The type, and paper, and execution, reflect great credit upon both the publisher and printer. The editor has very conveniently divided his matter into chapters; and thrown a number of lesser circumstances, and secondary illustrations, into the form of notes, appended to each chapter. These are the limits we fear of the praise, which an impartial reviewer will award him. His remarks are as rare and jejune, as church-rates may be in the parish where he officiates as minister; or as reformers are in the Abbey, which glories in him as one of its Prebendaries. We look in vain for any projection of Gibbon's intellectual horoscope; which might surely have been expected from a successful poet, wearing both the honours and emoluments of a wealthy ecclesiastical establishment. Nevertheless we feel obliged to him, for having at least compiled a few gleanings from other quarters; and for having superintended the re-issue of an auto-biography, which cannot fail to interest every reader in the English language.

Art. III. The Saviour's Right to Divine Worship Vindicated, in Letters to the Rev. J. Armstrong, D.D. By W. URWICK, D.D. 8vo. Dublin: Robertson. Pp. 412.

THE esteemed author to whom the public has already been

The

indebted for a valuable work on The True Nature of 'Christ's Person and Atonement,' as well as for several pamphlets, justly informs us in the preface to this publication, that, though the following Letters are addressed to a Unitarian minister, they are upon topics of the highest concern to every human being.' 'design of the following pages,' he adds, is to show truth, and to 'commend her to the judgment and the heart. Nor, as the 'writer thinks, could truth appear more winning and commanding 'than in the doctrines which this book purports to illustrate. 'They are the hope of the guilty, the life of the soul, the glory of the church, the wonder of creation, the grandest and most pre'cious revelation which the Deity has made. It is desired that 'the volume now offered to the public, may not be of merely 'local or temporary interest. Though not intending it when he 'began, the author came, in working out his thoughts, to intend 'that his book should prove not only a shield for present defence, but a manual of instruction.' His object was to produce a 'volume of general and permanent utility, in order to which he has 'occupied it as fully as he could with great general principles, 'and especially with, as he ventures to think, for the most part 'clear and well sustained expositions of inspired testimonies con'cerning the Lord of glory.'-Pref. pp. 5, 6, 8.

The particular occasion of writing these letters is thus briefly stated in the first of them:

A copy of your Sermon vindicating the principles of Unitarian Christianity, and inculcating Universal Charity,' was handed to me a few weeks ago, with an intimation, that a reply to it, from myself, would not be regarded with disfavour by members of your own body. Being at that time engaged about other matters, and not observing in the discourse much that was new, or likely to shake the faith of any one conversant with the Scriptures, in the great truth which it was preached and published to impugn, I laid it aside as what might be allowed to rest undisturbed, at least until I had more leisure. I was, however, satisfied to do this chiefly because you had then been invited to an oral discussion by an Episcopal clergyman, and, though you promptly declined to meet him in that way, yet, as you expressed your willingness to engage in a written controversy, I judged it likely that you would have him for an antagonist; in which case it might be accounted hardly fair for a third person to interfere. Nothing, however, has issued from the press as a rejoinder to your pamphlet. It is, I understand, referred to by Unitarians as unanswerable. Therefore, being now in a degree at liberty, I proceed to pen some observations upon it, and as appears to be most becoming, and shall put them in the form of letters to yourself.'-p. 1.

His opponent, while inculcating universal charity,' having with singular infelicity inscribed his sermon To all denouncers and revilers of their fellow Christians, to the spiritually proud who exalt themselves and despise others; to the perverse dis'puters who suppose that gain is godliness; to those who would monopolize the Father of all, and exclude from his kingdom the sheep of Christ who are not of their fold,' Dr. U. judiciously observes:

Has it not struck you, Sir, that there is a manifest discrepancy between your title-page and your dedication? The former avows part of your design to be inculcating universal charity,' a design which, so far as it can be attained without compromising duty, every Christian must applaud. After this announcement of your purpose, one might expect the whole tenor and tone of your address to be in keeping with it, both the expressions used and the spirit breathed, alike and throughout tending to soothe and tranquillize, to allay asperity, to awaken and win affection, and to blend all hearts in one feeling of kindly and confiding brotherhood; at all events, that nothing would occur in limine, warranting a suspicion of the sincerity and catholicity of your own philanthropy. Judge, therefore, what a shock must be given to all hope in your trustworthiness for the achievement, when you are found at the outset, as with a flourish of trumpets, stigmatising the persons you chiefly undertook to deal with, as among the most odious characters that inspiration pourtrays and condemns. A stranger to your creed, without going beyond your third page, might assume (that),

whatever be Unitarian Christianity, this its champion gives very dubious proof of its being a religion of universal love.'-p. 3.

Our author, having very satisfactorily distinguished between 'charity,' which we are commanded to exercise towards all, and 'complacency' to which none are entitled but those who are ap'proved of heaven,' then very justly contends, that to treat all 'persons as alike safe, and all doctrines as alike good, would be 'practice contradicting fact, involving a denial of God's word, and fraught with injustice, faithlessness, and peril to our fellow 'men. The charity commended in the Bible abounds in knowledge and in all judgment," and approves things that are excellent;' its emotions and operations resemble the benevolence ' of the Deity, who, while he vouchsafes his providential bounty 'liberally to the evil and the good, recognizes as real saints and 'heirs of glory those alone who are so.'-p. 5. This egregious fallacy he very satisfactorily exposes in several subsequent pages, by demonstrating that all men are accountable for their belief; and that sincerity in adhering to the same cannot possibly exonerate any from unfaithfulness in the neglect of the means of illumination within their reach; and that no sentiment as to religious truth can be purely speculative, or have no practical bearing on our life and conversation. He then very adroitly exposes the Proteusian character of Unitarianism, to vindicate which from the charge of not giving due honor to Christ was the principal object of Dr. A.'s discourse. This system, if it merit the name of one, since it is almost impossible to define its tenets, was sometimes made to comprehend the Arians who sanctioned mediatorial and secondary worship to Christ, as Drs. Benson, Chandler, and Clarke formerly did; and sometimes only those who do not worship Christ, which Dr. Price maintained was its utmost comprehension. This of course excluded all who strictly followed Socinus, who distinctly taught that it was proper to invoke and adore Christ, though he held, inconsistently enough, indeed, the doctrine of his simple humanity.'

In this single negation, viz., that religious worship is not to be paid to Christ,' observes Dr. U., consists the sum total of their distinctive faith. On other points they may be as wide apart in sentiment, as imagination can well conceive. In regard to the person of Christ, they may class with the highest Arians, or the lowest Humanitarians. They may hold that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin; or they may utterly contemn that supposition, insisting that, if man ever reach heaven, it must be the achievement of his own virtuous deeds. They may take their stand on the very extreme of liberty in the one direction, or on the very extreme of fatalism in the other. Still if they will only deny that Christ ought to be worshipped with divine honor, Unitarianism opens before them the wide embrace of its

fellowship, and bids them welcome as allies in the enterprise to which it is pledged against the rights of the Son of God. We may, therefore, consider that the whole merits of Unitarianism are, by your discourse, staked for public discussion. You have thrown down the gauntlet. Trusting to the grace of Christ, I step forth, and take it up. May TRUTH, and that alone prevail !'-p. 24.

On two points of prime importance, the disputants are professedly agreed. One, that every one has the right of ex'amining and deciding for himself, in his endeavours to acquire a knowledge of religion;' and the other, the infallible and ex'clusive authority of the sacred writings, as the guide and ground of religious belief.' But notwithstanding this, Dr. A. has, strangely enough surely, represented Trinitarians in general as deriving their doctrine from the Athanasian Creed and the decrees of church authority, and intimating that Unitarians only carry out the principle, that the Bible is the religion of Pro"testants.'' But our author shrewdly replies: "To have made 'such a statement honestly, your reading must have been circum'scribed and superficial indeed. You cannot be acquainted with the writings of Drs. Pye Smith, Wardlaw, Moses Stuart, and 'many other leading authors on the subject, or you must have 'known the statement to be untrue'- and while he rejoices in the candid recognition of the infallibility and exclusive authority of the sacred writings, Dr. U. has happily reminded his opponent, that to do so, though not quite a new thing under the sun, has 'not been uniformly the practice of your body. Dr. Priestley, and Mr. Belsham will be thought of by many acquainted with 'their writings as not quite concurring with you on this point. I 'congratulate you on being at least a step ahead of these and 'like-minded chief men among your brethren. And he hopes that following out this principle by candidly and prayerfully inquiring, What saith the Scriptures? Dr. A. will ere long ascertain, acquiesce in, and avow the answer which he conscientiously thinks it gives with regard to the subject of his discourse. p. 35.

In his second letter, our author, after very clearly stating, that the appeal in favour of the argument, on either side, must be to the Scriptures themselves, according to the golden axiom of the immortal Chillingworth, that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is 'the religion of Protestants,' enters very minutely into the examination of the original words which are frequently employed with reference to worship, whether human or divine, in the sacred Scriptures; and on the interpretation of which Dr. A. had attempted to rest his fallacious notion, that divine honor is never there ascribed to the Saviour. On the general word #pоeкUVEW, to worship, we cannot do better than permit Dr. U. to speak for himself, as if we do not greatly mistake, our readers will be highly

προσκυνέω,

delighted with his lucid statements, diligent research, and successful arguments.

This is a word of great importance. To it I must call particular attention; and the more so, because it does not appear to have received the notice it deserves as connected with our present inquiry. You insinuate that it signifies to pay any external mark of respect, salutation, or obedience, by bowing, bending, crouching, or prostrating the body. You complain of its having been rendered worship,' in the common English version, where it expresses the homage given to Christ; and you imply a wish that a new translation should be made by authority, in which it might, in such cases, be rendered by some other word less likely to make English readers think that the Redeemer ought to be honored with the homage due to the Deity. You quote in support of your opinions regarding this term, a few texts in which it is employed by the LXX., and some of them are instances in point, to show that in that version it occasionally means to pay civil respect, and cannot be understood as signifying to offer divine homage. You also mention some texts in the New Testament, in which you think it must be taken in the same way.

The word, as you are aware, is derived from the manner in which a dog manifests his attachment and submission by throwing himself at our feet, and even licking' them, as though intimating such to be his veneration and devotion towards us, that he puts himself completely in our power to do whatever we please to him; πρὸς and κύω or κυνέω, from xuw, a dog. See Schleusner and others. Hence it signifies, to salute by falling prostrate on the ground, or by kissing, or by both modes of expressing attachment or homage. Ps. lxxii. 9, and Isaiah xlix. 23; the one describing the subjection of the Arabians to the Saviour, and the other the honour rendered to the church as the abode of Deity-unite prostration and kissing the feet.'-pp. 43, 44.

Having carefully proceeded through the Septuagint, examining all the varieties of usages there, our author proceeds:

'Let us now look at the word as it stands in the New Testament. It occurs twenty-nine times in the gospels, and if I mistake not, in every instance signifies divine worship. In this sense, beyond doubt, it is used nine times in the compass of five verses--John iv. 20—24, where, as also in xii. 20, gooxuven is put absolutely, for the practice of offering the most solemn homage to the Deity, and where only we find the noun προσκυνητής, “ worshipper.

The supposed exceptions to this opinion are then discussed seriatim; but our space forbids the insertion of more than a portion of Dr. U.'s remarks on the first:-but here we may truly say, Ex uno omnes disce.

I. The homage of the Magi to Christ, Matt. ii. With regard to this instance, however, there can be no question, that the homage pre