compared,’ 
‘the founder of Chrillianity. 
‘takes notice of the polytheifm and idola- 
_ and {pirit. 
1804. } 
dred, all of which will be found con- 
venient and ufefal to an American Stu- 
dent. ‘The plan is fo judicious, and the 
evidences of care and attention through. 
out the whole performance fo ftriking, thet 
we are perfuaded this work will obtain a 
very general circulation. 
THEOLOGY. 
The venerable Dr. PrigsTLEY, whofe 
attention feems now to be more than ever 
devoted to theological fubjects, in his 
publication entitled « Socrates and Jefus 
* avails himfelf of the character 
of that illuttrious pagan, to exhibit to 
the view of unbelievers, the manifeit 
fuperiority, in all importent points, of 
While he 
try of Socrates, the erroneoulnels of ‘his 
opinions re{pecting - the gods and their 
providence, tie imperfection of his ideas 
concerning piely and virtue in general, 
and his ignorance of a future ftate, he 
cloes full jaftice to the excellence of his 
moral charaster, and to his exertions and 
ufefulnefs as a teacher. In this compari- 
fon between Socrates and Jelus, Dr. 
PrresrLeyx, in almolt every particular, 
- finds occafion te dgmonftrate the unrivalled 
excellence of the latter ; efpecially im re- 
gard to the dignity and authority with 
which he reproved vice, and inculcated 
virtue, and to the clearne{s, ferioufnefs, 
_ weight and importance of his precepts. 
And though a Trinitarian can never ap- 
prove opinions which diveft Chrift of his 
deity, he will find many things in this 
performance, which, in other refpetts, 
perfectly accord with Hits belief. — 
' Jt was not to be expected in the United 
States, where Unitarianifm has gained fo’ 
little ground, that thefe opinions’ of Dr. 
PriesTLey would make a favourable im- 
preffion.’ Accordingly he foon fouad an 
an{wer to his publication inthe Rev. Mr. 
Linn’s “ Letter,” in which the propriety 
of the comparifon between Chrift and 
Socrates, as teachers of trurh and as moral 
characters, i is combated with much force 
This performance difplays a 
confiderable por tion of refearch, i ingenuity 
and argumentative acutene{s ; and, while 
it firmly maintains the duiGtidnes émibraced 
by the author, is by no means deficient 
in a proper degree of refpect and defer. 
ence tor his ‘Opponent. 
Dr..PrigsTLey’s ‘© Letter to Mr. 
Linn,’ ” in defence of his Comparifon of 
Socrates and Jefus, foon afterwards made 
its appearance. In this, he endeavours 
to rectify what he confiders as a mifcon- 
‘ception m Mr.-Linn, of the true objedt 
| Retrofped? of American 
Literature.— Theology. 131 
of his firt pamphlet; -he vindicates the 
moral character of Socrates from fome 
imputations which Mr. Linn had throwa 
upon it ; he rejects the principles on which 
his opponent had undertaken to judge of 
the merits of Socratts; and, in {trong 
terms, bears his teftimony againft the 
do&rines of the divinity and atonvment 
of Chrift, 
This controverfy did not ftop here. 
Mr. Linn’s fecond ‘* Letter to Dr. 
Priestley,’ in anfwer to his Letter 
written in defence of his Pamphlet, goes 
more fully into the fubje&t, and extends 
to 144 pages. The plincipal part of it 
is devoted to paffing ‘over a fecond time 
the former ground, and to recalling the 
attention of his opponent to many obje&s: 
not before fatistactorily treated. In an 
appendix Mr. Linn enters briefly into 
the argument, which Dr. PaiesTLey had 
previoufly begun, concerning the divinity 
and atonement of Chrift, in which he: 
endeavours to fupport the dostrines on 
thefe fubjects which are called orthadox. 
In this performance, as in the former, 
Mr. Linn has acquitted himfelf in a 
manner which reflects much credit on his 
diligence and abilities. It required in- 
deed fome intrepidity in fo young a man 
to enter the lifts with fo experienced, fo 
learned, and fo expert a controverfialift 
as Dr. PRirsTLEY, who, at the age of — 
more than three-fcore and ten, feems to 
retain all the vigour of his faculties, and 
ali his wonted ardour in the defence of 
his opinions. But amidft all the praife 
which we think is juftly due to Mr. Linn 
in condutting this ar sument, we are Com- 
pelled to remark fome infances of difre. 
{peét and inciyility to his venerable oppo- 
nent, which we oblerved with much regret. 
To feea candidate for public attention 
commencing his career by a violation of 
courtely towards fo illuftrious a veteran 
in fcience and literature, has rather at 
ungracious appearance. 
Mr. Dopson, of Philadelphia, has 
lately publifhed a continuation of his 
«« Letters on the exiftence and charaéter 
of the Deity, and the moral ftate of 
man.’ In this, as in the former part of 
the work, we notice many fenfible, judi- 
cious and weighty oblervations, which 
feem to proceed from a mind ef the pureft 
intentions, and which are well calculated 
to make the impreffions on young readers 
which were defigned by the worthy and 
benevolent author. 
Among the fingle Sermons which have 
appeared within the period of this retro. 
fpet, and which | are entitled to fome 
attention, 
