fubftance with the Father; and, confequently, might fuffer pain; and therefore the notion of his impaffibility must be falfe; and the intro. duction of another fpirit, who fhould feel all the pain, and the fuppofition, that the fufferings of Chrift were only in his perfon, and not in his fubftance (which is mere fophiftry) fuperfluous and unneceffary.

2. It was foretold of Chrift, that he fhould fuffer; and by the word Chrift was meaned the Lord from heaven: but if the pains were only felt by a human foul, how was this the suffering of Chrift? or the Lord from heaven?

3. The glory of God confifted in his great love to the world, in giving up his Son to fuffer for mankind; and by his Son is meaned his Word: But how does this great love appear? or how does all that is here faid tend to the glory of God the Father? if the fufferings were only felt by a human foul, and not by his Word.

Nor

4. If it was not the Chrif himself, who had been in the formi of God, that performed all the things enumerated, Philippians ii. 51; they never were performed at all; and confequently Chrift Saviour, in reward of his obewas not exalted to be a Prince and dience; for it is abfurd to fuppofe him rewarded for fufferings, which he never felt, and a humiliation, which he never underwent. was it the Lord that bought us, but he who paid the price both by his humiliation and fufferings; we are unbought and unredeemed. 5. As no other being ever received the power to raise the dead, but that Word of God, who came down from heaven; and he received this power, in reward of his humiliation and fufferings, be caufe he was the Son of Man; if it was not the fame being, who fuffered, and died, and rofe again, our hopes of a refurrection are vain. For, whatever other spirit or foul is fupposed to be united to the Logos, and to have fuffered and rifen again, our refurrection is no more connected with his death and fufferings, than with the death Will any Christian dare to and fufferings of any other mere man. affert, that the atonement was made by a person, who never existed till 4000 years after the creation?'

The Homöoufian doctrine, fays St. Jerom, was unknown to the apoftles; it is, adds our Author, contrary both to the fcripture itfelf, and to the fenfe of it as understood by the most primitive Fathers, who believed the Son of God to have been pafible; there remains no other authority for it, but the arbitrary decrees of the Homooufian Councils.'

The third chapter contains a recital of all the different fenfes, in which the Homöoufian doctrine is explained; and the Author undertakes to prove, that it cannot be defended* upon the principles of the Sabellians, Polytheifts or Athanafians; but that it depends folely on the authority of the Nicene Council. Before he examines the authority of this Council, he farther traces the progrefs of the controverfy between the Athanafians and Arians, and between the Homäsufians themselves to the present times, chap. 4.

After

After fome introductory remarks in chap. 5. on Councils in general, he particularly confiders the authority of that at Nice in the year 325. • Sabinus, bishop of Heraclia in Thrace, in his Collectio Conciliorum (which Valefius fpeaks of as a very useful work, frequently quoted by Socrates in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory) writes, that the bishops who met together at Nice and formed the Creed, were imperiti, rudes, inscii, indofti, omniumque rerum ignari; without kill, or experience, or knowledge, or learning, and ignorant of all things. Petavius calls them rudes & illiteratos; Calvin calls them Fanaticos; and Mufculus fays, they were à Satana inftigati; Peter Martyr writes, ita eos affectibus agitatos, ut fefe ceu násopes aut Furie, gefferint; bilique et ftomacho tantum indulferint. Beza fays, fuch was the folly, ignorance, ambition, and wickedness of many bifhops, even in the best of times, if compared with thofe that followed, that you would fuppofe the devil was prefident in their affemblies.' The teftimonies of Wake, And. Marvel, Sir I Newton, and John Hales are farther adduced in order to confirm the mean opinion which we muft entertain of the ancient Councils.

Some of the Fathers indeed have afcribed divine infpiration to the Council of Nice; but perhaps (fays our Author) no more was meaned by this, than by the English legiflature; when we are told, in the ftatute that firft eftablished the Liturgy in England, that it was concluded by the bishops with one uniform agreement, by the aid of the Holy Ghoft. For, notwithstanding this, it has undergone four famous alterations fince that time; which certainly would not have been fuffered, if the words had been understood in a strict fenfe. And it is juft the fame with the Councils; they always bring in the Holy Ghost to abet their decifions, whether orthodox or heretical; and fucceeding Councils. look upon it as mere matter of form, and make no fcruple to refcind them. Thus the general Council of Sirmium in 357 believed, fo little of the infpiration of Nice in 325; that 300 bishops out of the Weft, befides the Eaftern bishops, made no ceremony in refcinding their decrees; and drawing a new confeffion of faith, from which the Shibboleth Homöoufios was rejected.' The Council of Nice was < fo far from being a General Council, that there were but five western bishops prefent at it, two from Italy, one from France, one from Spain, and one from Africa.'

This Council was fucceeded by three other general Councils, one at Conftantinople in 381, 382, 383, one at Ephesus in 434, and another at Chalcedon in 455; and upon the several decrees of thefe fucceffive Councils depends the teit of herefy which the church of England ftill enjoys. The monks of Jerufalem were engaged for the Council (of Chalcedon) in the following manner; one Theedofius, a monk or abbot, cried out in the pulpit, before a great affembly; If any man equal not the four Councils with the four Evangelifts, let him be anathema.' This voice refolved the monks for the Council; and they took it as a Jaw, that the four Councils fhould be joined with the facred books.❞ Every thing is herefy in England which is declared to be fo

+

by

by the four first general Councils. Blackstone's Comm. vol iv. P. 48, 49.'

The Author clofes his account of thefe Councils with the following general reflection :

In short, the depending upon the authority of these Councils, and putting human placits upon a level with the fcripture as the teft of orthodoxy, is not only the fundamental principle of the grand apoftafy; but will infallibly lead back the Proteftants, if they follow it, into all the depths of popery, ignorance, and fuperftition. It is certain, beyond all doubt, that the more thefe human decifions have prevailed in the church, the more the fcriptures have been neglected. And thus the grand apoftafy from the word of God to the commandments of men, prevailed more and more over the gospel, with little refillance for many ages, till the time of Luther; when the BIBLE began to be confidered by Proteftants as the only rule of faith: (for they could not defend themfelves upon any other principle, than that of the Scripture or Chriftian verity, against the human decrees, which conftituted what the Papifts call the Catholic religion.) But no fooner were their learned divines thoroughly fatisfied, that the Scripture was the only rule of faith, that could be depended upon with fafety, than they all, in their feveral churches, as if by a general infatuation, refolved to substitute fome human compofition, either in its ftead, or in partnership with it. Thus they deferted the fundamental articles of the Reformation, which held them together in one body; and by admitting human tefts of herefy, compofed by men of very different fentiments, have divided and fubdivided into mere fects and parties, rather than churches; weakened themselves, as Proteffants, against the common adverfary; and encouraged a continual hatred and animofity against one another. For it is but too true, that whenever the decrees of Councils, or even of particular churches, have come into competition with the Scripture; they have generally overborne it; and the churches have been more determined in defence of their peculiarities, than to fecure the general doctrines of Chriftianity, and the common people more furious against one another upon fuch differences, than if they had broken all the commandments.-And these human compofitions have been defended of late, by the modern Theodofii, in fuch an extraordinary manner; especially in degrading the ufe of Scripture, and its fufficiency as a rule of faith; that if we were to judge of the prefent ftate of Proteftantifm by the arguments lately used by thefe writers, we should be tempted to obferve, that the toe of the Proteftant comes so near the heel of the Papist, that it galls his kibe *.

Chap. 7. the Author fhews, that the Homöoufian doctrine, as explained and maintained by the learned among the ancients and moderns, is a heap of confufion and inconfiftency. Having examined and refuted Dr. Waterland's notion of a coexiftence; he goes on to confider the opinion of Bp. Bull and others, that the antemundane generation of the Son was a production, and to expofe other fimilar hypothefes.

• Shakespeare.

The

The 12th chapter contains a fummary view of the difficulties which attend the Homöoufian faith, and the arguments used in defence of it, by way of queries.

In the 13th chapter, the Author examines the opinion of thofe who reject the metaphyfical queftion of the Son's generation, and explain it purely in an economical fenfe and the 14th chapter terminates the inquiry with general infer

ences.

In the Appendix we have the copies of two letters of Arius, in which he expreffes his fentiments with refpect to the doctrine in difpute between him and the Homooufians, one addreffed to Alexander, and the other to Eufebius; his Creed prefented to Conflantine after his return from exile, and Conftantine's letter to Arius and Alexander, recommending moderation and unanimity.

Having on former occafions given our opinion concerning the abilities and learning of the Editor of Ben Mordecai's letters, we fhall only add, after a perufal of the prefent publication, that, befide an extenfive acquaintance with ecclefiaftical and theological writers, both ancient and modern, he poffeffes the talents of an acute and masterly reafoner; infomuch that no evidence or argument has escaped his notice, which tends to invalidate and expofe the Athanafian system in all the various modifications of it, from the time of the Council of Nice, to the present day.

* Rev. for O&. 1772. Feb. and Sept. 1774.

R...s.

MONTHLY CATALOGUE, For APRIL, 1777.

MEDICA L.

Art. 13. Preftwich's Differtation on Mineral, Animal, and Vegetable Poifons; containing a Defcription of Poifons in general, their Manner of Action, Effects on the Human Body, and respective Antidotes; with Experiments and Remarks on noxious Exhalations from Earth, Air, and Water. Together with feveral extraordinary Cafes, and elegant Engravings of the principal Poisons of the different Countries. 8vo. 6 s. Boards. Newbery. 1775. CARCELY any fubject connected with natural philofophy and

S to require an accurate

vestigation as the nature of poisons. The many vulgar and learned errors which fill adhere to it; the doubts with regard to fact, and obfcurities with respect to theory, in which it is involved, render it extremely defirable that fome perfon, poffeffed of adequate ability and means of information, fhould make it the object of his inquiries.

Nothing can be further from the accomplishment of this purpose than the treatife before us, which is, in fact, as poor and injudicious

2

a com

a compilation as we remember to have feen, equally void of accuracy and ingenuity, and as faulty in the felection, as flovenly in the arrangement of its materials. We cannot even recommend it as a ufeful affemblage, however ill digefted, of facts and opinions relating to the fubjects, fince the authorities are often very loofely cited, or entirely omitted. Thus, under the article Opium, there is a large extract, word for word from Lewis's Materia Medica; and under that of the Arrow Poifon, another from Bancroft's Nat. Hift. of Guiana, without the leaft acknowledgment or mark of a quotation. The botanical part (which appears to be moft laboured by the Author) contains feveral prolix descriptions of plants, which, though congenerous with fome poisonous vegetables, are not known to be of that number themselves. The philofophical part confifts almoft folely of exploded or unfupported hypothefes, and exhibits the profoundest ignorance of feveral late difcoveries.

If any benefit can be derived from this fuperficial performance, it is from the enumeration of the several methods of cure in cafes of poifon externally or internally applied. Thefe, though often of an empirical caft, are in general the most approved and efficacious under each particular head. A. Art. 14. Obfervations on the Abuse of Medicine. By Thomas Withers, M. D. 8vo. 4 s. fewed. Johnfon. 1775.

The defign of this Author is to enumerate, under different heads, inftances, not only of the unneceffary and improper ufe, but of the culpable neglect of medicines. It is, therefore, as he obferves, • closely connected with the art of preventing and curing diseases ;' fo closely, indeed, that we are in fome doubt as to the propriety of making it a feparate confideration. It is not very obvious what must have been the Author's rule for felecting fome particulars and omitting others, fo as to render his work any thing different from a general system of medical practice; and we apprehend it is a neceffary confequence of his plan, in which the medicine, and not the difeafe, is the object of discussion, that it tends rather to general maxims than to thofe minuter and more appropriated directions which alone can ufefully be applied by the practitioner.

After thefe ftrictures on the plan, it is with pleasure that we can fay with respect to the execution of the work before us, that it exhibits undoubted proofs of an accurate and extenfive acquaintance with the fcience of medicine, efpecially in the improved state in which it is now taught in the univerfity of Edinburgh. It may, indeed, be thought that it is too exclufively calculated for the meridian of that place, the greatest part of its authorities being derived from thence, and its language fpeaking the peculiar tenets of the Cullenian fchool. The Writer has, however, in general, kept fufficiently clear from hypothetical reasoning, and has delivered himself in a style not only correct, but elegant.

His Obfervations are claffed under the following heads of inquiry: 1. Of blood-letting. 2. Of emetics and purgatives. 3. Of fudorifics. 4. Of blifters. 5. Of flimulants. 6. Of fedatives. 7. Of tonics or ftrengtheners. All these afford a variety of remarks which may prove inftructive not only to the tiro, but to thofe who are far advanced in the study and practice of medicine.

A.

Art.