superficial scholar, that in this passage there is no mention of he who at all; for, though the article frequently expresses this pronoun, it is here simply an article; and, in order to use it as a pronoun, the translators are obliged to disjoin it from the noun to which it is prefixed, and to supply the verb is, in order to complete the sense. The translation would run literally thus: "Till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, in his own times, THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTATE WILL SHEW; the King of kings and Lord of lords, alone having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom none of men hath beheld, nor is able to behold; to whom be honour and power everlasting. "What, Sir, are we to think of all this? And with what grave modesty or consistency do you and your party stand forward to accuse us of setting Scripture on the rack, and forcing it to give a testimony! What becomes of your boast of pressing us home with Bible-truths, and hooking us on a text? Remember, Sir, it is dreadful when men take the gospel of God into their own hands, and modify and mitigate it ACCORDING TO THEIR FANCIES.'-British Review, p. 209." -Pp. 130-133. Servetus concludes his letter with the following spirited passage, relating to one of the common-places of orthodox invective: "I reserve for the last what you appear to think the grand demonstration of our being a false church: namely, the alleged frigidity of our spirit of proselytism, and the confined scale of our missionary operations. And here again you forget our dwindled and dwindling numbers, and our utter insignificance and obscurity as a religious society. But, Sir, may I be allowed to question the purity of that disinterested zeal for the souls of men, which you blazon in miraculous pulpit-narratives and Bible-society orations; and, creeping into houses, make captive easy women,' whom you flatter by comparing with the Marys and the Magdalenes that followed the steps of Jesus? You act, Sir, upon Heathens, upon gross and half-intellectual savages, who embrace your faith, and who accept, as the bread from heaven, the Calvinistic gospel. But your brethren have, properly, an instinctive horror both of a Jew and a Mahometan. It is only equalled by their horror of a Unitarian. The very mention of the latter, in connexion with a Mahometan, is thought of sufficient point to save a page of reasoning; and this with your party is, at least, something. You seem equally ignorant with the lowest of the vulgar, that the imposture of the Koran is ingrafted on the Mosaic and Christian Scriptures. The Hindoo, who worships a shapeless stone as his household deity, is the constant object of your almost weeping concern. The dupe of the false prophet, who notwithstanding, abhors an idol, and who maintains there is no other god but God,' is shunned as if he were a wild beast, rather than one of those whom the common Father of all has made of one blood to dwell on the face of the whole earth.' Though at one time you reproach us with our apathy in the work of proselytism, at another you make merry with our zeal. The fact is, we do not please you in selecting our subjects. The desire to convert the Mahometans, which our people have sometimes manifested, is called having a warm side towards them.' The insinuation will serve just as well for the Trinitarian promoters of missions to the triad-worshiping HINDOOS. The same indifference appears in your treatment of moral Atheists and philosophical Deists. Here, again, you seem to shrink back with a conscious hollowness' of cause, and appear not at all solicitous to snatch them as brands from the burning.' Your motive for whatever presumes or enforces the for this coldness is, in part, your aversion reasonableness of Christianity. You are sensible that the intelligent sceptic will not yield up his reason to that which contradicts reason. Believing that the contradiction to human reason is the great evidence of supernatural truth, you make no attempt to produce conviction by reasoning; but, when pressed by infidel arguments, reply by uttering the damnatory clauses of your creed, and thanking God that you are not as other men are.' The hardness of your creed, and the terrific medium through which you contemplate God, have their natural effect in familiarizing to your imagination a cool, and perhaps self-complacent, estimate of the numbers sealed to perdition. "But, Sir, if we cannot boast so much of our missionary miracles abroad, we have not buried our single talent' at home. We may at least say, though without the boasting of the godly, that, in this our native land, we have sown the seeds of that righteousness which alone exalteth a nation.' Many of our countrymen, through our preaching of the gospel in its simplicity,' have been brought to the knowledge of a God' who is love,' and to the practical obedience of the gospel which he gave by his Son. We have paramount calls and claims upon our sympathies and our resources. We have to assist those who, by studying the Scripture for them- LORD OF HOSTS! MY KING and MY GOD!" The British Review is, we apprehend, very little known amongst Unitarians: for their sake an answer was not necessary: but when it is considered, that the charge which is not answered is commonly pronounced unanswerable, and that there is a large class of readers who are easily imposed upon, by the specious misrepresentations and oracular decisions of Reviewers, Servetus's defence of his brethren must be allowed to be seasonable, and to entitle him to the thanks of "the sect every where spoken against" and every where prevailing. ART. III.-Reflections upon the History of the Creation in the Book of Genesis: a Discourse, delivered at Warrington, August 19, 1821: and published at the Request of the Ministers, and of the Congregation. By Thomas Belsham, Minister of the Chapel in Essex Street, Strand. 8vo. pp. 36. Hunter. a lively interest amongst theologians, and the controversy which it has occasioned must be allowed to be of considerable importance. Mr. Belsham states his opinions with his usual clearness, and maintains them with his usual ability. The question to which the sermon has given rise will therefore be argued with this advantage, that the preacher has not left the possibility of a doubt concerning what he himself intends. Mr. Belsham takes for his text Gen. i. 1, and states in the introduc tion to his discourse his acquiescence in the conjecture of some learned men, that this book is a compilation of ancient documents. These, he thinks, may be traced to at least three dif ferent writers; for this he assigns the following reasons: "First, that there are many passages, and some whole chapters, in which the word God (in the original Elohim) is constantly used to denote the Supreme Being, and no other title is applied to the Divine Majesty. Secondly, in other pas sages the word Lord (in the original Jehovah) only is used, and the appellation God is excluded; excepting that in a few instances it is joined with the other, and the Divine Being is called JehovahElohim, the Lord God. Thirdly, there are other passages, and even whole chapters, from which the words, both God and Lord, and every other title expressive of the Supreme Being, are altogether excluded, which must have been intentional, if it were not the effect of igno rance; because, in the greater part of the books of the Old Testament, and even in the other portions of the book of Genesis itself, the words God or Lord, occur in almost every sentence."-P. 3. It is probable, according to Mr. Belsham, that some of the documents existed previously to the age of Mo ses; amongst which he reckons those chapters and sections in which the title God is applied to the Supreme Being, and where the word Jehovah does not occur. He refers for proof to Exod. vi. 6. After these introductory critical remarks, Mr. Belsham proceeds to state those great and important moral truths to which the writer of the narrative of HIS is not one of those sermons the creation bears his solemn testi lished. The pages of the Monthly Repository shew that it has excited Creator, the Former, the Sovereign the earth, the seas, and of all their productions and inhabitants: that God possesses almighty power, unerring wisdom, and unbounded goodness: and, finally, that there is no other God but ONE; one Creator, one Preserver, one Universal Benefactor, one Being, possessed of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, one sole object of all religious homage and adoration. These truths Mr. Belsham thinks the writer did not deliver by immediate inspiration, because his narrative ❝contains many great philosophical errors:" on the other hand, he cannot allow that he attained to the knowledge of so pure and perfect a system of theology, by the exercise of his own intellectual powers: the only remaining hypothesis is that he derived his beautiful theism from an anterior revelation, preserved by tradition. The second part of the Sermon is a detail of the account of the creation, and a specification of the mistakes into which Mr. Belsham supposes the writer to have been led by an erroneous philosophy. His system of philosophy, says the preacher, is that which arises from the observation of the most obvious appearances of the universe, and which existed before science began. He believed that light might exist in the absence of the sun, as it appears to do in the morning and evening twilight. He regarded the firmament as a solid arch, which separated the waters above from the waters below. He conceived of the sun and moon as lamps fixed in the solid firmament for the convenience and comfort of the inhabitants of the earth, and of the stars as mere ornamental spangles. In these and other particulars, Mr. Belsham regards the writer's account as directly and palpably inconsistent with what is now demonstrated to be the true theory of the universe; and he pronounces the attempts to reconcile the Mosaical cosmogony to philosophical truth to be unsatisfactory and useless, and even injurious to the cause of revealed religion. This conclusion sets aside the inspiration of the narrative, but inspiration is not claimed by the writer, nor does the divine legation of Moses, as a prophet or lawgiver, depend upon the supposition. At the same time, the preacher is forward to express his unqualified admiration of some pas sages of the history. Referring to its assertion of the infinite power of God, he says, "And this great truth it does not express in explicit language, but in a manner peculiarly emphatic and sublime: by representing the most extraordinary effects as produced instantaneously by a divine command. God said, 'Let there be light, and there was light let there be a firmament, aud there was a firmament.' Thus asserting and illustrating the infinite facility and the absolute instantaneity of the Divine operation. There is no lapse of time, however momentary, between the volition and the effect: God wills and it is done. Not that will and power are oue and the same thing in the Supreme Being, as some have erroneously asserted; but they are co-ordinate, coexistent, there is no interval, not an instant between volition and effect. This is a representation of Divine Omnipotence so original and magnificent, that it never occurred to any Heathen writer: and it is for this reason selected by the most judicious and the most celebrated of all the ancient critics, as a grand and unparalleled example of the true sublime."— Pp. 9, 10. Of the account of the creation of man, he remarks, "But thus much we may at least affirm, without fear of contradiction, that nothing can be more rational, more probable, or more dignified, than this account of the creation of the human species. There is nothing low or ludicrous in the narrative. The human pair are created at once, both at the same time, male and female, at the fiat of the Almighty: they are made sovereigns of the new-created world: and are inducted into their high office with all things ready prepared for their accommodation, with a grant of the whole vegetable creation for their food, and of dominion over the various tribes of animals for their convenience and use. The whole transaction is dignified and sublime, and in all respects worthy of the character and attributes of the great Former and Parent of mankind."-P. 25. As this interesting discourse is at this moment a subject of discussion between our correspondents, we have confined ourselves to such an analysis of its contents as may put the reader in possession of Mr. Belsham's opinions; and we shall observe only that considerable latitude has been Review.-Dr. T. Rees's Sermon on the Trinity. always granted to divines in the interpretation of the Pentateuch, that some modern "orthodox" names might be cited to countenance some of the boldest positions of the sermon, and that the interpretation of the history of the creation as allegorical, an interpretation adopted to evade philosophical difficulties, has the sanction of some of the most eminent Fathers. ART. IV.-Objections to the Doctrine DR. R. T. REES applies the solemn expostulation of his text, Isaiah xl. 25, to the believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, and after stating this doctrine in the words of the autho rized formularies of the Church of England, proceeds to substantiate the following objections to it: 1. It multiplies the number of deities, and consequently of the objects of divine worship. 2. It derogates from the perfection and dignity of the divine attributes and character. 3. It introduces confusion and perplexity into divine worship. 4. It is repugnant to the Scriptures, and introduces the utmost confusion of ideas into the account given in the sacred oracles of the history of Jesus Christ and of the plan of human salvation under the Gospel dispensation. Having ably urged these objections, and shewn that they are fatal to the doctrine in question, the preacher examines the plea for this and other irrational dogmas that they are mysteries, and exposes its futility. Some pertinent notes are added. One of these consists of representations of Trinitarianism by Trinitarians, in a series of extracts, supplied by our correspondent Benevolus, XVI. 637 and 715, on which Dr. T. Rees remarks, Ju the preceding extracts the idea which most shocks the pious mind is that of the death of God, which some of them expressly inculcate; and it is deeply to be lamented that such a notion should VOL, XVII. be incorporated with the language of our Saviour. "Explaining how perfection suffered Almighty languish'd, and Eternal How by her patient victor Death was And Earth profan'd, yet blessed with Dissenters, commending the PracART. V.-An Address to Protestant tice of Sitting while Singing the Praises of God in Public Worship. 2nd ed. 12mo. Hunter. 1821. HIS tract was first published in TH 1807, occasioned by a publication entitled, " An Appeal to Serious Dissenters of every Denomination, concerning the present irreverent Posture of Sitting while Singing the Praises of God in Public Worship, &c.; by A Layman;" and this second. edition appeared in 1817, but is now republished with an additional Preface, which consists of gossip relating to Dr. Collyer, and his clerk, and cer tain other personages. Notwithsanding this unpromising introduction, we have found some sound sense in the address. The author is a sturdy Nonconformist, and sets himself against new-fangled practices by which Dissenters imitate Methodists, who themselves imitate the Church of England. The question that he discusses is confessedly one of mere expediency, and if the custom of standing in prayer (which appears to us to be the most decent and reverent posture in a pubbe no doubt, that to exact the same lic assembly) be retained, there can posture in singing also would be to many worshipers inconvenient, and to some, whom we need not particu larize, distressing. CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. ART. I.-Additions to the Historical HE "Historical Memoirs" have ΤΗ been already brought before the reader (XV. 48-51). This continuation consists of additional matter, and of a proposed new arrangement of the whole work, by which it may be read in chronological order. Prefixed to the present volumes is a chapter of upwards of 50 pages, entitled "The Author's Works and some of his Reminiscences." Here the writer may incur with the censorious, the charge of egotism, but so amiable is his vanity, that we should rejoice to hear that his "Reminiscences" were continued and enlarged. Amongst them we find the following candid remark upon the celebrated Code Napoleon: "The writer apprehends that the five codes of law, compiled under the eye of Buonaparte, though in some respects justly objectionable, will always be honourable to his memory. He himself thought so favourably of them, as to express to a friend of the writer a wish, that he might descend to posterity with these in his hands."-P. xix. Referring to a tract in his Hora Biblicæ, entitled, "Historical Account of the Controversy respecting 1 John v. 7," he says, "The arguments against the authenticity of the verse are very strong; but the admission of it into the Confession of Faith presented by the Catholic bishops to Hunnerie, (Hunneric ?) the Vandal King, is an argument of weight in its favour. The statement of these by the writer, was allowed by Mr. Porson, the late learned adversary of the verse, to be very strong, and he promised the writer to reply to them."-P. xxxvi. Reasoning on the decree of the Council of Constance relating to the nullity of safe-conducts granted to heretics, Mr. Butler puts the following case: "If a person should now publish, within any part of the united empire of Great Britain and Ireland, a work against the Trinity, and make some place beyond the seas, his residence; and his Majesty should grant him a safe-conduct to any part of his cis-marine dominions, both in going and returning, would this safeconduct protect the offender against the process of any of his Majesty's civil or spiritual courts?"-III. 103. This hypothetical reasoning affords but a poor apology for the trucebreakers of Constance; and the case proceeds upon the supposition, which we are astonished that so eminent a lawyer as Mr. Butler should have indulged, that impugning the Trinity is still a punishable offence in law. He quotes from the "Commentaire du Chevalier Folard sur Polybe," published in 1727, the following remarkable prediction of the French Revolution: Europe, by means at once so subtle and "A conspiracy is actually forming in efficacious, that I am sorry not to have come into the world thirty years later, to witness its result. It must be confessed that the sovereigns of Europe wear very bad spectacles. The proofs of it are mathematical, if such proofs ever were, of a conspiracy."-III. p. 111, Note. ler Of the Act of Toleration, Mr. Butsays, under which this act was passed, we civil liberty gained by it considerably : must admit that the general cause of if we view it without reference to these, we shall be more scandalized by the niggardliness than edified by the liberality of the boon which the Protestant Dissenters then received from the new government."-IV. 223. "If we reflect on all the circumstances He quotes, from Dalrymple, a curithat King William obtained a report ous document, from which it appears, denominations of Church-of-Englandof the numerical strength of the three lics, in England, in order to found men, Dissenters, and Roman Cathoupon it some measure of union. It is stated in this that the number of Freeholders was 2,599,786, of whom the Nonconformists were 108,676, and the "Papists" 13,856. The following is |