and every mischief that have been, or can possibly be, ascribed to that system, which is not compatible with Socinianism.

Thus, in defending Mr. Stone, the reason, they say, why some other clergymen were not formerly treated as he has been, was, "that the evil genius of methodism had not then stolen into our churches and cathedrals, and made even the coat of purple and the sleeve of lawn a receptacle for superstition and intolerance." (Vol. 14, p. 166; and 182.) Now, in the name of common sense, are our bishops turned methodists?-So, in their critique on Mr. Nares's sermon, preached by appointment before the University of Oxford, they break out into a most violent philippic against the absurdities of "Methodism," and the "fanatics of the Evangelical school." Are then Mr. Nares, and the University of Oxford who appointed such a preacher, methodists and fanatics? So we are to believe. And why? Because this "learned theologue," our reviewers "thinks it not enough' say, not enough" to disperse "the simple morality of the Gospel, enforced by the impressive sanction of a future life;" "though this," they tell us, "comprizes all the religion that Christ taught." He (Mr. Nares) must add the doctrines of incarnation, of the atonement, of hereditary depravity, of the moral incapacity of man, of justification by faith, &c. &c., which would only bewilder the minds of the people in the east as much as they do in the west. Indeed," they add, "for every moral purpose, the Hindoos might as well be left under the influence of their present superstitions, as have their minds perplexed and their affections chilled by that deleterious doctrine which the Evangelical missionaries would instil." (Vol. 14, P. 432.)—————In another article, in the same number, while "Unitarians" are every thing that Christians should be, those who talk the language of our Church are classed with "the disciples of Whitfield and and of Wesley," and represented as either "out of their senses or "incorrigible hypocrites." To give colour to this charge, quotations are produced, in common, from the Methodist and Evangelical Magazines, the works of some wild clergymen of the Establishment, whose procedure is condemned by every sound churchman, and from our admirable communion service. To supply an instance of the latter, what, they profanely ask, would a stranger think, who should hear any persons maintain that their "depravity was hereditary," but that "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction," had been made for them by the sufferings of a God who had come upon earth about eighteen centuries ago, and been put to death by his own creatures; that the blood which this God, who made man, and yet was born of a woman, shed, was a fountain of purification," &c.? "Who that heard this, and similar jargon, which would be talked by, a nation of methodists, would not believe that every man, woman, and child among them were out of their senses; or that they were an incorrigible mass of hypocrites, w*****, and rogues?" (Vol. 14, p. 384.) A writer who has said, that " Unitarianism is the half-way house to infidelity," is told," he might with more truth have asserted, that Methodism is the last stage of vice, where. all the roads meet that lead to the gallows from all the sources of

دو

crimes." "The truth," they say, "is, that the speculative principles of methodism about innate depravity, vicarious punishment, imputed righteousness, &c. are of such a nature, that if they were made a practical rule of life, they would tear up the pery foundation of society, and banish every particle of truth, justice, and humanity from among men." "Their belief (that of the methodists) is fundamentally and systematically vicious and viciating." It is "more pernicious" than " popery" or the "immoral poison diffused over the earth by the atheists of France." (Vol. 14, p. 381– 392, &c. &c.)

And yet, besides thus representing as branches of this belief, and as constituting it, all the leading doctrines of the Church of England, these reviewers say, expressly, and continually, speaking, of the methodists, that "the TENETS OF THAT SECT, however opposite they may be to the Scriptures, ARE CONGENIAL WITH THE ARTICLES: that the "CREED OF THE CALVINISTS is, ipso facto, the CREED OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH:" and that "before, therefore, this spurious Christianity which passes at times under the name of Calvinism, and at others is designated by that of Methodism, can be more effectually combated by the clergy, the Liturgy and Articles must be sedulously revised, and no doctrines introduced which are not indisputably agreeable to the Scriptures, and fitted to unite the most jarring sects in the bonds of peace." &c. &c. (Vol. 13, p. 182; 14, 166, 180.) And thus are the sober and scriptural doctrines of our Church rendered odious through their association with enthusiasm: thus are her orthodox sons made responsible for principles and practices which they detest, and which they do their utmost to restrain and repress: and thus, charmingly, are promoted the pestilent projects of Unitarian Reformers.

Such, Sir, is a specimen of the manner in which these critics treat the laws and institutions, the Liturgy and confessions, the dogtrines and clergy of our venerable Church. Such also, as it was proved in a former letter, is the manner in which they treat on subjects relating to our admirable civil government. And, if any circumstance be wanting to consummate this display of unprincipled impudence, and scandalous falsehood, this is supplied, in the continual boast which these reviewers make of candour and liberality, and of freedom from "all sectarian bias or antipathies;” in the zeal with which they inculcate the superiority of "charity" to doctrine, and assure us that this is indeed the all in all with them in religion, that they "belong to no sect but that of CHARITY;" and in the confidence they express, that however they may differ in opinion from any of the subjects of their remarks, "no persons can say they do not review their productions with impartiality; and hold all personalities, as unjustifiable and ungentlemanly!!!" As if its editors had resolved to insult the common sense and common feelings of their readers in the highest degree possible, this blackguard publication really abounds with aggravations of this sort. (See, e. g. Vol. 11, P. 178, 344, 448; 12, 212, 448; 14, 388; 15, 385, &c.) It would, surely, furnish an instance of unparallelled absurdity and hypocrisy, to contrast their unceasing professions

on this head with their uniform conduct, not only towards orthodox churchmen, but towards every other party or people who are not deists or unitarians in religion, and something very like jacobins in politics.

What then, I ask again, must not be the mischief occasioned by this publication? If, through the exertions of such critics, and the facilities afforded by book clubs and circulating libraries, unsuspecting youth, and half-attached manhood, are incessantly to receive this account of the established religion, and of every thing connected with it; if the divine service in which they are. to join, the doctrines they are to be taught, and the minister to whom they are to listen, are thus incessantly to be traduced and vilified; if all regard to truth and decency is to be neglected, and Billinsgate is to be thus ransacked for epithets of ignominy to heap on them, what can be the result but the increasing desertion and abandonment of the Church? And what could hence be expected to ensue, but an increasing inundation of enthusiasm on the one hand, and of irreligion on the other? And, if they should succeed in overthrowing the Church, how inevitably would follow all the horrors of civil discord?-Must not such a publication also strongly tend to promote infidelity itself? If all that has been holden sacred for eighteen centuries be thus charged with absurdity and extravagance; if the general body of divines, whose pretensions to wisdom and integrity have so long appeared plausible and been admitted as just, are after all found to have been such bigotted fools or interested knaves; will it not require some thing more than their own professions to convince mankind that our critics and their new system are any better? And will not the natural conclusion in respect to religion be, that all is uncertainty, and folly, and knavery together?..

Yet even here the mischievous efforts of our reviewers do not terminate. It will not surprise the intelligent advocate of his Church, who knows how exactly her doctrines correspond with the Sacred Writings, to be further informed, that in precisely the same manner as these critics treat the formularies of this Church, they also treat the Holy Scriptures. This, however, is the fact. Upon some parts of the Sacred Volume they lavish their most unsparing and accustomed abuse: other very important and extensive parts of it, they represent as having occasioned, by its abstruseness, many "absurd and senseless doctrines ;" and maintain that, on the whole, it would have been happy for the Church to have been rid of it: while the rest, they strip of all pretensions to inspiration, reduce to mere "human compositions," which "like the other works of man 66 are 'subject to error," and "partake of the imperfections of humanity;" which also from the circumstances under which they were composed, might be expected to contain much fiction and corruption together with their historical relations; and which, in fact, do contain many "traditionary fictions," fabulous narrations," and erroneous doctrines. It has already appeared, how these critics extol as a zealous friend of truth" an author, who, as the Critical Review itself had before informed us, "has reasoned himself into a disbelief of a great

"

دو

تو

part of the Sacred Volume; and who seems to repose an undoubting confidence scarcely in any portion of Scripture, excepting the Apocalypse." (See Letter III.) Happily, however, here their witness agrees not together," either in respect to the Apocalypse or the Gospels. The book on which Mr. Evanson is said so implicitly to rely, our reviewers contemptuously reject. And in. regard to "our four canonical Gospels,' with Mr. Evanson "that of Luke is a genuine production, while the other three are the forgeries of a later age: whereas these critics, with Eichhorn, give this exclusive honour of genuineness and "originality" to John, and think the other three compilations from such documents as could be found at the end of the second century; and that particularly "Luke founded his Gospel principally on the basis of that of Marcion; a heretic who "rejected the divine authority of the Old Testament." (See Vol. 12, P. 380; 10, p. 449–465 ) Whoever carefully peruses their, review of "Wette on the Old Testament," will see what a contemptible opinion these critics entertain of many parts, if not the whole, of this portion of Scripture. This, indeed, is not done without caution and reserve. But this consideration amounts to little. "Such," this Critical Review has informed us, "has been the zeal of infidelity, so various have been the forms which it has of late assumed, that (extraordinary and even ridiculous as it may to some appear) it is not impossible for an explanation of the Bible to issue from the pen of one, whose greatest satisfaction it would be to obscure its truth, to corrupt its purity, and to destroy its influence." (See Vol. 4, p. 373; 8, p. 472—483.) Such cautions or professions stand for nothing with the present writer; as his object is not to ascertain the private sentiments of the critics under his consideration, but to show the pernicious tendency of their writings. Of this, too, he will leave his readers to judge for themselves, after furnishing them with a further distinct specimen of the reviewer's language on the subject in question.

They say, then, that the Apocalypse is a “mere visionary representation, the product of some potent but deluded fancy;" “a chaos of confusion;" and deserves no more regard than "the delusive dreams or incoherent suppositions of any man in a state of delirium." They speak also of "the sanguinary spirit and unrelenting ferocity which are evinced" in it.- "All the Chris tianity," they add, "which is necessary for salvation, is contained in the four Gospels; and the peace of the Church would kave been much less disturbed, IF THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL, which St. Peter himself confesses that he found it difficult to understand, had BERISHED WITH THE CHURCHES TO WHICH THEY WERE FIRST ADDRESSED, and for whose direction, in many points of temporary expediency or fugitive interest, they were particularly composed."-Then, as to these Gospels, only one of the four, it has already appeared, is allowed the credit of originality, and that they are merely "human compositions," and exceedingly adulterated with superstitions and errors. Our present canonical Gospels, it is maintained, were not known, nor used by the Fathers, until the close of the second century; and that at this period they were

approved by the Church, not because they were deemed inspired compositions, but because of the many human compositions, which then existed on the same subject, they were deemed the best." It is added, however, that "all the biographical notes of Jesus, which were most current in the two first centuries," and which are quoted by the Fathers, are "very different," "palpably different," and " essentially different from our present canonical Gaspels:" as different, to specify one instance, as the simple representation of Jesus as "the Son of Joseph and Mary," and the ascribing to him a "miraculous conception," and Divine origin. The original Gospel is represented to have been far more concise and simple. "The Apostles," it is said, "knew nothing of the miraculous conception;" but "that in proportion as the Fathers lived later they pretended to know more," and made continual additions to the primitive history of Jesus. It is remarked, moreover, in respect to the Evangelists, that "there are several strange and marvellous appearances in their historical relations...in the popular idiom in which they are expressed, or (as in the case of Demonides) in the popular superstition and vulgar creed with which they were incorporated: improprieties... which are quite abhorrent from our present sentiments." Our reviewers talk, therefore, of being still able "to separate the original life of Jesus from all subsequent additions, and from the same to recompose a life of Jesus purified from the traditions of a later period." The answers, they say, "which the Fathers of the Church give to questions" on this subject are futile and absurd." (See Vol. 11. P. 113-119; 12, p. 212, 374-382; 10, P. 449–465).

How different is this

"state

What insufferable arrogance is all this. mode of treating the Divine Records, from that of Bacon and Boyle, of Locke and Newton; or even from that of Lardner and Paley! When, however, together with the "Thirty-nine absurdities," and our "idolatrous" Liturgy, the Epistles of St. Paul, and all other objectionable parts of the Bible are dismissed, and the remainder of the Sacred Book is properly modernised and reformed, we shall have made considerable advances towards the new of moral existence and social bliss" which, our reviewers and their associates are labouring to introduce. Then the simple form of subscription for our teachers of religion may run thus: "I A. B. promise from my heart, that I will renounce every other system as old-fashioned and foolish, and that I will conform my religious instructions to the new Gospel, or life of Jesus, which has been composed by certain celebrated foreign critics, who have lately assisted in accomplishing wonderful events in their own country, and by their illuminated brethren in this kingdom." Thus shall we prove our selves superior to vulgar prejudices, and worthy of the enlightened age in which we live. Thus shall we be calmly placed in "the frozen zone of Christianity," and any persons who shall still find the smallest restraints on their conduct from this religion which are disagreeable, may easily, by taking a single step further, pass into and wanton without control inthe regions of scepticism and infidelity.

But seriously, do we not behold in this Review an extraordinary accumulation of those evils which we are taught so earnestly to