in pursuing it. The witness, who is "perfectly neutral," at the beginning, and "open to no other influence than that of truth," turns out, at the clofe, to be "in fome degree hoftile." Such a contradiction as this, in the very statement of his argument, does not augur well concerning the future management of it. It is difcoverable, indeed, that, the author means here to imprefs an argument a fortiori: but this should have been made confiftent with his former expreffions. Philo's authority has been alledged repeatedly by writers, in favour of that fundamental principle of our religion, the exiftence of God in a trinity of perfons. It has been particularly alledged, by Dr. Allix, about a century fince, and by Mr. Whitaker, about fix years ago*. But Mr. Bryant began, pursued, and completed his work, totally unapprised of either. "Since I wrote this treatise," he tells us himself, in a kind of appendix, "I have found that what has been said by the learned editor of Philo, is entirely taken from that work of Dr. Allix, called," &c. P. 221. He appears to have been equally ignorant of Mr. Whitaker's treatise, who unites with him almost as much as Dr. Allix opposes him; unites with him, at times, in opposing Dr. Allix, but agrees with Dr. Allix generally in oppofing him. Mr. Bryant, in fact, through all the judicious parts of this work, is only doing what had been done already, routing the foes that have been previously routed, and flaying those who have been flain before. Through all the paradoxical parts, he writes, we must say, injudiciously. Yet Mr. Bryant cannot write even under all these circumstances, what he will not, in fome measure, make his own, and what will not, in fome degree, prove useful. He produces paffages from Philo, and even adds to them citations from the Fathers, that carry with them a decifive weight of teftimony for the doctrine of the Trinity, but have been repeatedly produced before. These, for that reason, we fhall not notice here; efpecially as he gives no new luftre to thefe gems, by his own artifice or ingenuity. But we shall notice fome of his obfervations upon them, in order to answer the principal purpose of his work, and to place the character of its author in a true light, before we proceed to examine, what we confider as the paradoxical parts. Citing many of the initial verfes in the first chapter of St. John's Gofpel, and commenting a little upon them, Mr. Bryant adds these important obfervations. *Dr. Allix, in his "Judgment of the ancient Jewish church," 1699; and Mr. Whitaker, in his "Origin of Arianifm difclofed," 1791. All All this is furely very plain, and an article to which every unprejudiced perfon muft accede. But it is said to be a mystery. True. But what is this mystery, but a divine truth, which we could not have known, but by information? Take away the fanctity of the object, there will be found as much mystery in the freezing of water, when told to a perfon who never beheld it; or in the properties of the magnet, to one who had never before heard of them. Our faith, upon thefe occafions, depends upon the credibility of the informer. If the intelligence comes from the mouth of truth, we muft believe it, or we act contrary to reafon. And there would be no difficulty in this cafe, were it not for the pride and prejudice of men. Therefore, this pofitive and determinate evidence, which cannot be fet afide, they try to extenuate and foften; till, by refinement, they reduce it to nothing. But ftill there are other myfteries, or elfe the Gofpel must be given up. We have an instance to this purpose, afforded us by St. Matthew, who gives it in the very words of our Saviour: All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, fave the Son, and he to whomfoever the Son will reveal him.' We find, that the mystery of the Son is like the mystery of the Father, which mystery of the Father, however certain we may be of his exiftence, must be esteemed the greatest that can be, far beyond our conception." "In refpect to the divinity of our Saviour," Mr. Bryant remarks in another place," there is one paffage in St. Paul fo plain and determinate, that I fhould think every reasonable perfon muft neceffarily give it his affent. The apostle is mentioning his zeal and best wishes for fome of the profelytes to the gofpel, and adds, iva maganλndwoiv ai καρδιας αύλων, συμβιβασθενών εν αγάπη, και εις πανία πλείον της πληροφορίας της συνέσεως, εις επίγνωσιν το μυςηριο το Θεό, και Παρος, και το Χριςε • That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full affurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Chrift.' This latter part is neither here, nor in the Roman verfion, properly tranflated. Hence the purport of the apostle's information, is, in a great meafure, ruined. The words Ty Twain Te Husnpie Th 8, nas Пalpos na 78 xpise, should be rendered, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, BOTH OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE CHRIST,' or more fully, BOTH OF GOD THE FATHER, AND OF GOD THE CHRIST,' or Meffiah. This is the true purport of thefe fignificant terms, if there be any certainty in language; and I fhould think, that upon due confideration, it could not be controverted. The divinity of our Saviour is here clearly afcertained; and his connexion with God, is very juftly called a mystery, for it was a truth not to be difcovered by man, flesh and blood could not have revealed it.' Chrift, in this paffage, is not only mentioned with God, but as God, that Chrift who is over all, God blessed for ever,' Osos suñoynlos His Tes Airas." * Grifbach, without any authority, or next to none, omits the last five words. Rev. This argument we believe to be Mr. Bryant's own, and readily adopt it as ufeful. He then goes on to prove the divinity of the third perfon, equally from Scripture. "Still doubts have prevailed," he concludes," and it has been thought extraordinary, that, as these articles are of fuch confequence, the facred writers have not dwelt more fully upon them. To this it may be answered, that they are fufficiently explicit and intelligible to any perfon, who will confider them without prejudice. The evangelifts ftudied to be brief and contracted. Hence we have from them more. matter in a small compafs, than from any other writers in the world. If there be any difficulties, they are to be furmounted; and Divine Providence has acted in this inftance, as in many others. We muft dig in the mine, to obtain the ore; we muft labour in the field, to enjoy the harveft. A heathen poet has delivered this great truth, in an expreffive manner : Pater ipfe colendi Haud facilem effe viam voluit; primufque per artem Nec torpere gravi passus fua regna veterno. A like labour of the mind, with a fimilar exercise of our faculties, is requifite in order to obtain knowledge, both human and divine. And this is the very purpose of that Being who confers the bleffing. We muft feek, to find; and knock, to have it opened. From difcoveries hence made, we learn what a number of latent truths are to be found in the Scriptures. And when thefe, upon examination, are obferved, they afford more inward fatisfaction, and are more conducive to faith, than if they were fuperficial and felf-evident. They likewife increase our regard for the Scriptures. For the more we difcover of latent defign and wifdom in an object, the greater will be our veneration, and the ftronger our faith." This we think a found and folid remark. With it we should finish our extracts from Mr. Bryant, if our mention of the Fathers before, as cited by him, did not require us, in propriety, to extract his obfervation upon their teftimony. "To this it has been urged," he fays, "that, if any doctrine is not to be found in the apoftolick writings, no authority of the Fathers can give it a fanction. This is very true. But if a perfon, through frailty and mif-conception, fhould imagine, that any article was of doubiful purport, and attended with obfcurity, then the evidence of thofe, who had converfed with the apoftles and their immediate disciples, muft have weight. And thofe of the fecond century, who came later, are ftill fufficiently early to have their opinion admitted; more efpecially, if they are unanimous, and wrote before any different notion had taken place. To this we should add the fituation of thofe, who, at that period, wrote upon this fubject. They are found to have lived at fuch a distance from each other, that, had any error fo early crept into the church in one region, it could not fo foon have reached to another, much lefs to all. The church of Alexandria had little communication with that of Carthage, and was ftill farther feparated from from Lyons. And the profelytes at Lyons had as little correfpondence with thofe at Edeffa, Antioch, and Samaria. The unanimity, therefore, of writers, thus unconnected, fhews the truth of the doctrine; and, if any further proof is wanting, they certainly afford it." On this fure bafis ftands the authority of the fathers, not as the authors of our faith, but as the witneffes of it; witneffes, decifive in their teftimony, each by himfelf, and tenfold more decifive by their union. So far the learned author has merited approbation and praife. But we are forry to find fuch manly fentiinents difgraced in an appendix, by a petty objection to the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Mr. Bryant believes the eternity of the Son in his effence, but denies it in his perfonality: (p. 249) as if he, who is allowed to be eternal in his effence, must not have been equally eternal in his derivation; as if he, who is in fubftance eternal a parte ante and a parte poft, could poffibly be lefs than eternal, a parte ante, in origin. Mr. Bryant, however, fo fteadily orthodox, in general, on the doctrine of the Trinity, fo determinately a foe to Arianifm in particular, thus reduces himself to affert, that the fon was, in perfonality," produced in time;" (p. 248) and thus to adopt that wild affertion of Arius, the root of all his Arianifm, there was a time when he the fon was not, mole de ex ny*. Yet, not to rest our reprobation of this new herely, new at least to us, either upon the invia dious identity of it with the feminal point of Arianism, or even the palpable oppofition of it to acknowledged principles; let us, as zealous guardians of genuine orthodoxy, cite a paffage from the infallible code of Scripture, directly refuting it: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah," fays the prophet Micah, concerning the Son," out of thee fhall HE come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Ifrael; whose GOINGS-FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING." (To be continued.) * Theodoret 1.2. p. 7. vol. ii. Reading. + Micah v. 2, fo even Philo calls the Son," the eternal Logos of the everlafting God,” Acyos-to-aïdios Are Ty alone. Whitaker, 86. C ART. BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XI. jan. 1798. ART. IV. Elements of Geometry; containing the firft Six Books of Euclid, with Two Books on the Geometry of Solids.. To which are added, Elements of Plane and Spherical Trigonometry. By John Playfair, F. R. S. Edin. Profeffor of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh. 8vo. 6s. Bell and Bradfute, Edinburgh; Robinfons, London, $795. PROFESSOR Playfair, in his Preface, speaking of former editors of the Elements, introduces the following obferva tions: "Dr. Simfon, as he may be accounted the last, has also been the most successful, and has left very little room for the ingenuity of future editors to be exercised in, either by amending the text of Euclid, or by improving the translation from it. But, after all this was accomplished, fomething ftill remained to be done, fince, notwithstanding the acknowledged excellence of Euclid's Elements, it could not be doubted that fome alterations might be made upon them, that would accommodate them better to a state of the mathematical sciences, fo much more improved and extended than at any former period. This accordingly is the object of the edition now of fered to the public, which is intended nor fo much to give to the writings of Euclid the form which they originally had, as that which may at prefent render them most useful, One of the alterations that have been made with this view, refpects the Doctrine of Proportion; the method of treating which, as it is laid down in the fifth book of Euclid, has great advantages, accompanied with confiderable defects; of which, however, it must be obferved that the advantages are effential to it, and the defects only accidental. To explain the nature of the former, requires a more minute examination than is fuited to this place, and which muft, therefore, be referved for the notes; and, in the mean time, it may be fufficient to remark, that no definition of proportionals, except that of Euclid, has ever been given, from which their properties can be deduced by reafonings, which, at the fame time that they are perfectly rigorous, are alfo fimple and direct. As to the defects, on the other hand, the prolixnefs and obfcurity, that have so often been complained of in this book, they feem to arife entirely from the nature of the language; for, in mathematics, common language can feldom be applied, without much tediousness and circumlocution, in reasoning about the relations of fuch things as cannot be reprefented by means of diagrams, which happens here, where the subject treated of is magnitude in general. It is plain, therefore, that the concife language of Algebra is directly calculated to remedy this inconvenience; and fuch a one I have, accordingly, endeavoured to introduce, in the fimpleft form, and without changing at all the nature of the reafoning, or departing in any thing from the rigour of geometrical demonftration. By this contrivance, |