ART. XII. A Vindication of the Doctrine and Liturgy of the Church of England. Occafioned by the Apology of Theophilus Lindsey, M. A. on refigning the Vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire. By George Bingham, B. D. Rector of Pimperne, and of Moor-Critchell, in the County of Dorfet, and Diocese of Bristol, and formerly Fellow of All Soul's College, Oxford. 8vo. I s. 6 d. Oxford printed, and fold by Rivington in London. 1774.

HOUGH Mr. Bingham's Anfwer to Mr. Lindfey is much fuperior to the Layman's Scriptural Confutation, it does not allege any thing but what has been advanced again and again; and which may be repeated for ever, without bringing the controverfy to a decifion.

The only proper method of arriving at a true judgment concerning a doctrine of revelation, is to confider what is the whole ftrain and tenor of fcripture relating to it; and if there should appear any difficulty in particular paffages, they ought to be explained in confiftency with the general doctrine: not to mention, that fuch explications fhould be avoided, as involve in them evident abfurdities and contradictions. If there be any religious principles, which are fupported by the current language of the Old and New Teftament, they are, the Unity of God, the Supremacy of the Father, and the Subordination of the Son; and the laft of these principles is ftrongly afferted in the very places where Jefus Chrift is fpoken of in the highest terms. But the Athanafians, inftead of pursuing the method we have described, heap, at random, a number of paffages together, with little or no regard to their real connexion and meaning; and then endeavour to make out the Trinitarian doctrine by metaphyfical diftinctions, which the facred Writers never thought of, and which, indeed, could not be a part of revelations intended for the bulk of mankind. Mr. Bingham does not stand exempted from this cenfure; and it is an act of kindness to him, to omit tranfcribing feveral of the abfurd things which he has advanced in the prefent performance.

If, in any respect, our Author appears to have fome little advantage over Mr. Lindsey, it is in what is faid concerning the opinions of the ancient Fathers. Not that we think the Fathers of the two or three first centuries were regular Trinitarians. The contrary was fufficiently fhewn in the controversy which followed the publication of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine, and is very manifeft from their writings. But the Fathers often exprefs themselves in fo unguarded and inconfiftent a manner, that their meaning is liable to perpetual difputes. The best way, therefore, is to difcard their authority entirely, and to have recourse alone to the facred writings.

Mr. Bingham is a scholar, and he writes like a man of integrity and piety.. But he feems to have too warm and bigotted an attachment to the whole fyftem of the Church of England. K.. ART.

6 d.

ART. XIII. Reflections on the Apology of the Rev. Theophilus Lindley,
M. A. late Vicar of Catterick, in
re. 8vo.
Buckland. 1774. The author J. Jenkins.
WE

E judge, from fome incidental paffages, that the prefent tract does not proceed from any zealous fon of the Church of England; but that it comes from a Diffenter, who is anxious for the apprehended purity of the faith, and defirous of preferving the orthodoxy of his flock. Whoever the Author may be, he is an able difputant, and writes as a friend to religious liberty. We fuppofe, too, that he wishes to fuftain the character of a man of moderation; and yet he fets out ill, by pecking at the title of Mr. Lindfey's book, in a way that betrays a captioufnefs and littlenefs of fpirit. The fame fpirit is apparent in feveral other inftances. What is here faid, in vindication of the common doctrine of the Trinity, we confider as by no means fatisfactory; though fome of the Writer's particular remarks, in oppofition to Mr. Lindsey, are far from being deftitute of ingenuity and acuteness.

What our Author lays much ftrefs upon (as well as the Layman, and Mr. Bingham*) is the worship which feems to be paid to Jefus Chrift, in the New Teftament. We do not think that Mr. Lindsey's Apology has been confuted upon this head; but, at the fame time, we are of opinion, that the subject merits a more full and diftinct examination than it has lately received. We fhould rejoice to fee a feparate treatife upon it, in which the fupreme worship due alone to the One God and Father of All, ought to be copiously stated. Then the paffages of fcripture fhould be difcuffed, which appear to afcribe any kind of religious worship to the Son; and it should be determined, how far they do imply religious worship to him, in any fenfe of the word. Laft of all, if any fort of religious worship is to be paid to Jefus Chrift, it ought to be fettled what that worship is, and in what manner it should be exprefied.

We know that the matter was largely debated among the elder Socinians. It has, likewife, been treated by Mr. Emlyn, and, very lately, by the author of Benjamin Ben Mordecai's Letters, on Eufebian principles. But what is at prefent wanted, is a fuller inquiry into the fubject, on the Socinian fyftem, which we fuppofe to be the fyftem adopted by Mr. Lindsey. Such an inquiry we could with to fee conducted with impartiality, candour, and a fpirit of patient criticism; and not in the hafty and dogmatical manner of fome writers; of whom, though we agree with them in fentiment, we are forry to obferve, that they do not fufficiently confider either the prejudices of mankind, or the real difficulties which attend many important queftions in theology.

Vid. the two preceding Articles. REV. Oct. 1774.

X

The

The Author of the Reflections concludes his performance in a ftrain much resembling the application of a diffenting fermon: Reader! fays he, beware of treating this difpute negligently, as a matter of fimple fpeculation. It is a doctrine that muft needs enter into the very nature of practical religion. Search the fcriptures; pray for divine illumination; and judge which is the fcripture doctrine, that of the Apology or its humble Replier. If divine titles, honours, and worship are given to the Son and Spirit,-if prayer is made to them; then do they partake of Deity: they are, with the Father, the One God blessed for ever.'

With equal ferioufnefs might fimilar language be made use of by a zealous Unitarian : "Reader! might he fay, beware "of treating this difpute negligently, as a matter of simple spe"culation. It is a doctrine that must needs enter into the very "nature of practical religion. Search the fcriptures; pray for "divine illumination; and judge which is the fcripture doc"trine, that of this Replier, or the humble Apologift.-If rea"fon and revelation concur in afferting, that there is but One "God, even the Father ;-if the Old and New Teftament "uniformly declare that fupreme worship is to be paid to him "alone-if they exprefsly and repeatedly maintain the infe"riority of the Son :-then, to give that fupreme worship to "the Son, which is due folely to the Father, is violating a fun"damental principle, and acting contrary to the capital defign "of both natural and revealed religion.'

We fhall only add, that if the Father, Son, and Spirit be not three different Beings, but, as intimated by our Author, one Being in different respects; in that cafe, the Unitarian cannot err with regard to the object of worship. Whereas, if the Son and Spirit be distinct Perfons from the Father (or Beings, which is the fame thing) and likewise inferior to him, then the Trinitarians, by afcribing equal and fupreme honour to them, undoubtedly pay that adoration to others, which alone belongs to the One God and Parent of Universal Nature. K...

ART. XIV. The Patriot. Addreffed to the Electors of Great Britain. 8vo. 6d. Cadell. 1774.

PA

ATRIOTISM, the moft worthy and most glorious of human virtues, hath, of late, in this country, not only fallen from its illuftrious height in the fcale of honourable diftinctions, but is even funk down to contempt, and is become the scorn and the bye-word of the very rabble. He who wishes to fee the various combining caufes of this difgraceful revolu tion, brought into one collective point of view, will meet with the melancholy fatisfaction which he requires, in the perufal of

this

1

this little effay; which is afcribed to one of the first Writers * of the age: the ftyle, indeed, fufficiently fpeaks the pen.

This fapient Obferver precedes his detection of that falfe and multiform patriotism which hath fo long imposed on the undiftinguishing part, that is, the generality, of mankind, and passed itself upon them for the genuine principle, with the following definition of the character of a True Patriot :

• A Patriot is he whofe public conduct is regulated by one fingle motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has for himself neither hope nor fear, neither kindnefs nor refentment, but refers every thing to the common intereft.

The above idea is very feasonably ftarted, at the prefent juncture; that feptennial • Saturnalian feafon,' as the Author terms it, when the freemen of Great Britain may please themselves with the choice of their representatives.-To felect and depute thofe, by whom our laws are to be made, and taxes to be granted, is a high dignity and an important trust and it is the bufinefs of every elector to confider, how this dignity may be well fuftained, and this truft faithfully discharged.

It ought to be deeply impreffed on the minds of all who have voices in this national deliberation, that no man can deserve a feat in parliament who is not a PATRIOT. No other man will protect our rights, no other man can merit our confidence.'

That of 500 men, fuch as this degenerate age affords, a majority can be found, of virtue, fufficient to ftand the test of our Author's definition, he thinks no one will venture to affirm.Yet, fays he, there is no good in defpondence: vigilance and activity often effect more than was expected. Let us take a Patriot where we can meet him; and that we may not flatter ourselves with false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive: for a man may have the external appearance of a Patriot, without the confti-, tuent qualities; as false coins have often luftre, though they want weight.'

In his enumeration of the marks by which the various kinds of falfe Patriots may be known, he particularly distinguishes the two following claffes:

1. Those who claim a place in the lift of Patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting oppofition to the court.

2. Those who start up into Patriotifm only by diffeminating discontent, and propagating reports of fecret influence, of dan gerous counfels, of violated rights, and encroaching ufurpation.

• The Author of the RAMBLER.

X 2

Thefe

Thefe and other common marks of Patriotifm are here briefly but clearly examined; and it is fhewn that they are all fuch as artifice may easily counterfeit, or folly mifapply. The Author then proceeds to inquire whether there are not fome characteristical modes of fpeaking and acting, which may prove a man to be NOT A PATRIOT. And here he takes occafion to animadvert on the conduct of those who are ever ready to blow the coals of difcord, and embroil their country with its neighbours.

As war, fays he, is one of the heaviest national evils, a calamity, in which every fpecies of mifery is involved; as it fets the general fafety to hazard, suspends commerce, and desolates the country; as it expofes great numbers to hardfhips, dangers, captivity, and death; no man, who defires the public profperity, will inflame national refentment by aggravating minute injuries, or enforcing difputable sights of little importance.

It may therefore be fafely pronounced, that those men are no Patriots, who when the national honour was vindicated in the fight of Europe, and the Spaniards having invaded what they called their own, had fhrunk to a difavowal of their attempt and a ceffion of their claim, would ftill have inftigated us to a war for a bleak and barren fpot in the Magellanic ocean, of which no ufe could be made, unless it were a place of exile for the hypocrites of Patriotism.

Yet let it not be forgotten, that by the howling violence of patriotic rage, the nation was for a time exasperated to fuch madnefs, that for a barren rock under a ftormy fky, we might have now been fighting and dying, had not our competitors been wifer than ourselves; and those who are now courting the favour of the people by noify profeffions of public fpirit, would, while they were counting the profits of their artifice, have enjoyed the patriotic pleafure of hearing fometimes, that thoufands had been flaughtered in a battle, and fometimes that a navy had been difpeopled by poifoned air and corrupted food." The Author alfo introduces the following remarks on the out-cry that has been raifed against the Canada Bill:

No man, who loves his country, fills the nation with clamorous complaints, that the Proteftant religion is in danger, becaufe Popery is established in the extenfive province of Quebec, a falfehood fo open and fhameless, that it can need no confutation among thofe, who know, that of which it is almoft impoffible for the most unenlightened zealot to be ignorant,

That Quebec is on the other fide of the Atlantic, at too great a diftance, to do much good or harm to the European world:

That the inhabitants, being French, were always Papifts, who are certainly more dangerous, as enemies than as fubjects:

That