adorn, and fometimes to enforce both the "light and the folid whimfies," both the critical chimeras, and the theological dogmas, of the Warburtonian school. Wit was in Warburton the fpontaneous growth of nature, while, in your Lordship, it feemed to be the forced and unmellowed fruit of ftudy. He, in thefe lighter exertions, ftill preferved his vigour, as you, in your greater, feldom laid afide your flippancy. He, perhaps with better fuccefs than Demofthenes, feized the famam dicacis, and you, with fuccefs not quite equal, aimed at the praise of urbanity. He flamed upon his readers with the brilliancy of a meteor, and you fcattered around them the fcintillations of a firebrand.' More of this kind follows; but what we have extracted is fufficient to fhew the ftyle and tendency of this publication; which, whatever credit it may reflect on Dr. Parr, as a fcholar, and as a fine writer, will not fail, in other refpects, to fubject him to the honeft, undifguifed, cenfure of his impartial and unbiaffed readers. He must forgive our not allowing him the immunities of invifibility," and the freedom with which we have delivered our fentiments on this anonymous publication which we have attributed to him. We have no pleasure in fuch animadverfions; and gladly turn from them to those parts of the work which entitle him to confiderable praise. The character of Warburton and his writings is admirably drawn; and we fhould fpeak in the higheft ftrains of the warmth of the Editor's friendship to Jortin and Leland, had it not prompted him to, what we deem, exceffive feverity toward their former antagonist. Thefe great men are honoured with a juft and eloquent eulogium; and if, while they were living, no balm was poured into their wounded fpirits by the hand that pierced them,' Dr. Parr has, at leaft, appealed their manes, and caused the laurels of fame once more to bloffom on their tombs. ART. XVI. Vindicie Prieftleiana: An addrefs to the Students of Oxford and Cambridge; occafioned by a letter to Dr. Priestley, from a Perfon calling himfelf an Undergraduate, but publicly and uncontradictedly afcribed to Dr. Horne, Dean of Canterbury, and Prefident of Magdalen College, Oxford. By Theophilus Lindfey, A. M. formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Svo. 5s. Boards. pp. 343. Johnson. 1788. HIS apology for Dr. Priestley is, at the fame time (as thofe TH who are acquainted with Mr. Lindfey's former publica tions will naturally expect), an apology for the writer's theol gical tenets. It is written with the ardour of a man who loves his friend," and with the firmness of an author who has taken a Sce Rev. vol. lxxvii. p. 420. decided decided ftation in the field of controverfy; but it is also written with a very commendable degree of candour and moderation. The firft fubject to which the Undergraduate's letter to Dr. P. calls Mr. Lindley's attention, is fubfcription. On this topic, he takes a brief review of the complaints which have been made, for a century paft, individually, by many of the most respectable ornaments of the church of England, fuch as Tillotson, Locke, Hoadly, Clarke, Whifton, Law, Durell, and Blackburne; and collectively, by the authors of the Free and Candid Difquifitions, by the clerical petitioners in the year 1771; and by another clerical affembly (among whom were Dr. Yorke Bishop of Ely, Dr. Percy Bishop of Dromore, Dr. Rofs Bishop of Exeter, and Dr. Porteus, now Bishop of London) who met, about the fame time, in Tennison's library," to requeft a revifal of the Articles and Liturgy, but judged it fitting to confult first their spiritual fuperiors, and to be directed by them." Mr. Lindsey next proceeds to vindicate Dr. Prieftley's character as a philofopher and a theologian; and pays a juft tribute of refpect to the genius, and induftry, which have enabled him to make discoveries in fcience, that have engaged the attention of all Europe; and to the perfpicuity and folidity of his writings in defence of natural and revealed religion. Dr. Prieftley's doctrine concerning infpiration, is ftated at large, and pronounced to be, not only most favourable to a rational and fatisfactory vindication of Chriftianity, but confonant to the opinion of many learned writers, particularly Erafmus, Luther, Caftellio, Tucker, and Durell; quotations from whole writings are brought forward to prove that they thought and fpoke as freely on this fubject as Dr. Priestley. A long and curious paffage is tranflated from Caftellio De arte dubitandi et confitendi, ignorandi et fciendi, from which we shall make the following extract: It is to be attended to, that, in the facred writings, there are four forts of fubjects of difcourfe. And as Paul incidentally mentions them in one place, I fhall quote them, 1 Cor. xiv. 6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking in foreign languages, what shall I profit you, unless I speak by revelation, or by knowlege, or by prophecying, or by doctrine? Revelation, the Apoftle calls, what is made known in an extraordinary manner by Almighty God. hear. Prophecying is the fame, only received fomewhat differently. Dodrine, I call that which we gather from learning, and our reafoning faculties. This, I apprehend, no one will deny to be Paul's real meaning. Indeed, if neither Paul, nor any one elfe had faid it, the thing would in itself be true, that thefe are the four fubjects of difcourfe in the facred facred writers. For they wrote concerning divine things, exactly in the fame way as they were wont to talk about them with one another; and whether they wrote or fpake, their mind and knowlege and divine infpiration were the fame; nor are their writings any thing else but their converfation with abfent Chriftian friends, or with pofterity. This matter may be easily explained. For Paul gives us an example, what revelation is, in himself, where he fays, Gal. i. 11, 12. I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me, is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jefus Chrift. What Agabus, Acts, xxi. 10, 11. faid of Paul's bonds and imprifonment, is an inftance of prophecy. The hiftories of John, and Luke, are fpecimens of what the Apoftle calls knowlege; the former relates what he faw, and wherein he was in part an actor himfelf; Luke, what he learned from credible witneffes. • What the Apoftle would have us to understand by doctrine, is exemplified in the difquifitions concerning the works of the law, and juftification by faith, in his Epiftle to the Galatians; where he makes ale of reafoning and arguments drawn from the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now fince this is the true ftate of facts, we must be careful in reading the facred writers, that we do not create confufion and miftake by blending these three things together, revelation, knowlege, and doctrine, and by arguing upon them as the fame; but keeping them diftinct, to lock upon what comes by revelation, as the oracles of God; what knowlege of facts we have, to contider as received by credible teftimony; and what is delivered as doctrine, to esteem only as the opinions of men. By this feparate confideration and diflinguishing of each fubject, we fhall fteer clear from that confufion and error, which will otherwife be unavoidable. If therefore we meet with any difagreement or contradiction in the facred writings, we must carefully obferve, whether it be in the oracles, i. e. the word of God, or in the teftimonies to it, or the opinions of men about it. For if it be in the word of God itfelf, we muft diligently weigh and confider all the circumftances of place, time, perfons, occafions, reafons for delivering it, till we find a real harmony, where we thought the difagreement lay. But if we cannot by thefe means difcover it, we must believe that there is fome point of which we are ignorant, which if we could fee, all would be in perfect agreement. For the fpirit of truth, God himself, who is the author of his word, cannot contradict himself, nor can forgetfulness, or error, or ignorance belong to him. But if the difagreement be in the teftimonies to the facts of the New Teftament, we are not to be too fuperftitious, nor over-minute and fcrupulous in marking and comparing each word, but to content ourfelves with a general agreement upon the main points. For if laws both human and divine, direct us, very properly, to give credit to two or three witneffes, although fuch witneffes, otherwife very upright and honeft men, feldom agree in every word, especially if it be in a matter of any length or obfcurity; we ought furely to ob serve the fame rule, and be governed by the like prudence and equity, without any troublefome nicety or exactness, in weighing. and reconciling the teftimonies of the facred writers. For we fhall gain nothing elfe by our fcrupulofity, but fuch a degree of fcepticifm, that no teftimony of authors, profane or facred, will fatisfy us; or fhall make ourselves perfectly ridiculous, by endeavouring to reconcile trifling differences, which never can nor need to be adjusted. And this that I have remarked concerning teftimony, is to be extended to opinions of their own, delivered by the facred writers. We are to pay as much deference to them as is due to holy and good men, or as much as they themselves require of us: but not to erect them into oracles, or place their word upon a level with the word of God, when they themfelves are far from demanding any fuch thing from us.' On the principal queftion between Dr. P. and his opponents, Mr. L. maintains, that throughout the Hebrew fcriptures, Chrift is uniformly fpoken of as a man, and that in fuch character the Jews expected him; that this is the light in which he is reprefented by the evangelifts, not excepting St. John; and that the idea of his natural peccability neceflarily follows from that of his humanity. With refpect to the miraculous conception, he afferts, that the fufficiency of Chrift for his office of Teacher and Saviour of the world, and our faith in him as fuch, do not depend on the truth of this fact: but he declines giving any decided opinion on the question. In farther reply to Dr. Horne (the fuppofed author of the Undergraduate's Letter) the Socinian doctrine concerning the death of Chrift is ftated and vindicated; and the arguments for the popular doctrine given in Bifhop Butler's Analogy, are examined. For Dr. P.'s opinion concerning the unity of human nature, Mr. L. apologizes, by pleading, that it has been held by other eminent divines, and is not inconfiftent with the doctrine of fcripture. Mr. Lindsey concludes with fome remarks on Dr. Horne's merits as a fcripture-critic, particularly as it appears in his commentary on the Pfalms. Whatever may be thought of our author's arguments on the controverted points on which he treats, his honeft love of truth, and the franknefs with which he communicates his ideas, entitle him to attention and respect. We cannot conclude this article more properly, than by a quotation with which Mr. Lindsey has furnished us from Bishop Lowth's vifitation fermon, preached at Durbam in 1758, expreffing fentiments in which all the friends to free inquiry will heartily agree: "Let no one lightly entertain fufpicions of any ferious propofal for the advancement of religious knowledge; nor, out of unreasonRev. Aug. 1789. M able able prejudice, endeavour to obftruct any inquiry, that profeffes to aim at the further illuftration of the great fcheme of the gofpel in general, or the removal of error in any part, in doctrine, in practice, or in worship. An opinion is not therefore falfe, because it contradi&s received notions: but whether true or falfe, let it be fubmitted to a fair examination; truth mast in the end be a gainer by it, and appear with the greater evidence. Where freedom of inquiry is maintained under the direction of the fincere word of God, falfehood may perhaps triumph for a day: but to-morrow truth will certainly prevail, and every fucceeding day will confirm her fuperiority." ART. XVII. The Works of the late John Gregory, M.D. 4 Volumes. Crown 8vo. 125. Boards. Cadell, London; Creech, Edinburgh. 1788. DR R. Gregory's chief view, in his various writings, was not confined to the mere improvement of his readers in fcientific knowlege. In fome of his compofitions, he points out the proper ufe of philofophy, by fhewing its application to the duties of common life; in others, he has fuccefsfully endeavoured to inculcate virtuous principles; in one work he has delineated that propriety of conduct which is neceffary in the practice of the nobleft art; and in another he has exhibited the elementary principles of the fcience which he profeffed. The treatifes contained in thefe volumes have formerly engaged our attention, and may be found in the preceding volumes of our Journal, as referred to in the note*. What is new in the prefent publication, is, The Life of the learned and benevolent Author; of which we fhall give our readers an abridgment. Dr. Gregory was defcended from an ancient family in Aberdeenshire; and among his ancestors, we find a fucceffion of men, eminent for their abilities, and of diftinguifhed reputation in the annals of fcience and literature. James Gregory (the author's grandfather) had immortalized his name by the invention of the eflecting telefcope, and the defcription of that valuable inftrument in his learned work Optica promota, feu abdita radiorum reflectorum refractorum myfteria, geometrice enucleata, published at London in 1663, when its author was only 24 years old. He wrote many other works, which engaged the notice of Newton, Huygens, Halley, and other great mathematicians of the time, and procured for the author of them the efleem of the learned. He was chofen Fellow of the Royal Society; and, A comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man with theft of the Animal World. Rev. vol. xxxiii. p. 356. and vol. xxxv. p 221. Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Phyfician. Rev. vol. xli. P. 401. Elements of the Practice of Phyfic. Rev. vol. xlviii. p. 326. A Father's Legacy to his Daughters. Rev. vol. 1. p. 268. about |