Great is the advantage produced, in a subject of this na ture, by the concife and diftinct claufes into which it is divided; by affifting the memory, and giving frequent opportunity for reflection and examination of authorities. The claufes or fections are 98 in number; the greater part of them confined to a page, or half a page, or even lefs; after each of which the reader may conveniently paufe, and weigh the pofition laid down, with the utmost attention of his mind. This is the way, if any can be, to fee the fubject clearly, and to proceed in it without danger of miflake. We fhall notice fome of the moft ftriking claufes. The favourite pofition of fome reafoners, that "Where myftery begins, religion ends," is thus foundly and briefly oppofed by the bifhop. "The affertion is erroneous. For nothing can be fo mysterious as the existence of God. Yet to believe that God exists, is the foundation of all religion." Cl. z. Thus it appears that, fo far from being true, the pretended axiom is in diametrical oppofition to the truth; fince where religion begins myftery begins alfo; and they are infeparable. The 15 firit claufes are metaphyfical, but firike our minds as clear and good, except the laft; which does not feem to us to convey a juft illustration. When he proceeds to hiftorical arguments the learned prelate alludes in 16. to the widely extended and very ancient notion of a triad in the Deity, as ftated by Cudworth, Parker, and Maurice; and he afterwards more fully fhows his opinion to be, that fome notion of the Trinity was revealed to the Patriarchs, retained by the Jews, and tranfmitted to the Pagans, but by them corrupted and disfigured. This is an opinion now very generally held by found divines. He then notices the two Revelations, and comparing the two perfons by whom they were delivered, concludes with much flrength for the divinity of Chrift. "The divine legation of Mofes is demonftrated by the certainty of the miracles, which God empowered him to work; and by the fulfilment of the predictions, which God enabled him to deliver. But of Mofes, in the fcripture it was never faid, that he pre-existed before he appeared on earth; that he was fupernaturally born into this world; that after death he did not experience corruption, but previously to any fuch corruption rofe from the grave. Mofes gave not laws either promulgated in his own name, or intended for all mankind, or applicable to all conditions, fituations, places, times. Mofes never was reprefented as impeccable; nor as knowing the moft fecret thoughts, words, and actions, of Man; nor as poffeffing inherent efficacy for giving agility to the lame, hearing to the deaf, fpeech to the dumb, fight to the blind, life to the dead, and this fpontaneously and on all Occafions which to himself might feem proper. Mofes never on his own authority pronounced pardon and forgiveness to fin. He never afferts of himself, that he fhould lay down his life for his true difciples; that his true difciples fhould not perish, but have everlasting life; that he had power to lay down and then to refume life; that he was the author of refurrection and life; that he would call forth the dead from their graves; that he fhould judge all mankind, and affign to every one his just and final retribution; that he was to be honoured even as God the Father is honoured ; that he was in divine glory with God the Father before he came upon earth; that to fuch glory he fhould return; that God was his Father, and himself was the Son of God, in the most lofty and adorable fenfe which thofe terms could bear, according to the apprehenfion of the Jews. Mofes never fpoke explicitly of heavenly things; promifed nor future rewards; fent not apoftles to teach all nations, and admit difciples by a form of words which profefs the worship of himself no less than that of the Father; and of the Holy Spirit. Mofes received no teftimony by voice from heaven that he was the Son of God; is no where ftyled the Saviour of mankind; the Lord; the Lord whom ye feek; the exprefs image of the invifible God, in which image the fulness of Godhead dwells; that Eternal Life which was with the Father; Emmanuel or God amongst men in the exercife of his divine powers; nor the Sun of Righteoufnefs; nor Jehovah our Righteousness; nor the word of God; nor Creator of all things that have been created; nor in a direct and unqualified manner is he ftyled God. It is however fact, that every propofition here denied with refpect to Mofes, may on the grounds of Scripture be pofitively affirmed with regard to Chrift. The inference is obvious: Mofes was human; Chrift was divine." P. 12. On the plural expreffions refpecting God, in the Old Testament, the bishop is very clear and rather full: but an odd miftake has crept into xxvii. where he fays, "The words of Mofes are," In the beginning Bara Elohim created the heaven and the earth;" now, as it is quite impoflible that the bishop should not know that Bara, inftead of being a title, is the very word which fignifies created, we cannot at all account for fo fingular an error. It should have ftood," In the beginning, Elohim created," &c. The fubject of the form of baptifm, commanded by our Saviour, which is in truth an invincible ftrong hold of the doctrine, is very ably treated in this tract; particularly in 33. The following illuftration of the mode in which the Evangelifts atteft both the humanity and divinity of our Sa viour, is particularly forcible and good. U u $RIT. CRIT. VOL. XXV. JUNE, 1805. "The "The Evangelifts undeniably describe our Lord as a Man. But did they mean nothing more than to defcribe him as a man only? If fo, whence thefe expreffions?" What manner of Man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (St. Matt. viii. 27.) "Thou art the Chrift, the Son of the living God." (St. Matt. xvi. 17.) "Truly this was the Son of God." (Matt. xxvii. 54.) "I faw and bare record that this is the Son of God." (St. John, i. 34.)" We believe and are fure that thou art the Chrift, the Son of the living God." (St. John, vi. 69.) "My Lord! and my God!" (St. John, xx. 28.) No one, who understands the language of Scripture, will fay the term "Son," as used in these paffages, has no farther import than what it usually implies in common acceptation. The Jews perfectly understood our Lord to intimate divinity of character by that appellation and hence their anger, that he fhould affume to himself a title fo exalted. The Evangelifts then defigned to reprefent his nature as alfo more than human. For this purpofe they introduced the confeffions made on several occafions, as teftimonies to the divinity of his nature. The fame divinity they proved alfo by recording a series of facts, the refult of conftantly inherent powers, fuch as never refided in mere man. "Undeniably alfo Chrift often ftyles himfelf" the Son of Man." But wherefore? In allufion to Dan. vii. 14, and with intimation that he was himfelf the character defcribed by the prophet. What then is the reprefentation of Chrift's perfon and glory delineated by Daniel? Is it that of a mere Man? The plaineft reader can answer, when he has confidered these words; "I law in the night vifions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Antient of Days, and they brought him near before him ; And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages fhould ferve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which fhall not pafs away, and his kingdom. that which shall not be deftroyed." P. 33. The difciples are represented in the Gospels as worshipping our Saviour on two or three occafions; the meaning of the term, and the neceflary inference to be drawn from it, are thus laid down. "The acceptation of porxvvew must be determined by the context. On fome occafions it is ufed to exprefs the act of proftration, as a mark by which Orientals paid outward refpect: on others, it is applied to exprefs the fame act accompanied with an inward fenfe of devotion, and therefore intended as a token of religious worship. When, according to the Septuagint, Mofes fays in Exodus, ii. 8. "All these thy fervants fhall come unto me and poσxt, the word is to be understood and rendered, as our English Verfion has understood and rendered it, "fhall bow themselves down to me:" not in token of religious worship; but as a mark of refpect. For, neither could Mofes mean to intimate, nor in itfelf was the circumftance fuch as might in any degree be expected to happen, that the Egyptian fervants of Pharaoh, who were grofs idolaters, and who de tested tefted the Ifraelites, should ever mean to worship Mofes, though they proftrated themselves before him. "Bow themfelves down" to him, as to a man whom they feared, they naturally might, in the hope of foftening his refentment and prevailing on him to interpofe for averting evil: but that they should intend to worship him as a God is inconceivable, because irreconcileable with Egyptian ideas. But, when, after our Lord had exercised command over the elements, which at his word obeyed him, his difciples wapotekuvσav auTy (St. Matt. xiv. 33.), and accompanied their external act with this confeffion, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God !" when, after they had seen an open manifestation of our Lord's divine glory at his afcenfion, the difciples were προσκυνήσαντες αυτῷ, before they returned to Jerufalem (St. Luke, xxiv. 52), there can be no more doubt that they meant religious worship, than that St. Stephen meant actually to pray unto Chrift, when in his dying moments he called on his Saviour, "Lord Jefu receive my fpirit!" (Acts, vii. 59.)" P. 37. "Never, after their return from captivity in Babylon, did the Jews relapfe into idolatry. They held it in abhorrence. When therefore they offered to our Lord religious fervice, his difciples must have been convinced his nature was divine, on account of which it could not be idolatrous to adore him." P. 39. Our common verfion of Rom. ix. 5, and the reading on which it depends, are defended by the bishop in § 53 and 54. The whole paffage, indeed, as thus read and interpreted, is fo confonant to the general language and doctrine of St. Paul, that we cannot doubt of its conveying his true fentiments. $57, treats of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and fuggefts the beft proofs of its being written by St. Paul. 72, which is longer than ufual, is employed on the Athanafian Creed, and materially illuftrates feveral points. The topic of the Fathers of the Church is taken up in 74, and is very ably handled. Whether the Anti-Nicene Chriftians held the doctrine of the Trinity or not, the bifhop properly confiders as a question of fact, and relies for the determination of it on that unanswerable work, in praise of which too much cannot be faid, the "Defenfio Fidei Nicene" of Bp. Bull. The following paffage is well worthy of the confideration of those perfons who think they fee metaphyfical objections to the doctrine of the Trinity. "Men, good and acting on the moft pure intention, have indeed imagined they could comprehend God's Effential Nature and Eternal Existence better in Unity, than in Trinity. Their thought however could be but imaginary. For, provided they maintained (what most have maintained) not any Materiality, but the Spirituality of God, they could then no more form an accurate idea of God's Effential Nature and Eternal Exiftence in Unity, than they could in Trinity. They could precifely and diftinétly know nothing in one, or in the Uuz other other cafe. And wherefore? For the fame reafon that a Man bor blind knows nothing of Light in the Solar Orb. We have no powers of mind commenfurate to any particle of fuch a fubject as divine Effential Nature and Eternal Existence." P. 95. We have thus noticed the paffages which appear to us the moft remarkable in this very valuable publication. We shall conclude by recommending to all men the caution conveyed in these two fections. ་ $92." For our religious principles, whilft they are confined to ourselves, we are refponfible to God only. For the manner in which we openly declare our religious principles, and for the conduct we purfue under the influence of them, we are refponfible to fociety alfo." P. 102. $93. "As the forming of right opinions depends upon a combination of many circumstances, how far it may or may not be in our own power to form right opinions, admits of a queftion, But about the impropriety of injuring fociety by any mode of propagating our opinions, there fhould be no queftion. For, nothing can be more clear, than that man living in fociety, is bound by moral and political obliga, tions not to injure fuch fociety either by word or deed." P. 102. The right rev. author concludes with the Collect of our church for Trinity Sunday, which he juftly, in our opinion, confiders as a very fine fpecimen of clearness and comprehenfion combined." The references in his notes are very numerous, and prove that he has read much, as well as thought, on the momentous fubject of his book. It is dedicated to Mr. Addington, to whom, as a private friend, the fame author long ago dedicated his "Apology for the Monoftrophics," (1784.) The praifes of the upright minifter are here juftily united with thofe of the religious monarch; and our conftitution itself is confidered as dedicated to God, by the perfect union of religion with its civil polity. May this conftitution, and the fovereign who fo ftrenuoully fupports it, ftill enjoy the protection of divine Providence! ART. VIII. Adeline Mowbray, or the Mother and Daughter, a Tale in Three Volumes. By Mrs. Opie. 12mo. 13s. 6d. Longman and Rees. 1805. MANY productions of the prefent author are well known not only to us, but to the public. Of the prefent, we fhall fpeak with all the impartiality that mortal critics can mufter in fuch cafes. The ftory of this novel may be thus briefly comprised. Adeline, naturally amiable, but neglected in early |