possibly be paid to them than is exhibited throughout his life and writings; but it is to the Scriptures as interpreted by himself. The sense put upon them by the learned commentators in all ages, and even by the Church of Christ in the best and primitive times, he treats with contumelious scorn. His own exposition of them, and no other, will he condescend to adopt; affording in this an exemplification of the remark, that extremes often approach near to each other: for the Church of Rome rests her exorbitant claims upon the Scriptures,—but then it is upon them as interpreted by herself. How different is the Church of England! She founds her claims upon Scripture, not interpreted by herself, but by reason and learning; at the same time paying a respectful deference to the voice of pious antiquity. In like manner she exhorts her children to search the Scriptures and to examine for themselves; yet not to contemn the authority of the Church, of the ministry, and of antiquity. A haughty dependence on individual judgment, a renunciation of the authority of the Church as the depositary and guardian of revealed truth, is pregnant with mischief in so weak and fallible a being as man. Some deference is due to opinions espoused by the most eminent men in successive ages, and some reverence is due to the faith of those who lived in the early periods of Christianity. We abhor the preposterous claim of infallibility; neither do we plead for an implicit obedience to the Church or to antiquity; but we are convinced, that to reject altogether their authority, is to renounce the best guide in the exposition of the Scriptures. If in this opinion Milton be against us, we have a greater than he for us. "Religio mihi est, eritque, contra torrentem omnium Patrum ac veterum Doctorum S. Scripturas interpretari, nisi quando me argumenta cogunt evidentissima; quod nunquam eventurum credo. Multis enim certe probabilitatum ac verosimilium rationum momentis præponderare debet consentiens (primævæ præsertim) Antiquitatis judicium." Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicænæ. sect. 1. cap. 1. §. 9.

We cannot close our remarks without bearing testimony to the merits of Dr. Sumner, who has executed the difficult task assigned to him in a manner highly creditable to himself, and to the royal discernment in selecting him for the office. His translation is smooth, perspicuous, and, as far as we have compared it with the original, close and correct. The notes are really illustrative of the text, and, by the citation of parallel passages and expressions from Milton's published writings, serve to confirm the genuineness of the newly discovered manuscript. The volumes, in respect of paper and typography, are classically

elegant; though we are sorry to observe that the errors in the Hebrew quotations are more numerous than might be expected from an University press. For example, p. 21, N for p. 26, for 77-p. 108. my-cer

for אֲדֹנָי .121 .p עַשְׁתָּרוֹת tainly wrong; but probably for ענָתָהּ for עֲוֹבה .237 .p-אֲדֹנָי

or rather -p. 676. for 7-p. 594. there are four Hebrew words in one sentence, every one of which is wrong printed, though we confess we do not comprehend the author's meaning.

Enough has now been done, we trust, to satisfy the demands of critical justice. The volume upon which we have been commenting, considered as a System of Divinity, can scarcely he said to add to our stores of knowledge; while the valuable and instructive parts, and it contains many such, are but a small, if any, compensation for the mass of heterodoxy which lies there undisguised in all its naked deformity. By the well-grounded theologian it may be read with profit; but others, it is to be feared, will not lose the tempting opportunity of sheltering themselves under the shadow of so honoured a name. As a composition it is mild and temperate, divested, as we have before said, of that spleen and bitterness which disgrace Milton's other prose writings,―at the same time destitute of the brilliant fancy and splendid eloquence by which they are adorned. So far, however, from regretting the appearance of the work, we cannot forbear to express our gratification at its discovery and publication. Considered merely as the record of our great poet's deliberate opinions on the most momentous of all subjects, it is both curious and interesting. Nor, much as we differ from the author on many points, do we wish to repress the publicity of his individual faith; persuaded that orthodox principles have nothing to fear from the utmost liberty of discussion, and that truth must ultimately triumph by the permission of free inquiry. Yet we must not dissemble our conviction that the "Treatise on Christian Doctrine" will not add to the author's reputation as a writer, a scholar, or a theologian. But Milton has obtained so elevated a niche in the Temple of Fame, that a posthumous publication, whatever may be its defects, cannot cast even a momentary shade over the brightness of his renown.

Jesus Christ the true God and eternal life, by the concurrent voice and testimony of the sacred Scriptures, more particularly illustrated and proved by the four Gospels, the book of the Acts, the Apostolical Epistles, and the Apocalypse. Establishing upon evangelical and rational inference, the sole supreme Divinity of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, in whose glorified person centres the Divine Trinity of Fa- ̧ ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. And as a necessary result, that He alone is entitled to the worship and adoration of men and angels. Most seriously addressed to all, of whatever sect or party, who refuse to acknowledge Him as the only God of heaven and earth. By THOMAS F. CHURCHILL, M.D. Pp. 230. 6s. London. Longman. 1825. THE doctrine of the Trinity is one which is much better believed than debated. We would not be misunderstood to recommend a blind and irrational assent to this or any other truth: what we deprecate is, all endeavour to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, a proceeding injurious to the interests of all real knowledge, and more particularly so, where the subject is one of such paramount consequence as Theology. We believe the Trinity, because we think it inconsistent to believe the Scriptures and to disbelieve this doctrine. It is so clear from Scripture that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are each separately, God; and at the same time the Divine Unity is so expressly declared, that we cannot hesitate to admit, that "the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and yet, that they are not three Gods, but one God." Thus does our church hold the doctrine of the Trinity-a mystery confessedly, as every thing relating to the Divine Nature must be, to limited intelligences; and since we know no more concerning it, we content ourselves with believing, that in one sense the Divine Persons are three, and in another, one; but in "what sense they are three, and in what they are one," is a point we have no means of investigating. The proposition that "in the Unity of the Godhead are three Persons" expresses as well as it can be expressed, this indefinite idea; it expresses that there is an unity, and that there is a separation: and these we believe, not because we can explain them, but because the Scripture has revealed them on the same principle that we believe in the phenomena of vitality, and the union of mind and matter, not because we understand them, but because they are objects of experience. The mysteries of Nature bear a strong analogy to those of Revelation in the manner in which they affect different minds. Before Bacon, Boyle, and Newton confined philosophy to ex

periment and demonstration, the opinions of philosophers on the same subjects were discordant and unsatisfactory beyond measure: and in those points of science where experiment can trace little, and demonstrative induction yet less, a similar discrepancy prevails in modern opinions. This is the case particularly in the instance before alluded to, the phenomena of vitality; and this must be the case wherever it is impossible to apply those tests which alone can guide us in the discovery of recondite truths. Hence, as truth is single, and error infinite, the chances are infinitely against every projector; and thus, with, the opinions of each, error is continually multiplied. How dangerous such a system must be when applied to the Mysteries of Religion, is apparent at the first glance. In human science error of opinion may produce no practical effects at all, instead of positive injury; and collision of opinion may elicit truth. But in the investigation of theological mystery, every error embraced becomes practical, since practice is the demonstrative power of faith neither has truth any chance of discovery, because the very nature of a mystery is such as to baffle all inquiry, it never being designed by God that it should be explained, but simply that it should be believed, in order to the explanation of something else. The Trinity appears to have been revealed to us on account of the several relations which the three Holy Persons bear to us separately; to teach us the value and efficacy of Christ's atonement, and the sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit. And when we believe these, and act upon this belief of the Trinity in Unity, we are, as it appears to us, taking the truest and safest view of this inexplicable doctrine.

This opinion has derived strength from the example of the modern Socinians; and its truth is to our own mind demonstrated by the additional evidence furnished in the work we now purpose to consider. The Socinians and Dr. Churchill are the antipodes of each other; yet they equally exhibit the danger of attempting to explain things in their own nature mysteries, which have been left unexplained where alone we could obtain any real information concerning them. The former are unable to reconcile the doctrine with preconceived opinions: and therefore, because they will not yield to Scripture, they endeavour to form the Scripture into a compliance with themselves; mutilating, perverting, misapplying and misinterpreting whatever contradicts the theory they profess. The Doctor is equally unable with the Socinian to believe an union and a division which he cannot comprehend; some theory, therefore, must of necessity be contrived, to annihilate the difficulty. Dr. Churchill is more ingenuous than the Socinian, and does not, against

reason and historic evidence, reject the genuineness or inspiration of any part of the Scriptures, but admits them in all their vigour. He is too candid a reasoner not to perceive that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all described in Scripture as God: he cannot disbelieve the unity of the Deity; but rather than believe the Trinity, of all Christian Churches, he adopts the absurd hypothesis that Christ is himself Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; thus" confounding the Persons," although not dividing the substance."

With every disposition to give Dr. Churchill credit for that single and sincere love of truth which he every where professes, and without any wish to hurt his feelings, we cannot but repeat that we hold his hypothesis absurd; and one simple consideration is quite enough to overturn it in our minds, were there no other. If there be no Trinity, that is, no distinction of persons, how does it happen that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are so often employed in Scripture to designate the same being; or, if this be not thought sufficient argument, why are they mentioned together? why is it necessary to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? If these are only so many different titles of the same God, why employ them all? Where is the necessity of imploring the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God (i. e. the Father) and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost," if all these are the same? In a word, if there is no distinction in point of fact between the sacred persons, whence this evident distinction in terms which Dr. Churchill is too candid not to recognize? We do think but one answer can be returned to these questions. It as clearly appears to us that the Persons of the Trinity are severally distinguished, as that the Unity of the Godhead is asserted throughout the Scrip

tures.

"

Decisive, however, as we consider this single argument, we think the doctrine broached by Dr. Churchill in so solemn and imposing a manner, worthy to be treated at greater length; not for itself, but for the manner in which it is introduced: for, bearing the name of a man educated in a learned profession, who has evidently studied the Scriptures, and who can have no other object than that which he avows,-a desire that all should embrace what he conscientiously believes,-a theory unsupported by better arguments might occupy, with unreflecting persons at least, a ground to which its essential merits would not entitle it.

Dr. Churchill shall state his opinions for himself. After briefly adverting to the uncontroverted evidence which exists of the being of a God, he proceeds: