the cold, dry, didactic race of preachers. He glows with his subject ; and the subject expands as he pursues it.
Mr. Lamport observes, in a note, that the text which Mr. Bret. land chose to preach from at a preceding affembly, affords not the Jeast encouragement to any of the Apoltle's successors to imagine, that they should be guilty of the blood of their hearers, unless they are discuffing in the pulpit every thing which they conceive to be contained in the Scriptures. . . . . Bon signifies advice given for
*1. e. An opinion which Dr. Watts maintained in the latter part of his life.
the the regulation of conduet. . . . The Apostle did not “ thun to declare the whole counsel of God.” He would not keep back any thing that was profitable both to Jew and Greek in common. But doch noc this circumstance evidently imply that he made known only so 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 ho fed with milk, but not with strong meat, because they were not able to bear it. They could not digest it. Instead of being ferviceable to them, he found it would prove a source of greater ani. mofity than was already among them. He did not choose to give full scope to that curiosity which inclines the mind to speculate on subjects which at present we can discern only through a glass darkly. Permit me to ask, whether there hath not been too much curiofity among Christians in every age, either like the Papilt with the Jew, to require a hgn; or, like the philosophic Protestant and the Greek, to seek 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. II. The Duty of contending for the Faith. Preached at the Vifitation A great book, in this way (says Dr. Horne), is indeed a great evil, if the point can be settled in a small one. The superfluity of naugh'iness should be cut off ; all flourish and declamation, self-adulation and personal altercation, rhetorical amplification and digreffion, every sentence not immediately ad rem, as useless and noxious excrescences, pared away; that point discovered on which the dispute turns, and the opponent closely confined to it. Terms fhould be defined, to prevent ambiguity and evasion ; arguments and objections carefully collected, and methodically arranged; stated and answered with all possible conciseness and perfpicuity; leaving as little room, as máy be, for replies and rejoinders; the sad consequence of which is, not only loss of time and temper to the writers, but disgust to the readers, who grow weary, and, despairing of being able to fix their opinions, resolve to give themselves no farther trouble about religion.' III. Delivered, July 9, 1786, in the Surry Chapel, Blackfriars.
of the Most Rev. John Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, July 1, * 1786. By George Horne, D.D. Dean of Canterbury, &c. To which is subjoined, a Discourse on the Trinity in Unity, 410.
Is. 6d. Rivingtons, &c. . It is much to be lamented, that religious controversialists, on every fide, are fo apt to look upon their own peculiar tenets as the “ faith once delivered to the saints," and to “ contend for them,” as if the “ common salvation” depended upon their being universally received. Hence it is that Unitarians are so 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 class; and, though he wisely disclaims all coercive measures, considers it as the business and · bounden duty' of the clergy to employ their learning and abilities in defence of the Athanasian fyftem.
Ever fince the days when, as our Author fays (how far consistently with historical truth we shall not stay to enquire), Ashanafius food Jingle against the world and prevailed, the contest has been kept up on both sides with great perseverance and spirit. With what effect? Each party ftill complains of the other as corrupters of Christianity, and appeals to the same authority to decide the dispute : yet the dispute remains undecided. What is the natural conclusion from this fact, but that the whole question is (what our Author acknowledges one part of it to be)' a disputation without ideas, in which, after a long, tedious, intricate, and perplexed controversy, we find ourfelves-juft where we were – totally in the dark. Why, then, should the world be longer troubled with the fruitless conteit, when the contending parties might so easily meet on the ground of their common principles, expressed in the language of the New Tellament. But if it must needs be that these disputes continue, there is one thing in which we heartily concur with the respectable Author of thefe Discourses, namely, in recommending to writers on both fides, BREVITY.
" A great
Bridge, by the Rev. Mr. Venn, and published, with some Variations and Additions. By an attentive Auditor, and humble Admirer, in hopes it may please and edify many others, as it edified and pleased the Editor. 8vo. 15. Bew.
From the title of this sermon, The good and righteous King, the reader might conclude it was somewhat of a merely civil and political nature : but he will find it very different. The text is Ijaiab, xxxii. 1-4. It bears some mark, of Methodism; without being deftitute of learning. It also manifests an earneft zeal for morality and good works, together with some reflections on ministers, on the service of the church of England, and on those who diffent from it. But, we find that Mr. Venn has disclaimed this Discourse by a public advertisement. ----We have therefore nothing farther to add, -except the just and severe censure which falls on those who h ve teme. rity and presumption enough to publish, under the name of another person, without per million or authority, a compofition surrepritiously obtained: and given to the world, as hat sometimes been the case, in such a form, and with such imperfections, as may serve only to render it disgraceful to the reputed author.--But we do not think that these lait mentioned, disreputable circumitances, are chargeable on the present publication.
To the MONTHLY REVIEWERS. GENTLEMEN, AUDI alteram partem, - is a morto you would ever with to support,
in the little unavoidable controversies of your page of Correfpondence. When you have indulged me with a hearing, the subject will of course be difinified, as it ought. Your Correspondent, G. B. has not kept ftrictly within the bounds of truth, in saying that my Explanatory Appeal, which you reviewed, was written in conle. quence of my being difowned ; whea in fact my disown ment, idle as it was, was rather in consequence of my having written the Ap. peal; that publication, which contained a dilownment of church authority in some points, being one principal charge of offence' against me. · When G. B. fhall have learned more caution, and added more knowledge to his zeal, he may know that a person born
and educated in the community of Quakers, and profesing and practising the worship peculiar to that Society, is both legally and virtually a Quaker, however he may be treated, or however unrolicitous he may be to avail himself of any Society fanction, for publications which have no connection with it.
Yours very sincerely, Bath, March 22, 1787.
WILLIAM MATTHEWS. ** We are obliged to An old Friend, for pointing out to us a miftake in page 351 of our Review for November last, respecting the capacity of the Swedish kanne, or the English measure corresponding to 100 Swedish cubic inches.
Prof. Celsius, in the Stockholm Aets for 1739, has given an acx curate comparison of the standard Swedish foot with chofe of severat, other nations, and, among the rest, with the English foot copied by Graham from the Royal Society's standard. He finds the Swedish foot to be less than the English, in the proportion of 1000 to 1027 ; and the Reviewer of the Article alluded to, calculating on a supposition that the inch was less in the same proportion, made 100 Swedish cubic inches equal to 92 and a fraction of ours ; not aware, that the Swedish foot is divided and subdivided decimally; for though he had often met with the expresion decimal, or geometric inches in the Swedish writers, he imagined, from this very circumstance of its being mentioned only in particular cases, that this division was used in those cases only, for facility of computation. The fact however is, that the Swedish foot is constantly so divided; and therefore though the foot itself be less, the inch, or tenth part of that foot, is greater than the twelfth part of ours: according to the proportions above stated, the Swedish inch is equal to 1,168 English, and the kanne contains nearly 159. English cubic inches. Our ingenious Correspondent has deduced from a different source (the weight of a kanne of water given by Bergman) almost the same conclufion, that the kanne is equal to nearly 160 of our cubic inches. We must therefore request to readers to correct the error in page 351, and read i kanne equals 5 wine pints English nearly.
This gentleman thinks we are mistaken also with regard to Mr. Scheele's weights, and indeed it appears likely, considering his profession, that he used most commonly the medical weights; which, in Sweden, are divided exactly in the same manner as with us, though there is a little difference in their absolute weights; the Swedish being less than the corresponding denominations of ours, in the proportion of 23 to 24. Wherever grains are mentioned, they belong unquestionably to this species of weight, for the Swedes have no such denomination in any other.
Be the case as it may with Scheele, it is plain that Bergman used very frequently, and, we believe, in every instance where grains are not specified, the common or: civil weight ; in which the pound is divided into 32 half-ounces, called lods or loths (Jemunciæ, lorbones); the lod into 4 quintlins or dramis; and the dram into 276į aces. In his original differtation, on mineral waters, published in the Stockholm Acts, he gives the contents of each of the waters he examines, in lods and decimals of che lod, and mencions no other weight
throughout the whole. As this denomination of half ounce appears to be appropriated to the common weight, we imagine that, whereever ounces occur, the medical weight is meant. We believe, how. ever, that our translators have in good measure deprived us of the benefit of this criterion ; for any one; who has not that particular object in view, will naturally tranflate two half-ounces into one ounce : we suspect too that they have sometimes métamorphofed aces into grains, though the former is considerably less than the latter : and when Scheele is represented as having burat nine ounces of phosphorus at once in a glass matras, and is censured by his annotator for having drawn a false conclusion from the experiment, by not making any allowance for the space necessarily occupied by such a gdantity of the material *, we cannot persuade ourselves that he really did use any more than oine aces.
The weight of a kanne of distilled snow water is given by Bergman, in one of his dissertations, 42250 Swedish grains, and, in another, 190 lods: whence the proportion of the two species of weights with another, and with our weights, in all their denominations, may be easily known. * In Scheele's treatise on fire. We quote from memory, not having the book at hand.
We are favoured with W. N's friendly communication. Had he carefully attended to our remarks, he could not have sopposed that we charged the Astronomer Royal with a neglect of his daty, or that we even insinuated it. We are thoroughly convinced that he executes his office with the utmost attention ; nor do we believe that any of his predecessors have been more diligent. What we advanced, relative to the prediction of the comet, in our Review for February laft, was not a reflection on Dr. Maskelyne, but a general remark, lamenting, that England, the native country of thofe aftronomers who first determined the theory of comets, should see an article in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of LONDON, referring its readers to the determination of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.
$*$ The two pamphlets, concerning which, inquiry is made, in a letter bearing the post-mark of the Isle of Wight, will doubtless be noticed; but they must wait their turn, with a multitude of other publications, which, though necessarily delayed, are not overlooked. We should be happy if the limits of our Journal were more adequate to the extent of our plan: the patience of authors, and the friends of authors,' would not, then, be so frequently exercised.
+++ In answer to Ignotus, who enquires concerning the character of a book entitled, “ Tbe Rarional Dame,"-we have no such article in our list.
IS1 We are sorry that it is not in our power to affit L. E. in procuring foreign books mentioned in our Appendixes, &c. We always recommend enquirers to Mr. Elmley in the Strand. ó.
*** Mr. Woodhouse muft excuse our not publishing the intelligence his letter conveys. We are obliged to him for it, but
? De mortuis nil nifi bonum.