"Of the first of these laborious expositions, it must be remarked, that if the FATHER be at one time the Father only, and at another time the Son also, it never can be distinguished when he is the FATHER and when not, or how he is the Father at all. If the one person be also the three persons, or the three persons the one; THE FATHER the Son, the Son the FATHER, the Spirit either or all; the soas are confounded, and the undoubted' penalty incurred, of perishing everlastingly.' per The second exposition, which makes the FATHER and Jesus Christ the only true GOD, absolutely excludes the Holy Ghost from being the true God, and is equally in jeopardy of everlasting destruction: for the Creed, which is made the rule of salvation in place of Scripture, says, that the Holy Ghost is God, no less than the Son is God, and the Father is God; each God by himself, and all three one numerical God. So that while the Father is not the only true God, but Jesus Christ is also the only true God, there is yet another only true God, the Holy Ghost."-Pp. 86, 87. The same mode of argument is observed in the short remarks on Mark xiii. 32: "Of that day and hour [the time of the destruction of Jerusalem] knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but THE FATHER." "This passage, which, by disproving the omniscience of JESUS, disproves his deity, has been subjected to thee different experiments: 1. The words neither the Son must have been interpolated by the Arians. 2. Jesus did not know it in his human nature; but one of the Councils anathematized those who should deny that he knew it in his divine nature; that is, 3. he both knew it and he knew it not. We must here pause for the present month, but we hope to resume our extracts; being persuaded that, with regard to a volume of such intrinsic value, this is the best way to fulfil our design of recommending it strongly to our readers. ART. II.-The Essentials of a National Church briefly explained, scripturally enforced and humbly recommended to the consideration of the W Legislature. By a Friend to a more comprehensive Liturgy. 8vo. pp. 83. T. and J. Allman. 1819. THOEVER reflects on the inquiring spirit of the age, and on the extensive and increasing defection from the precincts of orthodoxy, must wonder at the pertinacity with which the National Church adheres to the most palpable absurdities of its ritual, the most obvious inconsistencies of its numerous creeds. Such, indeed, is the anxiety to uphold and defend certain mysterious doctrines, that there is no shorter or more certain way of arriving at the dignities and emoluments of the Establishment, than by engaging in their defence; and by labouring to clothe them in a dress, in which they may be exposed, with some degree of safety, to the scrutinizing examination of this enlightened generation. must be gratifying to the Unitarian to observe that, in this undertaking, every exertion is used, every species of sophistry is employed to force the Athanasian scheme into as near a resemblance as possible to Unitarianism. For happy does that polemical wight esteem himself, who, by some new and plausible turn of language, thinks he has proved to the satisfaction of his courteous reader, that the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity is not absolutely absurd. Meantime, numerous appeals to the common sense of the community issue from the press in rapid succession, and afford inconhaud, when the last mists of superstitrovertible proof that the time is at tion will be chased from our religious atmosphere by the strong light of the increasing day. It In the pamphlet that now lies before us we have some sensible strictures on the incongruities and contradictions of the three creeds, that are incorporated in the worship of the Established Church: Ghost; the Nicene Creed makes the Holy The Author conceives that it would The writer having remarked that the devotional affections, which it ought to be the particular object of a national liturgy to excite, must be chilled and weakened in proportion as that liturgy exhibits a low or degrading representation of the Deity, produces a revolting example of such irreverent language: "Where the mind is deeply impressed with awful reverence for the great Spirit who regulates the nations of the universe, and glows with love for his paternal attributes, how must its tone of seriousness be relaxed, and an earthly grossness be thrown over its spiritual contemplations, when the worship of the National Church presumes to talk of the nativity of God, the circumcision of the invisible Jehovah, of the agony and sweat of him whom no infirmity can approach, and no hostility overcome! "How can religion be served, how can piety be promoted, by thus lowering the character of God? And without at present considering the expressions as apply. ing to God himself, they, at least, represent his regard as influenced by considerations of that gross kind which can never operate upon a spiritual mind. For, can we be lieve that that Being who is at once infnite in wisdom and in goodness, cau be at all impelled to shew favour to his wor shipers, to deliver them from evil, or to elevate them to good, because in their supplications they invoke his regard by the nativity and circumcision, by the baptism, fasting and temptation, by the agony and sweat,' of a mortal man? If, in any ritual of Pagan worship, we were to meet with petitions of this kind, ad dressed to Jupiter or to Juno, should we not treat the expressions with ridicule or with scorn? Should we not spurn the idea that any celestial being could be reconciled to a transgressor, because some other individual had suffered the excision of a particular membrane, or had experi enced a violent exudation from the corpo real pores? Is a liturgy, which contains pollution of this kind, worthy to be preserved inviolate in this enlightened age? Is it sacrilege to touch the ark of this devotional formulary, in order to remove all that peccant matter which contaminates the good, and tends to bring the whole into contempt?" —Pp. 24—26. The Jews, at the time when Jesus Christ appeared, had perverted many of the commandments delivered to their forefathers, but they adhered strictly to that which is the great line of distinction between a true and a false system of religion-the belief in the Divine Unity. They were free from the pollution of idolatry and polytheism: "This was not the sin of the Jews; and it would have been better for the church if it had never been that of Christians. But the piety of individual saints, and the orthodoxy of general councils, could not be satisfied without marring the first commandment by their metaphysical disqui. sitions. With barefaced effrontery they rushed into that sanctuary where angels bide their faces with their wings They made a tripartite image of the invisible Godbead, and then menaced those who would not do homage to such a profanation, with an exclusion from some of the best interests in this world, and with eternal damnation in the next!!!"-Pp. 31, 32 This writer justly remarks, that Jesus Christ always insists with more force ou the facienda than on the credenda of the gospel; on what his disciples were to do than on what they were to believe Though the faith of the Sadducees was not so just as that of the Pharisees, vet Jesus always condemus the immorality of the latter with more severity than the infidelity of the former. While he reprobates, in the strongest terms, the counterfeit piety of the Pharisaic sect, he says to the Sadducees, "Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." The Author then proceeds to ask: accumulated by the sufferings of Christ; which righteousness will be made thine by the appropriation of faith through the infusion of grace. But Jesus, instead of bewildering his inquirer with this jargon, which forms the saving nostrum of the modern theological school, simply says, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' If this question were put, by any serious inquirer, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, What shall I do to be saved?' the orthodoxy of his Grace would certainly reply-The possibilities of salvation are circumscribed within the ringfence of the Thirty-nine Articles, the parkpaling of the Three Creeds, and the old, patched, ivy-crested mansion of the Liturgy. But, instead of confining salvation to a belief in such a chequered medley of contradictory and heterogeneous elements, how simple is the answer of Christ,—“ If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments' "-Pp. 33, 34. We do not expect that the justice of the following remarks on the "Lord's prayer" will be admitted by those advocates of mysticism, whe will not allow that this beautiful form reaches the perfect standard of evangelical peculiarity: "That no obscure, mysterious and polemical doctrines ought to be incorporated in a National Liturgy, we may infer from that pattern of prayer which Jesus delivered to his disciples, when they requested him to teach them how to pray. This prayer, therefore, merits particular attention, not merely from its comprehensive excellence, but because it was expressly and their followers were to copy in their designed as a model which his disciples rits. But this prayer inculcates no am devotional addresses to the Father of Spibiguous or uncertain tenets, with respect to the person of the Deity; nor does it give the least countenance to any of those doctrines which have been productive of so much strife in the Christian church. In this prayer, God is not addressed as a triune Deity, but simply as the universal Father of mankind. Every sentiment of reverence and affection is combined in the denomination of Father, by which Christ directs us to invoke the Deity. But the unity of the divine nature is expressly implied in the term; for, as we can have but one Father, so we cannot supplicate more than one God under that tender appellation. "The prayer which our Lord delivered, as a pattern for the imitation of his disciples, is a breviary of comprehensive principles. It is not the production of a mind which bounded its views within the narrow pale of sectarian jealousy or exclusive privilege, which confined its sen timents or affections, its views of truth, or "Had Christians uniformly adhered, in their forms of public worship, to this incomparable model of simplicity, sublimity and benevolence, so many tempestuous feuds would not have been engendered, and so many angry sects would not have arisen in the sanctuary. All Christians, of all denominations, might have combined to worship the Father of the universe in the kind sympathies of love, and in the gentle spirit of peace."--Pp. 37-41. The Author next proceeds to trace, in the narrative called the Acts of the Apostles, the creed which these inspired teachers themselves inculcated upon the first professors of Christianity and he proves from numerous passages, that the principal point of their preaching, as far as regarded matters of faith, was the all-important and well-attested fact of the resurrection of Christ, considered as the earnest of a future life, and the pledge of immortality to man: "If religious concord in the Liturgy of a National Church he at all desirable, how is it to be obtained except by rendering the points, in which an agreement is required, as few as possible, compatible with the glorious ends of the doctrine we pro fess? Now that great doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which is the corner-stone of Christianity, and which the Acts of the Apostles prove to have been almost exclusively impressed upon the first believers in Christ, seems to be better calculated than any other tenet to form the bond of union among Christians in modern times. For whatever contrariety of opinion there may be about the nativity of Christ, there is no Christian of any denomination who does not unfeignedly assent to the truth of his resurrection. There is no Christian who will not readily say with St. Paul, that if Christ be not risen, then is our faith vain. But if Christ be risen from the dead, then bave we good grounds for the hope of immortality. Then may the persecuted rejoice, and the wretched cease to mourn. On this fundamental article, therefore, a National Church may lay the groundwork of religious peace. This essential tenet of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is very comprehensive, not only in its practical inferences, but in its speculative results. For it, of course, includes belief in the divine mission of Jesus, of which it was the evidence and the consummation. He, therefore, who sincerely believes in this all-important fact, cannot doubt but that Jesus was a teacher who had a commission from God to make known his will to mankind. It includes a belief in the fatherly concern of the Deity for his creatures, in his superintending providence and his moral government of the world. He, who be lieves in this essential tenet of the Christian faith, cannot but be strongly impressed with the importance of a virtuous life, as he is convinced that death does not terminate his existence, but is only the passage to a state of retribution.”—Pp. 60–63. The Author flatters himself that the reformation in the Liturgy of the Establishment, for which he stre nuously pleads, might be easily ac complished. and these "The Liturgy of the Church of England might readily be simplified, so as to admit all Christian sects into its spacious sanetuary. Not many alterations would be requisite for this purpose; would chiefly consist of omissions. We should retain all that was essential to render it a service worthy of a great national communion, calculated to nurture the growth of virtue, and to diffuse, through the different orders of the people and the different denominations of believers, a spirit of universal charity."-Pp. 74, 75. We agree with the Writer of this tract, that though the demand for religious reform may, at present, be only a still, small voice, yet that it will soon become a loud and imperative cry; and that it would be wise to anticipate the progress of opinion, and not to wait, with inconsiderate temerity, till reform is clamorously demanded. But when we observe the obstinacy with which every par ticle of the system is maintained, we are led to conclude, that the guardians of the edifice are themselves impres sed with a conviction that the struc ture is so crazy and tottering, that the removal of a single stone would endanger the whole fabric. Enter taining this opinion, we apprehend that the sensible and temperate re monstrance of the Writer of this tract will not meet with the attention it so justly deserves. L. B. ART. III.-Life of Dr. John Erskine, late one of the Ministers of Edinburgh. By Sir Henry Moncrieff Wellwood. R. ERSKINE was born in 1721. DR His father was a member of the Scotch bar, and wished him to follow the same profession, but from choice he resolved on entering the church. He was licensed to preach in 1743, and settled in various places, finally in Edinburgh. He died in 1803. He was much associated with Whitfield in 1742, and engaged warmly in defending Whitfield against those members of the Scotch Church, who wished to exclude him from the esta blished pulpits in Scotland. Among many excellent correspondents of Dr. Erskine's, was Jonathan Edwards. Concerning this able metaphysician, Sir H. enters into a long digression, in which he makes a very unjust attack on Dr. Priestley and Mr. Bel sham: " "Some of his latest and most distinguished admirers, who celebrate his argument as both profound and unanswerable, have deduced conclusions from his doctrine of the most pernicious tendency, and the most remote from his intention. Dr. Priestley has the following remarkable paragraph: A Necessarian, who believes that nothing goes wrong, but that every thing is under the best direction possible, cannot accuse himself of having done wrong, in the ultimate sense of the words. He has, therefore, in this strict sense, nothing to do with repentance, confession and pardon, which are all adapted to a different, imperfect and fallacious view of things.' Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit, II. 147. Mr. Belsham, who adopts the same opinions as Priestley, has laid down the two following positions, in which the same doctrine is involved: Remorse is the exquisitely painful feeling, which arises from the belief that, in circumstances precisely the same, we might have chosen and acted differently. This fallacious feeling is superseded by the doctrine of Necessity. Remorse supposes free-will. It arises from forgetfulness of the precise state of mind, when the action was performed. It is of little or no use in moral discipline. In a degree it is even pernicious. Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, pp. 284, 406. Jonathan Edwards would have viewed such conclusions from his argument, not only with contempt but with abhorrence. Whatever consequences others have deduced from his opinions, he believed the doctrine of Necessity, as he represents it, to be at the foundation of all sound morality and evangelical religion." And so, notwithstanding these unfair insinuations, did Dr. P. and Mr. B. With respect to the latter, the whole of his offence is, that he has given a definition of remorse different from that which most writers would sarian must admit that Mr. Belsham's probably have given. Every Necesremarks are perfectly just, if his definition of the word be admitted. Whether he has given the best definition of the word may be doubted. But every philosopher has always been allowed to use terms in whatever defines the words which he uses, and sense he pleases, provided he carefully adheres to his definition, both of which Mr. Belsham has certainly done. If remorse were defined, very great sorrow for having performed God, Mr. B. would no doubt allow, actions contrary to the commands of that according to this definition rethe whole charge against Mr. B. must morse is a very proper feeling. Thus be reduced to his having given a peculiar definition of remorse. trifling thing, indeed, on which to A found the charge of a cious tendency"! With respect to "most perniDr. Priestley, the paragraph extracted from his Disquisitions is certainly not well guarded. But if the restrictions, "in the ultimate sense of the words," "in this strict sense," be taken into account, this presents nothing improper. Priestley's Works, especially his ad- repeal of the Penal Laws affecting the glishmen or Scotsmen, as to forget that |