Πατρὸς 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 Pl. lxxxii. Mr. B. tranflates, Ye are all exalted fons. P. 345. Clauduntur terræ, the earth is fhut 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 Unitarianifm 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 pallages 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 oppofes with opprobrious epithets, and to throw out groundless infinuations against them. We scarcely remember a writer who has indulged himself in the ufe of fuch acrimonious language, or betrayed fuch an unchriftian fpirit. Speaking of Unitarians, he fays, P. 23," This their reafon 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 fpeaks of the ftratagems of a modern apoitate," 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 renuneiation 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. Lindsey and his fect to call themfelves Unitarians. But as it feems to throw a charge

of

of polytheism upon all who differ from them, I now deny their exclufive right to this denomination: we also are Unitarians.

"But this is not all; for I do not mean to reft contented with a joint poffeffion of this title, I demand the entire refig-nation of it to us exclufively. Nothing less than the absolute renunciation will fatisfy me. Shall they who concur with a Jew," who crucified the Lord of Glory," and with the Muffulman, to whom the name of our Redeemer is an abomination, make pretenfions to the title of Chriftians? fhall they pretend that they worship the Father, and are therefore Unitarians? Our Lord himself fhall put them down, who fays, "He that hateth me, hateth my Father alfo." John xv. 23.'

Surely Mr Burgh, of all men, has no right to complain of virulent obloquy. The abufe that he has thrown upon Mr. Lindfey, Mr. Temple, and Unitarians in general, and the difingenuous manner in which he has conducted his Inquiry, betray a mind filled with prejudice and partiality, are a difcredit to himfelf and to his caufe, and can be pleafing to none but the more bigotted and violent of those who hold the fame opinions with himself. Yet the univerfity of Oxford has thought proper to compliment him with an honorary degree. Of fo great account, in the estimation of that celebrated body, is a blind and furious zeal for established tenets, as to compenfate for the want, not only of clear ideas, and juft reafoning, but also of ingenuity, candour, and charity. How prudent the advice of Bishop Hare to a young clergyman*: "Whatever therefore you do, be orthodox: orthodoxy will cover a multitude of fins, but a cloud of virtues cannot cover the want of the minuteft particle of orthodoxy."

• Difficulties and Difcouragements, &c. Eighth Edit. p. 20.

ART. XI. Letters to the Rev. Thomas Randolph, D. D. Prefident of C. C. C. and Lady Margaret's Profeffor of Divinity in the Univerfity of Oxford. Containing a Defence of Remarks on the Layman's Scriptural Confutation. By A. Temple, M. A. With an Appendix, in which the Tendency and Merits of Dr. Burgh's

Publications are more particularly confidered. 8vo. 3 s. 6 d.

fewed. Cadell, &c.

TH

HIS is a fenfible and judicious reply to Dr. Randolph's animadverfions upon Mr. Temple's Remarks, in which the Doctor is fairly convicted of mifreprefentation, and juftly reproved for the want of that candour and charity which equally become the Gentleman and the Chriftian.

In fuch an hacknied controversy as that of the Trinity, it cannot be expected that much new matter should be advanced REV. Nov. 1779.

Bb

on

on either fide: old arguments will be continually revived, and old answers must be repeated. Mr. Temple has, accordingly, many extracts from former writers on the fubject, by whom the arguments alleged by Dr. Randolph have been particularly confidered and refuted; and he refers, on feveral occafions, to An Inquiry into the Opinions of the learned Chriftians, both ancient and modern, concerning the Generation of Jefus Chrift, by the Editor of Ben Mordecai's Letters; a writer whom our modern advocates for the doctrine of the Trinity appear loth to attack. That they have permitted his publications to remain fo long unanfwered, is a proof that they feel the fuperiority of his abilities, and the ftrength of his argument. Our fentiments on the fubject of the Trinity are well known: and we scruple not to affirm, that the more we read and reflect upon it, the more firmly we are convinced of the falfehood and abfurdity of the Athanafian doctrine. Mr. Temple has, in our opinion, undeniably proved that "the Supreme God, he who was before all things, beings, or perfons; and was himself the caufe of every thing, being, or perfon, of which no one could exift, but as it pleafed him to give him exiftence, must be underived and felfexiftent; and confequently that Jefus Chrift, whofe attributes and effence, according to Dr. Randolph himself, are derived to him from the Father, cannot be the Supreme God." In his fourth Letter he has fhewn, in a mafterly manner, that upon the Athanafian scheme it is not poffible to vindicate our Saviour from the charge of prevarication, when he declared, Mark xiii. 32, Of that day and hour knoweth no man (according to our tranflation; but in the original it is dss, none, no perfon) no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father; the Father only, Matth. xxiv. 36: and has pointed out, in particular, the weakness and, infufficiency of Dr. Randolph's evafions on this fubject. The reader will find many critical remarks and ingenious reflections on paffages of fcripture, the fenfe in which the term os is applied to Chrift, John i. 1, and in which it is faid that all things were created by him, and for him (according to that which is termed the Arian hypothefis), the worship due to Chrift, and other important topics, fcattered throughout the work; which we think cannot but give fatisfaction, as far as relates to the inferiority of the Son to the Father, to every one who dares to think in oppofition to the creed of his nurfe, and the decifions of authority.

The Appendix contains fome juft and pointed obfervations on three paffages extracted from Dr. Burgh's Scriptural Confutation, and on the conduct of the University of Oxford in con

• See Dr. Burgh's Scriptural Confutation, p. 193.

2

ferring

ferring an honorary degree upon fuch a Writer. The paffages are the following:

Firft; "Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God: from whatever ultimate maxims Reafon may proceed with relation to scripture truth, fhe is debarred of any appeal to God himfelf, or to any imagination fhe may conceive herself able to entertain of him." Page 28.

Secondly; "God (Dr. B. means the one living and true God) took manhood on him, in order to give a sensible object of worship to mankind.-And to this object of fenfe worship may be preferred without the imputation of idolatry." Page 150.

Thirdly; All that it (holy fcripture) contains, was as perfpicuous to those who firft perused it after the rejection of the Papal yoke, as it can be to us now, or as it can be to our pofterity in the fiftieth generation." Page 220.

If it was thought neceffary, fays Mr. Temple, to compliment Dr. B. for any part of his performances, it can never be fufficiently lamented, that a mark of reprobation was not fet on the above-cited paffages; and much is it to be wished, on account of the respectable authority which, one would hope, has unwarily recommended them, that the most explicit deteftation of the doctrines they contain may no longer be delayed. They are not flight and trivial mistakes, but capital fallities, which though charity may pardon on account of the peculiar prejudices of the writer, yet it is every man's duty to expofe; because they are fubverfive of every thing rational and valuable in religion; and he who maintains them, is endeavouring, however undefignedly, to blow up the very rock on which true Proteftantifm, and true Chriftianity, is founded.'

Mr. Temple has added fome general remarks on Dr. Burgh's laft publication, of which we have given an account in the preceding Article; and has produced a number of passages from the writers of the first three centuries, which are altogether irreconcilable with the Athanafian doctrine of the Trinity. It is obfervable, that fome of these paffages are the fame that Dr. Burgh, in his hafty zeal, had produced to prove that they were not Unitarians.

TH

ART. XII. A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Labours in the Work of the Ministry of John Griffith. 8vo. 4s. Phillips. 1779. HIS honeft man was an itinerant preacher among the Quakers. He appears to be a ftaunch friend to his fect, and thoroughly to have imbibed the fpirit of George Fox. He will not bate an ace to the steeple house; and would confider it as a fpecies of Anti-chriftian profanation to facrifice the diftinguifhing prerogatives of THEE and TнOU. The fleth (fays our Journalist) warreth against the spirit. Its language is quite

Bb 2

opposite

oppofite thereunto. The flesh fays, "there is little in dress: religion doth not confift in apparel: there is little in language: there is little in paying tythes, &c. to the priests: there is little in carrying guns in our fhips to defend ourselves in cafe we are attacked by an enemy."-To which I think it may be fafely added, that there is little or nothing in people who plead as above hinted, pretending to be of our fociety: for if they can eafily let fall the before-mentioned branches of our Christian testimony, they will maintain the other no longer than they apprehend will fuit their temporal intereft. I have often wondered why fuch continue to profefs with us at all.'

Mr. Griffith was born in Radnorshire, in South Wales, in the year 1713. He was favoured, he fays, with the heartmelting vifitations of God's love, when he was about feven or eight years old but like the prophet Samuel, he did not know from whence his precious confolations came.' He proceeds to give an account of his awakenings, convictions, relapfes, horFors, recoveries, &c. &c. till he brings us to his converfionthe Lord, fays he, teaching my hands to war, and my fingers to fight under his banner, through whofe bleffing and affiftance I found fome degree of victory over the beaft, viz. that part which hath its life in fleshly gratifications.' When Mr. Griffith had broke in his own Beast, he thought he could not be better employed than to affift others in performing the fame kind office on theirs. As I remember, fays he, I was twenty-one years of age the very day I firft entered into this great and awful work of the miniftry, which was the 21ft of the fifth month, old ftile, 1734. A matter of fuch confequence undoubtedly deferved to be recorded in the most particular manner, to prevent debates in future times! We have heard that seven cities were together by the ears about the birth-place of Homer: and all this contention arose from a deficiency in biography that cannot be charged to the account of Mr. Griffith.

His conflicts with the beaft, indeed, were not at an end, notwithstanding the Lord had committed to him the difpenfation of the gofpel, with the incomes of peace and joy in the Holy Ghoft. Great, fays he, were my temptations, and various the combats I had for divers years after, with my foul's enemies. Oh! how hard I found it to keep from being defiled, more or lefs, with the polluting floods which were almost continually poured out of the great red dragon's mouth, in order to carry away my imagination into unlawful delights, from which I did not always wholly escape !'

But amidst the actings of fin he found the counter-actings of grace. It was frequently hot work; for he informs us, that he often found, that when the Judge of all hath been pleafed to arife, and to find him out with his fig-leaf covering

on