and taught, they held them along with absurd and false opinions, which should make us prefer more sober interpreters, better logicians, and more accurate weighers of evidence, to expound the scriptures. May we not question the sentiments of Justin Martyr, who, amidst all the good things he said and did, was sanguine and credulous; who taught that the saints should rise and spend a thousand years in Jerusalem; who says that it was not the Father who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom, because that he could not have been at that time in heaven; who attributed the inspiration of the Almighty to the Sibyl? or of Irenaeus, who says, there can be no more than four gospels, because there are four principal regions of the world, the east, the west, the north, and the south; or, because the building of the church is founded on the gospel, and there must be four pillars to support a building; that our Saviour Christ was above forty years of age, when he suffered death for us; giving as a reason, that he passed through all ages, as being come into the world to save people of all ages? or of Tertullian, who affirms that there is no substance which is not corporeal, and that God is a body; who proves that the soul is corporeal from the visions of an illuminated sister, who told him that she had seen a soul; who affirms roundly, "constat," says he, "Ethnicis quoque testibus," that a fine city was seen for forty days suspended in the air over Jerusalem, which convinced him that the millenium was at hand? These and others were excellent men, but very insufficient guides. We respect the opinion that "their writings are highly useful on several accounts, but that it is better to defer too little than too much to their decisions, and to the authority of antiquity; for she is like Briareus, and has a hundred hands, and these hands often lash and beat one another."

The work under review declares, that Justin says, a belief of the trinity was required of the most rude and illiterate, in order to their receiving baptism and admission into the church, and refers to Jamieson, vol. ii. p. 308. Upon looking to the reference, we were surprised to find that this broad assertion is grounded upon Justin's saying only, that converts "are washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit ;" not a word about trinity in the place. According to this manner of citation, a defender of transubstantiation might affirm, that Justin Martyr allowed it to be the faith of the church in his time, if he found, in the writings of the father, the text, "this is my body."

The highest opinion of Christ that was entertained, from Justin till many years after the Arian controversy, would be far from satisfying the demands of subsequent and present orthodoxy. The Gnosticks seem to have considered the Christ as a superangelick being, an emanation of the Deity united to the man Christ Jesus, who was only a phantom. According to others, who are accounted among the faithful, the Logos, an attribute of God, was personally united to the man Christ Jesus. They called Christ God, because his divinity was the divinity of the Father; but the idea of a divine person or being, distinct from the Father, and yet equal to

VOL. VII.

7

him, was unknown. The supremacy of the Father was certainly maintained. "The Father," saith Justin, "is the author to him, (Christ) both of his existence, and of his being powerful, and of his being Lord and God." There was no controversy about the Holy Spirit, till after the council of Nice, although some difference of opinion existed. The Spirit was represented by some as a power, communicated by God, and by others as a person, but inferiour to God, and also to Christ. They said the Spirit was one of the beings that Christ made. It was not a subject of much dispute, till Macedonius, a semi-Arian, happening to deny the personality of the Spirit, it was asserted by Athanasius. At length, in the council of Constantinople, 381, under the auspices of the emperour Theodosius, Macedonius was condemned. But as (6 filioque" is in the creed of the Latin church, and they insist that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son, against the Greek church, which makes his procession from the Father only, one or the other of these churches must be guilty of heresy on this point. Which it is, let some of our protestant councils of Trent decree. Our author insists, that the primitive christians excommunicated the unitarians. From the nature of the case, and from express testimony we must believe that unitarians were always in the church. The argument that the great body were of this description, is more easily called weak than proved so. The first instance of excommunication on account of this opinion, says our author, is Theodotus, A. D. 192, who fell under the displeasure of Victor, bishop of Rome. This same Victor excommunicated all the eastern churches for celebrating Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, instead of the Sunday next after the fourteenth. What a lover and defender of the true faith! The Ebionites were deemed hereticks, but probably because they were bigotted Jews, who avoided communion with the gentile christians, not merely because they believed in the humanity of Christ. When debates began among the clergy, and the doctrine of Christ's divinity had come to be maintained with passion and loftiness, then those ministers or teachers, who made a difficulty about using the terms of the prevailing party were subject to censures, to anathemisms and persecutions. But whatever was done to those who were thought to have too low ideas of Christ's nature, when christians began to judge and hate each other on account of subtleties, and whatever might be the rule of hercsy in primitive ages, modern orthodoxy can derive little support from this quarter. The four first general councils had not told them how to express themselves on this mystery. They said much that they should not say, simple souls! and if they condemned unitarians, were little better than one set of hereticks condemning another.

Next we are presented with the history of the Arian doctrine, and admonished to give it no quarter, because it had none when it first appeared. No man, who means to believe according to evidence, or proposes to build his conclusions on a reason rather than a prejudice, will feel obliged to reject Arianism, because it was rejected in the days of Arius; for had it been ever so true, the

causes that were then in action against it would have been sufficient to put it down. In the next place, should it appear to be ever so false, and to have been justly reprobated, this fact will not operate in favour of modern trinitarian orthodoxy. Hear Jurieu, a champion of Athanasianism, when he says, "the fundamental articles of christianity were not understood by the Fathers of the three first centuries; that the true system began to be modelled into some shape by the Nicene bishops; and was afterwards improved by the following synods and councils." This is the confession of an adversary. The offence of the Arians was introducing a created Logos; the orthodox maintained a derived or generated Logos. 66 By the same substance the council meant not the same numerical or individual, but the same generical substance. When they said the Father was God, they meant that he was God of himself, originally and underived; and when they said the Son was God, they meant that he was God by generation or derivation.” They had no idea of Christ being properly equal to the Father. This was an improvement of a subsequent period. Neither the logick nor learning, neither the principles nor temper, which were displayed in the proceedings against Arianism, and in a great degree, though not so great, in the defence and support of it, have any claim to our respect. "Alexander commanded Arius, his presbyter, to come over to his sentiments, and quit his own; as if a man could change his opinion, as easily as he can change his coat. Upon his proving refractory, he called a council of war, consisting of near a hundred bishops, and deposed, excommunicated, and anathematized Arius, and with him several ecclesiasticks, two of whom were bishops. Alexander then wrote a circular letter to all bishops, in which he represents Arius and his partisans as hereticks, blasphemers, enemies of God, full of impudence and impiety, forerunners of Antichrist, imitators of Judas, and men whom it was not lawful to salute or to bid God speed. Yet the historian Sozomen acknowledges that they were learned men, and to all appearance good men. There is not the least reason to doubt the probity and sincerity of those who opposed Alexander and the Nicene fathers. "To settle the controversial bounds," says a very sensible writer on ecclesiastical history," between the Arians, the semi-Arians, and the Athanasians or consubstantialists of those days, and to determine how far they agreed, and how far they differed, and how far they were or were not consistent with themselves, is, if not an impossibility, yet certainly a very difficult task. They were not to be blamed for their inquiries about this subject; their disputes with Jews and pagans must have unavoidably led them into it; but they should not have reviled and persecuted one another, or required an assent under pain of excommunication, banishment, infamy and beggary, to expressions not used by sacred writers. Is this the reverence and respect, which ought to be paid to the Holy Scriptures?" To show the immense value of publick wisdom on these subtle disputes; and how much certainty, and peace, and harmony are obtained by ecclesiastical assemblies to determine matters of opinion, we shall only mention that in the fourth century were held

thirteen councils against Arius, fifteen for him, and seventeen for the semi-Arians; in all forty five. This doctrine was crushed finally, not by argument, but by power.

The three following chapters treat of the Pelagian doctrine, doctrines of the reformation, and revival of the ancient heresies after the reformation.

The author teaches that the Calvinistick doctrines of grace, orig inal sin, predestination, were generally received in the church from the first, and particularly in the fifth century, when Pelagius and Augustine began to dispute ; whilst the doctrines of Pelagius were no older than himself. What shall the plain christian do, when his learned guides point him to divided paths? We could quote abundance of authorities, and make a multitude of citations to show that this statement is not correct; that the Latins before Augustine taught, and that the Greeks taught and teach now, that God has given man power to act well or ill; that the utmost effect of Adam's sin is mortality, and a proneness to evil affections; that there are no irrespective decrees, and that our salvation is connected with our choice and endeavours. Upon these subjects it is indeed easy to get into a labyrinth. The novelty of teaching, however, in this case was more on the part of Augustine than of Pelagius, and Celestius; though in the progress of the controversy the latter were led to advance more than was generally believed before, and probably more than was true. Augustine, according to Le Clerc, fell into his predestinarian notions, first, by retaining some of his Manichaeism, secondly, by meditating on the epistles of St. Paul, which he understood not, having only a slender knowledge of the Greek tongue and of the ancient fathers, and thirdly, by a special grace and illumination, which he fancied to have been conferred on himself.

When he got into this quarrel he was obliged to change opinions which he had advanced in his writings against the Manichaeans; Augustine maintained that grace, that is, we suppose, extraordinary, supernatural assistance, arbitrarily bestowed, is necessary to all virtue, and that therefore the heathens could have no virtue, nothing but splendid sins: that Adam's sin is entailed on his posterity, and that they sinned in him. Baptism, he said, was necessary to remove the stain; and consequently all who were not baptized, are destined to perdition. But this doctrine seemed to the good-natured doctor too harsh, and he qualified it by admitting, that infants had the least miserable place in hell, so that it was better for them to be than not to be. Unconditional election and predestination naturally had a place in such a system. We cannot ascertain exactly the sentiments of Pelagius, as they come through his adversaries. They charge him with teaching independence of God, which is probably not true, but the effect of that infirmity, so common to disputants, which ascribes their own consequences to their opponents. A great deal of this dispute has been and is about words. Grace, it is said, did not signify the same thing with Pelagius, as with the bishop of Hippo; and the latter gave the name of liberty to that

which is not usually so called. "The contenders in some part of the dispute might be compared to a Frenchman and Arabian, each of them knowing only his mother tongue, who should bawl in their turns as loud as they were able, and sometimes both at once, without understanding one another, and then boast that they had confuted their adversary." The cause of the Calvinistick i. e. Augustinian theology was supported by the spiritual methods of conversion usual in those and later ages. Imperial edicts, backed by edicts of the prefects, afforded a very valuable reinforcement to the arguments of the bishop. One of the latter follows: "If he, who is fallen into the infamous sentiments of this obscure heresy, be a laick or an ecclesiastick, and any one drag him before the judge, no exceptions to the person and character of the accuser shall be admitted, and the accused shall be stripped of all his possessions and sent into perpetual banishment." Pelagianism stands confuted to a demonstration! Most righteous law! Doubtless the orthodoxy of the makers would have taught them more equity and decorum, if it had not been so mixed up with their hateful passions, as to operate like the same thing.

With respect to what are called the doctrines of the reformation, they are improperly so called, unless the phrase means simply that they were opinions of the reformers, or that they were not reformed. The author intimates that their contest with the Romanists turned upon these points; and that they separated principally on the ground of a difference about these doctrines. With respect to that doctrine, which the writer aims chiefly to establish and to show to be fundamental, this representation is erroneous. The doctrine of the trinity was never brought into question between the parties. Mosheim says, that at the first dawn of the reformation in Germany and Italy, there appeared some who denied the divinity of Christ. "But the efforts of these men," saith he, "were opposed with united zeal and vigilance by the Romish, reformed, and Lutheran churches." Both parties agreed to burn them. Luther, who had been a monk of the order of St. Augustine, and was attached probably to the orthodox doctrine of grace, carried it farther than the generality of Catholick divines. He also found it very convenient to use against the popish doctrine of merit and indulgences. It was however not the doctrines of grace, but the power of the pope, transubstantiation, prayer to saints, and subjects of that kind, which made the great points of contention. The Romish church has and had a large sect of believers in the doctrines of grace.

The author proceeds to give an account of what he calls revival of the ancient heresies after the reformation. He touches the character of the respective systems of the Unitarians, Arians and Socinians; of the Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Quakers, Wesleyan Methodists and Freewillers. We suppose the writer meant to give a true and even candid account of their sentiments; but we apprehend the holders of the several opinions, loosely expressed under these names, would not state them exactly as he has