rections in his last will; and in 1777, under the care of the Rev. N. White, his successor at the Old Jewry, "A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, with doctrinal and practical observations; together with a critical and practical Commentary on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians."

In the year 1756, Dr. Chandler promoted the publication of a remarkable posthumous work by Mr. Moses Lowman, one of the most learned divines among the Presbyterian Dissenters of that day; though his retired habits and want of popular talents prevented his arriving at much eminence or distinction. The volume contains three tracts, of which the first is entitled, Remarks on the Question, whether the divine Appearances under the Old Testament were Appearances of the true God himself, or only of some other spiritual being representing the True God, and acting in his name; the second, an Essay on the Schechinah, or considerations on the divine appearances mentioned in the Scripture; and the third contains an examination of various Texts of Scripture relating to the Logos. Dr. Chandler seems to have sanctioned this publication by affixing his name to the preface in conjunction with those of Dr. Lardner and Mr. E. Sandercock, and by so doing certainly evinced his candour to a remarkable degree; for they are particularly directed against the Arian notion of a subordinate agent supposed to have been concerned in the creation of the world and in the conduct of the Old Testament dispensation; and expose the insufficiency of the reasons commonly alleged for this opinion in a manner which no Arian, it is imagined, will find it

easy to gainsay. Indeed, one is at a loss to imagine how men of high eminence for learning and acuteness, such as some of those who have espoused this notion certainly were, should have failed to perceive its inconsistency with the whole object and character of the Mosaic economy. For what was this object?-evidently to counteract the prevailing tendency of mankind to idolatry. And how did this tendency originate? To all appearance in an idea that the most High God did not occupy himself with the details of this lower world, but entrusted them to inferior beings, who, by consequence engrossed to themselves the whole attention of those who imagined that the affairs of mankind and the course of events by which they were affected were placed in their hands and at their controul. What more natural, than that they should address their petitions and their worship to those in whose hands their destiny, whether for good or evil, appeared to be placed? This, and this alone, seems for the most part to have been the true origin of all the idolatries of the ancient world. But if the Jewish polity were indeed what some have represented it, far from checking, it would seem only to encourage and promote the very system it is said to have been destined to overthrow.

By the Logos, which dwelt or tabernacled among us, being made flesh, or, as it were, taking up its residence in Jesus as the most glorious and excellent Schechinah, we are therefore to understand, according to this writer, no less a being than the one God, the Father; whose wisdom spake in our Lord's discourses, by whose power his mighty works were performed, and whose

Mr. Low

spirit was given to him without limit. man has not formally stated the conclusion deducible from this argument in favour of the simple humanity of Christ; leaving it, we may presume, to the ingenuity of the reader, who could scarcely fail to perceive it as a necessary and unavoidable consequence.

The following allusion to this publication occurs in the preface by Mr. Richard Baron to that curious collection of tracts, entitled "A Cordial for Low Spirits;" which is also remarkable as furnishing the most decisive direct testimony to the Unitarianism of Sir Isaac Newton.

"The brightest and fullest manifestation of this glorious truth (the humanity of Christ) seems to have been reserved by Providence for the honour of this age, and as a most powerful check to the growth of infidelity; such evidences of the humanity of Christ Jesus having been lately produced as many former ages were unaquainted with. For my meaning I refer the curious reader to Mr. Lowman's Tracts, where he will find the Arians beaten out of the main fort which they had long held; whence, of necessity, they are driven to give up the rest. Mr. Lowman led the way, demolishing the outworks of the enemy. Dr. Lardner followed, and cleared the field. answer has appeared to their writings on this subject; no answer can be given. Dr. Chandler hath confessed that he cannot answer Mr. Lowman; and if he cannot, who can ?"

No

Mr. Lowman was born in London in 1679. He

was originally intended for the bar; but soon abandoning all thoughts of that profession, he went to Holland in 1699, and pursued his studies for the Christian ministry at Utrecht and Leyden. In 1710 he was chosen assistant preacher to a dissenting congregation at Clapham, where he continued for the rest of his life, discharging the duties of his station with constancy and regularity, esteemed and beloved by his flock, and respected by all who knew him.

Mr. Lowman was one of the contributors to the valuable religious periodical called the "Occasional Paper," set on foot by the leading Presbyterian ministers of London in 1716; and which deserves notice, not merely from the intrinsic merit of many of its articles, but from the remarkable indication it affords of the increasing prevalence of liberal principles among the rational dissenters of that day; a prevalence which it was doubtless mainly instrumental in promoting to a still greater extent.

No. 1 of vol. ii is a spirited paper on "Orthodoxy," by Mr. Lowman. "I cannot but dislike," says he, "the absurd, narrow, and uncharitable notion of orthodoxy, which has too long set Christtians at variance one with another. It is highly arrogant in the Papists; because, though the church of Rome asserts, she is far from proving herself to be infallible; and, therefore, though she is tolerably consistent in calling herself orthodox, and all that differ from her heretics, yet she may be out; there may be great mistakes in the decrees and catechism of Trent. But still I can write against their imposed canons and traditions with some temper, because they proceed

fairly. They say the Bible, without their glosses upon it, is not a sufficient and perfect rule of faith, and that their interpretations of it are as infallibly true as the word of God itself. Grant them these principles on which they go, and then they argue justly, that a man must believe all that their church believes, in order to denominate him orthodox.

"But that men who separate from this church on the foot of a private judgment; that pretend to no infallibility, and own the Bible to be a perfect adequate rule, that needs no additions to eke it out and make it a complete directory; that men that live and breathe upon this principle, and can justify their own conduct by nothing else; that they, while they are engaged in a pretended defiance to this implicit faith, should yet make their own sentiments and darling opinions the standard of orthodoxy, is both an iniquity and a folly not to be endured.

I never yet could see a list of fundamentals in Christianity. I have heard Protestants, when upbraided by the Romanists for want of unity, plead agreement in fundamentals; and I have heard the Papists hereupon demand such a list; but I never knew any Protestant hardy enough to produce it. That only, in my notion, is a fundamental mistake in religion, which is inconsistent with a good heart and a religious conversation. If a man give any reasonable evidence of his being impressed with the fear of God, and that he is concerned to know and do his will, however he may err, we are not to seat ourselves in God's throne, and, because he is not religious in our way, reprobate him at once, and conclude