annihilates the feventh part of all human industry, is a glaring abfurdity. The greater part of the arguments advanced by Mr. Evanfon in fupport of his opinion, were published feveral years fince in the Theological Repofitory; and they received, through the fame channel, an answer which will, probably, by most readers, be deemed fatisfactory. The writer, however, being of a different opinion, and not having an opportunity of making a reply in that periodical publication, has chofen to refume the fubject; and after reprinting, fairly enough, the whole controverfy as it flood before the Repository was clofed, has advanced farther confiderations in favour of his project for the abolition of Sunday, in a letter to Dr. Pricfley. Refting the merits of the question chiefly on an appeal to authority, Mr. Evanfon, in order to prove that the fabbath, as a day of reft, is not an inftitution appointed by Christ and his apoftles, afferts, that the Chriftians of the first century did not obferve, and confequently had not received, any fuch inflitution. This affertion is denied by Dr. P. who undertakes to fhew that the first day of the week was observed even from the time of the apostles themselves, much in the fame manner in which Chriftians obferve it now. In reply, Mr. E. maintains, that nothing farther can be proved, than that Sunday was the day on which the religious affemblies of Chriflians were moft generally held; and that there is reafon to conclude that the hours, appointed for these affemblies, were fuch as would interfere very little with the usual hours of la bour. Authorities on this point, from Juftin Martyr, and from other early fathers, are diftinctly examined; and the origin and abuse of fast and feast days in the orthodox church are investigated. The argument is thus concluded: Viewing things in that light in which alone they prefent themfelves to me, I cannot forbear remarking, that when the Deity ordained the fabbath to be a fign of the particular covenant, made between himself and the nation of the Jews, by the fevere and rigid manner in which he ordered it to be obferved, he prevented those grofs abufes of that weekly idleness, which tend inevitably to corrupt the morals of the labouring ranks of people. When he ordained a new and univerfal covenant, to fuperfede the Mofaic, not only with the nation of the Jews, but with every nation upon earth, by the mediation of Jefus Chrift, no external, partial, diftinguishing fign of his covenant could be of ufe, and therefore none is inftituted by the gofpel. But when the imperial founders of the orthodox church thought fit to re-ordain the obfervance of a weekly fabbath, a fign of nothing but their own fuperftitious propenfity to patch the plain and fimple garment of Chriftianity with the motley rags of Judaifm as well as Paganifm, being either unable or unwilling to enforce the fame rigid mode of obferving it, which alone rendered it harmless to the Jews, they not only, by a very remarkable triumph of fuperftition over civil policy, annihilated onefeventh of the active industry of their labouring fubjects; but at the fame time eftablished a conftant fource of depravation of their morals. 4 morals. You, Sir, and many other well-difpofed perfons, able and accustomed to read and meditate, and difcourfe upon moral and religious topics, may employ the intervals of that leifure day both innocently and advantageoufly: for fuch minds, to use the language of our great dramatic moralift, "Find tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, But the unreflecting minds of the ignorant and illiterate, that is, of a very large majority of the lower ranks of life, are abfolutely incapable of this beneficial ufe of thofe weekly periods of idleness; and, therefore, their abufe of them, fome way or other, is the certain, neceffary confequence. Of this the world has had the experience of full fourteen centuries; and, as I obferved in my first letter, the royal proclamations periodically repeated in our own country, prohibiting, though ineffectually, thofe very abufes as the certain fources of vice and immorality; and the confeffion of numerous criminals at every gaol delivery, are irrefragable proofs. Yet ftill, Sir, you, a philofopher, an experimental philofopher, of fuch diftinguished eminence, in oppofition to this notorious experience, perfift in afferting the excellent religious and moral uses of this weekly ceffation from labour, and are fully perfuaded that the abolition of it would be attended with much greater evil than arises from its abuses.' This method of arguing against an inftitution, from the abuses to which it is liable, is certainly unfair; and it may, we apprehend, be fully invalidated, by ftating, on the other hand, the natural and moral advantages which commonly, if not univerfally, refult from the judicious and liberal obfervance of the fabbath. Art. 59. Letters to a young Man, occafioned by Mr. Wakefield's Effay on Public Worthip. To which is added, A Reply to Mr. Evanfon's Objections to the Obfervance of the Lord's Day. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. pp. 60. Is. 6d. Johnfon. 1792. If Dr. Priestley thought Mr. Wakefield's attack on public worship fufficiently formidable to render a ferious defence of the practice neceffary, it may be regretted that he has not chofen to bestow more pains on the fubject. On the part of the question which depends on authority, the Doctor's obfervations, though fatisfactory as far as they go, are only fuch as would occur, on the first reflection, to any perfon tolerably well acquainted with the fubject. Concerning the Jewish worship, he afferts, in general terms, that it was public, and even national; and he refers to the Pfalms of David, and to the present fynagogue-worship, to prove that the Jews had public prayer:but he has made no ufe of his acquaintance with Jewish learning to inform the young man, for whose inftruction the letters appear to have been more particularly written, what provifion was made in the ritual of the Jewifh fynagogues for focial prayer, what kind of prayer was in ufe at that time among the Jews, nor what proof re mains, that, in attending fynagogue-worship, Chrift would of courfe courfe unite in public forms of devotion. Had he ftated thofe points with more accuracy, the force of his general conclufion, that Chrift could not have neglected the worship of the synagogues without expofing himself to fevere cenfure, and even to excommunication, would have been more apparent. The reply, which Dr. P. makes to Mr. Wakefield's explanation of our Saviour's own inftructions refpecting public worship, would not have carried lefs conviction, had it been unencumbered with his peculiar notions concerning the perpetual obligation of the Jewish law, with refpect to the Jews, even after their converfion to Christianity. His fhort letter on the practice of the apostles on the point in queftion, has left ample room for his fucceffors in this controverfy. The most important obfervation on this part of the fubject is the following: It is well known to all perfons converfant in Chriftian antiquity, that, even the officers and difcipline of the Chriftian church were borrowed from thofe of the Jewish fynagogue, the elders and deacons being the fame in both. And notwithstanding all the differences of opinion and practice amongst Chriftians, from the time of the apostles to the prefent, it does not appear that there was ever any difference on this fubject. All the fects of Chriftians had their churches, their minifters, and their public worship. Abufes were, no doubt, introduced into every thing, and into this among the reft. But, as we are able to trace the rife and progrefs of all other abufes; furely, if public worship itself had been an abufe, which arofe after the times of the apoftles, there could not have been any peculiar difficulty in tracing it, and afcribing it to its proper author. Such an innovation as this could not have been introduced filently, like a mere opinion. It must have made a great and visible change in the fate of things, fuch as could not but have attracted much notice. I cannot help concluding, therefore, that fince no fuch change as this in the affairs of Chriftians can be pointed out, but that, notwith landing every other poffible difference, there is no trace of any on this fubject, the practice was always univerfal; that it began with the apostles, and, though changing in form, has always remained the fame in fubftance, till Mr. Wakefield undertook to difpute the authority, expediency, and propriety of it.' The letter on the expediency and use of public worship contains many pertinent and conclufive arguments, particularly in vindication of the practices of introducing petition into Chriftian worship, and of praying for external bleffings; which practices, it is well remarked, are authorized by our Lord's prefcribed form :-but we own ourselves not fully fatisfied with the author's apology for the long prayers, fuch as are cuftomary among thofe fects which reject the ufe of liturgies. Mr. Wakefield's objection to public worship, from its tendency to encourage oftentation and hypocrify, is, we think, completely answered in the laft letter. The practice of keeping the Sunday, as a day of reft and religious fervice, is, in the remainder of this pamphlet, ably vindicated against the objection urged by Mr. Evanfon, both on the ground of ancient practice and general utility. The preface con tains an apology for diffenting minifters, and a vindication of Dr. Price's character as a scholar, in reply to fome fevere ftrictures of Mr. Wakefield in the fecond edition of his Inquiry. Art. 60. Short Strictures on the Rev. Dr. Priestley's Letters to a young Man; concerning Mr. Wakefield's Treatife on Public Worship. By the Author of that Treatife. 8vo. 6d. Deighton. 1792. If the title of this pamphlet fhould raise any expectation of a rejoinder to Dr. Priestley's reply on the important question concerning public worship, this expectation will be completely disappointed. Referving the difcuffion of his argument to fome future revifal of his pamphlet, Mr. Wakefield fills thefe pages with perfonalities which we are forry to fee falling from the pen of fo able a writer, and which we judge it beneath the dignity of our work to retail. SINGLE SERMONS. Art. 61. The Doctrine of St. John, and the Faith of the firft Chriftians, not Unitarian. Preached before the University of Oxford at St. Peter's, Feb. 27, 1791. By Daniel Veyfie, B. D. Fellow of Oriel College. 8vo. Is. Rivingtons. The object of this learned preacher (from John, i. 14.) is to fhew, that the doctrines which St. John in his introduction to his gofpel advances in oppofition to the Gnoftics in general, and to Cerinthus in particular, are abfolutely inconfiftent with the distinguishing tenets of the Unitarians. According to Cerinthus, our bleffed Saviour confifted of two distinct parts, a Man, and a celestial Being refiding in him. The doctrine of the Unitarians, and that of St. John, both run counter to this divifion of our Lord, as Irenæus expreffes it, but in different directions. The Unitarians are of opinion that he was a mere man; St. John exprefsly afferts, that he was the Eternal Word of God, himself truly and perfectly God, appearing in our nature. According to the former, the heretics reprefented the Saviour in too exalted a character; according to the latter, they debased him too much. The conclufion evidently is, that St. John was not an Unitarian. And thus is Unitarianifm deprived of that firm fupport which it boasts to derive from apoftolical authority.' We leave Socinians (who are now called Unitarians, as if it were an appropriate title,) to reply to this argument; and to their notice we would recommend this learned and ingenious difcourfe. What Mr. Veyfie has advanced against Dr. Lardner's obfervation," that it was below an Evangelift to write against heretics in the hiftory of his Lord and Mafter," carries great weight with it: but, admitting Mr. V.'s explanation, it will ftrike many perfons as extremely ftrange, that St. John fhould fo particularly point the introduction of his gofpel against the errors and abfurdities of the Gnoftic fyftem, and apply, in his introduction, the names of the Gnoftic Eons, Movoyens, Aoyoç, Zwr, Xagı, And, to Chrift, and then not call Chrift the Logos once throughout his whole hiftory. It is by no means clear that St. John, in chap. xx. 30, 31. had a view to heretics. The com See the preceding article. mon mon interpretation is more fatisfactory than that which the preacher advances. Art. 62. Preached by the Rev. E. C. Willoughby, on his renouncing the Errors of the Church of Rome. Published by the Defire of his Friends. 1s. 6d. Rivingtons. 1791. When, or where, this fermon was preached, we are not informed:-as friends to truth, reafon, religion, and liberty, we cannot but rejoice when any perfons, from conviction and principle, quit the Romish church; and we could wish that, inftead of attaching themselves diftinctively to any particular party, they would reft fatisfied in the name of Chriftians.-This writer introduces his pamphlet by a modest preface, and, in his difcourfe, recounts feveral of thofe parts of the popish doctrines which are unfupported by any real authority of reafon and revelation ;—it might be added, which alfo are very pernicious to the morals and peace of mankind, and have arifen from ignorance, prieft-craft, and policy.-New converts are apt to be zealous.-The text is 1 Cor. x. 15. CORRESPONDENCE. ** R. Y. is of opinion, that the fale of pamphlets is frequently injured by the printer's omitting to mention the price at the bottom of the title-page, as well as by the fame neglect of the publisher, in the advertisements. The want of this information, our Correfpondent thinks, (and we think fo too,) often prevents country readers, particularly, from fending for fuch publications, under the apprehenfion that the price may prove too high.-Another obftruction to the fale of pamphlets, and of bocks alfo, is the exorbitant price at which they are, in many inftances, offered to the public: very small performances, fuch as, within our memory, were ufually fold for fixpence, being now fet at double, or treble, nay even four or five times more than the former rates. It is no wonder therefore that publishers fo often complain of the fmallnefs of the fale. +++ Had Mr. J. Bentley fufficiently attended to the construction of the line on which he animadverts, he could not, for a moment, have doubted of its meaning. In faying, "For, fure, omnifcient Heaven the life approves, "Of him, whom L hates," (See p. 227, note.) the author could only mean that Heaven approved the life of the man who is hated by L; for whom can never ftand as nominative to hates. We are obliged by the offer of Moderator:-but our rules do not allow us to accept of anonymous communications. P. 130. 1. 9. fr. bott. for carantem,' read carentem. |