Here and elsewhere the author espouses the Arian principles of Peirce and Emlyn, which the talents and well-earned reputation of these distinguished men rendered almost universally prevalent among the English Anti-trinitarians of that period; but the exposure of the leading tenets of Calvinism, and particularly of the entire absence of any adequate scriptural evidence for them, though concise, is very distinct and complete. While he admits (or rather takes for granted, without assigning any direct evidence for his conclusion) that a species of worship is due from his disciples to Christ in his character of Mediator, he labours to distinguish between this subordinate homage and the supreme worship paid to the Father only. But on what principle this sort of subordinate worship is to be reconciled with that solemn injunction of him to whom it is proposed to be addressed, ‘In that day ye shall ask me nothing, but whatever ye shall ask, the Father in my name, he will give it you,’ he nowhere attempts to explain. On the strength, we presume, of this modified homage, which, Unitarians, according to him, are justified in offering to their Saviour, he seems to think that the two parties might conscientiously unite in the same religious services. Here, however, lies the prinpal weakness of his argument, which proves only that most of the points on which the contending
