fion before his miniftry, nor any paffage, which will support fuch an opinion.

Socinus argues with more efficacy against the notion of a vi carious fatisfaction, a propitiation, and other points of this na ture. It is certain, he fays, that in remitting the punishment of our fins by Jefus Chrift, not any propitiation offered to the anger of God by any one, nor even by Chrift himself, intervened; but that God hath from his free-will, exhibited himfelf. fo propitious to us in Chrift, as not to exact the punishment of our fins, though he might have done it with the strict eft right or equity.'

He obferves, that, in the fcriptures, it is never faid, that Chrift appeafed his Father's wrath; but that he visited us, ac-, cording to the tender mercies of God; that when the apoftle fpeaks of a reconciliation, he does not mean, that Chrift reconciled God to man; but, that God has reconciled man to himself by his Son; and that this reconciliation was no other thing, than that we, who were, as the apoftle expreffes himfelf, enemies of God, were prevailed upon to become his friends; that is, to defift from offending him, and fo to obtain the forgiveness of our fins, and a restoration to his favour,

Though Socinus rejected the notion of our Saviour's divinity, yet he thought and contended that the invocation of Chrift was a duty neceffarily arifing from the character he sustained as head of the church, and from the power and dominion with which he was invested. "Therefore (fays he) I fo ftrongly prefs this point, that my adverfary, acknowledging that our prayers may be directed to him, may confequently own, and declare, that Chrift, refiding in heaven, is endowed with all power in heaven and in earth, and governs and directs the whole church.' principle, becaufe the perfons who, in thofe times, denied the invocation of Chrift, alfo difcarded the belief of his prefent fupreme power and government, Socinus was perfuaded they did not deferve to be called Chriftians.'

On this

It was his opinion, that the first man was naturally mortal; by which he did not mean, that from the first moment of his existence he was necessarily fubject to death; but only that he was liable to it, through the nature of his frame, and could not have been for ever exempted from it, without an exertion of the divine favour and influence, which was not granted him at his creation.

To the question, whether the firft man had any original righteousness before he finned, Socinus replies: Most men say, that he had. But I wish to know what they mean by the terms, original righteoufnefs. For if they mean his condition was fuch, that he could not fin, this certainly was not the ftate Gg 2

of

of Adam, as it is clear he did fin. Nor could he have finned, unless it had been in his power to have finned. If they underftand by it, he did not fin before he did fin, the affertion is ridiculous, and the difpute evidently needlefs. For who knows not, that no one fins, before he does fin? But if they should fay, the word fin in the question fignifies not every fin, but the fault of eating the forbidden tree, and that Adam, before this tranfgreffion, was righteous, because he had not before committed any other fin. This was not original, but actual righteoufnefs.'

It was likewise his opinion, that there is no fuch thing as original fin; i. e. any taint or pravity through the fin of the first man, neceffarily ingendered, or by any means inflicted upon the human race; and that no other evil neceffarily flows to all his pofterity from that firft tranfgreffion, than, by fome means or other, the neceffity of dying: not indeed through the,influence of this tranfgreffion, but because man, being naturally mortal, was on that account left by God to his own natural mortality; and what was natural became neceffary as a punishment on the offender. Therefore, fays he, they who are born of him, must be born under the fame circumftances; for he was.deprived of nothing, he naturally had, or could have.

From thefe premises Socinus deduces his fentiments on freewill, and man's ability to perform the will of God. It is clear, he fays, that there is a freedom of will in man, if that be true, which all grant, and reafon evidently teaches, that the first man, was free before his fall. For there is no reason to be affigned why he should be deprived of it, after the fall. Since neither the nature of the thing requires it, nor the juftice of God permits it. Nor is there any mention of this punishment among the evils God affixed to the fall by way of punishment, as is plain to him, who reads the third chapter of Genefis.

Socinus utterly denies the doctrine of a perfonal predeftination; but it does not appear, by the quotations, produced by Mr. Toulmin, that he confidered this word in its proper application, viz. God's determination to call the Gentiles. His arguments, therefore, like thofe of many other writers on the fame fubject, are mifapplied.

Thefe are fome of the fentiments of Socinus on theological fubjects for the reft we must refer the inquifitive reader to the ample collection, which his biographer has made of them in thefe Memoirs.

His opinions, as they gained ground, were afterwards caft into a more systematical form, and in fome inftances, differently modelled. For his avowed difciples took him only for their guide, and did not, without exception, adopt the fenti

ments

ments of their chief; and no fect carried freedom of thought, and a difavowal of all authority in religious matters, farther than they did,

The unitarian fyftem received from Socinus a method, confiftency, and connection it before wanted. Many perfons of rank and opulence become converts to it. It was for many years favoured with the protection of the great, and affifted by the liberality of the rich. Thefe circumftances gave rife to the publication of a new form of doctrine, which appeared under the name of the Racovian Catechifm, and is ftill regarded as the confeffion of faith of the whole church. It is faid to have been firft drawn up by Socinus. The bufinefs of reforming it was afterwards entrusted to Statorius as well as Socinus; but they died before the work was executed. It was then refumed, and continued by Smalcius, and Mofcorovius. Some corrected this piece, others augmented it; all the eminent Socinian doctors revised it, and fome published notes on it. The first edi tion was published in 1609, with a dedication to our King James I. and was entitled Catechefis Ecclefiarum, &c. The Catechism of the Churches, who in the kingdom of Poland, and in the great-dukedom of Lithuania, and in other provinces belonging to that kingdom, affirm, that no other Being, befides the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, is the one God of Ifrael; but acknowledge and confefs, that the man of Nazareth, who was born of a Virgin, and no other befides or before him, is the only begotten fon of God.' In the year 1653 it was committed to the flames in England, by the order of parliament. Probably this was an English tranflation of it, A corthe work of Mr. John Bidle, printed at Amsterdam. rected edition with notes was published [at Stauropolis] in 1684.

Socinus, during his refidence near Cracow, employed near five and twenty years in compofing a variety of treatifes, little pieces, and relations of different difputations. They were printed at different times; fome were published in his life-time, and others after his death. The collection of them, in two volumes folio, forms a part of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polo

norum.

The library of the Polonian Brethren is a collection of treatifes of the moft eminent Socinian writers, compofing altogether a complete commentary on the New Teftament. The authors, whofe writings appear under this general name, are Crellius, Slichtingius, Woltzogenius, and Przipcovius.

Thefe Memoirs are drawn up with fidelity, moderation, and judgment; and will be read with pleasure by those, who can read with impartiality.

Gg 3

Elements

Elements of Midwifery, or the Arcana of Nature, in the Formation and Production of the Human Species elucidated, by William Moore, M. D. 8vo. 45. ferved. Johnson.

WITH

WITHIN thefe few years feveral writers have treated judiciously of the obstetrical art, but the prefent is, we believe, the only recent author that profeffes to elucidate the arcana of nature, in the formation and production of the human fpecies. We are much afraid that the real arcana of nature will ever elude the investigation of the moft penetrating enquirer. Be the fuccefs of future researches, however, what they may, we do not find that Dr. Moore has proceeded a step farther in any discovery than his immediate predeceffors. But as he informs us in the preface, that he has endeavoured to elucidate the causes of fterility, and the manner of obviating them, in a mode hitherto unattempted, it may be proper to lay before our readers his fentiments on this subject.

During pregnancy, fays he, the extremeties of the uterine veffels remain fo rigid, that they refift every effort of the fyftem towards evacuation, till the period when the fetus is ready to be expelled from the uterus. Without this rigidity of the extremities of the veffels of the uterus, conception would either not take place at all, or abortion at the end of every month would fucceed it. If we have reafon to fufpect that fterility is owing to a laxity of the fyftem, we should ufe means for reftoring the tone: fuch as the cold bath, chalybeats, and peruvian bark.

All irritations of the parts, by excefs of venery, ought to be carefully avoided, till they regain their proper tone; however, few women, I prefume, will be willing to admit of the neceffity of this caution.

A fecond cause of fterility is want of uterine plethora. This may happen, when all the symptoms of general plethora are prefent. The natural conformation of the uterus and its veffels may be fuch, as will not admit of fcarcely any accumulation, owing to their fmallness; confequently, there will be a very trifling menftrual discharge. For, as has been already obferved, the uterus is a diftinct fyftem, little influenced by the general one. This will appear evident if we confider, that the difcharge from the uterus is very seldom proportionable to the fize of the body. There are very fmall women, who menftruate very copiously, to the quantity of eight or ten ounces, without any mordid fymptoms; while others, much more robuft in their conftitution, and with more evident fymptoms of general plethora, scarcely have the leaft appearance of a periodical difcharge. The former are generally very prolific, while the latter clafs, for the most part, prove flerile, For, though they may conceive, yet the uterus, not being capable of affording that nutrition neceffary for the progreffion of the embryo, it foon becomes blighted; and pe

rishes,

rishes, even before it has well received existence. This being a natural defect, we fhall find it a difficult matter to obviate: if attempted, it must be by means of determining the blood to the uterus, and by increafing its impetus there, and exerting the action of the organ. The firft indication is produced by frictions, and warm applications to the lower extremities, fuch as pediluvia: which will rarify the air contained in the blood-veffels, increase its rapidity, and diftend the uterine veffels.

Befides, emmenagogues may, in this cafe, be advantageoufly employed, as fome of them are found to determine the blood to the uterus, and augment its impetus very confiderably, fo as to bring on a temporary inflammation. Cantharides feem poffeffed of this quality in a very high degree, their action being more particularly confined to the genitals; confequently, might be advantageously employed, as the continued ufe of them, in moderate dofes, will not only excite, but fupport that degree of inflammation, fo necessary to obviate this caufe of sterility.

However, great caution is here required, left, instead of gently relaxing thofe veffels, fo as to prepare them for the admiffion of a larger accumulation of blood, we deflroy their tonic power. Aloes, the tincturà melampodia, and the fœdid gums, have been tried, but their effects are uncertain. They may fometimes be ferviceable as antifpafmodics, when there is a fuppreffion of the menfes. There is another remedy, and the chief one, which is venery. If ever excefs in venery be juftifiable, or anfwers any good purpofe, is is in fuch cafes, as there is nothing which more powerfully determines the blood to thofe parts: the more fre quent the excitement, the more certain the effect; confequently, the diftention of the uterine veffels becomes alfo increased. Here perhaps, I may be charged with an inconfiftency, having before mentioned frequent coition as a caufe of barrenness. But, the reader will pleafe to obferve, that I then confidered want of tone, in the extremities of the veffels of the uterus, as a cause of fterility; and, that frequent coition weakened the tonic power, by increafing the impetus of the blood in thofe parts. At prefent, I am treating of rigidity, or a particular constriction of the veffels refifting the influx of the blood, as a cause of barrenness: fo that what is pernicious in the one cafe, will in the other prove ferviceable.

I am of opinion, that the fterility of women is oftner owing to this caufe, than is generally apprehended. There are many who continue barren for fome years after they are married; and yet, at length, have a numerous offspring.

A repeated influx of blood, by means of a long continued fimulus applied to the parts, at laft fo far diftends them, that they will admit of the accumulation effential to pregnancy; which distention, when once effected, will fo remain, as the refiftande to accumulation will continually abate. The menftrual flux alfo will increase in proportion to the frequency of pregnancy.

With regard to the time of applying the foregoing reme dies, that of natural plerbera seems to be the most proper. It will

Gg 4

anfwer