to negative any law, yet when did he exercife that power? And in how few cafes could he do it with effect, however difpofed to do fo? Those therefore who reprefent this as the difcriminating feature, and peculiar mark of excellence in the British conftitution, look no farther than the surface, and can give to others no proper idea either of its excellencies or defects. This, we are forry to fay, is the cafe with our Author; for he does not once, in the course of this work, that we could obferve (and we have read it all with care), fo much as touch at the leading fprings which conftituted the concealed though real balance of power in any of thofe ftates whofe revolutions he recites. Had the book been written by a youth, with a view to obtain fome academical prize, we should have faid it afforded indications of an active mind that gave hopes of future acquirements; but that the young man, too eager to difcover the extent of his reading, had carelessly adopted fome confufed notions of government, and haftily skimmed the furface of the fubject, without having taken time deliberately to inveftigate particulars, and fift the matter to the bottom. This we fhould, in that cafe, have said. But we cannot bring ourselves to think that a man of Dr. Adams's known abilities could poffibly be in the fame predicament; for which reason we conclude that he must have some point to carry, fome object in view, beyond the Atlantic, with which we are not acquainted, and that he has been fenfible that a book of the nature of this which now lies before us, is well calculated to anfwer his purpofe. It may indeed amufe the ignorant, it may mislead the unwary, but it neither can inform nor entertain the philofopher, nor the man of letters.

We are the more confirmed in our opinion, by obferving, that, in the letter which he entitles conclufion, there are fome pertinent and judicious remarks on the bad confequences that muft be expected to refult from authorizing a popular affembly to no-minate officers in a state. These remarks are evidently dictated by good fenfe and attentive obfervation; which fatisfies us it was not from inability in the Author, that the rest of his book confifts of materials fo exceedingly different from this part.

It would give us great pleasure to fee fome judicious treatise on the fubject of government, peculiarly calculated for the fituation and circumftances of the Americans, by a man of such inAuence among them as might induce them to adopt fome practicable plan; for it pains us to fee a numerous people, once our fellow fubjects, ftill our fellow Chriftians, and who (we truft) will long continue our commercial friends, involved in diftreffes from which they evidently know not how to extricate themfelves. We hoped that this might have been the book, and we regret exceedingly that we have been fo much difappointed.

ART.

ART. VI. Sermons on the Chriftian Dorine, as received by the different Denominations of Chriftians: to which are added, Sermons on the Security and Happiness of a virtuous Course, on the Goodness of God, and on the Refurrection of Lazarus. By Richard Price, D. D. F. R. S. and Fellow of the American Philofophical Societies at Philadelphia and Bofton. Svo. 55. Boards. Cadell. 1787.

EXPERIENCE, a flow but fure Preceptor, has already

taught mankind many valuable leffons; among which, one of the most important, is, the folly of perfecution. Another leffon, which this patient Inftructor bas for many ages been inculcating, but which the world feems exceedingly loath to learn, is, the unprofitableness of theological difputation. The fubtleties of abstract metaphyfics, which have exercised the ingenuity of philofophers and fchoolmen, from the days of Pythagoras, are indeed at laft found to be fo foreign from all the purposes of life, that notwithstanding fome late attempts to revive them, they are in a fair way to be configned to oblivion: we fhall probably hear very little more of the TAH IIРOTH of Ariftotle, and fhall, in future, be feldom difturbed with difputes, to determine whether univerfals are real, or merely nominal, entities. But the experience of near two thousand years, during which time theolo gians have been contending with each other concerning points of faith, without having ever been able to bring the contest to a clear iffue, has not been fufficient to convince the world, that thefe difputes do not merit that degree of attention and zeal, which has been bestowed upon them. We ftill fee the advocates for different fyftems confidently maintaining their refpective opinions, each party poffeffing the fulleft conviction that they are in the right, and flattering themfelves that all rational men will, in time, be brought over to their perfuafion. One writer is of opinion that the minds of men are now fo much enlightened as to leave no room to doubt of the fpeedy prevalence of the fimple and unincumbered fyftem of Socinianifm: another thinks himself peculiarly fortunate in having taken what he conceives to be the middle path of Arianifm: whilft a third "declares before God, in the fincerity of his foul, that after having paffed many years in ftudies of this kind, he is verily perfuaded of the proper divinity of our Lord." Each party charges the reft with prejudice, prefumption, or vanity. And the probability is, that each party will continue to do fo, till they are become heartily tired of controverfies, which, for want of agreeing in fome common principles refpecting the mode of interpreting Scripture, or from other caufes, not to be removed or prevented, they find themselves incapable of deciding:-an iffue, in which fruitlefs difputations muft neceffarily, fooner or later, terminate.

In the mean time, it may be reasonably expected, that the accumulated experience of difficulty and embarraffment in controverfies of this nature, will teach all parties the useful lesson of moderation, and lead them to confider nothing as effential, or even as greatly important, in Chriftianity, but thofe general truths, in which all Chriftians are and must be agreed.

We have been led into thefe reflections by the truly liberal and philofophical fentiments which we have met with in the first difcourfe of the volume now before us; in which Dr. Price afferts, and maintains at large, that Chriftians of all parties, however they may cenfure one another, or whatever oppofition there may seem to be in their opinions, are agreed in all that is effential to Chriftianity, and with refpect to all the information which it is its principal defign to communicate.' After ftating, in plain terms, thofe doctrines and facts of Chriftianity which all Chriftians believe-fuch as the being, perfections, and providence of God; the divine miffion of Chrift, confirmed by his miracles and refurrection; and the ends of his miffion, to teach men their duty, and affure them of the pardon of fin and eternal life he adds:

This is the fum and fubftance of the Gofpel; and, alfo, the fum and fubftance of all that should intereft human beings. The evidence for it which the Gofpel gives, removes all doubts about it; and is fufficient, whether we believe any thing elfe or not, to carry us (if virtuous) with triumph through this world. What then fignify the differences among Chriftians about other points? Or of what confequence is it that they have different ways of explaining this point itself? Give me but the fact that Chrift is the refurrection and the life, and explain it as you will. Give me but this fingle truth, that ETERNAL LIFE is the gift of God through Jefus Chrift our Lord and Saviour, and I fhall be perfectly eafy with respect to the contrary opinions which are entertained about the dignity of Chrift; about his nature, perfon, and offices; and the manner in which he faves us. Cail him, if you please, fimply a man endowed with extraordinary powers; or call him a fuper-angelic being who appeared in human nature for the purpose of accomplishing our falvation; or fay (if you can admit a thought fo fhockingly abfurd) that it was the fecond of three co-equal perfons in the Godhead forming one perfon with a human foul that came down from heaven and fuffered and died on the crofs: fay that he faves us merely by being a meffenger from God to reveal to us eternal life, and to confer it upon us; or fay, on the contrary, that he not only reveals to us eternal life, and confers it upon us, but has obtained it for us by offering himself a propitiatory facrifice on the crofs, and making fatisfaction to the juftice of the Deity for our fins: I fhall think fuch differences of little moment, provided the fact is allowed, that Chrift did rife from the dead and will raife us from the dead; and that all righteous penitents will, through God's grace in him, be accepted and made happy for ever.'

Rev. May, 1787.

E e

Dr.

Dr. Price then proceeds to fhew, diftinctly, with respect to the chief points of controversy among Chriftians, that it cannot be of fundamental importance what men believe concerning them; and concludes with faying, that there is but one thing fundamental, and that is, an honest mind

After having established this important and useful doctrine, the Author, in two difcourfes, briefly ftates the leading tenets of Athanafianifm or Calvinifm, and of Socinianifm, and gives his reasons for rejecting both. In the 4th and 5th discourses he ftates and defends the Arian doctrine concerning the pre-existence and dignity of Chrift, and concerning the nature of his office as Saviour of the world. The reprefentation is, on the whole, given with fairness and impartiality.

The fum of what Dr. Price has advanced in defence of the Arian doctrine concerning the perfon of Chrift is this; that it is probable there are beings of a fuperior order to man—that we may conclude Chrift to have been fuch a being, from his miraculous conception, from his immaculate character, from the unparalleled wifdom of his doctrine, from the efficacy afcribed to his death, from his raifing himself from the dead, from the texts of Scripture which speak of him as God's minifter in creating the world, or coming down from heaven, humbling himself, &c. and from his being appointed to judge the world, and exalted to honours, to which his merit, confidered as a mere man, was wholly inadequate.

Though, for thefe and other reasons, the Doctor adopts the Arian hypothefis, he delivers his opinion with a degree of diffidence and modefty becoming a philofopher. On the subject of the Atonement, he says:

In delivering my fentiments upon this fubject I have faid nothing of fubftitution, or fatisfaction, or any of thofe explanations of the manner of our redemption by Chrift which have been given by Divines. Some of thefe explanations are in the highest degree abfurd, and I receive none of them, thinking that the Scriptures have only revealed to us the fact that God fent his Son to be the Saviour of the World, and chufing to fatisfy myfelf with thofe ideas refpecting it which I have laid before you. Perhaps fome of thefe ideas are wrong; and, should that be the cafe, I am under no apprehenfions of any ill confequences, being perfuaded that my intereft in this redemption depends not on the juftness of my conceptions of it, or the rectitude of my judgment concerning it, but on the fincerity of my heart.-Indeed, I feldom feel much of that fatisfaction which fome derive from being fure they have found out truth. But I derive great comfort from believing, that error, when involuntary, is innocent; and that all that is required of me, as a condition of acceptance, is faithfully endeavouring to find out and to practise truth and right.'

In comparing the Athanafian and Socinian fyftems, the Author makes an observation which has, perhaps, more truth in it,

than

than bigots on either fide will be ready to allow, but which, if admitted, would go a great way toward annihilating the difputes between the contending parties. As every fair expedient for this purpose ought to be tried, we fhall lay before our Readers the whole paffage:

I would point out to your notice a particular coincidence between Socinianifm and the high Trinitarian doctrine. You will find, upon reflection, that there cannot be a more remarkable inftance of a trite obfervation, "that extremes are apt to meet." According to the Athanafian doctrine, that Jefus who was born of a virgin, who bled on the cross, and who rofe again, was fimply a man feeling all our wants, and subject to all our infirmities and fufferings; it is impoffible that any one who has the ufe of his reafon fhould believe that God was born, and fuffered, and bled, and died. This was true only of the man Jefus. The contrary is too shocking to be even imagined; nor is it afferted by the advocates of the proper Deity of Jefus Chrift. What they fay is, that though Chrift was very man, yet he was also very God; and when they say he was very God they do not mean that he loft his nature as a man by a converfion of it into the fubftance of the Deity (this alfo being an abfurdity too grofs to be admitted by any human mind), but that there was an union between it and the Divine nature which gave value and efficacy to the fufferings of the man. The Socinians fay much the fame; for they fay, that God dwelt in Jesus, and acted and spoke by him; and that there was fuch an extraordinary communication of Divine influence to him as raifed him above other mortals and rendered him properly God with us, that is, God manifefting himself to us and difplaying his power and perfections on earth in the perfon, difcourfes, and miracles of Chrift. The advocates of the Athanafian doctrine cannot mean more than this by the union they talk of between God and Chrift. They call it indeed an union of two natures into one person; an union which made the Godhead and the manhood one complex fubject of action and paffion. But this is a language to which they cannot poffibly fix any ideas: for, whatever they may pretend, they cannot really believe that any two natures, much lefs two natures fo effentially different as the human and Divine, can make one perfon; or that there could have been fuch an union between Jefus and the Supreme Deity as to make it ftrictly true, that when Jefus was born, God was born; or that when Jesus was crucified, God was crucified. They are no more capable of believing this than the Papists, when they maintain tranfubftantiation, are capable of believing that the body of Chrift may be eaten at one and the fame time in a million of places, or that Chrift at his laft fupper really held his body in his hand and gave it to his Apoftles. As far, therefore, as Trinitarians and Socinians have ideas, they are agreed on this fubject; and the war they have been maintaining against one another has been entirely a war of words.'

Those who are acquainted with the reprefentation which the ingenious Author of The Search after Nature has given of the doctrine of the Trinity, will be aware, that the idea started in this paffage is not altogether hypothetical. If it be a just idea,

Ee 2

it