The first object to which his View is directed, is the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine he charges with feveral very grofs contradictions to the fundamental principles of nature and revelation. His reafoning upon this fubject furnishes us with fome juft and pertinent obfervations, but it is for the most part grounded in his own mifapprehenfions. He has even branded the orthodox (as he calls them) with the belief of fuch doctrines as they themselves have condemned under the denomination of herefies; and, amongst other abfurdities, he very gravely impugns the worship of any other being, befides the one true God, to the difcredit, as he thinks, to the Trinitarian hypothefis, by thofe very arguments' which the abettors of that faith have adduced in its favour, against the Arian diftinction of a God by nature, and a God by appointment, of a fupreme and a fubordinate worship. He ought, furely, to have known, that it is in vain to hope to convince men of their error, as long as we mifconceive or misrepresent their notions; and that this is a fault which we must always run into, in proportion as we deviate from that precife idea which our antagonists affix to the words they have adopted for the explication of their systems.

-

Our Author imagines that he eafily gets clear of every difficulty, by calling in to his aid fometimes the Arian, fonetimes the Sabellian hypothefis. The latter of thefe he is driven to from the confideration of fome of the first verses of St. John's Gofpel, in which, as he tells us, and in numerous other paffages of fcripture, the peculiar attributes of the Deity,' or as he elfewhere expreffes it, the incommunicable perfections of the original principle of all things, are indeed given to Chrift the Son, and the Word.'-If we remember right, it is the remark of fome Trinitarian commentator, that the Sabellians, by applying these texts, to God the Father himself, while they get over one difficulty fplit upon another; and that the Arians have as plainly the advantage in the point of Perfonality as the other have in refpect of the Divinity of the Word. However this may be, certain it is, that our prefent Author, in his eagernefs to avail himself of each of thofe fyftems, becomes encum: bered with the main difficulties of both, with an addition of the inconfiftencies of fuch an heterogeneous mixture. He himself however appears to be totally ignorant of all these confequences, at least he has carefully concealed them from his reader.-As to the Holy Ghft, he pofitively denies him any diftinct exiftence. It is the Supreme Father, who, in different views, is our Creator, Redeemer, Mediator, and Sanctifier. The Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Chrift, Chrift, and the Holy Ghoft, are fo many names given to the Father, who was in the Son."

With regard to the doctrines of atonement, fatisfaction, and mediation, he gives us to understand, that the expreffions of fcripture, upon thefe fubjects, ought not to be taken in their literal and obvious fenfe.' Which he fuppofes to be the fenfe adopted by thofe who are called Catholic or Orthodox.'-A pofition this, which has unluckily opened to his adverfaries a very confiderable advantage over him; most of whom will defire no other conceffion, than that their faith is built on the plain and obvious declarations of God himfelf. It fhould feem, however, from fome part of his reafoning, as if he meant only to deny the deteftable confequences which fome men have drawn from the above mentioned doctrines, in contradiction to the literal and obvious declarations of the facred writers, with relation to the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs to fuch as continue in their fins. But to mark out his real fentiments upon thefe points, with any degree of precifion, the Reader will find to be a task equally difficult and immaterial.

In fome of the fubfequent parts of this book, our Theologift has carried his diflike to the literal fenfe and force of the expreffion,' to a moft prepofterous length. From the several profefled allegories and parables, with which the fcriptures abound, with the many ftrong metaphors, the bold allufions, and vifionary reprefentations of the prophetic language (where, by the by, a figurative fenfe is generally the most obvious one) he extends his conclufion to the hiftorical narratives of the facred text; many of which he fuppofes to be nothing better than ingenious fictions,' intended to convey certain important truths' to thofe who have penetration enough to look through the dead letter' to the concealed fenfe, and internal doctrine.' The Mofaic writings, in particular, he confiders as a genuine and real monument of the method of teaching religion and morality practifed by the Egyptian fages.'-Except only that 'Mofes was not permitted to write in hieroglyphics, left the fight of them fhould contribute to lead the Ifraelites into idolatry.' And the concealed fignification and meaning of the words' [which he elsewhere tells us, Mofes was commiffioned to communicate only to the wifer and better part of his difciples'] might, he fuppofes, have been handed down by tradition from generation to generation.'-Which is exactly the old pharifaical idea, adopted by the Romanifts, of controuling the written word of God by human traditions.-He affirms too, that every one of the prophets has, in this respect, copied after Mofes, as Mofes copied after his Egyptian mafters.' And the fame idea, we find, muft, in fome degree, be extended to the New Teftament,

The many folid answers which the world has feen, to the feve ral Deistical Writers, or Myftic Divines, from whom our Author

has

has ventured to borrow this theory, demanded furely his distinct and particular confideration. But inftead of this, we are put off with fuch trifling obfervations, and unfupported affertions, as can lead only to one or other of thefe two conclufions ;— either that our dogmatift has prefumptuously intruded on a province, to which he is totally unequal; or else, that in the true spirit of an Egyptian fage, he has referved the marrow of his wifdom, for himself alone, or the happy few.

His general idea, fo far at least as the vulgar, uninitiated Reviewers may prefume to penetrate it, appears to be this. Wherever the literal and obvious fenfe' feems, in any point, to clash with what he calls the Reafon,' or with any thing that is clearly and diftin&ly understood by a finite mind,' it must at once be rejected; and fome new meaning (the beft, we fuppofe, that this finite mind can supply) must be fubftituted in its room. The fpecimen which he has given us of the praxis of this rule, renders any fort of ftri&ture on it entirely fuperfluous. By the reafon' it is evident, that he in fact understands certain crude and undigested notions of his own; and as every system-monger has an equal claim to the fame privilege, the impartial reader is led to fufpect that his Creator, after all, may be as worthy of his credit, as the wifest amongst them-Strange as it may appear, this profeffed enemy to the • literal fenfe and force of the expreffion,' will not suffer us to controvert it, where he fuppofes it to favour his own preconceived hypothefis: we must not, it seems, imagine that Pharaoh's hardness of heart,' even that hardness for which he suffered, proceeded from the abufe of his own freedom and liberty of will, because this is pofitively to deny what the scripture expressly affirins.' Had he bestowed half the attention upon this fubject, which his undertaking required, he might easily have known, that neither the force of the original, nor the tenor of fcripture, nor the notion of a deity, nor the context of the hiftory, will warrant his own impious conclufion that the wickedness and obftinacy of that cruel tyrant was the refult of a pofitive influence from God. Yet he urges the fuppofed revelation of this important truth,' at a time when it was not a truth of reafon, as a strong internal proof of the divine legation of Mofes. Had the defenders of that legislator no better to produce, their wifeft courfe would be to renounce the cause.

By this time the Reader begins to difcover the rigid Fatalift, under the mask of the advocate for revealed religion. We make ufe of his own very abfurd and contradictory expreffions, when we fay that he maintains, that all the acts of the will are neceffary.' He even pretends to demonftrate that the creation of a free agent is one of thofe contradictions, which omnipotence ittelf cannot effect, Becaufe, truly, it fuppofcth finite and de

I

rived

rived beings to be poffeffed of a power, that they are not every moment receiving from the caufe, of which the whole of theirs power and being is the effect." An argument which is at beft a-mere begging of the queftion, or as Dr. Clarke has juftly filed it, a childish trifling with words. Our Author adds, that if a future action or event is not abfolutely fixed, and determined, in every refpect, it is impoffible it can be known or foreknown.' But in fupport of this peremptory pofition, we meet with nothing but his own ipfe dixit, without the leaft notice of the many ftrong confiderations which have been urged in proof of its fallacy, and without any attempt to fhew, that the propofition, if true, would not, in fact, be more certainly conclufive against the Divine Prefcience, confidered as converfant about contingent events, or against our idea of it, than it could poffibly be against human liberty.

In confequence of this and the like fort of argumentation, our Metaphyfician finds himself obliged to acknowledge, that the deductions of the reafon' are, in this inftance, incompatible with the common fenfe and experience of mankind.-A fhrewd argument indeed, if any were wanted, that he has miftaken fomething for Reafon, which really is not fo: an argument, which he poorly attempts to obviate, by confounding the evidence of the external fenfes with that of the internal perceptions of the mind.-Having proceeded thus far, it becomes impoffible for him to make a tolerable retreat; he therefore boldly plunges through every difficulty, and fcruples not to affirm, that no action of any creature can dèferve punifhment,. or be worthy of blame;' that it is impoffible to fin against, or difplease God,' who is himself the primary efficient caufe of every action or affection that is called evil, vicious, and finful. No exception is made, nor will his plan admit one, even of hatred of God himfelf, or of any the moft bafe and deteftable principles which ever entered the heart of man.-He allows, indeed, that fufferings are infeparably annexed to fuch actions or affections, and happinefs to their reverfe, not, however, as rewards or punishments due from infinite juftice, but as means appointed by infinite wifdom, to fupprefs or extinguifh gradually thofe paffions, appetites, and inclinations, which oppose the law of God, and of the mind.'-So that, according to this theory, the law of God, and the will of God, are two very different principles, the latter of which acts conftantly in oppofition to the former; and the unhappy creature who is the innocent inftrument through which it operates, is doomed to undergo, perhaps, ages of pain, till the one fhall think proper to reconcile it'elf to the other; or, to ufe the words of the Theorift, till intolerable torments fhall at laft force him to do that,'-which,

by

by his own fuppofition, the divine will and appointment had all along before been forcing him not to do.

The bare recital of fuch principles, most of our Readers will confider as a fufficient refutation of them. Yet the Author undertakes to prove that they are confiftent with religion, virtue, morality, and the honour of God. In the courfe of this attempt, in which he is moft miferably defective, and in other parts of his book, he abfurdly talks of right and wrong, of obedience and difobedience to God, of doing what we ought not to do, of a man's refolving his will into God's will, of admonitions and remorse of confcience, of godly forrow, and fincere repentance for fin, of reaping in a future ftate what we have fown in the prefent, of rewarding every one according to his works, with much more to the fame purpose, which he hath left his reader to reconcile to the theory in the beft manner he can.

This ftrange performance is very far from being animated with any of the beauties of ftyle or compofition; though with refpect to grammar, it is, for the most part, correct enough. (From a Correspondent. )

ART. VI. The Doctrine of Atonement briefly confidered. In a Series of Letters to a young Gentleman at the University. To which is added, Dr. Duchal's Letter to Dr. Taylor, on the fame Subject. By W. Graham, A. M. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Johnson. 1772.

T

HE arguments which the Author employs with a view. to weaken or destroy the high Calvinistic doctrine of the fatisfaction of Chrift, are the fame which have frequently been infifted upon for this purpofe. He tells us, that he fees no ground to fufpect that the New Teftament phrafeology, of Chrift's giving himself for us, fhedding his blood for us, dying for our offences, bearing our fins, and the like, may imply any thing more than barely fuffering in the cause of virtue and mankind; and he admits of no middle way between the explication which he himself chufes to embrace, and the ftrict Calviniftic fentiments upon the fubject. The diftinction of Calvinifm, fays he, into moderate and immoderate, if you pleafe, which fome make, I could never fee the propriety of. A moderate Calvinist is a heterogeneous being, for whom there is no name; for I know no medium between Calvinism, properly fo called, and Socinianifm. The latter is a fcheme friendly to virtue, and permits one to go quietly through the world in the exercife of his reasonable faculties. The former is a religious fcare crow, that, like the inquifition in Popish countries, has long ferved the purpofe of making hypocrites and flaves in Proteftant ones.'

Surely it may be faid that this Writer is rather fevere, and too confident in his own judgment, on a point which judicious

and