more, at three feet and a half. When the pupil had acquired its greatest enlargement, the rays from the image of the flame of a candle, reflected from the bulb of a small thermometer at the distance of eight feet, could not be prevented from converging to a point beyond the retina, while the parallel rays from remote objects converged to a point upon the retina. The eye continued in this state to the following day, and did not recover entirely its natural power until the ninth day. Dr. C. observed that the pupil of his eye had regained its usual size, while the power of the eye to adapt itself to different distances was still very limited. During this experiment the vision of the right eye remained unaltered. A repetition of the experiment upon the right eye gave similar results.

It is generally supposed, that the eyes of short sighted persons become better adapted for the sight of remote objects as age advances, but this opinion Mr. W. asserts to be unfounded in fact. Of four short sighted persons from fifty four to sixty years of age, into the state of whose vision he has had opportunity to enquire, two have observed no change since they were young, and the other two have become in respect to distant objects more short sighted than they were in early life. But along with this an opposite change had taken place at the other extremity of their range of perfect vision, for they had become with respect to near objects longer sighted. With short sighted persons, consequently, it would appear that when the eye loses its power of adaptation to different distances, the point of perfect vision is intermediate between the two former extremes, and not, as happens in eyes of ordinary range, at the most remote extremity of that range.

There are two other subjects regarding the eye, into which Dr. W. has incidentally extended his enquiries. The first relates to the corresponding action of the iris of each eye. This is generally attributed to direct sympathy between them; but he observed that when one eye is under the influence of Belladonna, the pupil of the other becomes contracted, so that the size of the pupil appears to depend, not only upon the quantity of light failing upon its own retina, but upon that which is admitted to the retina of the other eye, and their corresponding motion is an accidental consequence of this fact. The other refers to the condition of the external muscles of the eye when that organ is completely under the influence of Belladonna. By comparing the distance at which the optic axes could be made to cross each other, Dr. Cutting determined that their power was not at all diminished, even when the eye was most completely under

its influence; and Dr. Wells had before determined, that though he had lost the power of altering the refractive state of his eyes, yet the power of the muscle had not suffered any perceptible diminution. It still remains therefore to be determined by what means this nice and delicate adaptation of the organ is accomplished. That it depends much if not entirely upon the chrystalline, is rendered extremely probable from the fact, that even young persons who have lost it, are under the necessity of using glasses of different convexity for near and remote objects; but the experiments which have been hitherto made upon this highly curious and interesting subject, have as yet thrown no satisfactory light upon the means by which it is accomplished.

Art. IV. A Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ; including a brief Review of the Controversy between Dr. Horsley and Dr, Priestley, and a Summary of the various Opinions entertained by Christians upon this Subject. By Thomas Belsham, Minister of the Church in Essex-Street. Svo. Price 12s. boards. J. Johnson and Co. 1812.

THE

'HE substance of this volume, its author informs us, was delivered in a course of lectures to his pupils, when he occupied the theological chair at Daventry. The Dissenting Academy at this place, was a continuation of that over which Dr. Doddridge presided at Northampton; and which, by the will of its benevolent founder, Mr, Coward, was placed under the direction of Trustees, who were expected to guarantee the orthodox integrity of the institution. Mr. Belsham it should seem, began to be dissatisfied with the fundamental principles of the seminary, and was in consequence induced to commence a calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.' At this time, from his own avowal, he was a firm believer in the pre-existence of Christ.'

On this statement two reflections naturally occur. The first is, that the author, at different periods, exhibits himself a firm believer' of opposite and contradictory sentiments; and therefore, from his own account, compared with his present views, he firmly believed without evidence. The other is, that Mr. B. had but a slender claim, rather no claim at all, to the theological chair, when he held the Arian pre-existence of Christ, which appears to have been the full extent of his orthodoxy at the outset, while his post was retained on the condition, according to the founder's will, that he was a firm believer' in the Deity of Christ, in opposition to the Arian, as well as to the Socinian hypothesis. With regard to the first of these considerations, we think it may

be justly questioned, whether a mind so formed and so disposed, however active in learning, is ever likely to arrive at the knowledge of the truth.' As for the second, we must leave it to Mr. Belsham's casuístry to explain, how, as an honest man, he could retain an office, and receive a salary, to which he must know he was not intitled, during eight years of his doctrinal vacillation.

The plan adopted by Mr. Belsham in order to ascertain the point in question, carries, at first sight, an air of plau sible impartiality: it was, to form a collection of all the texts in the New Testament which in any way related to the Person of Christ.' We do not object to this process when properly conducted; but we are convinced it cannot possibly be so conducted without some pre-requisites in the mind of the inquirer. Every one who has paid due attention to the principles and operations of the human mind, must know, that, on subjects of this nature, miuds differently disposed may arrive at opposite results. It is therefore of the utmost importance to ascertain, with what dispositions, with what expectations, with what precognita we enter upon this inquiry. That it be "calm is not sufficient. When we peruse the records of civil history, the maxims of Confucius, the eclogues of Virgil, or the elements of Euclid, we may calmly' expect to be gratified-the active principle of curiosity is kept awake, and we anticipate some rays of truth convertible to useful purposes. But when we read the will, the "last will and testament" of a father or brother, we feel a lively interest in the document. Here, to be perfectly calm, is the same as to be stupid or rude. And yet, when this very document comes to the decision of a counsel or a judge, to whom it is a point of speculative concern, personal interest being out of the question, a 'cal' investigation is most proper; though even in this case, the form of the words will not always decide the import of the will, without including circumstances, and especially the probable design of the testator.

Now, we may ask, what were the precognita, what the rules of interpretation, what the requisite circumstances, that Mr. B. and his pupils brought with them, in order to learn the scripture doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.? Our Author shall speak for himself and his brethren:

agree

All Christians that Jesus of Nazareth was to outward appearance man like other men and that though he was an inspired prophet, who performed miracles, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, he is not, on these accounts solely, to be regarded as a being of rank superior to the human race, but that separate and direct evidence is necessary for the establishment of this specific fact. Hence it follows that, in this inquiry, The whole burthen of proof lies upon those who assert the pre-existence, the

original dignity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. If any one affirm that a being who has every appearance, and every incident and quality of a man, is not a real man, but a being of an order superior to mankind, it is incumbent upon him to prove his assertion. If he fail in his proof, his hypothesis vanishes, and the person in question must be regarded as a real man. In this controversy, therefore, the proper province of the Arian and Trinitarian is to propose the evidence of their respective hypotheses; that is, to state those passages of scripture which they conceive to be conclusive in favour of their doctrines. The sole concern of the Unitarian is to show that these arguments are inconclusive: that the passages in question are either of doubtful authenticity, or misunderstood, or misapplied. This is the precise state of the question. It is admited by all parties. It must be continually kept in view. This view of the subject points out the true and only proper method of conducting the argument. It is by proposing and carefully examining the controverted texts. He who will not submit to this labour must be content to remain ignorant, or to take his opinions upon trust.' p. 1-3.

We are by no means of the number of those who are content to remain ignorant, or to take our opinions upontrust. We have also submitted to the labour of carefully examining the controverted texts,' attended with all the advantages of Mr. B.'s criticisms and comments. But to record, seriatim, what we were constrained, by apparent superior evidence, to regard as false deductions, and to give at length our reasons for so thinking, would require a ponderous volume like his own. An undertaking, with this specific design, we find is publicly announced; and we doubt not the cause of truth, candour, and piety will be promoted by the com parison. All that can be reasonably expected from an article in a periodical work, may be comprised under two leading divisions; in the first place, some observations on the author's assumed principles, and secondly, some remarks on the general controverted subject.

Mr. B. assumes, in limine, that all Christians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was to outward appearance a man like other men.' In other words, he takes for granted that all Christians agree to be Socinians; since no one besides them, professing Christianity, will concur in this assertion, without a corrective limitation of the similarity? To that declaration of the Apostle, indeed, in his epistle to the Hebrews," in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren," as explained by the Apostle himself, all Christians, worthy of the name, will unreservedly subscribe. Some of the ancient visionaries who assailed the fundamental articles of the Christian church, contended, it is true, that he had not a real but only an apparent human body. But these dreams are gone. It is now universally maintained, as those who take the holy scriptures, common

6

sense, and right reason for their guides, have ever maintained, that Jesus Christ had a true body and soul, that is, a human nature, subject to the innocent infirmities of that nature. But the scriptures assert that in other very extraordinary respects he was not like other men. They testify that, while in this world, he was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,' that he knew no sin,' or was no sinner, 'did no sin,' but was without blemish and without spot.' This is an essential difference of appearance,'-and the Bible teaches us the reality. In this respect, at least, Jesus appears a perfect unique of character, among the countless millions of free agents who have inhabited our globe as the descendants of the first man. To that declaration, universally true when applied to others, there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not,' he was a perfect exception. Must we ask Mr. Belsham's pardon for thus calling in question one of his first principles? No; but we will quote his own language in explanation of his assertion, that Jesus was a man like other men.'

6

The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties.' (p. 447.) When Jesus or his apostles deliver opinions unconnected with the object of their mission, such opinions, and their reasonings upon them, are to be received with the same attention and caution with those of other persons in similar circumstances, of similar education, and with similar habits of thinking.' p. 451. They maintain that it no more derogates from the authority of Christ, than it does from that of Moses, that his inspiration should not extend beyond the proper objects of his mission, and that in other cases he should entertain the same opinions, and be liable to the same misconceptions, as his countrymen, and those amongst whom he was educated. Also, that the character of Jesus should be gradually formed-is more useful as an example to his followers, than if he were by nature and necessity a perfectly holy and impeccable being, incapable of being influenced by temptation of any kind, and consequently in no respect similar to his followers. p. 472. The moral character of Christ, through the whole course of his publie ministry, as recorded by the evangelists, is pure and unimpeachable in every particular. Whether this perfection of character in public life, combined with the general declarations of his freedom from sin, establish, or were intended to establish, the fact, that Jesus through the whole course of his private life was completely exempt from all the errors and failings of human nature, is a question of NO GREAT INTRINSIC MOMENT, and concerning which we have no sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.' p. 190.

In this ample specimen of our author's bold, and we are tempted to add, blasphemous opinions concerning the person of Christ, (and they pervade every page of the work before us) the gratuitous assumption is evidently implied, that man