not in any part of ourselves." He describes the hereticks and anticalvinists, and especially unitarians as opposing grace and the doctrines of grace, redemption, atonement, divine influence; and disclaiming dependence on God. It would be more fair, if not more politick to charge these persons with denying these points as they are explained and stated in Calvinistick or Hopkinsian formularies and systems of divinity. They, as well as their accusers, ascribe salvation to God. The author, the plan, the terms, the means and the efficacy of the means of salvation are, in the creed of the hereticks as well as, the orthodox of God. The principal question between them seems to be, whether any thing is to be done and can be done by the subject in order to salvation. So of grace, the difference respects not the reality, but the nature and operation of grace. Considered as meaning what it generally means in the scriptures, viz. gratuitous goodness, it is not denied by either party. Grace becomes a subject of debate, when considered in its technical sense in compends of Calvinistick theology. Man is born to an absolute moral inability, impotent to all moral action, passive to the influence of all good motives, unable not only to find a remedy for his depravity, but to desire, to value, or to use a remedy, when provided, and destined to everlasting misery. By a covenant of redemption, one of the persons in the Godhead, an infinite being or person, is united to the human nature, and dies by the hands of men; in consideration of which interposition, the first person sends the third to infuse, by an immediate act, the faith and holiness necessary to salvation, into a small number, unconditionally elected, without regard to previous character, and of mere sovereign pleasure placed beyond the possibility of forfeiting their title, whilst the great mass of the human family are under absolute reprobation.

When doctrines of this kind are called doctrines of grace," the plain, unlearned, but sincere christian" may think language is abused, being accustomed to include clemency, not cruelty, in his idea of grace. Redemption, atonement, and similar expressions are not the exclusive property of those who call themselves orthodox. The latter word, being used but once in the New Testament, and then signifying reconciliation, as it might and should have been rendered, is not so much employed by the unitarians and anticalvinists as by their evangelical brethren, who make it stand in their artificial theology, for equivalent satisfaction, or the doctrine that human responsibility is transferred to a mysterious personage, in order to save the honour of the divine government, when it pardons the elect. There is no dispute about the reality of divine influence, and the dependence of man on God. The difference relates to the manner of this influence and dependence. The question, as we conceive, is, whether or not we are dependent on God in his own way, according to laws which he hath established; whether there is any connection between means and end, cause and effect; between instruction and knowledge, motive and volition, discipline and improvement; or whether all is done in us and for us by an immediate, special, supernatural communication, arbitrarily imparted, which we are bound to have, and yet cannot obtain, for we have no moral power.

One

may not see all the consequences, which appear to another to be involved in a scriptural doctrine; but he is not of course to be represented as denying the doctrine. The enthusiast canonizes his reveries, the mad fanatick his bodily agitations and freaks, and both call them regeneration. Make no difficulty about this, intimating that you have another idea of regeneration, unless you are willing to be thought to deny the doctrine. Indeed, should you be so rash as to dispute the pretensions of the self styled subject of extraordinary grace, you will be fortunate to escape the charge of committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Though the author of the present work is not so candid as we should expect in his exposition of his adversaries' sentiments, though, upon the idea of describing hereticks, he makes a man of straw for the sake of knocking him down, yet in other places it appears that he means, as we have before observed, to denounce all doubters and oppugners of the five points, all unbelievers in the compositions of the Westminster divines, and of the framers of the articles of the church of England, as he understands them, including the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

As the last doctrine is" articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae," his third chapter is designed to display its proofs, so far as relates to Jesus Christ. The separate divinity of the Holy Spirit, as difficult, if not as necessary, to be proved, our author seems to leave untouched. It is averred that the scriptures teach the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, that is, that he is perfect, "self existent," infinite God, distinct from the Father, but "equal” to him; because they ought to do it; and because it is directly asserted, or naturally and logically inferred from passages in the sacred writings. The doctrine ought to be there, because the justice of God is what in man we call rigour....he cannot forgive the penitent without an indemnity for his violated law. Sin, being committed against an infinite being, or being an infinite evil, requires an infinite atonement. The sentence must be inflicted somewhere; if not on the offender, on his substitute. Let none cavil at such ar guments as metaphysical quibbling and flights of abstraction. Let none say this is entering into the counsels of the Almighty, usurping his throne, and saying how he shall govern his creatures. Let none say this, lest he fall under the imputation of aiming to save himself, too proud to acquiesce in the plan of being saved by another.

It cannot however but occur to many persons, perhaps even to the "plain and unlearned," to ask how the honour of the law can be saved by the punishment of the innocent for the guilty, when the whole purpose of the law is to annex suffering to guilt, and guilt only. If there is infinite demerit in sin, because committed against an infinite Being, is there infinite worth in obedience rendered to the same Being? If every sin is an infinite evil, requiring an infinite satisfaction, should there not be as many infinite satisfactions as there are sins? The atonement must be rendered by God-man, yet the divinity is impassible; the human nature only suffers..... where is the atonement?

Our au

But to the law and to the testimony let us repair. thor aims to bring proofs from scripture, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, and a self existent Being. We suppose the attribute of self existence is ascribed to the second person, or son in opposition to the anti-Nicene and even Nicene fathers and creed, which maintain the generation of the Son, and call him "God of God, Light of Light." Not as theologians, but as criticks, we make a few remarks on these arguments. We fear they must be considered as quite insufficient to establish the doctrine; in some instances mistaking sound for sense, figurative language for literal, and relying on false readings and false translations. "Christ received religious worship." It does not appear, how far the worship paid him during his ministry was different from a high degree of civil respect. "All the congregation of the princes bowed their heads and worshipped the Lord and the King." Worship is used in the scriptures for that respect, deference, and homage, which correspond to the dignity and privHeges of the person to whom it is rendered. But, says the trinitarian, it is settled by the command, "and let all the angels of God worship him." It would not be so contrary to the laws of language as to the canons of the church, to translate the passage, "and let all the messengers of God pay homage to him;" acknowledge him as their superiour. But suppose it well rendered in our present version, it may be properly inquired, did the angels need to be commanded to worship the supreme God? "Christ is the most high God, because it belongs to him alone to forgive sins, and Christ claimed and exercised this prerogative." Matt. ix. 2. But this prerogative may be communicated, and is declared by Christ to have been received. "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they. are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." His calling himself the Son of God, and a Son of God, is no claim of equality with the Father, nor of divinity. "I and my Father are one," is quoted again for the ten thousandth time, though it is known Calvin rejected the passage as proof of a Trinity, and though our Saviour prayed to his Father for his disciples, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," therefore Christ and the Father are the same. "He that receiveth you receiveth me," therefore Christ and his apostles are

the same.

One set of arguments is taken from passages which contain false or doubtful readings, in which the real words of scripture have been altered through design or mistake by copyists or transcribers, before the art of printing was invented. Acts XX. 28. "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood ;” “feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with his own blood." 1 Tim. iii. 16. "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh," &c. It should be "He who, or which was manifested," &c. 1 John iii. 16. "Hereby perceive we the love

of God, because he laid down his life for us.” "Hereby perceive we love, because he laid down his life for us." Rev. i. 11." saying I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and what thou seest write in a book ;" omit the words in Italicks, say the best authorities, orthodox and heterodox. Mistranslations.....John v. 18. Instead of making himself equal with God, making himself like God. Rom. ix. 5. "Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever." "Of whom, by natural descent, Christ came. God, who is over all, be blessed for ever." Philippians ii, 5. &c. "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;"" who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance of God, or held not the being like unto God a spoil or a prize.'

دو

The second section of the View of Heresies maintains, that the design of the gospel and epistles of St. John appears to have been to confute the errours of those, who denied the divinity and atonement of Christ. In proof of this position, it cites Jerom, who flourished A. D. 378, whose opinion, if he had not been biassed by his preconceived hypothesis, and had not said that he was whipped by angels for studying Cicero, and said many extravagant as well as sober things, would not carry much more authority than that of any modern doctor. A better witness, whom our author quotes, is Irenaeus, who flourished A. D. 170, who, when a boy, had seen Polycarp, who had conversed with John. But, we believe, all which Irenaeus says, is, that "St. John wrote against those who denied that Christ existed before Mary." From an inspection of the writings of John, as well as from other assertions of the ancients, we should conclude he had a primary or sole reference, if to any hereticks, to the gnosticks, or phantomists, who represented Christ as a man in appearance only, and turned the whole of Christ's work into a mystical, fairy transaction. "These things are written," says he, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus is come in the flesh is of God." In regard to the proem of St. John's gospel, the antitrinitarians are at least as successful in explaining it as their opponents. It is no easy thing to reconcile it with any system of interpretation. It is not credible, however, that, if the doctrine of the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ is a corner stone of christianity, it should need the support of so difficult and obscure a passage of the evangelical writings as the introduction to St. John's gospel. To those who wish to have a proper moderation and candour, if not to get a firm persuasion upon the meaning of this part of scripture, we recommend the perusal not only of the trinitarian comments, but of Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, Cappe's Dissertations, vol. I. Ben. Mordecai's Letters, and Lindsey's Apology and Sequel. If they are not afraid to prove all things, they may look at the New Testament in an improved Version upon the basis of archbishop Newcome's new translation. Boston; reprinted for W. Wells, 1809.

Next we come to a chapter on the faith of the primitive christuns. Here we are presented with a few citations, principally

the language of scripture, from the apostolical fathers, Barnabas, Polycarp, Clemens Romanus, and Ignatius. It is singular, if the doctrine of Christ's being perfect and self existent God was always considered fundamental, that these fathers should afford it so lame a testimony as our author produces. It would have been proper, however little to his purpose their writings are, if he had apprized the unlearned christian of the conviction avowed by respectable judges of all parties, that scarcely any of their writings have come down to us as they wrote them, and that, except a single epistle of Clemens Romanus, the works ascribed to them are by great numbers of the best divines accounted spurious. Our author cites from Clement the expression, sufferings of God, a mode of speaking never common among the orthodox, and in this case undoubtedly an erroneous reading, as other MSS. have the precepts of God; and which is believed to agree better with the context. Another authority is quoted in the View; "it becomes us so to think of Jesus Christ as of a God." The writer should have hinted that this passage is taken from Clement's second epistle, which is peremptorily rejected as not genuine by almost every critick. The genuine epistles of Ignatius, from which a few citations are given, cannot be supposed to have escaped the molestation of unhallowed hands, both of Arians and trinitarians. They are not, in their present state, authority for any important articles of revelation. The corruptions are in those very parts which relate to the subjects of controversy.

Justin Martyr, A. D. 163, Irenaeus, A. D. 202, Tertullian 220, Origen 254, Melito 170, Athenagoras 177, besides some heathen writers, Celsus, Hierocles, Lucian, are also produced as witnesses for the divinity of Christ. Before the plain christian takes these fathers for his spiritual guides, he should understand that they had their system; that in their time the oriental philosophy and the Platonick doctrine of ideas and emanations became incorporated with the simple truths of christianity. "When christianity became a bulky system, one may trace in it the genius of the loquacious and ever wrangling Greeks, of the enthusiastick Africans, whose imag→ ination was sublimed by the heat of the sun, of the superstitious Egyptians, whose fertile soil and warm climate produced monks and hermits, swarming like animals sprung from the impregnated mud of the Nile, and of the ambitious political Romans, who were resolved to rule over the world in one shape or other. Το this we may add the Jewish zeal for trifles, arising from a contracted illiberal mind, the learned subtlety of the gentile philosophers, and the pomp and ceremony of paganism." The fathers may not be made our proxies to judge of the scriptures, because they are difficult to be understood, their composition is encumbered with figures, and obscured by allegory; because they do not always speak as they believe, and often contradict themselves. When one of them affirms any thing upon controverted points, we must consider, says Daillè, whether he gives it as his own opinion, or the opinion of the church, of the church universal or particular, of the members or the pastors. Whatever truths they believed