by no means matter of certainty. Dr. Murdock pronounces quite authoritatively, that "there is no good reason to doubt its genuineness." Yet such men as Lardner, Le Nourry, Le Clerc, Maffei, and other very judicious critics, have thought that they discovered "good reason " for hesitating to receive it as a work of Lactantius. They may have been mistaken. We do not say that they were not. Still it requires some little confidence to assert peremptorily that a book is genuine in opposition to the decision of such writers.

Dr. Murdock is not quite accurate, we think, in the account he gives of the sentiments of Origen.* He enumerates as among the "general truths," which Origen "did not permit to be called in question for a moment," the proposition, that "the Holy Spirit, in honor and dignity, is joined with the Father and Son." If by this, Dr. Murdock means to insinuate, as we suppose he does, that Origen regarded the Spirit as equal with the Father and Son, the representation is erroneous. This doctrine, Origen, as is evident from the whole tenor of his writings, never thought of asserting. Far from being a truth which he never " permits to be called in question," it is perpetually denied by him.

It is true, Origen, according to the version of Rufinus, (who, it is to be remembered, took the liberty to alter the original when it contained expressions relating to the Son and Spirit, which seemed likely to offend Latin ears, as not sufficiently orthodox,) is made to say, that "the Holy Spirit is associated in honor and dignity with the Father and Son," according to the traditionary doctrine; but he immediately adds that whether "begotten or unbegotten," does not appear. Instead of the expression "begotten or unbegotten," Jerome, who had access to the original, and professes to give a faithful translation in opposition to the corrupt version of Rufinus, has "made or unmade." Either expression would imply Origen's doubt, at least, of the supreme divinity of the Spirit. Jerome asserts more than this, and his language is worth quoting at length. He tells us,‡ speaking of the errors which are found in Origen's books "Of Principles," that Origen "pronounces the Spirit to be third in dignity and honor after the Father and Son, concerning which, though he says he is ignorant whether made or unmade, yet he afterwards expresses his views, affirming that nothing is unmade excepting the Father alone." This is pretty plain testimony. It is fully confirmed, however, by other ancient writers, and by passages which occur in the genuine writings of the learned Father himself. Epiphanius* informs us that Origen pronounced the Spirit to be " a creature," and Photius says that he affirms the "Son to have been made by the Father, and the Holy Spirit by the Son." The latter doctrine certainly seems to be plainly taught by Origen in his commentary on John i. 3. "All things were made by," or through, " him," that is, the Son, as an instrument. Among the things thus made, Origen, if we understand him, includes the Spirit. How then can Dr. Murdock affirm that Origen regarded the proposition, that the Spirit is "joined in honor and dignity with the Father and Son," as a truth, "not to be called in question," using the terms of the proposition, as we suppose, in the modern sense, for he does not intimate that he employs them in any other?

Another error of less magnitude occurs in Dr. Murdock's statement of the views of Origen. He speaks of the Son as having, according to Origen, "aided the father in the whole work of creation." The term used by Origen and the Fathers generally to express the office of the Son in the work of creation is ministered, which, as they employed it, uniformly implies secondary agency. They speak of the Son not as the coadjutor, but as the instrument of the Father in the work of creation. This is well known to all who have attentively read the Fathers of the first three centuries.

Dr. Murdock appears to be well satisfied with the Orthodoxy of the Fathers. That of Rufinus, he thinks, ought never to have been called in question, and he has little fault to find with Origen's even. He must either be very indulgent in his notions of Orthodoxy, or he cannot have studied the sentiments of the Fathers very profoundly. Perhaps the former, for he has occasionally expressed himself with great liberality.

* Hær. 64. - Adv. Orig. § 5, 8.

+ Biblioth. cod. 8. Origen, says Photius, asserted that the Spirit prevades only the sanctified, the Son, or logos, things endowed with reason, the Father, all things. ib.

Opp. iv. pp. 60, 61. See also Huet. Orig. Lib. 11. Quæs. 2. n. 21 -21.

VOL. XIII. - N. S. VOL. VIII. NO. III.

36

Thus, speaking of the Apostle's Creed, he says,* * "It is a most valuable monument of the church; because it shows what, in the early ages, were considered as the great, the peculiar, and the essential doctrines of the Gospel; viz. those all-important facts, which are summarily recounted in this Creed." This is all very well. To such Orthodoxy we have no objection.

The question of the Orthodoxy of the Fathers, however, does not appear to be one on which Dr. Murdock has bestowed any very particular attention. His references on the subject are singularly defective. He directs the attention of his readers to Bishop Bull, but has not, we believe, once named in this connexion, his antagonist, Whitby, who gave as thorough a refutation of the Bishop's work, we suppose it will be admitted by all competent judges, as any book ever received. Whiston and Priestley share a similar fate. Yet the former, certainly, had no contemptible knowledge of Christian antiquity, as is fully shown by his "Primitive Christianity Revived." We know that it has become a fashion with writers of a certain class to speak disparagingly of the labors of Dr. Priestley, and we mean not to say that he had studied the Fathers as profoundly and as extensively as some continental scholars before and since his time. But on certain points, his examination of their writings appears to have been conducted with no little care; and though he may have fallen into some trifling errors, his general conclusions yet remain unshaken.

We would not be understood to insinuate that these omissions (and we could name others equally striking) are to be attributed to design, on the part of Dr. Murdock; for he has given ample proofs of candor. They authorize the suspicion, however, that there is a class of writers, - certainly not beneath notice, - on the subject of Christian antiquity, with which he has not been conversant. Such omissions appear the more extraordinary, when we recollect that he professes to have bestowed "much and critical attention" on the Fathers, and especially on controversies relating to doctrines. While authors of the above description are not deemed worthy of a single reference, the name of so prejudiced a writer as Milner, occurs on an average, we should say, throughout the first volume, to which our examination has been chiefly confined, once at least in every twenty or thirty pages.

Dr. Murdock, if we understand him, asserts,* that Eusebius of Nicomedia was banished by the council of Nice. Such however does not appear to be the fact. Secundus of Ptolemais, one of the banished, reproached him to his face, with having subscribed the creed of the council to save himself from exile. He was banished, however, as the historian Philostorgius tells us, within three months after the dissolution of the council, as it would seem by command of the Emperor, on the charge of having relapsed into his former error, and afforded shelter to certain Arians who had been compelled to fly from Alexandria.†

Again, Dr. Murdock says that the council of Bithynia, of which we have an account in Sozomen, and which was the first Arian council, " is either wholly overlooked by modern writers, or is confounded with that of Antioch in the year 330."$ This must be a mistake. It is certainly mentioned and obviously without the confusion alluded to, by Maimbourg, || by Le Clerc, by Du Pin,** by Fleury,†† by Cave, by Whitby, by Tillemont, |||| and we know not by how many others.

We feel constrained to say that the work abounds with shameful errors of the press. Dr. Murdock was certainly not fortunate in his proof readers. Thus we have among the Fathers, " Clemment," " Irenaceus," Uyprian," and "Fusebius." We hear of "Rufinus" and "Ruffinus,"

* Vol. 1. p. 298.

66

† See Christian Examiner, Vol. VII. p. 318, New Series.

Hist. Lib. 1. c. 15.

§ Vol. 1. p. 345.

|| Histoire de l'Arianisme, Tom. 1. p. 38.

Biblioth. Univ. et Hist. Tom. x. p. 425.

** Nouv. Biblioth. des Auteurs Eccles. Tom. 11. p. 314. ed. Paris.

1683.

†† Histoire Eccles. Liv. 10. § 37.

#Life of Athanasius, § 2.

§§ Disquis. Modest. Lib. 11. § 7.

|||| New History of Ecclesiastical Writers. Vol. 1. p. 250. London, 1672. See also his History of the Arians. In mentioning the council in a former number of this work we certainly had no suspicion that we were alluding to a fact "generally overlooked by modern writers." See Christian Examiner, Vol. VII. p. 308 and p. 313, New Series.

t

one form of writing the name occurring in Dr. Murdock's Notes, about as often as the other; of Ammonius "Sacas" and Ammonius "Saccas"; of Cæsarea, and "Caserea;" of the "catechetie" school of Alexandria, and other things equally novel and strange. We are referred to "N. Lardner's Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation." We do not recollect to have ever heard of this work before. John Leland wrote a book with a similar title, which we suspect is the treatise intended.

Dr. Murdock seeins to consider it an advantage of the present translation, that each volume, being furnished with a separate index, is "a complete and independent work of itself." Now, not to cavil at this language, which, however, to our ears sounds a little extraordinary as applied to the several volumes of an historical work, the want of a general index, is, we think, a deficiency, which is by no means compensated by the possession of a separate index to each volume.

These many appear trifling criticisms, and we may seem to betray a disposition to find fault. We have no such disposition. The general tone of our remarks will abundantly show, that we are influenced by no unfriendly feeling toward Dr. Murdock. The defects we have pointed out are not such as to affect very materially the character of his work, with which we have professed ourselves satisfied. We have only to thank the writer, in conclusion, for the service he has rendered to the cause of theological learning in our country, and express the hope that he may be induced to continue his very useful labors.

ART. II. - Reasons for the Unitarian Belief, plainly stated in Nine Lectures, by LUTHER HAMILTON, Minister of the First Congregational Society in Taunton. Boston. L. C. Bowles. 1830. 12mo. pp. 137.

THIS book should have received from us an earlier notice; and our only apology for neglecting it is, that we find it impossible to review all religious works of merit at the time of their appearance, and not easy, afterwards, to make up our