sound learning and religious education," for their pious and wise exertions in selecting and republishing such articles: &c. &c. (Ibid, see also vol. v, p. 96.)

66

At other times, our authorized books of doctrine, with all similar and contemporary writings of the Reformers, are treated with every species of abuse; and that clergyman's vindication of himself from the charge of heresy is considered as "satisfactory and complete," who affirms that he has no more concern with the 39 Articles than with the reveries of the Koran, or with the fables of the Talmua”!! (Vol. xiii, p. 26.) Now, these "works of the very first-rate impor tance and excellence;" these "authoritative documents" containing "the truly Evangelical principles of these great and holy men ;' these productions of the " enamoured and illustrious votaries of truth" in "the heaven-blest and favoured reformation of the English church," in which, while in all they were admirable, the virtues of " piety, prudence, moderation, and charity" were so "pre-eminently and peculiarly conspicuous;" now alas! these subjects of our critic's highest panegyric, are "unscriptural dogmas and persecuting creeds;" "the relics of popery and superstition;""ambiguous jargon and empty sound" senseless and intolerant confessions of faith;" "the artificial systems, metaphysical creeds, and hypocritical confessions of men;"" the dogmatic afirmations of persons who lived in a period of ignorance and superstition!" Now our thirty-nine Articles of religion are thirty-nine absurdities." Now the liturgy and articles of the church of England contain " many irrational, idolatrous, and unscriptural tenets;" "unscriptural falsehoods, and irrational absurdities ;" and cannot be enforced, as a standard of doctrine, upon the clergy who have subscribed them, "without the utmost aggravation of absurdity." Now those teachers who adhere to this standard, are tied down, “like swine," to " that trough of reputed orthodoxy which is filled with the mere OFFAL of theology ;" and ་ are, priests who do nothing but repeat the old common place of ignorance and superstition." &c. &c. &c. (vol. xii, p. 100, 374, 375, 444; xiii, p. 26-32, 210; xiv, p. 180.) Has the reader ever witnessed in any publication whatever such aggravated, such impudent contradictions and absurdities? or such vulgar abuse?

On some occasions, these critics speak of facts, which, they say, go to establish under divine assistance in each individual the essential conviction of original guilt and depravity, and the necessity of a personal interest in the atonement and merits of Jesus Christ," (vol. xi, p. 144.) Now, "the atonement is a fundamental doctrine of our common Christianity," (vol. v, p. 324.) Now too, the doc, trine of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the other tenets of the orthodox, as stated in our articles of religion, are "doctrines," we are informed, which have been "believed and reverenced by the greatest and best of men, through eighteen revolving centuries," (vol. v, p. 212.) While in this humour, "Unitarians" are “adversaries of our faith," and of the Church, whom it is in the highest de, gree meritorious to attack and refute; and our reviewers have no

"partiality for the theological romances of Dr. Priestley," (vol. v, p. 314; vi, p. 339.)

On other occasions, these theological romances are the only true Christianity. "Christ," they say, "never preached either the doctrine of original sin or of vicarious punishment; these are the contrivances of men who understand not his great commandment, to do as we would be done by, and to love one another. This is the substance of that doctrine which Christ preached; all besides is vanity and strife." "The ministers of the establishment" are therefore exhorted "to confine their preaching to those moral duties which are enjoined in the Evangelists." "These duties," it is said, "constitute the only vital Christianity." All besides, with "orignal sin," "Trinity," and "atonement," expressly, are, in this reviewer's estimate, "vain ceremonials and mysterious creeds;" "a Babylonish jar gon of theological contradictions," (vol. xii, p. 205, 321, 324.) Now, Unitarians are the only clergymen of the Church of England who are allowed to possess either intellect or integrity; all who oppose them are charged with "malice and bigotry," and unprincipled selfishness: while the silly impudence of a Fellowes and the blasphemies of Evanson and Stone are the subject of our critic's highest admiration and panegyric, (vol. xi, p. 94; xii, p. 374; xiii, p. 22→ 33; 178-182), &c. &c.

“vain

In their sixth volume these reviewers highly extol the “Christian system of Mr. Robinson." This writer's "title to praise," they say, "is large and unquestionable." They commend at once his object, doctrines, knowledge, method, style, judgment, temper, piety, and good sense. "His discrimination as a divine," they tell us, "is joined to an animated and earnest execution of his office as a parish priest," and his "work shews that in the discharge of his duty he has acquired that experience by which he is enabled rightly to divide the word," &c. &c.; Mr. R. is, in short, the subject of their warmest panegyric, and is represented by them as nearly a perfect model for clerical imitation. At the same time they say of him, that he exhibits “ideas of the Christian character," which appear to them "to be in conformity with the established criteria of our Church" that he manifests an "exact regard to Scripture, and conformity to the articles of the establishment," (p. 293-308; 412420); yet, elsewhere, these same critics atfirm, that "the tenets which are maintained in the Liturgy of the Church are utterly at variance with the tenets of ALL its ministers who have any pretensions to Biblical knowledge, or who are critically acquainted with the Christian Scriptures"!! (vol. xiii, p. 211.)

In the same volume, in the very strongest manner, the "practical tendency" of this clergyman's system and efforts is commended. "The object of his work," they say, "is to promote the practice of piety and the relative duties;" and they think," he may safely rest the merit of his performance on this test," that his representations are "calculated to secure this point," (p. 306.) "We have already," they remark, "expressed our approbation of the salutary and prac

tical tendency of the Strictures on Justification. The same praise is due to the Essay on 'Salvation by Grace alone,' and to that on the Completion of Sanctification,' (p. 418.) And, speaking of the moral law, they say, "the view here aflorded of the sanctions and motives on which it ought to be practised, will, it is hoped, induce many to a thorough revisal and reform of their principles, who have hitherto acknowledged its authority to a very inadequate extent, and upon very inadequate grounds." Others" will here find the moral system so enlarged and refined by the injunctions of Scripture, as to detect the insufficiency of their scheme, and the questionable nature of those motives which have determined its limits." Here, they say, Mr. R'.s "exposition" is "very masterly," his "address highly interesting and important;" his "expostulations are forcible and pathetic, his exhortations animated and eloquent;" bis "reflections do credit" to his "picty and good sense;" and the "commandments" are so unfolded and enforced, "that scarcely a subterfuge is suffered to escape without detection and reproof," &c. &c. (p. 413--415); yet, clsewhere, these same boasted “guides to the doubtful” affirm, and vehemently maintain, that these very principles, if “acted upon, "world tear up the very foundations of society, and banish every particle of truth, justice, and humanity, from among men !” that it is their direct and obvious tendency to promote every species of wickedness; and, that it is owing to the prevalence of these principles that the nation so abounds with villains, and that there is so much work for the magistrate and the executioner!! (vol. xiii, p. 183; xiv, p. 389). Let not the reader hesitate to believe so shameless an insult on common sense and common decency possible. The Critical Reviewers say expressly, that the principles which they thus reprohate " are congenial with the Articles," the “thirty-nine absurdities ;” (vol. xiv, p. 180), to which, they also say, Mr. Robinson exactly conforms. (See above).

In remarking on this same article, these critics, moreover, expressly recognize and commend, as true and scriptural, and of essential inportance in the Christian system, all those great doctrines of the orthodox, which on many occasions they so ridicule as absurd and mischievous. Mr. R.'s consideration of the apparently hopeless state of man after the fall" is said to be “rational and pious." "In the two Essays on the Atonement," his "reflections are adapted to make a salutary and practical impression." "On the necessity of the Holy Spirit's agency," he is "ample and satisfactory." On the dertrine of "justification by faith alone" he displays an "exact regard to Scripture, and conformity to the articles of the establishment." On the necessity of a "rénovation of principle in a sincere Christian, his expressions are clear and correct." And, having intimated, that "in treating of the mysteriors subjects of the Trinity and the Godhead of the Saviour," some texts are introduced by the author which are only remotely connected with his positions, they ́add: “These doctrines rest upon the firm' and unassailable basis of so any express teats, as to render it entirely unnecessary to superadd

citations whose support is questionable.". Again, formally, in what they call summing up the evidence, and pronouncing their judgment on Mr. R.'s performance, to the same effect, they say: "If in the course of our examination we have hesitated to admit some of the texts adduced in support of the most important doctrines, we are eager to enter our protest against any misinterpretation of our remarks. Our zeal for the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divine nature of Christ and of the Holy Ghost; OUR CONVICTION OF THEIR TRUTH, AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE, are the motives which lead us to a scrupulous investigation of the texts employed to substantiate them." And, "if it be asked," they proceed, "why, in a work professedly practical, subjects of controversial discussion have been at all introduced? the question," we are assured, "can proceed only from those who are totally ignorant of human nature, and of the first principles of moral and intellectual knowledge." Why all this stir,' say they, (that is, these Critical Reviewers at other times) about unintelligible doctrines? Let us lay them aside, and confine ourselves to practice.' The absurdity of such an idea," it is added, "might seem a truism, and the notice of it unnecessary, were it not obvious that its folly is almost equalled by its frequency, and by the obstinacy with which it is maintained:" and such heretics are rightly reminded, that in order to a religious practice, there must be suitable religious principles and motives. (P. 301, 307, 417---419.) Nor is this high commendation of orthodox writers by any means peculiar to the article before us. Similar sentiments are displayed by the critic, in his review of Lloyd, Jerram, Bryan and others; and, especially, as we have seen, in his exalted encomiums on our established forms of doctrine, and on our reformers. (See vol. v, p. 323; vi, p. 211; xi, p. 144; and above p. 67-9.)

Let the reader, then, compare all this with what has been quoted in a preceding page: let him contrast this language of our reviewers with the scorn, the contempt, and outrageous abuse, which they have poured upon this class of doctrines and writers: let him compare these laboured encomiums on the system of Mr. Robinson with their unbounded admiration of those distinguished Socinians, Evanson, Stone, and the modest Fellowes; and with the whole tone and spirit of several of their last numbers: let him observe these critics thus at one time affirming, respecting certain doctrines, that they "rest upon the firm and unassailable basis of many express texts of Scripture;" that they possess a "zeal" for them, a "conviction of their truth and fundamental importance;" and at other times describing these same doctrines, as “unscriptural falsehoods, irrational absurdities," and the bane of morality: let him behold this Critical Review, thus unequivocally condemning its own language and practice, as the result of ignorance, absurdity, and the most obstinate folly: let him recollect how diametrically and vehemently this publication is at variance with itself on almost every important political subject: let him especially mark the tone in which the conductors of this work now

usually reprobate that admirable system of theology, which has been admitted by themselves so pre-eminently to display the wisdom and piety of our venerable reformers; that system which is subscribed by the whole body of our clergy, and which has been maintained by the greatest ornaments of literature and religion, from the days of the apostles: let him, at the same time, hear these reviewers boast loudly of impartial justice," "pure principles," and the most exalted charity; and prefer the very highest claim to public confidence: let a reader of common sense, and common honesty, attend to these circumstances, and say, whether he is acquainted with any other publication, which is so strongly characterized by contradictory absurdity, vulgar imbecility, and shameless impudence; and whether the fact, that such a work can obtain any degree of circulation, or possess the smallest credit, is not a very serious reflection upon us? Intending, at another opportunity, to shew that this is by no means the worst of this Review, in the mean time,

I am, Sir, with due respect, yours,

DETECTOR.

POLITICS.

HAVING, in the Historical View prefixed to the Appendix of Vol. XXX, which was written before the receipt of the last intelligence from Portugal and France, taken as extensive a view as the limits of our work will admit of the political state of Europe, we little expected that any thing further would occur to call for present animadversion. In that View we anticipated the unconditional surrender of the French army in Portugal, and of the Russian fleet in the Tagus. And never was anticipation better justified by the circumstances on which it was founded. In proportion, then, as our exultation was high at the glorious news of the victory of Vimiera, was our disappointment deep, at the subsequent intelligence of the Convention of Cintra. No event, which has occurred from the commencement of the last war to the present moment, however disastrous, however big with present disappointment, and with future calamity, has created such a depression of spirits, such an anguish of heart, as this fatal act. When we first saw the dismal account, we inclined to discredit the testimony of our own senses; and we read it again and again, before our mind would admit a full conviction of its reality. In the first moment of mingled indignation and grief, we would not venture to submit our thoughts on the subject to paper; but, unfortunately, reflection has