nions, that in asserting the doctrine of the Trinity they do a very inconsistent, intemperate, unaccountable thing;---and, in a very recent case, they have resolved to shut their eyes against all contravening proof, and at least would appear to persuade themselves, that Penn and Barclay were disciples of Socinus and Servetus.

This opinion was maintained, a year or two ago, in some pamphlets which the world at large either never knew, or has forgotten. Another work better known, which assumed the same tone, was Mr. Evans's "Sketch of the Denominations," &c. To this gentleman our author addressed two letters, to afford him the opportunity of correcting his mistakes in subsequent editions. From the reception these letters met with, Mr. B. " discovered that impartiality was not to be expected from the author of the Sketch." The last of these letters is inserted in the volume before us, and contains a general view of the questions, which are discussed at length in the body of the work; and from this letter we make the following extracts, which will satisfy our readers whether the early Friends' held Socinian principles.

"The following paragraph in page 151 of the Sketch appears more likely to mislead the reader, than to give information: And no writer of acknowledged reputation amongst them has admitted any distinction of persons in the Deity.' It is true that they have uniformly objected to the school terms, persons, subsistences, or substances, as applied to the Deity; but if from thence the reader was to conclude they disbelieved in the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, he would fall into an error, as the following extract from William Penn's Key to the Quakers' Religion and Perversions of it' may serve to prove.

Perversion 9. The Quakers deny the Trinity.

:

Principles. Nothing less they believe in the holy Three or the Trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to the Scriptures, and that these three are truly and properly one: of one nature as well as will, but they are very tender of quitting Scripture terms and phrases for schoolmens,' such as distinct and separate persons and subsistences, &c. are, from whence people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and they judge that a curious enquiry into these high and divine revelations, and other speculative subjects, though never so great truths in themselves, tend little to godliness, and less to peace.'

"Richard Claridge, who was contemporary with William Penn, andwho therefore must be supposed to be in possession of his real sentiments; upon his Sandy Foundation Shaken, writes as follows:

That which William Penn refuted was not the doctrine of the holy Trinity, as it is declared in the Scriptures of Truth; but the notion of three distinct separate persons, as the title page plainly shows: for W. P. sincerely owned and doth own the Scripture Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Mat. xxviii. 19. 1 Tim. ii. 5, &e. And whatever the holy Scriptures testify concerning him, we unfeignedly believe: but the invented phrases of three distinct and separate persons, we use not, because they are unscriptural, and because they that do use them, as they are forced to acknowledge they are no Scripture phrases, so neither are they

agreed about the explication of them, but have contradicted and written one against another; and darken and expose the mystery itself through their cloudy and incoherent interpretations. And as we distinguish between a Scripture Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which we unfeignedly believe, and that humanly devised Trinity of three distinct and separate persons, which we receive not, because the holy Scriptures make no mention of it; so we distinguish between the Scripture redemption and the vulgar doctrine of satisfaction: the first we receive, the second we reject.'

"Richard Claridge has so very explicitly expressed Friends' belief in Christ, that I trust no apology will be necessary for inserting it in this place. 'We do believe, that he was and is both God and Man, in wonderful union, not a God by creation or office, as some hold; nor man by the assumption of an human body only, without a reasonable soul, as others; nor that the manhood was swallowed up of the Godhead, as a third sort grossly fancy, but God uncreated. See John i. 1 to 3. Col. i. 17. Heb. i 8 to 12. "The true God," 1 John v. 20. "The great God." Tit. ii. 13. "The Lord of glory." James ii. 1. "King of kings, and Lord of lords." Rev. xix. 16. "Which is, which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Rev. i. S. "The same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." Heb. xiii. 8. 'And Man conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, see Luke i. 31. 35. "Who suffered for our salvation." Hath "given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour," Eph. v. 2. And by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained" or found, as the word signifies,'" eternal redemption for us." 'Heb. ix. 12.' In the following passage, W. Penn vindicates himself expressly from the charge of Socinianism.

This conclusive argument for the proof of Christ, the Saviour, being God, should certainly persuade all sober persons of my innocency, and my adversaries' malice. He, that is the everlasting wisdom, the divine power, the only saviour, the creating word of all things, (whether visible or invisible) and their upholder by his own power, is without contradiction God; but all these qualifications and divine properties are, by the concurrent testimonies of Scripture, ascribed to the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore without a scruple, I call and believe him really to be the mighty God.' p. 7.

Instead of inserting such an explicit declaration of sentiment, Mr. Evans refers, as our author remarks,

to the character of Socinus, of whom Penn seems to have enter tained a favourable opinion, from his having abandoned the pleasures and honours of a court for conscience sake. This charitable view of the character of Socinus may be gratifying to those who adopt the opinions that are distinguished by his name, but it leaves the reader where it found him as to Penn's religious sentiments. This citation being however given as illustrative of his opinions, must it not have been intended to impress the reader with an idea that Penn and Socinus had the same views respecting the nature of Christ?' pp. 27, 28.

The sentiments of Fox are clearly stated to the same effect.

Mr. Evans had remarked, that Barclay in his confession and catechism, used only the words of Scripture respecting the resurrection of the body and the Divinity of Christ, without expressing the manner in which he understood them. But these words of Scripture' are used as answers or proofs to such questions as the following. "Was not Jesus Christ in being before he appeared in the flesh? what clear Scriptures prove this against such as erroneously assert the contrary?" "What Scriptures prove the Divinity of Christ against such as falsely deny the same?" "What are the glorious names the Scripture gives unto Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God?" "After what manner doth the Scripture assert the conjunction and unity of the Eternal Son of God, in and with the Man Christ Jesus?"

"But Barclay's Catechism is not the only place wherein we are to look for his belief in the Divinity of Christ, he having fully and explicitly expressed himself thereupon in his Apology, as follows:

This is that Jesus Christ, by whom God created all things, by whom and for whom all things were created, that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, Col. i. 16. He himself saith, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John' xiv. 6. Hence he is fitly called the mediator betwixt God and man. For having been with God from all eternity, being himself God, and also in time partaking of the nature of Man, through him is the goodness and love of God conveyed to mankind, and by him again man receiveth and partaketh of these mercies.' 2 Prop. 5." p. 4.

Again Barclay complains of Brown's perversion of his senti

ments.

He' (Brown) 'proceedeth also basely to insinuate, that I deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God; albeit he doth not so much as pretend to any colour for it from my words. In pursuance of this, in the following page, he insinuates as if I meant not the first, but the second creation, and so joined with Socinus; which is a gross calumny like the former.' p. 60.

In another place, referring to the same Brown, he says, p. 61.

His next perversion is yet more gross and abusive, p. 228, where, from my denying that we equal ourselves to that holy man, the Lord Jesus Christ, &c. in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, he concludes, I affirm him to be no more but a holy man, and because I use the words Plenitudo Divinitatis, that I deny his Deity, which is an abominable falsehood. I detest that doctrine of the Socinians, and deny there is any ground for their distinction; and when I confess him to be an holy man, I deny him not to be GOD, as this man most injuriously would insinuate; for I confess him to be really true God and true man.'

Of this nature were the quotations with which Mr. B. furnished the author of the Sketch, but of which the latter declined to avail himself. These and various other symptoms of unfair

ness and misrepresentation, on points of importance, the public will expect Mr. E. to explain. Is it not unfortunate that such oversights should happen among the zealous champions of liberality and moderation, as are seldom, if ever, to be found in those who are stigmatized as intolerant and bigoted? Mr. B. has detected similar mistakes in Verax's appeal, which he refutes step by step, extracting, at length, passages from the early friends which Verax had mutilated and perverted, by leaving out, as it suited him, whole sentences, or important expressions. We strongly suspect this writer, who has endeavoured to undermine the opinions and faith of the Friends in such a dastardly manner, and who defends the cause of H. Barnard with so much virulence and disingenuity, to have been no less a person than the late notorious Evanson. Many of his opinions on the Jewish Wars, on the authenticity of the Gospels, &c. which Hannah Barnard adopted, are here satisfactorily refuted..

Much of this work is employed in defending the Society of Friends, against the charge of bigotry and intolerance in refusing their sanction to the labours of Hannah Barnard, an Ame rican speaker, who had embraced Socinian and deistical opinions. The proceedings of the Friends in England appear to have been regular, upright, and temperate; they refused their certificate of her unity with them, and recommended her to discontinue preaching and return home. We are glad to find that those, on the other side of the water, to whom the more rigid points of discipline properly belonged, have not declined from their original principles, nor hesitated to declare them; but have confirmed the opinions of their English brethren, by disowning H. Barnard as a member of their religious Society.'

21

6

Mr. B. justly observes, that in a work written on the defensive, the author is not at liberty to choose his own ground.' This may sufficiently account for his performance being less perspicuous and inviting than we could have wished. We have sufficient authority, however, for believing, that the Friends' in general.consider the work as a proper vindication of their opi

nions.

Art. VIII. Poems, suggested chiefly by scenes in Asia Minor, Syria and Greece, with Prefaces extracted from the Author's Journal. Embellished with Two Views of the Scamander, and the Aqueduct over the Simois. By the late J.D. Carlyle, B. D. F. S. E. 4to. pp. 150. White. Price 10s. 6d. 1805.

WE are sorry to have so long delayed noticing this posthu

mous work of the late amiable Carlyle, professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. We are informed in a neat and modest Preface that it is edited by his sister; and that in his travels to the Easthe laid the foundation of that disease, which

on his return, terminated in his death,' in 1801. The following extract is an account of his poems and travels, which will inform the reader what he may expect in the work before us.

'When the Earl of ELGIN was sent Ambassador to the Porte in 1799, it was thought desirable that his Lord hip should be accompanied by some person of eminent learning, who might improve the facilities then offered by the friendly disposition of that court, of ascertaining what treasures of literature were to be found in the public libraries of Constantinople.

For this service Mr. CARLYLE was particularly well qualified; and, the unsolicited selection of him on the occasion was in the highest degree honourable to his talents and character. His researches were not confined to Constantinople; he visited also Asia-Minor, and the islands and shores of the Archipelago; and the scenes, which there ingaged his attention, suggested the subjects of the principal Poems contained in this volume. Pref. ii. iii.

It is introduced by a respectable list of subscribers, and consists of the following subjects. 1. Descriptive Poems, among which, is one written, On the banks of the Bosphorus;" another, On viewing Athens from the Pnyx, by the light of a waning moon;' and another, whose title is also romantic and prepossessing, On being disappointed in a prospect of Parnassus, from the heights between Eleusis and Megara. 2. Translations from the Arabic. 3. Original Poems.

The poems are illustrated by selections from the author's common place-book, of which the following is a specimen; and as it was written, of course, while the glow of fancy was at its height, and the costume of Asia before his eyes, we shall see how he heightens or improves the picture when he models. it into verse. The latter would doubtless have this disadvantage: he would write his poetry when he retired to his caravansera, or perhaps in the tranquility of his study in Great Britain.

ON viewing the Vale and City of NICEA, at Sunrise.

'Just as the sun appeared, we emerged from the dell, in which we had been travelling; when as sweet a scene opened upon us as can be Conceived. In front was the lake of Nicæa, bending through its green valley.-Immediately between us and the lake, rose up a woody hill, which, by intercepting the centre of the prospect, seemed to divide the expanse of water before us into two separate reaches.-Along the opposite side of the lake ran a range of dark mountains, scarce yet, except on their most prominent parts, illuminated by the sun;-the snowy summits of Olympus, empurpled by the reflection of the morning clouds, terminated the view-To the left, the minarets of Nicea were seen peeping out of the water at the extremity of the lake.-To the right, the lake stretched itself till it was lost among the windings of the mountains.

It is impossible to form an idea of a more complete scene of desolation