dedly prove that it was for errors in the faith, not for wick edness of life, that these unfortunate victims of Popery suffered. "It is the account of William of Brittany, which I quote from Archbishop Usher, Omnes qui FIDEI saperent contraria nostræ, The crime for which these good people were thus hunted out, and tried, and convicted, and burnt, it is here expressly shewn was the holding of opinions contrary to the faith of the Romish Church, and for that only they were so dealt with; not for opinions, or practices treasonous or seditious, or dangerous to society. "That indeed this was not the case, is further clear from some notable testimonies which God has preserved to us. Of these, I shall only take the famous one, more than once cited, of Reinerius the Dominican Inquisitor, (a contemporary) which of itself would confute more than one falsehood of Bossuet, and those who have followed him. "Of all the sects" says he, "which are or ever were, there is none more pernicious to the Church, than the Leonists (or brethren of Lyons) and this for three causes. The first, because it has lasted so long. For some say, that it has existed from the days of Sylvester: others, from the days of the Apostles. The second, because it is so generally prevailing. For there is hardly any country where this sect is not found. The third, because whereas all other sects by their shocking blasphemies against God, excite horror in those who hear them, this of the Leonists carries with it a great appearance of piety; because they live justly before men, and have a right faith in all things as to God, and believe all the articles contained in the creed; only they speak evil of the Roman Church, and the Clergy, which the greater part of the laity are very ready to believe." In an Appendix of Notes, are examined, 1. A pamphlet entitled "Remarks on the Bishop of Durham's Charge;" 2. The Proceedings of the Council of Conftance with regard to John Hufs; 3. An Addrefs from a Chriftian Philofopher to the Hibernian Society, for the diffufion of Religious knowledge in Ireland; and laftly, Mr. Sydney Smith's extraordinary Sermon in favour of the Romanifts and other Diffenters. Part of what is faid on this fermon, we shall here take the liberty of extracting, as confirming the account we gave of that empty declamation. "The text chosen by Mr. Sydney Smith, has sometimes been made use of against dissenters, but never before, I believe, in their their favour. Indeed both that and the whole chapter, nay, and the whole of the epistle from which it is taken, are pointedly directed against those who make divisions in the church. But Mr. Sydney Smith has not only made an unusual application of the text; he has also materially altered the text itself. The verse as quoted by him stands "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, in all the churches." Whereas the real text is "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Cor. xiv. 33. This is far from being the same thing; and indeed one of the commentators (Rosenmüller) refers the last member of the sentence to the following verse; but all of them make the first part parenthetical. This may account for the alteration made in the text by Mr. Smith, as without it there would have been no foundation for his very first paragraph. But whatever might be the reason in Mr. Smith's mind for taking this liberty with Scripture, I must protest against it; 'and I presume, shal! in this at least have the approbation of all serious Christians. I apprehend indeed, that in no way can Mr. Sydney Smith's text (if that be at all material) be shewn to warrant the propositions which it is his object to establish. General exhortations to peace, and I will add, to candour and liberality, under their proper though less fashionable name of Christian charity, are frequent in every pulpit, as they are in Scripture. But Mr. Smith professes to enter into particulars. He must therefore give me leave to remind him, that when, in another place, and in a much more apposite text, the same apostle exhorts the disciples to "live peaceably with all men," he adds "if it be possible" and " much as lieth in you." Now Mr. Sydney Smith must know, that these qualifications by which the apostle narrows his general principle, are the very points upon which we should have expected the preacher on this occasion to be copious. Unless it be " possible" and "lie in us," all our endeavours after "peace" may only breed that "confusion" which he deprecates. But now what is the course which he takes? Why he represents all those who oppose the claims of the Roman Catholics as "intolerant"; "as teaching men to hate one another on account of their religious opinions." But Mr. Sidney Smith must know that this is what is disclaimed by every one of his brethren, as loudly and sincerely as by himself. We deny that we are intolerant when we think and express our opinion, that the necessity still exists, which he himself admits to have existed, "for the state to make religious faith the test of political opinion, and therefore the reason for civil incapa. cities." He himself makes it a question "whether the necessity for their continuation exists." He says "that it is not impossible but that the safety of the state may require the continuation of these," which he calls "odious restrictions." How then can he speak in such terms of those who are only arguing (according to the opinion which they conscientiously entertain) in favour of such a continuation. Why is opposition to the Romanists' as Romanists' claims to be called, in the cant language of a party, "a religious clamour, which is very foolish in all those in whom it is not very wicked." Is this decent in a clergyman towards his brethren? I must add, that if he means to be taken as saying literally of any of us that we "teach men to hate one another on account of religious opinions," he must allow me to tell him that this is an imputation which ought not to be made without proof: and of which, standing thus without proof, every one of us may say, as I say with a particular reference to myself, that it is false and scandalous." For this, as well as his former productions, Mr. Le Mefurier is entitled to the thanks of all true proteftants. A View of the Evidences of Christianity at the Clofe of the pretended Age of Reafon: in eight Sermons, preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, in the year 1805; at the Lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury. By EDWARD NARES, M. A. Rector of Biddenden, Kent, and late Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. 8vo. (Continued from page 289.) HE fixth lecture is directed against the geological deifts, a hiftory of the creation. The theory of Buffon, and the sys tems of thofe who have endeavoured to flrengthen and improve it, are exposed to the contempt which they justly deferve. The notes to this lecture are highly interefting, and they exhibit a clear and complete view of the various theories of the earth, which have been projected by "modern worldmakers." On the subject of the deluge, the learned author is particu. larly forcible, and we may even add, entertaining. In the feventh difcourfe, the lecturer examines the attempts made against revelation under the head of Criticifm. And, here fays he, "we have to complain, firft, of the contempt thrown on Learning and Criticifm in general, for particular ends; fecondly, of the frequent abufe of Criticism and Authorities; and thirdly, of the demands made upon us, which we are under no obligation to answer." After noticing noticing the vulgar nonfenfe of Paine, and the extravagant abfurdity of Volney, Mr. Nares proceeds to confider the conduct of thofe profeffors of the Chriftian Religion, who endeavour to refine away the peculiar doctrines of the Gof pel, particularly the Atonement and the Trinity. On the latter most important fubject he obferves, "Shall we be told, that the doctrines of Christ's pre-existence, divinity, and incarnation, have no better foundations in Scripture, than those of transubstantiation and transmigration? When our Saviour is represented as expressing himself so before the whole. Sanhedrim assembled in council, as that the Jews conceived he made himself equal with God, we may well conceive the expression recorded had this direct purport; and we may surely be excused for thinking the same; especially as our Saviour's own explanation, recorded by the same Evangelist, does not tend to convict them of an error in judgment. When he more openly declared, equally to the surprise and astonishment of the Jews, that He and the Father were ONE, and they drew the same inference they had done before; namely, that he had made himself God, by this declaration; is it to be considered as a mere random, irrational, unfounded interpretation, that we put upon the same words, especially when, as in the former case, our Saviour did not deny the propriety of the inference they had drawn? The ques tion has been rendered intricate by the numerous discussions it has undergone: when our Saviour spoke himself to the point, he was so intelligible to the Jews, that they would have stoned him for blasphemy. This makes the question of the Trinity a most awful and important one; for the denial of it evidently tends to fix the charge of blasphemy on Christ. And this consideration should be uppermost in the minds of all those who engage in such enquiries. "Let them not fancy they are under any obligation to explain the Trinity, but under the deepest and most indispensable obligation to consider the true extent of our Saviour's meaning, when he claimed in the presence of the Jews this unity with the Father. Let them not suffer themselves to be led too far in the investigation of this most important question. Those who will still insist upon its being a contradiction, to acknowledge a Trinity in unity, must be contented with the answer provided for us in the Creed which goes by the name of Athanasius. That was written, whoever was the author, with a far better design than is generally imputed to it: it was in all likelihood intended not only to meet particular heresies and errors, but to repel the charge of Tritheism, alleged against the true believers. It was drawn up, no doubt, to shew, that they, who, in their acknowledgement of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, either confounded the persons, or divided the substance, differed essentially from the true believers; and therefore that the latter of course were not ob noxious noxious to any such charges: and as both these errors gave a handle to unbelievers, to accuse them of such "damnable here sies," (to use St. Peter's own terms,) as either the denying the Lord that bought them, or of giving way to idolatry, the damnatory clauses, as they are called, whatever was their original object, must be held to express the horror with which such errors were viewed by the true believer, and the extreme danger of them. These may still therefore serve to shew, that the Trinitarians, in acknowledging the Divinity of Christ, think their doctrine grossly misrepresented, whenever it is so stated as to imply any thing contrary to the divine Unity; any thing bordering upon idolatry on the one hand, or a denial of Christ on the other: charges continually brought against them, and in terms that should preclude all further argument, if they were but true. For if there are really any persons capable of asserting, as it has been more than once alleged, that "there are three Creators, and yet but one Creator,*" such men need never be argued with; the proof of such an assertion would be entirely sufficient to preclude all reasoning upon the subject. But after having said, as the Creed alluded to does say, "that the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is One" to affirm further, that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God," is only to express the same thing differently, which it is a matter of absolute necessity to do, where we are at all obliged to shew, in what manner we believe three to agree in one. We have been forced in this, and many other instances, into a sort of a priori reasoning concerning the nature and moral government of God; which, if left to her self, the Church would always with humility decline: "For," as a very able writer observes on another occasion, "what God could or could not have done it presumes not to pronounce; what God declares he has done, that merely it asserts; and on his express word alone it is founded. But it is to be remembered, "he proceeds to remark," that on this and on many other occasions, that a priori reasoning, which so frequently misleads those who object to the doctrines of our church, is imputed by them to us. Not being themselves in the habit of bowing with humble rever rence to the sacred word, they consider not that we speak merely its suggestions; and that if we do at any time philosophize, it is but to follow not to lead the meaning of Scripture." And this was the intention, no doubt, of the ancient fathers of the Church, whose illustrations of their doctrine have been lately so officiously brought forward to provet, not the insufficiency of human reason to explain a divine mystery, but that a divine mystery incapable of being adequately explained, and accounted for by human rea son, is therefore impossible; a conclusion which has been so often and • Lindsey on the Two Creations, in the 2d vol of the Theological Repository. + See Priestley's Early Opinions concerning Christ, |