The chart of history, an improvement on a French plan, exhibits at one view the most important general facts of history, in connection with one another, and is a good historical compend for occasional reference.

After several fugitive pieces on politicks; a vindication of Dr. Franklin; and an accusation of Mr. Burke, for not continuing the friend of Dr. P. to the last, even after he had espoused the French revolution, we come to the theological part of the book.

No. 5 is a summary of Dr.P.'s religious opinions. It is well known that Dr. P. was at the head of the sect denominated Unitarians, or Socinians, who profess to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a man, divinely commissioned as a teacher of truth and righteousness; and that having been publickly crucified by his enemies, he was raised from the dead the third day. They believe that he was nothing more than a man, possessed of extraordinary powers, and invested with a particular commission, and that he had no existence previous to his tirth. The summary under review is, we believe, as far as it goes, a just account of the Doctor's opinions upon most subjects of theology. He believed in of timism; that the system of the universe is the best that could have been devised by infinite goodness and wisdom, and executed by infinite power; that the moral and physical evil, observable in the, system, are necessary parts of a great plan, all tending ultimately, to produce the greatest sum of happiness upon the whole; not only with respect to the system in general, but to each individual, according to the station he occupies. This system, (he considered) implies the necessary dependence of

every action and event on some other preceding, as its cause, till we arrive at the Deity himself, the first, the great, the efficient cause of all.'

He conceived, that the light of nature afforded but imperfect evidence of a future state, and rested it principally on positive revelation. He believed in the occasional interposition of the Deity from the beginning, by teachers supernaturally endowed, to give a true knowledge of God and of men's duties to him and one another, and to enforce them by authority and motives. He received the books of the Old and New Testament, as containing the history of these dispensations of religion, and the circumstances attending them, so far as it is nesessary for us to be made acquainted with the facts. He admitted that there is convincing evidence of the accuracy and fidelity of the writers of these books, and their substantial truth, though he conceived that they had suffered in passages of no great moment by frequent transcription and interpolation; and that the authors might commit mistakes, and differ from each other in things of minor import, not affecting the objects of their mission. He rejected the doctrines of original sin,atonement, and of election and reprobation, as taught by the system of Calvinistick theology. Future punishment he considered to be of that sort, which a parent inflicts on a child, in its nature and operation corrective; and therefore he did not admit the eternal duration of future punishment. His opinion respecting the soul, of course led him to reject the doctrine of an intermediate state. In church government he was an Indepen dent. He believed the keeping of the sabbath to be incumbent on all!

- christians; was a friend to publick worship, infant baptism, observance of the Lord's supper, and family prayer. His religious sentiments, whether true or false, appeared to be in him a source of comfort and hope, and the foundation of a highly pious and virtuous temper and behaviour. A future state was to him a subject of firm and joyful expectation.

Appendix, No 6, is a review of Dr. Priestley's numerous theological works, with occasional extracts, &c. expressive of his sentiments and opinions, and observations on his character and conduct as a christian minister.

Those, who wish to know what he published on these subjects, may consult the catalogue of all his works, at the end of the volumes under review. To give an opinion upon the value and importance, the good or evil of his labours in this department of knowledge; to say how far the world are interested in the perusal and study, or the neglect and disregard of his writings upon these subjects, is not necessary nor proper. We think, however, that a divine at least ought to include several of his theological publications in his course of reading. He wrote much on the evidences as well as doctrines of the Christian revelation. The book, entitled Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, in 2 vols. 8vo. is design ed to give a general view of relig ious truth and duty, suited to instruct and interest common chris tians. It consists of the lectures, which the author delivered to the young persons of his congregation. The greater part of the work is free from his peculiarities of thinking, and is adapted to edify persons of different sentiments. His Discourses on the Evidences

of Divine Revelation, 3 vols. 8vo. delivered in Philadelphia, were heard with attention by a respectable assembly; and state the ar'gument for the truth of the scripture history with clearness and force. The defence of the reality of the miracles wrought by Moses, and of the history of supernatural events in the Old Testament is able and satisfactory. The Mosaick history of the Jewish scriptures generally, he treated with much more respect, than Dr. Geddes in England, and professor Eichorn in Germany; one or both of whom passed for orthodox upon other points; and with more than other criticks and commentators, who profess an entire be lief in the New Testament and the divine mission of Christ. Dr. P.'s Discourse on the Evidence of the Resurrection has been called one of the best argumentative sermons in the English language. It states the proof for the fact, in a very lucid and satisfactory manner, and answers objections with great ingenuity. He says, it appears that the circumstances attending the resurrection of Jesus were so ordered by divine providence, that it is not in the power of man to imagine any change in them, that, according to the known laws of evidence, would make it more credible than it is with respect to distant ages.' If he has been able to make good this position in the discourse, it must be valuable indeed. If we have all the evidence which we can have, that Jesus rose from the dead, surely we have enough to beat down all the strong holds of infidelity, and put an end to doubt or cavil.

The Letters to a philosophical unbeliever, 2 vols. 8vo. deserve the attention of all, who have difficulties on the subject of natural

religion. The Comparison of the institutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos and other oriental nations; of the doctrine of heathen philosophy with christianity; his Answers to Paine and to Volney, are certainly works to be read with benefit and pleasure.

The controversy with Dr. Linn, in which the latter was thought by his friends and by the orthodox publick to have acquired honour, began from a little pamphlet of Dr. P.entitled, Socrates and Jesus compared; written with a view to confute the Deists.

The Tracts in defence of Unitarianism and of doctrines connected with it, make no small part of Dr. P.'s writings.

In the first place the argument is compressed into small books and pamphlets; one a general view of the arguments for the unity of God, and against the divinity and pre-existence of Christ, from reason, from the scriptures, and from history; then various defences of Unitarianism, from 1786 to 1789; an appeal to the serious and candid professors of christian ity; and a familiar illustration of certain passages of scripture relat ing to the same subject.' His op ponents were Dr. Horne, Dr. Price, and Mr. Parkhurst; Dr. Geddes, Mr. Howe, Messrs. Barnard, Knowles, Hawkins, and others. This subject occupies a large part of the history of the corruptions of christianity,' 2 vols. 8vo., which led to the acute, and interesting controversy between Dr. P. and Dr. Horseley, and final ly to his publication of the history of early opinions concerning Jesus Christ, compiled from original writers, proving that the christian church was at first Unitarian,' 4 vols. 8vo. This is Dr. P.'s greatest effort, and most elaborate and

learned work upon this subject. It remained for a considerable time without any formal answer of im portance,till the work of Dr. Jameson.

In the history of early opinions the argument is in a great degree original. Former theologians

have appealed to the fathers as advocates for the doctrines which they themselves espoused, and have endeavoured to support the credit of their respective systems by the authority of the venerable confes sors of the primitive church. Dr. Priestley has chosen very different ground. He is the first controversial writer who has ventured openly to declare, that his doctrine is in direct opposition to that of the great names to whose authority he appeals, and who have hitherto been generally regarded as the authorised expositors of the christian faith. He allows that very few, if any, of these eminent men were, properly speaking, Unitarians in principle. Nay, that they even held the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ in contempt and abhorrence, and that they opposed it to the utmost of their power. He nevertheless contends, that the great body of christians, both Jews and heathens, for the three first centuries, were strenuous advocates for the proper unity of God, and that they zealously opposed the gnostick, the platonick, and the arian doctrines, as they were successively introduced, and all the other speculations of the philosophising christians, which were invented to shelter themselves from the disgrace of being the disciples of a low-born Jew, who had been ignominiously executed as a common malefactor. He aims to show that this alarm

*Belsham's Reply to Smith.