Page images

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

We have been led into these reflections by the truly liberal and philosophical sentiments which we have met with in the first discourse of the volume now before us; in which Dr. Price alserts, and maintains at large, that Chriftians of all parties, however they may censure one another, or whatever opposition there may seem to be in their opinions, are agreed in all that is effential to Christianity, and with respect to all the information which it is its principal design to communicate. After flating, in plain terms, those doctrines and facts of Christianity which all Christians believe--such as the being, perfections, and providence of God; the divine mission of Christ, confirmed by his miracles and refurre&ion; 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 sum and substance of the Gospel; and, also, the fum and substance of all that should interest human beings. The evidence for it which the Gospel gives, removes all doubts about it; and is sufficient, whether we believe any thing else or rot, to carry us (if virtuous) with triumph through this world. What then figa nify the differences among Christians about other points ? Or of what consequence is it that they have different ways of explaining this point itself? Give me but the fact that Christ is the refurre&ion and the life, and explain it as you will. Give me but this fingie truth, that eterNAL LIFE is the gift of God through itsus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and I shall be perfecly easy with relpeet to the contrary opinions which are entertained about the dignity of Chrift; about his nature, person, and offices; and the manner in which he Saves us. Cail him, if you please, simply a man endowed with extraordinary powers; or call him a super-angelic being who appeared in human nacure for the purpose of accomplishing our salvation ; or say (if you can admit a thought so shockingly abiurd) that it was the Second of three co-cqual persons in the Godhead forming one perfon with a human soul that came down from heaven and suffered and died on the cross : say that he saves us merely by being a messenger 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 e:ernal life, and confers it upon us, but has obtained it for us by offering himself a propitiatory facrifice on the cross, and making satisfaction to the justice of the Deity for our fins : I shall think such differences of "little moment, provided the fact is allowed, that Christ did rise irom the dead and will raise us from the dead; and that all righteous pe. pitents will, through God's grace in him, be accepted and made happy for ever.' Rev. May, 1787 Ee


Dr. Price then proceeds to Thew, diftin&ly, 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 saying, 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 discourses, briefly states the leading tenets of Athanasianism or Calvinism, and of Socinianism, and gives his reasons for rejecting both. In the 4th and 5th discourses he ftates and defends the Arian doctrine concerning the pre-exiftence and dignity of Christ, and concerning the nature of his office as Saviour of the world. The representation is, on the whole, given with fairness and impartiality.

The sum of what Dr. Price has advanced in defence of the Arian doctrine concerning the person of Christ is this ; that it is probable there are beings of a superior order to man—that we may conclude Christ to have been such a being, from his miraculous conception, from his immaculate character, from the unparalleled wisdom of his doctrine, from the efficacy ascribed 10 his death, from his raising himself from the dead, from the texts of Scripture which speak of him as God's minister 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, considered as a mere man, was wholly inadequate.

Though, for these and other reasons, the Doctor adopts the Arian hypothefis, he delivers his opinion with a degree of diffic dence and modesty becoming a philosopher. On the subject of the Atonement, he says:

• In delivering my sentiments upon this subject I have faid nothing of fubftitution, or fatisfaction, or any of those explanations of the manner of our redemption by Christ which have been given by Divines. Some of these explanations are in the highest degree absurd, and I receive none of them, thinking that the Scriptures have only revealed to us the fact that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the World, and chusing to satisfy myself with those ideas respecting it which I have laid before you. Perhaps some of these ideas are wrong; and, should that be the case, I am under no apprehensions of any ill consequences, being persuaded that my interest in this redemption depends not on the juftness of my conceptions of it, or the rectitude of my judgment concerning it, but on the sincerity of my heart.--Indeed, I feldom feel much of that satisfaction which some derive from being sure they have found out truth. But I derive great comfort from believing, that error, when involuntary, is innocent; and that all that is re. quired 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 systems, the Author makes an observation which has, perhaps, more truth in it,


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

• I would point out to your notice a particular coincidence be. tween Socinianism and the high Trinitarian doctrine.' You will find, upon reflection, that there cannot be a more remarkable instance of a trite observation, “ that extremes are apt to meet.” According to the Athanafian doctrine, that Jesus who was born of a virgin, who bled on the cross, and who rose again, was simply a man feeling all our wants, and subject to all our infirmities and sufferings ; it is impoflible that any one who has the use of his reason mould believe that God was born, and suffered, and bled, and died. This was true only of the man Jesus. The contrary is too shocking to be even imagined ; nor is it afferted by the advocates of the proper Deity of Jesus Christ. What they say is, that though Christ was very man, yet he was also very God; and when they Tay he was very God they do not mean that he lost his nature as a man by a conversion of ic into the substance of the Deity (this also being an absurdity too gross 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 sufferings of the man. The Socinians say much the same ; for they say, that God dwelt in Jesus, and acted and spoke by him; and that there was such an extraordinary communication of Divine influence to him as raised him above other mortals and rendered him properly God with us, that is, God manifesting himself to us and displaying his power and perfections on earth in the person, discourses, and miracles of Christ. The advocates of the Athanafian doctrine cannot mean more than this by the union they talk of between God and Christ. They call it indeed an union of two natures into one person ; an union which made the Godhead and the manhood one complex sube ject of action and passion. But this is a language to which they cannot possibly fix any ideas : for, whatever they may pretend, they cannot really believe that any two natures, much less two natures so essentially different as the human and Divine, can make one person; or that there could have been such an union between Jesus and the Supreme Deity as to make it strictly true, that when Jesus 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 transubitantiation, are capable of believing that the body of Christ may be eaten at one and the same time in a million of places, or that Christ at his last fupper really held his body in his hand and gave it to his Apostles. As far, therefore, as Trinitarians and Socinians have ideas, they are agreed on this subject; and the war they have been maintaining against one another has been entirely a war of words.'

Those who are acquainted with the representation which the ingenious Author of The Search after Nature has given of the do&trine of the Trinity, will be aware, that the idea started in this passage is not altogether hypothetical. If it be a juft idea, Ee 2


it is surely high time to have done with a logomachy which has occasioned To much mischief in the world.

One inference, however, arises from this comparative view of the Athanasian and Socinian doctrine, of which our Author does not seem to have been aware, which is, that if the diso pute between the parties be entirely a war of words, they are agreed in meaning. Consequently, when the Trinitarian worfhips God the Son, the Redeemer of the world, as far as he has any ideas, he worships the one true. God as united to the man Christ Jesus for the purposes of redemption.

The charge, therefore, which has often been brought against the Trinitatians, and which we are sorry to find repeated in this work, that in cheir prayers to three persons in one God they are guilty of idolatry, is, upon our Author's own principles as quoted above, wholly without foundation. Ic mult, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that the metaphysical terms, borrowed from the fchools, by which our public forms of religion are obscured, whatever purpose they may formerly have served, are at present of little use. For this reason, although we can by no means adopt our Author's inconclufive mode of arguing, from the defects of past or present establishments, against the propriety of religious establishments in general, we heartily with, that the {pirit of reformation and improvement, which is at present so Jaudably called forth in other respects, may be extended to the church, fo far as to disincumber its Liturgy and Creed from the perplexing fubtleties of scholaftic theology, and to restore them, in all doubtful points, to the fimplicity of Scriptural language.

Concerning the remainder of this volume, it may luffice briefly to inform our Readers, that it consists of two discourses on The Security and Happiness of a virtuous Course, which contain more novelty of thought than was to be expected on lo trite a subject--two, On the Goodness of God, in which the arguments in support of the doctrine, drawn from the nature of the Divine Being and from his works, are clearly and strongly represented, and several objections, particularly that which has lately been advanced by Hume in a posthumous work, are satisfactorily refuted ;--and one, On the Refurreation of Lazarus, in which the Author ably defends the credibility of the miracle.

On the whole, we are of opinion that these discourses cannot fail to be acceptable to all truly liberal and candid readers; and that, whatever may be their effect in propagating the Author's peculiar teneis, they will render an effential service to the cause of religion, by diffeminating a spirit of philosophical moderation.

* In a note, p. 93, there is a very material error of the press, viz. speaking of an opinion into which, as our Author


[ocr errors]

says, Dr. Watts settled, after spending many years in perplexing inquiries, and taking much pains to keep within the limits of the doctrines commonly reckoned orthodox. This opinion, Di. Price observes, agrees with Arianism in the strange doctrineas Dr. Waits calls ic--of a THREEFOLD Deity, &c.' But the paffage, it seems, should have been printed thus: 'it agrees with Arianism in REJECTING the strange doctrine, &c. See more of this, in our lait Review, p. 364.

[ocr errors]


· Art. VII. Observations on certain Parts of the Animal Oeconomy.

By John Hunter. 4to. 16s. Boards. Sold at No. 13, Caitle Street, Leiceiter Square. 1787.

R. Hunter has here given us a collection of tracts on va

rious subjects, moft of which have already appeared, at different times, in the Philofophical Transactions of the Royal Society: those papers, therefore, which we have noticed in reviewing the works of that learned body, we shall now birely enumerate; but we shall examine, in a more particular inanner, the pieces which are now first made public.

The first is, A Defcription of the Situation of the Teftis in the Fætus, with its Defient into the Scrotum. This is a subject which most anatomists and physiologists have fully created. Mr. Hunter is accurate in his description ; but he does not give any new thoughts concerning the manner how, or the realons why, the change happens.

The second is, On the Glands situated between the Rectum and Bladder, called Vesiculæ Seminales. Here we meet with a new hypothesis, viz. ihat the vesiculæ seminales do not contain the substance which preceding writers on anatomy have allotted to them. Mr. Hunter's conjecture would, perhaps, have had more of the appearance of probability, could he have proved the real use of these organs. We must nevertheless acknowledge the great ingenuity of the anatomist, although we doubt his conclusions.

III. An Account of the Free Martin. See Review, vol. Ixii, p. 221.

IV. An Account of an extraordinary Pheasant. See Review, vol. Ixiv. p. 276.

V. On the Organ of Hearing in Fishes. See Rev. vol. Ixix. p. 395.

VI. An Account of certain Receptacles of Air in Birds which come municate with the Lungs and Eustachian Tube. See Rev. vol. li. P. 376. Considerable additions have beçn made to this paper since its former publication.

VII. Observations on- Animals, with respect to the Power of producing Heat, See Rev. vol. lv. p. 120.


E¢ 3

« PreviousContinue »