"Joseph. can of course be no other than Josephus, and Josephus ap. Phot, can be no other than the Jewish historian, from whose works Photius has made some extracts. The term Toias, used by Josephus, struck me immediately as not a little extraordinary; and though I knew that some Christiau Fathers had tampered with his works, I felt persuaded from my recollection of the passages cited by the author of the Myriobiblon, that the term had not been foisted into any of them. Not being wholly unacquainted with the learned patriarch's work, a little search discovered to me the real author, one Jobius, a monk of the sixth century, distinguished by his fanciful defence of the orthodox doctrine. I will allow what, I fear, you would not, in similar circumstances, graut to a Unitarian writer, that this wrong reference was the consequence, not of design, but of inadvertence; but there is something so imposing and so misleading to an unwary reader, in the connexion of plural Hebrew terms, as names of God, the Trinity and Josephus, a Jewish writer known to be contemporary with the apostles, that I could not suffer the error, trifling as it may perhaps be thought by some, to pass unnoticed and uncorrected."-P. 114. We are much pleased with the following reply to an ill-considered interrogation: "You go on to inquire, Why are the names, and attributes, and works, and worship of the Divinity, ascribed to a certain character, appearing upon different occasions throughout the Old Testament; and more particularly appropriated by the prophets, in almost every variety of application, to the Messiah?' In answer to this inquiry, I must be permitted to say, Produce the passages; prove that such things as belong to the true God, are ascribed to any other than to Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the reason shall be given.”— Pp. 116, 117. The Archdeacon of Cleveland appeals to the Baptismal formula and to the apostolic benediction-nor to these alone, but to numberless passages in the New Testament,—as involving the irresistible conclusion VOL. XX. of the doctrine of the Trinity; upon which language [ numberless passages'] his antagonist pertinently remarks, that it is "somewhat hyperbolical," and that the dignitary here displays "more of the orator than of the divine."-P. 118. As to the Baptismal formula, Mr. Wellbeloved fairly questions the propriety of Matt. xxviii. 19, being so denominated; since there is not an instance on record of its having been ever used in the apostolic age. He explains the passage, as well as 2 Cor. xiii. 14, [an apostolic benediction,] with sound judgment and learning, with perspicuity and success.-Pp. 119 123. The Ven. Archdeacon inquires, Why, with more especial reference to the second person of the Trinity, do we read that the word, which was made flesh, and dwelt among us, was God, even God over all, blessed for ever?' His question is answered by another: "Where," the writer of the Three Letters' also asks, "do we read, that the word was God over all, blessed for ever'? Paul, from whom this last phrase is cited, (Rom. ix. 4,) never once speaks of the word; and we Unitarians maintain, that it is not even of Jesus, the preacher of the word, that he here speaks; but of that Great Being, whom he elsewhere calls the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, (2 Cor. xi. 31,) and to whom he ascribes praise for the benefits conferred first in the Jewish, and afterwards in the Christian, dispensation."-Pp. 123, 124. With reference to the Logos of the beloved disciple, the Archdeacon of Cleveland speaks of the intelligible commentary, and the brief and obvious interpretation, of the Church of England: and this interpretation, whatever it be, for we can scarcely discern it, he chooses to contrast with some varying paraphrases by Unitarian expositors. Here he has to encounter another awkward question: "Is this the interpretation of the Church of England? for I do not find that all her sons agree in their comments. Are we to judge of her views respecting this passage [1 John i. 1,] as she declared them by the mouth of Dr. Daniel Waterland, in the year 1719, * John i. 1; 1 John i. 1. at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, The dignitary refers next to John London; or as she afterwards declared v. 21: As the Father raiseth up the them, in the years 1764-5, at the very dead, and quickeneth them, even so same place, by the mouth of Dr. Benja- the Son quickeneth whom he will.' min Dawson? If we listen to her first But the twenty-sixth verse of this oracle, we shall be told that In the beginning, before there was any creature; life in himself, so hath he GIVEN to very chapter [As the Father bath (consequently from all eternity) the Word existed; and the Word was no distant, the Son to have life in himself'] might have taught Archdeacon Wrangham, separate power, estranged from God, or unacquainted with Him; but he was that this high prerogative is conferred, with God, and himself also very God: and not essentially inherent. So, not another God, but, another person again, when we read that, as the only, of the same nature, substance and Father knew Him [Jesus Christ], even Godhead. But if we attend to the other, so knew he the Father,' the context we shall learn, that such is not the mean- makes it plain that it is not the pering of the evangelist, but that the Word sonal nature of the Father and of the is the gospel. This was, John tells us, Son, which forms the subject of the from God himself; for that in the begin speaker's observation, but the designs ning, before it was published to the world, it was with God; God was the of the Father and the commission of word, the original author and giver of the Son. it. Which of these are we to regard as the dictate of the Church of England? As you refer to some intelligible commentary, it cannot be the first; I would gladly persuade myself, therefore, that you mean the latter, as this commentary, proceeding from the Metropolitan church, is nearly the same that, I have long been accustomed, as a Unitarian, to maingain."-Pp. 125-127. Nothing of the kind can be more pertinent and conclusive than the reasoning which we have now transcribed. As an argument ad hominem, it is overpowering but it has much more than an individual application, and deserves to stand at the head of "Articles designed to prevent diversities of opinion concerning true Religion!" To the question, Why do we read that in him [Jesus Christ] dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"? Mr. Wellbeloved's answer is the following: "Why did the apostle pray (Eph. iii. 19), that the disciples at Ephesus might be filled with all the fulness of God'"* When the Archdeacon of Cleveland inquires, Why do we read that he had power to forgive sins, (and who can forgive sins but God only?") his censor refers him to Numb. xii. 11; 1 Sam. xv. 24; John xx. 23; and proves that he has mistaken the import of our Lord's words in Matt, ix. 2, 6; in the latter of which verses, let it be further remarked, the term [ovoa] rendered power, signifies delegated power.". Mr. Wellbeloved correctly quotes Coloss. ii. 10, as a parallel text. At the same time, the passage [John x. 14] quoted by Mr. Wellbeloved, effectually repels his antagonist's attempt at erecting on the basis of such phraseology the received tenet of the deity of Christ. In respect of John v. 23, that "all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father," we have it on the Archdeacon of Cleveland's own authority, that the word translated even as frequently denotes, not equality, but such an analogy (in many cases far from complete) as the character of the things spoken of admits." Here we think him indisputably right. Yet, without laying all the stress on this criticism, which, however, it will in reason hear, we interpret the passage by what precedes and follows. Why are all men to honour the Son even as they honour the Father? Clearly because the Father hath COMMITTED to him, (vér. 22,) all judgment. Then comes the inquiry, In what consists this honour? As evidently, in acknowledging the perfections of the Father, and in admitting his attestations to the claims of the Son.+ [Verses 32, 34, 37, 38, 43.] According to Archdeacon Wrangham," Jesus is the true God, and eternal life." It was little probable that an affirmation so unlearned and so unscholar-like, would fail of being corrected by his opponent. "I deny," says the author of the Mon. Repos. XI. 532, &c, The phraseology and sentiment are illustrated by Luke x, 16. Three Letters' "that we do read this, as predicated of Jesus Christ. Our common version (1 John v. 20) is, "This is the true God and eternal life,' and the pronoun This,' refers not to the nearest, but to a remoter antecedent, Him that is true: just as in 2nd Ep. 7, This is a deceiver,' refers not to Jesus Christ, the last antecedent, but to one of the many deceivers,' at the beginning of of the verse. The true God, is not Jesus Christ, but that Being whom he hath given his disciples understanding to know." John xvii. 3.-Pp. 130, 131. With the same perspicuity of method and expression, in the same happy strain of the soundest interpretation, Mr. Wellbeloved compares together certain verses in the chapter to which he has just referred-John xvii. 11, 24, (5,) 21, &c. no less than the transaction and language recorded in John v. 17, 18, explains Heb. i. 8, John x. 18, and such passages as Gal. vi. 18, Eph. vi. 23, &c., and then with reason asks, "Are these the numerous and deci. sive texts, by which the cause of Trinita rianism is to be firmly established?—As a counterbalance to these, you tell your elergy, who, if they were at all acquaint ed with the works of Unitarian writers, must have heard you with some degree of astonishment, that a few passages are brought forward where Christ is represented as commissioned by the Father, as praying to him, and as acknowledging his superiority. A few passages! No, Sir, not a few passages: even those to which you immediately refer are many, and besides those, we produce whole books the general strain and tenor of the Scriptures, from Genesis to the Apo ealypse. We say, and we think that we can prove it, and that we do prove it, that it is uniformly and plainly the lan guage of the Old Testament, that there is but one God, Jehovah, the same who, in the New Testament, is called the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the same doctrine is that of every book of the New Testament; maintained and taught by Jesus himself, and, in the most express terms, by his apostles. We afirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in any single pas sage, that it is inferred only from very few; and that the doctrine of the deity of the founder of Christianity, depends also upon a few scattered texts, separated from their connexion, and interpreted without a just regard to idioms of speech, and the circumstances of the primitive church."-Pp. 136, 137. The author of the "Three Letters," then exposes with uncommon force the gratuitous but convenient hypothesis of "two natures" in Jesus Christ, and sets in array against it the simplicity and clearness of the Unitarian faith. Nor does he pass unnoticed, his antagonist's appeal to the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Of these the Archdeacon of Cleveland produces no neagre cata logue: among these he assures the unlearned reader, that there is a most entire concurrence, as to the point referred to, the Divinity [the Deity] of Christ. "They are meant, however," adds the dignitary, “not to establish that point, for"-and here Mr. Wellbeloved most cordially agrees with him, "better foundation can no inan lay than what is already laid in scrip ture; but to shew," (the Archdeacon continues,) in opposition to vague and illiterate assertions, that the Ante. Nicene Fathers were not Unitarians." Here the author of the "Three Let ters" takes occasion to make some pertinent observations. 66 **** Such assertions you may indeed well From this statemant we cannot withhold our humble praise; it is perfectly accurate and luminous. Mr. Wellbeloved goes on to offer some remarks on the second epistle of Clement of Rome, on the alleged epistle of Barnabas, on certain writings ascribed to Ignatius, on the supposed doxology of Polycarp, &c. &c., which evince his own well-digested learning, and are excellently calculated to place before his readers a fair and equitable view of this part of the controversy. Within the compass of a few pages, he affords to students in Theology In a highly valuable information. note* he speaks of Dr. Priestley's History of the Corruptions of Christianity, and his History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, as works which are not indeed wholly free from mistakes, but which contain more correct and comprehensive views of the opinions of the ancient Chris tian church, and of the progress of error, than are elsewhere to be found: and this sentiment we quote with the greatest pleasure, because it is the sentiment of a capable judge, and because we conscientiously and deliberately think that its justness will continue to be attested, and will finally be established, by time and investigation. Before we dismiss our author's reasoning on the Fathers, we shall produce his comment on one or two clauses in Tertullian : "The words of Tertullian cited by Bishop Bull, in the passage given in your note, p. 46, are not, as you represent them, a formúla; and if the learned prelate means by his communem fidem exponens ait,' to say that the Presbyter of Carthage designed they should be so understood, he is far from correct. Tertullian speaks, indeed, more than once of a rule of faith (regula fidei), but he means by that the substance of the faith, not any form of words; nor is any such form to be found in his writings, or in any of so early a date. Little was known of Creeds before the council of Nice; after that, not a council was held, whatever its object, or however small a number of bishops assembled, but it ended with a new creed, graced with a due portion of anathemas. If any very ancient creed is to be found, it is one given by Paul: 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' This is our confession; thus we believe; and are therefore surely justified when we allege antiquity in our favour."-Pp. 149, 150. With his accustomed correctness, Mr. Wellbeloved intimates, that even this declaration, scriptural, simple and comprehensive as it is, was not employed in apostolic times, as a creed. Of that age it was the creed that Jesus is the Christ. Would that none other had afterwards been prescribed and adopted! We must not wonder that the Arch Pp. 146, 147. deacon of Cleveland approves of the canon applied by Mr. Granville Sharp, Bishop Burgess, &c., to the Greek article in Eph. v. 5, &c.; that last and weakest subterfuge of modern Orthodoxy! Wellbeloved, in reply, "has been most "The fallacy of these rules," says Mr. satisfactorily proved by a very acute though perhaps not sufficiently grave writer, styling himself Gregory Blunt, in six more letters to Granville Sharp; by the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, in a vindication of certain passages in the common English version, &c., and by a critic in the Monthly Review, N. S. Vol. 62 and 67, who, in his remarks on the publications of Bishop Middleton, and Mr. Veysie, has proved himself a master in his art." Pp. 151, 152. We shall now copy the concluding sentences of these Three Letters, both for the true dignity of style, and excellence of spirit, which they manifest, and with the view of preparing our readers for those "Additional" Letters, from the same pen, to which we shall next invite their attention : 7 "If" says Mr. Wellbeloved, "in vindicating the doctrines you have so bitterly. opposed, and the characters you have so wrongfully aspersed, there has been any thing in my manner needlessly harsh and offensive; if I have been betrayed into any thing unbecoming a scholar and a Christian, I here avow my sincere regret, and tender a willing apology. And if I have in any instance, misapprehended your words, and attributed to them a meaning which they will not bear, or which you did not design them to express, or if I have fallen into errors of any other kind, I require only to be convinced, in order publicly to acknowledge and correct them. In such case, only, am I disposed again to notice the subjects of these letters. I have no fondness for controversy, nor any wish to acquire, by practice, polemical dexterity.' The character of a controversialist I have now ART. II.-My Children's Diary; or, the Moral of the Passing Hour. 12mo. pp. 352. Harvey and Darton; and R. Hunter. 6s. 6d. ON N reading the beginning of this book, though pleased with its rationality, we pronounced it dull. We say this to prevent our readers from hastily laying down a work which, on further acquaintance, we have found capable of strongly interesting every judicious parent or intelligent child. It appears to be the production of a woman of highly-cultivated mind, who is an affectionate, wise and truly Christian mother. It offers the picture of a family consisting of parents ever watchful to promote the improvement and happiness of their children, and of children possessing not only all the loveliness and endearing qualities, but all the imperfections likewise, of their period of life. This little sketch from nature points out in a happy manner the right mode and the true objects of rational education. We select one short extract, which will give an idea of the easy way in which the author conveys moral instruction to the mind: "Esther and Mary had formed a pretty nosegay of field flowers, such as the sea. son afforded ***. It was perhaps the last bouquet of the year, and nothing but zeal could have made one so pretty in October. It was difficult to decide who had the largest share in the work, but each had some particular reason for wishing to present it to me, singly; and sorry am I to say that a little dispute arose, such as, happily, is of very rare occurrence in our house, or, although it was conducted without any degree of acrimony on either side, our domestic comfort would be seriously impaired. It does not require a gale to beat down the plants of loveliest growth. "An appeal was made to Grace, and I was amused by hearing her decision. Happy for the world if natious and individuals would act upon her principle! "Which of you is in the right?' said she. "The girls looked at each other. "Why, that is what we wanted you to tell us, Grace.' ** Nay, your own consciences will tell you best; and then, whoever is in the right, must give up to the other.' "The right give up! That seems very odd.' "Not at all. She will be infinitely the best off, after all. It is at all times, and under every circumstance, so much better to be right than wrong, that we can afford to give up any point such as this, when we are quite sure of our ground. And surely it is far nobler to give a boon than to receive oue. Whereas to lose one's aim, and to be in the wrong too-O you would not wish such ill fortune to an enemy!""-Pp. 319, 320. ART. III.-The Primitive Christian Faith. A Discourse, delivered in the Evening Service at the Opening of the Chapel in York Street, St. James's Square, London, December the 19th, 1824: to which is prefixed, the Prayer used after the Liturgy in the Morning Service. By Lant Carpenter, LL.D., one of the Ministers of Lewin's Mead, Bristol. 8vo. pp. 38. Hunter and Eaton 1825. York Street" has excited not a THE "Opening of the Chapel in little attention, and the Unitarian public are much indebted to Dr. Carpenter for presenting to them, through the press, one of the Sermons which he preached on the interesting occasion. From Pet. iii. 15, 16, the preacher delineates "The Primitive Christian Faith," shewing that it is Unitarian, and explaining how far it agrees with, and in what points it differs from, the prevailing theology of our country. The seriousness and candour, as well as the scriptural reasoning, of the Sermon, make it peculiarly worthy of perusal, and must recommend the object near to the author's heart to every intelligent, dispassionate and pious reader. We have been gratified at finding very clearly stated (pp. 14, 15) the ground of dissent from the Established Church, "because by its very constitution it implies the right of the civil magistrate to interfere in matters of religion, which we see reason to believe introduces worldly motives into the solemn concerns of religion, and powerfully tends to make men hypocrites or self-deceivers."-Let the services of York-Street Chapel be carried on in the same spirit with which this |