Apostles have done?" (Vol. xxv. p. 348.) Our Test Laws are represented as offering "studied insult," the most gross and flagrant insult," to a class of men, and inflicting on them "the severest injury." (Vol. xxv. p. 94.) "The leaven of intolerance," it is also said, "which was from the first intimately mixed with the religious and civil constitution of this country, still remains in the penal laws respecting Religion, with which our civil code continues to be disgraced." (Jan. 1797, p. 82.) And again, "To speak of the members of an enlightened ministry as anxiously studying and patiently explaining the divine oracles, which they have sworn to understand and explain in a sense already fixed by the Church, is a manifest inconsistency." (Ibid.) We are further informed, how these gentlemen would frame a more perfect "scheme of religious worship" than that of the Church of England; (Mar. 1797, p. 317.) and that "officiating priests, splendid temples and rites, &c." are only not "prohibited" by Christianity. (Oct. 1798, p. 145.)

Yet all this, though it condemn our laws, our articles, our liturgy; and dispenses with our temples and priests, is tolerable in comparison of what follows. Mr. George Dyer writes scurrilous verses on Clergymen of the Establishment, denominates them "fools and boobies," accuses them of hypocrisy, ignorance, sloth, and sensuality; and compares respect for the profession to that which was formerly entertained for "witchcraft." The Monthly Reviewers, who quote the lines as "containing a specimen of the author's judgment of our established clergy," "fear that there is much truth in his strictures." (Vol. xxv. p. 108.) Similar sentiments are entertained on the subject by Mr. Dyer's friend, Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge. "Priesthood," says Mr. Dyer, "in his estimation, was the grand adversary, or, to use his own language, the great black devil, whom all good non-cons should oppose. Had he known how, he would. have destroyed this enemy." (Jan. 1797, p. 14.) And it may be safely concluded, from several of his publications, that a more bitter enemy than Mr. Robinson the Church of England never had. Yet, on reviewing Memoirs of the

Life and Writings of Mr. Robinson, by Mr. George Dyer, the highest encomiums, with scarcely a shadow of censure, are bestowed on them by the critics under consideration. "Both as a theologian and a politician," they observe,Mr. Dyer "has given proofs of great integrity, liberality, and benevolence, and has shewn himself an active and zealous champion in the cause of civil and religious freedom." "Mr. Robinson's characteristic feature," it is also observed, "was the love of liberty; and many of his writings were levelled against civil and ecclesiastical tyranny.” His advances from orthodoxy to socinianism are called "his growing liberality;" and the reader is assured, that he "will find much to admire both in the character itself, and in the manner in which it is exhibited." (Ibid. p. 10.) Is it not then pretty clear, what kind of dispositions towards the Church of England these Reviewers entertain? And have we not here also a lamentable proof how very little of that candour and liberality, about which they are perpetually haranguing, this description of writers really possesses? Do they not chiefly seem to mean by liberality, an approbation of Democracy, Dissent, and Socinianism?

That our critics disapprove of the doctrines of the established Church has been made sufficiently manifest already. The fact, however, is fully confirmed by their treatment of Mr. Fellowes's discourses. In these Sermons, as was proved in a preceding number, several leading doctrines of the national confession are flatly denied and contradicted. Yet his system of divinity is recommended by the Monthly Reviewers, with unusual warmth, and without the smallest qualification. "We are pleased," they observe, "to find that Mr. Fellowes has spoken so plainly on this subject; and we could wish that his example were followed by every clergyman throughout the kingdom. In this instance, they ought to pursue a fearless conduct; and, despising the censure of heterodoxy, which the vulgar and bigotted may cast on them, resolve to give senseless fanaticism no quarter." The greatest advantages would be obtained, they proceed to intimate, "were Clergymen in the esta

blishment, and the liberally educated among Dissenters, to persevere in preaching like Mr. Fellowes." He is therefore urged to persevere in the same strain; and their readers are treated with a quotation declaratory of Mr. Fellowes's ardent attachment to "pure, sincere, rational, moral, and benevolent Christianity;" and of his utter "detestation" of "cant," "hypocrisy," and "fanaticism," which he represents as marking the characters of "several writers of the present day, from whom better things might have been expected;" and as extending "from those in low to those in high places." (Oct. 1801, p. 212.) They might have added, as a proof of their own candour, and that of Mr. Fellowes (for the information occurs in the pages immediately adjoining) that these "several writers in low and high places" are making Christianity itself an instrument for the propagation of vice, and the diffusion of misery!" "through stubborn ignorance or perfidious wickedness sapping the strong foundations of morality;" circulating, "with uncommon industry and zeal, doctrines which tend to deter even good men from the practice of virtue, and which powerfully impel bad men on in the career of wickedness," &c. &c. (See p. 1, 2.) And whose cant, we now ask, can be more disgusting than their's, who at the same time boast of their benevolence and liberality, and make such assertions as these? Do the Monthly Reviewers ever commend such abuse of Deists, Socinians, and Republicans? No; they reproved even the candid Bishop Watson, for being too "uncharitable to unbelievers." (Vol. xxv. p. 216.) But, they can endure any severity against another description of characters: the low, senseless, impious, malignant ribaldry of Peter Pindar affords them entertainment, when directed against eminent orthodox writers of the Church of England. (Dec. 1799. p. 463.)

Seeing so much amiss then in the established theology, it is natural for our critics to use such language as the following: "We may admire the writings of those who endeavour to correct the misapprehensions of men respecting the Christian Religion, but we can

scarcely expect that their effect will be very extensive, at least for the present. The march of truth is slow." (Oct. 1798, p. 145.) This observation occurs in their review of Mr. Belsham's Theological Letters. Let us therefore examine what advances towards a perfect system of our religion this gentleman has made. Here we find Christianity disencumbered from the perplexing doctrines of original depravity," the "atonement" of the Son of God, and "the influence of the Spirit on the mind for moral purposes;" as well as the evil to be apprehended from Satanic influence, &c. &c. "Original depravity, atonement, and the like," Mr. Belsham says, "constitute no part of the Christianity of the New Testament." And, speaking of the terms of acceptance with God, as stated by an orthodox writer, he affirms, "that not a single word, no, not even a trace, or a shadow of them, is to be found in the Christian Scriptures!!" (Ibid. p. 149.) These notions, the attentive reader will perceive, bear a strong resemblance to the principles of Mr. Fellowes, for which our Reviewers have expressed such regard. They are also very nearly allied to the sentiments of their friends Dyer, Robinson, Wakefield, Kentish, and Priestley. (See above, and Jan. 1797, p. 118.) therefore it might be expected," all," they say, who peruse Mr. Belsham's book, "must allow that he is clear in argument, liberal in conception and expression, and sincerely desirous of appreciating the value" of the work he examines; that "taken altogether, Mr. Belsham's Letters are not only extremely candid, but evince a critical knowledge of the Scriptures, and a profundity of thought and reflection." In the following passage the Reviewers say, Mr. Belsham "has neatly expressed their own ideas on the subject.” Jesus and his Apostles, says Mr. Belsham, "neither positively affirm nor authoritatively contradict the existence and agency of an evil spirit; but express themselves exactly as the rest of their contemporaries did. Happily for us, there is no evidence from reason to prove that any spirit, good or evil, shares with the Supreme in the government of the universe; nor do the Scriptures, carefully

دو

As

studied and rightly uuderstood, authorize any such unphilosophical and mischievous opinion." (Oct. 1798, p. 148.) With the language of the New Testament in view, much of this appears to us extraordinary indeed; and we think we have here good authority for affirming, that the Monthly Reviewers countenance writers who mutilate the doctrines of Christianity.

We will only further notice the remarks of these Journalists on the theological works of Dr. Geddes. This Divine appears to have left even Mr. Belsham far behind. At least, as our critics say, "Dr. Geddes leads the way in a new march of Hebrew criticism." (Vol. xxv. p. 406.) Dr. Geddes has discovered that "the historical books of the Old Testament were not written under the influence of a divine inspiration;" that "the Hebrew historians, like all other historians, wrote from such documents as they could find; popular traditions, OLD SONGS, or public registers; were, like other historians, liable to mistake; were not more intelligent or judicious, and were AT LEAST EQUALLY CREDULOUS:" that they "put into the mouth of the Lord words which he never spake; and assign unto him views and motives which he never had." According to Dr. Geddes, the three first chapters in Genesis contain only a "PHILOSOPHICAL MYTHOS;""the voice of the Lord means only thunder;" and Elijah, like Romulus, was "carried off by a thunder storm," Dr. Geddes says, "The God of Moses, Jehovah, if he really be such as he is described in the Pentateuch, is not the God whom I adore, nor the God whom I could love." Nor would Dr. Geddes change his opinion if St. Paul himself should unequivocally contradict it. On the supposition that after his utmost efforts to evade the force of 2 Tim. iii. 16. critics may decide against him, he observes, "I would then say, that the word inspiration must, in the language of Paul, have a different meaning from that which our Divines have affixed to it; or, that on this occasion, as on some other occasions, he spoke the prejudices of the Jews, or availed himself of those preju

dices to enforce his doctrine. In short, I would say any thing rather than believe, even on the authority of Paul, that every thing recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures was dictated by a divine unerring spirit." (See pref. to vol. ii. and pref. to vol. i.) But our limits forbid us to proceed. A most excellent confutation of these daring positions may be seen in the British Critic, commencing in the number for January, 1802, which, as the learned writer acknowledges," amounts to a direct charge of blasphemy againsť” Dr. Geddes.* Yet, on this presumptuous, blasphemous Dr. Geddes, the Monthly Reviewers bestow the very highest encomiums, and not the smallest portion of censure; and exert their utmost ingenuity to give his works celebrity, and to promote its circulation. "The appearance of such a translator and commentator," they say, "will, no doubt, be hailed by every liberai advocate for revealed religion: for the age of enlightened criticism is at hand, if not already arrived; and whatever cannot bear the touch of Ithuriel's spear will be considered as belonging to the region of error and darkness." They "cannot but rank the work among the literary acquisitions of the present age." They "admire the plain unequivocal manner in which he delivers his opinion," however they "may differ from him on many points.” “A free and manly judgment, associated with real learning and rational criticism" is "found in uniform exertion." "He melts down the hyperbolical phrases of the East to their genuine and literal meaning;" and "the biblical scholar has much to expect from the full body of his criticism." The approvers of the Doctor's system are "judicious Divines: those whom his observations startle, are weak minds;" and it is a ridiculous and "timid veneration, through the medium of which these sacred books have been viewed by the generality of Christian scholars," and of "Christian Divines.” "He judiciously observes," our critics say, "that the Hebrew historians have a

* See also our Review for the present month.

FUL

greater resemblance to Homer than to Herodotus, and to Herodotus than to Thucydides. To the first of these writers they in many respects bear a striking similitude. Like him they are continually blending real facts with FANCIMYTHOLOGY, ascribing natural events to supernatural causes, and introducing a divine agency on every extraordinary occurrence.' They adopt Dr. Geddes's leading position, which rejects inspiration, on other occasions; and ridicule the learned author of the "Pursuits of Literature," for censuring him, &c. &c. (See Vol. xxv. p. 282; March 1797, p. 304; Feb. p. 222; Oct. p. 219.)-This then is what we call countenancing writers who lessen men's veneration for the Bible itself.

That in all periodical works there must be found occasional, and perhaps unavoidable deviations from their real principles, arising partly from negligence, partly from the necessity of employing the services of different persons whose sentiments may not strictly accord with those of the conductors, and partly from a want of sufficient time to revise and correct the contributions thus furnished, will readily be acknowledged. But it is not of the occasional deviations, but of the uniform and systematic tendency of the Monthly Review that we complain. Their plan is as we have represented it, and their departure from it in some instances may be accounted for from the causes which have just been mentioned. We have said enough, however, to convince our readers of the dangerous nature of the Review in question, and to set parents on their guard against exposing their children to its insidious influence, which is perseveringly, and without doubt ably, employed in undermining that salutary regard for establishments, and that veneration for scriptural truth, which are the best safeguards both of public and individual happiness.

To the Editors of the Christian Observer.

THE inclosed Letter was written soon after the publication of that number of the Anti-Jacobin to which it refers;

but for divers reasons the author did not forward it for publication. It is now submitted whether you will think proper to admit the same into your Christian Observer. The object of the letter is to expose the unfairness and disingenuity of the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers, whose reflections upon writers of a certain class are addressed ad ignorantiam or ad invidiam of the generality of readers.

To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review. Audi alteram partem.-HOR.

SIR,

In looking over your original criticism on More's Strictures on Female Education, given in your number for the Month of October last (1799) I observed, that after the very high and just encomiums, which are there bestowed on that work, your Reviewer adds, "We must not, however, pass over wholly without notice page 297, where our author somewhat too hastily commences commentator; and seduced, as it should seem, by her natural partiality towards every thing that appears to be ingenious, gives a novel turn to the Epistle of St. Paul, &c." The passage in Mrs. More's work, to which your Reviewer refers, stands thus: "The apostolical order and method in this respect deserve notice and imitation; for it is observable, that the earlier parts of most of the Epistles abound in the doctrines of Christianity, while those latter chapters, which wind up the subject, exhibit all the duties which grow out of them, as the natural and necessary productions of such a living root."—And then, after stating what she thinks to be the error of those "who would make Christianity to consist of doctrines only," on the one hand; and "of the mere moralists" on the other, Mrs. More proceeds," But Paul himself, who was at least as sound a theologian as any of his commentators, settles the matter another way, by making the duties of the twelfth [chapter] grow out of the doctrines of the antecedent eleven, just as any other consequence grows out of its cause." Now you will pardon me, Mr. Editor, when I assure