to the diets of the Gothic nations, that it is probable the latter has been exactly copied from the former.

Next to the feudal fyftem, Mr. Richardfon takes notice of the novel ideas of fupernatural beings, which feem to have been introduced nearly about the fame time into Europe. Having given an ingenious and entertaining account of the romantic fictions of the Eaft, he takes notice of their furprifing coincidence with the Armorican, Spanish, and other European romances. Even the poems of Ariofto, Taffo, and Spencer, are built on the fame fanciful machinery. The Ipogriffe, on which Aftolfo flies to heaven; and the magic ring of Bradamante, in Orlando Furiofo; the many-headed monfter of Duessa, and the Shield of Prince Arthur in the Fairy Queen; with the various enchantments of Armida and Ifmeno, in Gierufalemme Liberata, may be all traced to an oriental origin.—

According to Mr. Richardfon, the abfurd doctrine of charms, amulets, and enchantment were likewife derived from the fame fource. He explains the opinion of the orientals upon thefe different fubjects, as well as upon knight errantry. This fingular inftitution, which is commonly fuppofed to have been introduced into Europe from the peculiar circumstances of fociety in the middle ages, is proved to be a prevailing practice in the Eaft. There, too, he discovers the origin of that exceffive refpect paid to the fair sex, which is extremely different from their treatment among the Greeks and Romans. He -concludes with feveral obfervations on the Eastern manners, which cannot properly be reduced to general heads. The fame fubjects are treated in the Lexicon, which renders it a Dictionary of cuftoms and manners as well as of words. He has every where affifted the refearches of the philologift with the information of the hiftorian, and the reafoning of the philofopher; and as he has been uncommonly fortunate in purfuing a walk of literature, which feems to be too little frequented, we hope he will be induced to continue in it; not doubting that his future enquiries may throw new light on many fubjects equally curious and important.

Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments, and Writings of Faustus Socinus: by Joshua Toulmin, A. M. 8vo. 65. boards. Johnson.

THE

"HE first design of compiling this work, as the author informs us, was fuggefted by his meeting with the Life of Socinus, written by Przipcovius, a Polish knight; which led him to conclude, that it might be of service to the cause of religion and virtue to exhibit a more particular view of a character, büt

little

little known; a character, which has fuffered much by the prejudices of party, and the mifreprefentations of those polemical writers, who will not allow an adversary to have either common fenfe, or common honesty.

Fauftus Socinus was born at Siena in Italy, in 1539. He was defcended of an ancient and noble family, and was related to many perfons of illuftrious rank and diftinguished learning. He loft his parents in his early years; and, probably on that account, never had the advantage of a proper education. But through the ftrength of his own genius, and the inftructions of his uncle Lælius Socinus, a perfon of eminent virtues and fingular abilities, he obtained a tolerable share of learning, and fome principles of religious knowlege, before he was twentythree. Having formed an acquaintance with the Grand Duke of Tuscany, he lived twelve years in his court, diftinguished by the favour of his prince, and the dignities he there enjoyed. At the end of this term, having seriously confidered the different objects, which folicit the attention of men, and not finding himself at liberty, in this fituation, to purfue his enquiries, he voluntarily left his country, his friends, his hopes, and his wealth, and retired to Bafil, a city upon the Rhine, famous for affording, in thofe times, a hofpitable afylum to thofe, who were exiles and fufferers on account of their religious perfuafions. In 1579 he repaired to Poland, where he was very defirous of being publicly joined to the unitarian churches; but because he did not conceal his difference from them in fome points, he met with many fevere repulfes. However, by his moderation and obliging deportment he gained many powerful friends, and affociated with thofe, who were difpofed to attend to a free investigation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and other fubjects of religious enquiry. There is no doubt, but their fyftem received great alterations from his labours and his pen. His eminent virtues and distinguished abilities rendered him a very valuable acquisition to the unitarian cause, During his continuance in Poland, he devoted his time to detect and confute every doctrine he imagined to be false and erroneous, and to bring the church in all points to an unanimous agreement. He lived to fee the fuccefs of his labours, and died in 1604, in the fixty-fifth year of his age.

The author of these Memoirs attends Socinus through every material tranfaction of his life, and then endeavours to delineate his character; or to fhew the firmness of his faith, his zeal, his candour and moderation, his felf-government, and his piety. These points he evinces by an appeal to facts, to his renunciation of worldly honours, his labours, his public and private conduct, and the fentiments and fpirit, which appear in

his writings. In oppofition to his candour and moderation it has been alleged, that he encourages intolerance in the following paffage: When there is a freedom from fedition and the pursuit of self intereft, then the herefiarch does not labour under a fault of the will, but of the understanding. Therefore as we reftrain, and, if it be neceffary, confine in chains, mad and frantic perfons, who would otherwise be injurious to others, and at the fame time greatly pity them; fo an herefiarch of this fort ought not to be treated with the utmost feverity, but should meet with pity: and the only thing to be regarded is to hinder his endeavours to propagate his doctrine, and if it cannot be otherwife done, by chains and a prison. You observe I speak of an obftinate herefiarch; for he who is, not obftinate hath not contracted that rage and madness, that he should be confined in chains.' Let. from Socin. to Mart. Vadovitz.

This opinion is undoubtedly repugnant to thofe jufter and more generous fentiments, all inquifitive and candid minds now entertain on the point; and the only apology, which our author makes, or perhaps could make, for Socinus, is this: He erred no more than did other great men of that age in this refpect. The fame excufes may be alleged in his favour, as are accepted on behalf of our Cranmers, our Luthers, and our Calvins. Nay, his controverfial writings, on the whole, breathe a much better fpirit, than is ufually met with in the writers of thofe times; and he carried his notions of toleration farther than did fome of the most distinguished reputation a mongst them.'

The author now proceeds to the opinions of Socinus, of which he feems to have given a very juft reprefentation, by copious extracts from his works, faithfully tranflated. As it would be impoffible for us, within the limits we can affign this article, to give our readers a competent view of all the opinions of Socinus, as they are ftated by his biographer, we fhall only take the liberty to cite two or three detached paffages, relative to fome of his more diftinguishing fentiments.

It is my judgment that Chrift was a man, Rom. v. 15. conconceived and formed in the womb of the Virgin, without the intervention of a man, by the power of the divine Spirit, Matt. i. zo, 23. Luke i. 35. and that being thus born, he was at first capable of fuffering and mortal, 2 Cor. xiii. 4. till having dif charged here on earth the duty affigned him by God, he afterwards afcended into heaven and became immortal, and no longer liable to fufferings, Rom. vi. 9.

As to the opinion commonly received, that Chrift is the only begotten of God, because he, and no one befides him, was begotten of the divine fubstance, I regard it as a mere human invention,

vention, i. e. not by any means agreeable to the facred fcriptures, which make no mention of any generation from the substance of God himself; and as entirely repugnant to found reason, which abhors the thought of God's begetting from his own substance like corruptible animals, or that the individual and fimple effence of God fhould be divided or multiplied, or, that remaining entire and numerically one, it should be common to many.

:

To this let it be added, that the fcripture plainly explains the true and divine filiation of Chrift, as we just now fhewed, when we fpoke of his conception in the womb of the Virgin and exprefsly uses as fynonimous the phrafes, Jefus was the Christ, and Jefus was the Son of God, Matt. xvi. 16. Mark viii. 29. Luke ix. 20. Matt. xxvi. 63. Mark xiv. 61. Luke xxii. 67, 69. John xx. 31. Hence it appears, becaufe Jefus was not the king of the people of God, and fo the Chrift in the highest and most abfolute fenfe, till after he arofe from the dead, that it was faid he was conftituted the fon of God by his refurrection from the dead, and was then begotten by God when God raised him from the dead, Rom. i. 4. Acts xiii. 33 *.'

As to thofe paffages of the New Teftament, which are ge nerally supposed to be repugnant to the fentiments of Socinus, because they seem plainly to affert Chrift's existence in the heavenly world, previously to his birth and appearance amongst men, Socinus, befides explaining them separately, has thus in general expreffed what he apprehended was the sense they would in common fairly admit.

These paffages might refer to a prior exiftence, if they could not be applied to Chrift as a man. Nothing is more probable and more agreeable to the very words of Chrift here and elfe'where, than that Chrift himself, after he was born, and before he entered on the office affigned him by his Father, was, in confequence of the divine counfel and agency, in heaven, and remained there for fome time; that he might hear from God, and being with him, as the fcripture fays, might fee thofe things he had to announce and lay open to the world, in the name of God himself. The words of Chrift himself, John iii. 13. vi. 62. are fpoken of him as man, or the Son of Man.

And if any one will only attend to what happened to Mofes, before the whole law was promulged by his ministry, and that the form and materials of the different pieces of workmanship belonging to the worship of God, before they were executed, were prefcribed to Mofes by God, he will immediately own (efpecially as it appears, from other confiderations, that Mofes was the type of Chrift) that nothing can be conceived more fuitable, than that Chrift, before the time we fpeak of, fhould have afcended into heaven to God, and perhaps more than once, and have abode there for fome time. For Mofes, before the first *Soc. Opera, tom. i. p. 654. col. 1, 2. G g

VOL. XLIV. Dec. 1777.

pro

promulgation of the law, it is faid, afcended to God upon Mount Sinai, as a careful reader will obferve, three times, Exod. xxiv. 18. xxxi. 18. xxxii. 15, 16, 19. xxxiv. 4, 26, and remained there with God forty days and forty nights; and this twice, namely, when the two tables were firft given, and again after the two former tables had, in refentment against the idolatry of the people, been thrown down and broken by him, when he received two others like them, which he carried to the people, and afterwards repofited in the ark of God, Exod. xxv. 16.

For it is very clear, that as Chrift was the antitype to Mofes, fo heaven was to Mount Sinai; moreover this very Mount, on account of the prefence which was manifefted there, was in those times called heaven. Mofes plainly fays, that the voice which came from the mountain, and was heard by the people, was heard out of heaven, Deut. iv. 36.

The reafon this afcent of Chrift into heaven, and his abode there before he began to discharge his office on earth, are not mentioned in the hiftory of the Gofpels is obvious; because it was an event of that kind, that it was not, nor could be clearly feen by any one. The first three evangelifts do not record any words of Chrift himself, or of any other perfon, from whence this event may be learnt, when yet the fourth and last of the writers, i. e. John ch. iii. 31, 32. gives us many fpeeches of Chrift himfelf, and fome of John the Baptift, from which it may be concluded; if thefe words are to be understood literally and according to their found, as they ought, if they do not clearly admit another interpretation. The evangelift, when he could not offer more proofs of this fact, thought it fufficient to establish the faith of it, and fuppofed it would be deemed fo by all, to relate the express teftimonies of Chrift himself on the point. If any one is not convinced by thefe, the teftimony of the evangelift himself would not produce the leaft conviction of it *.'

The reafoning of Socinus in this paffage is unphilofophical and inconclufive. Had God been a finite and local deity, it might have been neceffary for Jefus Chrift to go into heaven, to attend his perfon, and receive his commands, as Mofes did from the angel of the covenant. But there can be no occafion for an afcent into beaven when a Being, who is infinite and omniprefent, vouchfafes to communicate his inftructions. He can inftantly and fufficiently inspire his prophets and apoftles with fupernatural knowledge, in any region of nature.

The argument founded on the parallel between Mofes and Chrift is inconclufive; because the parallel is imaginary in the moft effential article. It may be farther obferved, that there is no intimation, in the New Teftement, of our Lord's afcen

Opera, tom. i. p. 675. col. 1, 2.