luces passages from Josephus and Philo, happily tending to llustrate the genius of Christianity."

The remainder of the work, from page 56 to page 335, is occupied with the account of the different denominations into which the nominal Christian world is divided; the whole being ncluded under the following threefold arrangement: opinions respecting the person of Christ; respecting the means and measure of God's favour; and respecting church-government, and the administration of ceremonies." It will not be expected that we should go minutely over, in our critique as we have done in the perusal, the whole of the particulars treated under these subdivisions. We may remark, generally, that in the several accounts there is a constant infringement upon all the rules of proportion; as many pages being devoted to the nearly blasphemous speculations and doctrines of a little knot of men calling themselves Freethinking Christians,' to the ridiculous reveries of that pitiably weak and deluded woman Joanna Southcott, and to the whimsicalities of the Shakers;' as to the Greek, Roman, and English episcopal churches. We may, further, remark, that the Sketch' is excessively defective, in stating the probable or known numbers of those who maintain a certain class of doctrines, or who practise certain ceremonies.

We would advise Mr. E. to consult more and better authorities, than he seems hitherto to have examined; and not to rely so often upon second and third-hand information. Taking the opinions of the Arians, for a specimen, perhaps his researches would be turned into a new and useful channel (to himself, we mean), if he would direct his attention to the ecclesiastical historians, and other writers, of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. He would then avoid the repetition of the ridiculous calumny, that Arius fell a victim to the fury of his persecutors;' and he would be able to depict more correctly, than he now does, what Arianism once was, and what Arianism, if it yet exist, and be not a new thing under an old name, still is. As we have reason to suppose he has not done this, we will, for once, supply his want of information.

Arius, and his original co-heretics, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Menas, &c. taught these doctrines: God was not always a Father; but there was a time when he was God, but hot Father. The Word of God was not always, but sprang out of nothing. For he that was God made him that was not, out of that which was not; and therefore there was a time when he was not. For the Son is a creature, and the workmanship of God; neither in essence like to the Father, nor the true and atural Word or Wisdom of the Father, but one of the crea

tures that were made, and is only improperly styled the Word and Wisdom. Forasmuch as he himself was made by the genuine Word of God, and by that wisdom that is in God, by which God made him as well as all other things. On this account he is, in his own nature, mutable and alterable, as all rational creatures are. He is a Word foreign and separated from the essence of God. The Father is ineffable and incomprehensible to the Son; who neither perfectly and accurately knows him, nor is able perfectly to behold him. Nay, the Son understands not his own substance, of what kind it is. Nor had he ever had any being, had not God designed to create us. And when they were asked, whether the Word of God might change, as the devil did, they blushed not to reply, he might do so; for being made and created, he must be mutable.'*

To trace the modifications of Arian opinions, is instructive, as it serves to shew the downward progression of error. It runs thus, as evinced by the several testimonies of Athanasius, Socrates, Zozomen, and Epiphanius.

Opinions in relation to the Son.

1. Not consubstantial with God the Father.

2. Not coeternal; yet without any known limitation of time. 3. Of a distinct inferior nature; yet otherwise, perfectly like the Father.

4. Not strictly and essentially God, but partaking of the Father's divinity.

5. A creature of the Father's; but unlike to the rest of his

creatures.

6. Not like the Father; but in nature and substance like other creatures.

7. Made in time; there having been a time when he was

8. Made from nothing.

9. Far inferior to the Father in knowledge, power, and per

fections.

10. Mutable in his nature, and only unchangeable by de

cree.

11. Dependent on the good pleasure of his Father for his past, present, and future being.

12. Finite in knowledge, his knowledge being that of a

creature.

13. By no means eternal, but made a LITTLE before the world was made; and for the sake of those that should be after him.

And, to complete the lowest step in this series, it was held:

* Vide Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 6.

14. That though the Son of God was not eternal, the Emperor Constantius was !!*

But we must not forget that we are not tracing the awful progress of error, but writing a review. We proceed, therefore, to remind our Author, that when he says, it is not easy to unravel the leading tenets of the Moravians,' he exposes himself to the charge of negligence. If their principles are detailed at length,' as he tells us they are, in Mr. La Trobe's edition of Spangenburgh's Exposition of Christian Doctrine,' why did he not consult that exposition? The Moravian is one of the earliest, purest, and most moderate (in doctrinal sentiment) of the reformed churches: its principles are sketched not merely in Spangenburgh's work, but in several others; and nothing but extreme inattention can have suffered thirteen editions of a book to appear in succession with this weak apology for indolence so culpable.

Let us be permitted to remark to him, further, that he runs great risk of being thought indifferent to all religious sentiment, and to have embraced the pernicious sophism, that mental error is innocent, and that all religions, real or nominal, are equally approved of by God. For, who that had not slid into this miserable delusion could describe the bold and dangerous sentiments of the self-denominated Freethinking Christians,' without dropping the gentlest censure, or hinting the slightest suspicion of their inaccuracy? or, who else could speak of the publication called 'the Freethinking Christian's Magazine,' as a work devoted to the dissemination of Christian, moral, and philosophical truth, and open to impartial controversy and legitimate discussion? Does he know that in this work devoted to the dissemination of Christian truth,' readers are taught, that a regular clergy is inconsistent with Christianity, that' pulpit preaching' is not authorized either by scripture or by reason; that the title of reverend is an antichristian assumption; that there is no scripture evidence in support of such an order of beings as angels; that baptism is foolish and absurd; that every passage in holy writ which gives countenance to baptism is either forged or corrupted; and that the same may be said of every passage which appears to countenance the doctrine of the Trinity? Does he know that all the impartial and legitimate discussion' in this work, is directed to these and like ends? How, then, can he reconcile the apparent commendation of such a publication with the profession of Christianity?

The writer seems perpetually to confound the two propositions, Every individual of every sect has a right to think for himself;'-and Every individual of every persuasion, who

* Vide Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 37. Athan. de Synod.

thinks for himself, is right.' Yet he must be but a very loose thinker who does not see that they are totally distinct. The right of free inquiry is admitted by all consistent protestants; but it is only because men may hold erroneous and even dangerous opinions, that this right becomes of any value. If all men, whatsoever religious or irreligious notions they hold, are right, merely because they have exercised more or less inquiry and have made their election; a great deal of tormenting and sometimes angry discussion may he saved: and men will do wisely to adopt whatsoever class of theological opinions falls in their way, and turn the full energy of their minds to the pursuits of commerce, of science, or of taste, with the entire persuasion that all will ultimately issue happily well. But it is not, and cannot be thus. If Christians are right, in receiving Christ as the Messiah, the Jews cannot be right in rejecting him. If Mahometans are right, neither Jews nor Christians are. If Deists are right, neither Jews, Christians, nor Mahometans are. If Atheists are right, the conduct of Jews, Christians, Mahometans, and even Deists, is marked with the most egregious folly. If they who admit the Divinity and atonement of the Redeemer are right, they who deny them cannot also be right. And thus we might run through the whole range of human opinions. But it may be said, and it is often affirmed, that though they cannot all be right, mentally considered, they may all be right at heart, and therefore approved of God. This inference we must also dispute. Sincerity is doubtless a very excellent thing, so excellent indeed that there can be no true religion, no acceptable worship without it. Yet sincerity does not, cannot, atone for sin; and all "unbelief is sin. The Jews in the time of our Lord were probably very sincere in hinking him guilty of blasphemy, because he, "called himself the Son of God," "thereby making himself equal with God;" and with equal sincerity on the part of the Jews he seems to have been condemned to crucifixion. "And now, brethren (said St. Peter in reference to this very point) I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers." But does he deem them innocent because of this ignorance? No such thing. He tells them that it was by "wicked hands that Jesus was crucified and slain ;" and he therefore exhorts them to "repent," that they may escape the punishment due to their criminality. In like manner, a Unitarian unbeliever of the present day may be very sincere in his rejection of the doctrine of the atonement. He may declare his readiness to meet God upon his own ground, and may ridicule the idea of his sins being cancelled through "the blood of the cross." In all this he may be very much in earnest; but will the Apostles, who were inspired to teach us the will of God, tell us that the great Searcher of

Hearts, regards this as innocent, as commendable sincerity? Far from it. They warn us of the danger attending this awful state of mind, and say-" He that despised even Moses's law, died without mercy.... .Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace?" In truth, with regard to the last class of sentiments to which we have adverted, it is fair to infer from the whole train of writings by which it is supported, that, unless belief possess nearly all the essential characteristics of unbelief, and unless the true religion make the nearest possible approach in its nature and tendencies, of all the known modifications of professed religion, to infidelity, Socinianism cannot be the true religion, nor can they who profess it be either intellectually or morally right.

The Author of this Sketch,' we should conjecture, is a man of a good-natured, gossiping, turn of mind, pleased with himself, and except when the odium theologicum hinders, (a disorder which sometimes seems to operate even in his mild constitution,) pleased with every one else. Notwithstanding the good-natured propensities, however, which seem usually to have been indulged, there are a few places in which we fear Mr. E. may be justly accused of a breach of candour: for instance in recommending Nightingale's Portraiture of Methodism as a work replete with information respecting the internal government and discipline of the Methodists-whereas had he presented his readers with a correct character of it, he would have pronounced it a work detailing a string of gross misrepresentations and calumnies, and notoriously destitute of all pretensions to impartiality. And again, we think our Author might have suffered candour to prevail so far as to have prevented his indulgence in the sneer, at page 161, respecting the imitation of the primitive disciples in their OUTWARD Conduct;' and thus have saved himself from the charge of insinuating that the Methodists and the Moravians are hypocrites. Nor are we quite certain that he is guiltless of this same charge of the want of candour, when he intimates that Dr. Magee's notions respecting the atonement approximate his own or when he describes 'Dr. Gregory's Letters on the Evidences, Doctrines, and Duties of the Christian Religion,' as a recent work in defence of Calvinism;' because the author of those letters more than once positively disclaims all intention of discussing the controverted topics between the Calvinists and the Arminians, and confines himself almost exclusively (in the doctrinal part of his performance) to those points in which Calvinists, Baxterians, and Arminians, are opposed to the Socinians.

VOL. II. N. S.

2 P