metry, are words as new, as hard to be comprehended by mechanies; and we do not with John Bull to forget his mother-tongue. 4. Letter to a Minifter of State, on the Connexion between the Political Syftem of the French Republick and the Syftem of its Revolution. Tranflated from the French of Mallet du Pan. "The following letter has been imputed to the pen of Mr. Mallet du Pan, a writer diftinguifhed for the depth of his knowledge, the juffhefs of his views, and the acutenefs of his obfervations on all fubjects connected with the French revolution; and the refult of the enquiries which the tranflator has made tends to establish the juftice of the improbability. Great as the celebrity of the author of this letter is, it can add nothing to the importance of its contents. The expofition which it exhibits of the genius and principles of the French Revolution, and of the views and defigns of the prefent Government of France, the grand queftion of peace is fuch as betrays an intimacy with the fubject, and becomes highly interefting at this critical period to all the powers, and to all the people, of Europe. In introducing thefe pieces to the notice of British publick, the tranflator has been actuated by no views of intereft, by no pirit of party, but by an earnest defire o call the ferious attention of his counPrymen to a question which involves in its confequences every thing that is dear to the patriot, the citizen, and the man. If the French should persist in the views bere imputed to their government, and it is feared with too much reafon and truth, every honest man in the kingdom muft henceforth join heart and hand in repelling a fyftem more alarming in its principles, more deftru&tive in its efects, than any which the annals of civilized nations exhibit to the world. The contentions of party, the struggles for power, the dictates of ambition, the turbulence of envy, all different politics and religions, all animofity public and private, muft yield to the immediate preffure of dangers that threaten not merely our natural but our individual existence. At a moment when life and property are expofed to immineut hazard, none but the ideot or the madman would for an inflant abandon heir defence, to maintain a conteft for objects of inferior import.. The anfwer er to Mr. Hammond's propofition for peace will fupply a Standard for appre ciaring the juftice of the following obfervations, and will enable the publick to afcertain how far the French have res linquished the pernicious fyftem of policy which they are there ftated to entertain. In the mean time, it is alike the intereft and the duty of every man who has a regard for his country, to confider attentively the principles and views afcribed to its enemies, and, divefting himself of all prejudices but thofe which refult from a laudable attachment to the foil that gave him birth, to prepare his mind for a due exercise of pure British judgement and a proper difplay of true Briti spirit.” Advertisement. Mr. Du P. in pointed terms feta forth the objects of the French revo lution, and concludes: "There are no hopes of fafety fo long as Europe fhall remain in that ftate of divifion, conflict, and felfifanefs, in which we are plunged. No hopes of fafety, unless all the great powers unite to facilitate the conclufion of a moderate peace, which may rescue Europe from the difhonour of becoming the feudatory of revolution and the pas trimony of its actors." 5. A Survey of the Counties of Lancashire Cheshire, Derbyshire, Weft Riding of Yorkshire, and the Northern Part of Staffordshire. Defcribing the Rivers, Lakes, Soil, Manure, Climate, Productions Minerals, Property, and Civil and Eccle faftical Divifions; with a general Account of the River and Canal Navigations within tbyfe Diftricts. THIS is an extract from Dr. Aikin's defcription of the country round Manchefter, reviewed in vol. LXVI. p. 500, to bring it within the purchase of thofe who, from circumftances or inclination, are not enabled to procure the original work. It may not be improper to mention, that feveral of the canals have been completed fince the following pages were printed off. Manchester is prefixed. A furvey of the A reduced map of the country round counties of Lancashire and other fires is a gross inaccuracy in the title. 6. Socinianifm indefenfible on the Grounds of its moral Tendency; containing a Reply to Two late Publications; the one, by Dr. Toulmin, intituled, "The practical Effe cacy of the Unitarian Doctrine confidered;" the other, of Mr. Kentish, intituled, "Tha moral Tendency of the genuine Chriftian Doctrine" By Andrew Fuller. MR. FULLER'S publication, which gave gave rife to this controverfy, appear ed three years ago (lee vol. LXIII. p. 1023); a fecond edition with additions, 1794 (vol. LXIV. p. 935); and a third edition in 1797, 12mo; and was not answered till last year by Dr. Toulmin in his "Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine considered;" and Mr. Kentish, in "the Moral Tendency of the genuine Chriftian Dorine;" both reviewed vol. LXVII. pp. 141, 142. Mr. F. now ftates and defends the ground of argument, viz. what is the doctrine in the prefent day, which is productive of the best moral effects. Dr.T. "it fhould feem, can find no fuch fruits of Socinian doctrine as will fupport an appeal, and therefore is under the neceffity of going back to the time of the Apofties in fearch of examples. But are thefe examples in point? were the principles of the Chrifiians in the Apoftolic age the fame as in thofe of Socinianus? With what face can Dr. T. take it for granted that they were, or even go about to prove it as a medium of establishing the practice of modern Unitarianifm?" (p. 8). The Doctor fhifts his ground, and accounts for the defect of devotion among Socinians, compared with Calvinis, in fuch a way as thall not be difparaging to the principles of the former with refpect to their influence on the pious feelings, p. 15; and teaches that the acquisition of truth is friendly to indifference in religion," or, which is the fame thing, that it leads to the neglect of the holy affections." Mr. F. had proved the relation of Socinianifm to Detfm, from the inftance in which Socinians, uniting with Deifts, have gven up fome of the fundamental principles by which Chriftians have been used to maintain their ground against them; and their fuccefs is among the fame defcription of people mere fpeculatifs in religion, and allowed to arife from a fimilar caufe, a difregard to religion in general. But of the argument to proving the direct tendency of Socioianifm to Deism, Dr. Toulmin has taken no notice. "Let the eminency of the abilities of the advocares for divine revelation be what it may; if, in criticifing and defending the facred oracles, they give up their infpiration, plead that they are interpolated, caThier whole chapters where they are found to clafb with a favourite hypothefis, tax the writers with reafoneg incoherently, declare the whole an obfcure book not adapted to fettle difputed theories, or to decide upon fpecial controverted questions even on religion and morality-thefe facred oracles will not admit them to be friends, but confider them as adverfaries in difguile" (p. 26). "It may be asked, what call have we to pass any kind of judgement upon thofe who difown the deity and atone, ment of Chrift? I answer, we are called either to admit them as fellow Chri. ftians into communion with us, or to refufe to do fo. We are neceffitated therefore to pafs fome judgement, and therein all that we do profess. We do not pretend to go fo far as to fay,concern, ing any individual, that we are certain be is not in a flate of salvation; but we say, we cannot perceive fufficient ground ta warrant our acknowledging him as a fellow Chriftian." We no more invade the right of private judgement than our opponents, who, with proper confift ency, perfuade their people to come out from Trinitarian communities." In our view our opponents have re, nounced the principal ideas included in thofe primitive forms of conteffion, Jefus is the Chrift, Jefus is the Chrift in the glory of God; and, as charity itself does not require us to acknowledge and treat that as Chriftianity which in our judgement is not; fo we think it our duty, in love, and with a view to their conviction, both by our words and ac tions, to declare our decided difapprobation of their principles. We lay not claim to infallibility any more than our opponents. We act according to our judgement, and leave them to act ac cording to theirs, looking forward to that period when we shall all appear be fore the judgement feat of Chrift" (p. 40).-An appendix contains a few remarks on Dr. T's review of the Acts of the Apostles, and fhews, though in the book the principles which operated in producing the great effect of those times are only occafionally touched, and fuch as are not mentioned are not the only ones which are influential in the converfions of those times; but, though the writer does not profefs to give even the fubstance of the Apostles' ininistry, he fays enough to convince any unpre judiced reader that their doctrine was very different from that of Socinianifm or of modern Unitarianifm. They re. fer to the Old Testamental characters of the Meffiah, as explained by our Lord himself. "If Dr. T's remarks on the Acts of the Apoftles are few to the ar gument gument, how much more fo are thofe which refpect the conceptions of antient fathers, and modern churches and churchmen! To these I fhall make no reply. If Dr. T. choose to resume the controversy, let him keep to the fubject, the moral tendency of our refpe&ive fyf tems. Any thing befides this will be entitled to no reply" (p. 52). "If Mr. K. intends only to prove what his title announces, his performance must be torally irrelative to its profeffed object. If by genuine Chriftian doctrine he means what he fincerely believes to be such, or what he calls the Unitarian doârine: this is begging the queftion at the outfet. Our opponents muft merely be reduced to very neceffitous circumstances, or they could not condefcend to fuch humble methods of establishing their principles" (p. 53). "If Dr. Priestley and his brethren had fairly acknowledged that there were great defects among their people when Compared with the primitive Chriftians, or with what they ought to be: this, I confefs, had been no more than what Puritan writers have done; and the writers of every other denomination of Chriftian writers, have done and fuch acknowledgements ought not to have been imputed against them. But who befides themselves have ever profeffed to hold a fer of principles, to the difcernment of which an indifference to religion in general was favourable; a fyft m which thole who were moft in different to the practice of religion were the first, and serious Chriftians the laft, to encounter? Who, besides themselves, would have been reduced, by facts which they could not deny, to fuch dire neceffity?" (p. 65). After examining Mr. K's fix previous remarks, Mr. F. proceeds to difcufs his four heads of enquiry, and then convicts him of declining the difcuffion of one of the. most important fubjects, and ftating with great unfairness thofe topics which have fallen under his notice. Mr. F. difcuffes the notion of divine goodnefs contrafted with the punishment of the wicked, thus: "As to the glory of God confifting in the exercife of his goodot fs, if it be meant of the manifeftation of the divine glory, and goodnefs be put for moral excellence, it is the fame thing as that which we acknowJedge, that "the glory of God confifls in doing that which shall be best upon the whole;" but by goodness Mr. K. means merely beneficence, undif tinguished beneficence, or the principle of ultimate happiness in behalf of every intelligent being in the creation, obedient or rebellious, penitent or impeni tent, men or devils. In this fenfe I allow, that the glory of God may be at variance with the happinefs of creatures; and I contend, that, where it is fo, the latter, and not the former, ought to be given up. Mr. K. pleads from "the declaration of the favourite Apofle, God is love;" and supposes, that "all his moral excellences, as justice, truth, and holiness, are but modifi cations of this principle.” To all this I have no objection, provided the ohject aimed at be the general good of the moral fyftem. But Mr. K. fuppofes, if God be love, in all that he does he must have the good of every individual in his dominion in view. On this principle he must have destroyed Sodoin and Gomorrah, Canaan and Balaam, Saul and Judas, and all those who in every age have lived foaming out their own bame, and to whom, according to the Scripture, is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, together with Satan and all his rebellious legions, not only as examples to the intelligent creation, but for their own good. Surely, this is not a neceflary inference from the Apostolic declaration. There are other cafes as well as this, in which justice may be a modification of love; but in no cafe does it require, that an incorrigible offender should not be punished but for his own advantage. The execution of a murderer may be an exercile of pure benevolence to the community, though of juft difpleasure to the criminal. The removal of a restless, ambitious, intriguing, and bloody-minded prince or princefs from the earth may be a mercy to mankind, and as fuch may be confidered as an act worthy of the God of love; but it may not follow that this is accomplished in love to the fyftematie murderer of the human race. If all the Weft India islands were to be overwhelmed in fome due Jeftruction, I am not fure, it wou'd not be a mercy to the human fpecies. It would terminate the miferies of thoufands, and prevent the annual facrifice of thousands more; and yet fuch an evil might proceed, not from love, but from jutt difpleasure to guilty individuals. It does not follow, therefore, from any principle with which we are acquainted, that, becaufe God is love, he must have the happiness of his incorrigible enemies in view in all the Review of New Publications. 1798.] 45 A being whofe kindness derefpe&. generates into fondnefs, however his condefcenfion may please our selfish humour, can never be the object of our feem. On this principle, when Jehovah proclaim. ed his name or character to Mofes, he not only declared himself to be the Lord the Lord God merciful and gracious, longfuffering and abounding in goodnefs and truth, keeping mercy for thoufands, forgiving iniquity, tranfgreffion, and fin; but added, and that will by no means clear the guilty" (p. 72-74), "It appears to me, that the God whom Mr. K. profeffes to believe in is not the true God, or the God received in the Bible; that the love he pleads for is no other than a selfish attachment to a being whole glory confifts in his being invariably attached to us" (p. 75).— "The fcheme of our opponents not only miferably mifreprefents the nature of love to God, but is miferably defective with refpect to motives whereby it may be excited.-Whether the love of our opponents towards Chrift in a way of gratitude be common or uncommon, while they maintain that he exifted not till he was born of Mary, they cannot confider themfelves under any obligation to him for coming into the world to fave them, feeing that was a matter in which he must have been totally in. voluntary, and, while they reject the doctrine of the atonement, I do not fee how they can feel obliged to him for the forgiveness of their fins, or of eternal life. They may be indebted to him for having published all thefe doc trines; but, if this be all, it is a small affair for fo much to be made of it. Many a prophet, who was a bearer of heavy tidings, would be glad in this refpect to exchange meffages with him. Dr. T. in a former publication has tried to magnify this fubject a little by alledging that "Chrift came not only to preach the doctrine of a fallen ftate, but to prove it, and to furnish a pledge of the refurrection to eternal life by his own refurrection. Dr. T. has not informed us in what manner the miffion of Chrift proved the doctrine of a future ftate any otherwife than as his refurrection afforded a pledge of it; and this can add nothing as a foundation of gratitude to him inaťmuch as upon his principles it was a matter in which he had no w luntary concern" (pp. 82, 83). "Mr. K. feems to feel that love to Chrift makes but a diminutive figure and therefore apologizes in the Socinian scheme; 46 Review of New Publications. apologizes for it" (p. 85); "and; "as From the divine, Mr. K proceeds to [Jan in bute them to this caufe: "Produce Mr. K. having thus reviewed the |