(fays his Lordship) an honeft man. He means well. He acts ill. His heart is not under his head; but his head is under his heart. When the head is kindled into an extraordinary heat, the heart boils over and froths forth gall, ftuff, and all the compofitions of Hecate's cauldron. I am glad he will be eafy in his fortune the remaining part of his life. It will be his own fault if he is not easy in his writings; for who would dif. turb a paralytic, wrong-headed old man, especially when his own good qualities more than compenfate his bad ones?"

This teftimony to the merit of Dr. Delaney, does great ho nour to the noble Lord: for he forgot his own injuries in order to pay it. Delaney had treated the Earl of Orrery with a petulance and acrimony that would never have been forgiven by a perfon of a lefs amiable and Chriftian difpofition than his Lordfhip was. In the midft of the abuse which Delaney threw on him, this excellent man was the first to find an apology for it in the impetuofity of an overheated brain.' But (fays he) the Doctor hath great and good qualities, and of those I will bear teftimony to my grave. In another letter his Lordship fays, With all his faults he is a good man, and incapable of acting those baseneffes of which his numerous enemies accuse him. His highest rage may make him act a foolish part: but it will never make him act a knavish one. I have lately had a letter from him, as if nothing had ever happened to make me think ftrangely of him. It is in his ufual ftyle, only more complimental. Good God! What is this world! I am a real Chriftian, and therefore moft heartily forgive.-I pity him, and lament his infirmities, which indeed are great.'

Many things are admitted into this Supplement which add little to its value, and reflect no honour on Dean Swift. Though we approve of the induftry of the ingenious Editor, and heartily recommend this work to the curious reader, yet the impartiality of criticifm obliges us, though reluctantly, to acknowledge, that Mr. Nichols employed his time to a purpose unworthy of his abilities, when he searched the British Museum for fome originals to complete his useless list of omiffions and corrections. The Journal to Stella, in the ftate in which it was first written, deferved all that correction and alteration which the Editor complains of. It was not fit to appear before the public eye in its original form. Witnefs the following ridiculous and childish paffage, to pafs over a hundred others, which the Editor hath taken the pains to transcribe and print, by way of enriching, as he thought, his catalogue of omiffions. "I am to dine to-day with Lewis and Dartenent at Somers's, the Clerk of the Kitchen at court. Dartenent loves good bits and good fups. Good morrow, little firrahs [viz. Mrs. Dingley, and Mrs. Johnfon, his beloved Stella.] At night-I dined as I

faid and it cost me a fhilling for a chair. It has rained all day, and is very warm. Lady Mafham's young fon, my nephew, is very ill and fhe is fick with grief. I pity her mightily. I am got home early, and am going to write to the Bishop of Clogher, but have no politics to fend him. Night, my own two dearest, faucy, dear ones.'. Another principal omiffion, ⚫ in the former edition of the Journal to Stella,' is now restored by the Editor to its proper place, for it were a pity to lofe fuch an important piece of intelligence. I have taken my breeches in above two inches: fo I am leaner, which anfwers one queftion in your letter. I ftill itch terribly, and have fome few pimples. I am weak and fweat: and then the flannel makes me mad with itching. I muft purge and clyfter.'-Faugh! Dr. Swift! who would tell a delicate lady all this?-or rather faugh! Mr. Nichols, for telling the whole world of matters and things that Swift only intended to communicate to his Stella-though, if Mr. Nichols's conjecture be true, she had as little to do with the Dean's breeches as any woman; either by right or by favour. We know our ingenious Editor will plead the relative importance of things that are trifling in themfelves. There is fomething in this plea. But we fcarcely ever met with a pofthumous work in which this plea was not ftretched beyond all moderate bounds. Dr. Delaney hath faid, and the Editor hath adopted his affertion, as a motto for the present work, that he verily thought that there were few things that Swift ever wrote that he did not wish to have published at one time or other.' If this was his whim, there was no need of complying with it, when neither he could be gratified nor the world entertained or inftructed by it. But we are perfuaded that Dr. Delaney's affertion was too general, and admitted of much qualification to be true. The Dean hath himself given us his idea of pofthumous publications, in a letter to Mr. Pope, concerning Gay's. I had rather (fays he) fee his fifters hanged, than fee his works fwelled by any lofs of credit to his memory. I would be glad to fee the most valuable printed by themselves; those which ought not to be feen, burnt immediately, and others that have gone abroad, printed feparately like Opufcula, or rather ftifled and forgotten.' Here Swift difcovered an honeft concern for the reputation of his friend Gay; and was willing to prevent any lofs of it by the mercenary disposition or poverty of his fifters, who might be tempted, for the fake of getting a little money, to collect the fweepings of their brother's ftudy, without confidering the effect it might have on his fame.

If our Editor had paid more attention to this remark of Dr. Swift, his Supplement, though of lefs bulk, would not have loft one grain in real value.

ART.

ART. X. An Inquiry into the Belief of the Chriftians of the first three Centuries, respecting the one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. Being a Sequel to a Scriptural Confutation of the Rev. Mr. Lindfey's late Apology. By William Burgh, Efq. 8vo. 6s. 6d. Boards. York printed; fold by W. Nicoll, London. 1778.

TH

HE fubject of this Inquiry was amply difcuffed in the course of the controverfy relating to the Trinity, which followed the publication of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine. It is not to be thought that Mr. Burgh, who" at the time of publishing the Scriptural Confutation of Mr. Lindley's Apology, was an entire ftranger to the Fathers," fhould have been able to throw any additional light upon it. Indeed the prefent publication is no proper inquiry into the belief of the Chriftians of the first three centuries refpecting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but a formal attempt to prove that their belief was the fame with that of the Church of England, as profeffed in the Nicene and Athanafian Creeds. The conduct and fuccefs of the attempt are fuch as might be expected from the known fentiments and prejudices of the Author. Inftead of comparing different paffages of the fame writer with each other, and thence inferring the fenfe and meaning of particular words and phrafes, he has contented himself with felecting fuch paffages as by their found, or by the help of a little mifconftruction, might appear to favour his defign, and then triumphing in his fuccefs. Whatever be the language and meaning of the paffages alleged, even though they contain a declaration in exprefs terms of the fubordination and inferiority of the Son and Spirit to the Father, we are fure to hear at the close that the writer was not an Unitarian: so that in the end, inftead of the Fathers of the three first centuries being generally Unitarians, as Mr. Lindley has afferted, and as, we think, Dr. Clarke and Dr. Whitby have proved, we are told that there did not fubfift among them a fingle Unitarian, and even Origen and Eufebius himself are declared orthodox Trinitarians.

Where Mr. Burgh himself appears as a Writer, we meet with little elfe than confufed ideas, perplexed argumentation, and harth and uncharitable language; and we fcruple not to pronounce the whole work a tiffue of mifreprefentation and mifconftruction, obfcure and intricate reasoning, and unfupported conclufions.

Mr. Burgh fets out with a grofs mifrepresentation of the fenfe and meaning of a paffage in Mr. Lindfey's Apology. The fcriptures,' fays he, had afforded to me all that was neceffary to establish my belief. Mr. Lindsey has fought to establish his upon another foundation. For their fatisfaction who may concur with him in thinking that farther authority is requifite, I

.mean,

mean, in the subsequent sheets, to produce that authority to which he has appealed.

In the course of his work this Gentleman has made, the following affertion, "If the matter is to be put to the vote as it were, it is abfolutely neceffary that the lefs learned should be told what, upon inquiry, will be found undeniably true, viz. That the Fathers of the first three centuries, and confequently all Chriftian people for upward of three hundred years after Chrift till the Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians." Apology, p. 23."

We hall give our Readers the whole paragraph in Mr. Lindfey's Apology, from which this fentence is extracted, that they may learn what ftrefs is to be laid upon Mr. Burgh's quotations from other writers, and his remarks on their fentiments. hath

"A very general perfuafion," fays Mr. Lindsey, been entertained, though nothing can be farther from the truth, that those who have been diffatisfied from the first with the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, and have objected to it, have been only a few whimfical, conceited, obftinate perfons, the followers of one Arius, who lived near 1500 years ago; or of Socinus, who was only of yesterday in the time of our forefathers. Authorities of men are nothing: it is holy fcripture alone which can decide this important point, and to that we must make our final appeal. But if the matter is to be put to the vote as it were, it is abfolutely neceffary that the less learned fhould be told, what upon inquiry will be found to be undeniably true, viz. that the Fathers of the firft three centuries, and confequently, all Chriftian people, for upwards of three buydred years after Chrift, till the Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians, what is now called either Arian or Socinian, i. e. fuch as held our Saviour Chrift to derive life, and being, and all his powers from God, though with different fentiments concerning the date of his original dignity and nature."

In the course of his work Mr. Burgh uniformly translates Es without the Article, God, in the abfolute fenfe of that, term; and sorg, and, Divinitas, Godhead. There are many, other inftances of mitranflation; fome of which appear to be owing to ignorance or inattention, while others can fcarcely. be imputed to fo innocent a caufe. We have felected the following:

P. 21. Howμeves Tw ware, is tranflated, one with the Father, though the connection, as well as obvious meaning of the words required it to be, united to the Father. P. 79. μETA TOV GEOV, is rendered, with God. P. 90. wρоszuvntov xxi-Seov, the God of our Worship. The verb, gorxuvw, is always rendered, to wor thip, or adore, in the highest fenfe of thofe terms, though it evidently intends in many paffages, merely to reverence or ho neur. P. 166. Λόγος Θεος ὁ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ὁ ἐκ δεξιών τη • Tw

Πατρα

Πατρῷ σὺν καὶ τῷ σχήματι Θεος, is tranflated, the Word which was God in the Father, defcending from the right hand of the Father, is yet God in the fashion of man. P. 254. Demus operam, is rendered, Let us then affift ourselves. P 286. Incarnatus eft cum Deus effet, et homo manfit quòd Deus erat, when he was God he became incarnate ;—because he is God, the manhood has obtained eternity. P. 294 Filii excelfi omnes, quoted by Origen from Pf. lxxxii. Mr. B. tranflates, Ye are all exalted fons. P. 345. Clauduntur terræ, the earth is shut out. P. 349. n. from whom they hoped for eternal falvation, has nothing to anfwer it in the original. What dependance can be placed upon fuch a tranflator?

Mr. B. throughout his work confounds Unitarianism with Socinianifm; fo that if a writer fpeaks of the pre-existence of the Son, or confiders the Son and Spirit as objects of worship, even though in the very paffages quoted he affert their inferiority to the Father, and reprefent them as deriving their powers and their being from God, he is boldly declared not to be an Unitarian, and Mr. Lindsey is infultingly asked, whether he can adopt fuch language.

Among other arts of controverfy Mr. B. has not forgotten to load the perfon and the cause that he opposes with opprobrious epithets, and to throw out groundless infinuations against them. We fcarcely remember a writer who has indulged himself in the use of fuch acrimonious language, or betrayed fuch an unchriftian fpirit, Speaking of Unitarians, he fays, P. 23, "This their reason working upon premifes of its own making is pronounced competent to the knowledge of a God, with whofe nature a Trinity is altogether inconfiftent; the deifm of their own imagination is acquiefced in, and revelation rejected by wholefale the utter extirpation of Chriftianity is vifibly the confequence, and I must go fo much farther as to fay that it is vifibly the object. But let it be obferved that their very rejection of the Bible is a proof of my point. They reject it only because it teaches the trinal unity of God." P. 109. He speaks of the ftratagems of a modern apoftate," meaning the author of Remarks on his former work. Unitarians in general are, p. 144, priefts of infidelity; and p. 372, modern God-denying apoftates. P. 295, he fays, "my Remarker, with the renunciation of Chrift, renouncing every degree of Chriftian moderation, has, in terms of the most virulent obloquy, reproached me."-And p. 236, 237, he thus labours to deprive all who agree in fentiment with Mr. Lindsey of the title of Chriftians, and even of Unitarians.

་

"I have throughout, because I think mere words but a trifling ground of difference, admitted Mr. Lindfey and his feet to call themselves Unitarians. But as it feems to throw a charge

of