thinking."-But what again shall we say of the Evangelical narration, as Mr. F. describes the matter in another place? (p. 68.) "After my resurrection, I will declare to you the will and counsels of the Father, without any indistinctness or obscurity." And yet to this he immediately subjoins; "the sacred historians have only very briefly recited the discourses of Jesus with his disciples after his resurrection.”—Thus, then, "the will and counsels of the Father," the expounding in all the scriptures, (beginning from Moses and all the prophets,) the things concerning himself,-which were vouchsafed by Christ to his disciples after his resurrection, and which the Evangelists have (not "briefly," but) not at all" recited," are to be sought for precisely where it is confessed that they are not: and the Gospels are alone to be referred to, for clearand distinct views of doctrines, which the Gospels do not contain: whilst that part of scripture is to be rejected as unnecessary and even injurious, which was specially allotted to the purpose of communicating to mankind, that knowledge of the truth, which the Spirit of truth, as well as the words of our Lord, conveyed to the Apostles, subsequent to his resurrection.

Thus we find this writer, who is to clear away all mystery and difficulty from Scripture truth, perpetually at variance with himself no less than with the real doctrines of Christianity. Surely,

he should have endeavoured to form at least a consistent set of opinions, before he attempted to obtrude them on the public; and more particularly, before he ventured to fly in the face of the whole Christian world, by an open rejection of one of the most important portions of inspired scripture. Humility however, is not one of the weaknesses of this writer: and certainly knowledge is not his fort.-Any reply to the arguments advanced by Mr. Fellowes, for the rejection of the epistles in the investigation of the Christian doctrines, is rendered unnecessary by the arguments themselves. Independent of their extravagance, (I had almost said their folly,) they carry in them, as we have seen, their own refutation. In truth, the object of our Saviour's life was to supply the subject, not to promulgate the doctrines of the Gospel. The Evangelists therefore confine themselves to the simple duty of narration: and the doctrines, which altogether depended upon what our Lord had done and suffered, particularly upon his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, were, after this groundwork was fairly laid, to be fully set forth by those, to whom our blessed Saviour had solemnly promised the unerring aid of the Holy Spirit, and who were especially designated by him for that very purpose. See p. 471-474. of vol. i. for farther observations upon the attempt made by Dr. Priestley and his Socinian phalanx, similar to this of Mr. F.'s to

beat down the authority of the Epistles. By rejecting the Epistles, or, which is the same thing, the doctrines which they contain, Mr. F.. indeed thinks that he may *reconcile "Jews,

* Upon this prudential plan of clearing away mysteries from Christianity, in order to bring infidels of all descriptions within its pale, I cannot avoid noticing the observations of a writer, whose opinions deserve at least as much respect as those of Mr. Fellowes." As to the mysterious articles of our faith, which Infidels would by no means have us forget; Who,' say they, can swallow them?' In truth, none but those who think it no dishonour to their understandings to credit their Creator. Socinus, like our Infidels, was one of a narrow throat; and out of a generous compassion to the Scriptures, (which the world, it seems, had misunderstood for 1500 years,) was for weeding them of their mysteries; and rendering them, in the plenitude of his infallible reason, undis gusting and palatable to all the rational part of mankind. Why should honest Jews and Turks be frighted from us by the Trinity, &c.? He was for making religion familiar and inoffensive. And so he did; and unchristian too.”—The same admirable writer subjoins. "Those things which our hands can grasp, our understandings cannot comprehend. Why then deny to the Deity himself, the privilege of being one amidst that multitude of mysteries, which he has made ?" -Such are the striking and just reflexions of the celebrated Dr. Young, on this important subject, in his Centaur not Fabulous; (p. 14.) a work, which in this age of frivolity, voluptuousness and irreligion, I would particularly recommend to the attention of my young reader, promising him in the perusal, not less entertainment from the liveliness of its illustrations and the brilliancy of its wit, than improvement from the soundness of its reasonings and the animation of its piety.

1

Turks, and infidels of whatever denomination" to Christianity. (Guide, &c. vol. i. pref. p. xv.) -No; that he will not effect: but he will accomplish this, he will render Christianity very little different from what Jews, Turks, and infidels, have already embraced.

Thus then, upon the whole, it is manifest, that we have the very essence of Socinianism, presented to us by a writer, in the garb of a Minister of the Established Church: a writer too, who expatiates in every page on the moral virtues; on the virtues of truth, honesty, and fidelity; whilst he openly boasts of the good policy, of continuing in the bosom of that Communion, which he labours to subvert; and exultingly avows his breach of those solemn engagements, by virtue of which he obtained admission within its pale. Such plain and unenlightened Christians, as have not acquired a relish for the refinements, which enable an ingenious casuist to violate his promise and to betray his trust, will be apt to suspect, that in this author's hands, Christianity has not only been abridged of its mysteries, but also curtailed somewhat in its morality. For what do those articles contain, to which every clergyman of the Established Church has declared his entire and unfeigned assent, but the very doctrines, which this Gentleman ridicules and rejects? Surely, the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, and the various other momentous

Christian truths, which they pronounce to be indispensable to the formation of a genuine Christian faith, are not to be found comprized in the Sermon on the Mount, which this author maintains to be a 66 summary of every thing, which it is necessary to believe or to practise."

It is indeed scarcely conceivable, how a person in the possession of a sane understanding can reconcile to himself, subscription to the articles of any Church, and rejection of the doctrines which those articles define. To say, as this author does, that the sixth article, in pronouncing, that nothing is to be received as an article of faith which is not founded in holy writ, supplies a dispensation from the obligation of the rest, is to make as short work with the articles of the Church, as he has already made with the canon of Scripture. Would it not, under these circumstances, have saved much unnecessary trouble, to reduce the articles of the Church to the single declaration of the sixth? Or, indeed, were we to seek the simplicity, which this author so strongly recommends, the sixth article itself must be yet farther reduced, to correspond to the just dimensions of gospel truth; and the whole that our Church should pronounce to be requisite, for the true belief of a Christian teacher, should at once be confined to the range of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. But, to a person not desirous of escaping from the obligations of a solemn engage