Whose nine years' contest made Roman victory doubtful! "Had my success in arms equall'd my loftiness of rank, I once had followers, arms, wealth, and kingly majesty: P. 209. We think our readers will agree with us, that Mr. Parker has clothed sublime ideas in worthy language, which renders it the more to be regretted that his favorite hexameters have crippled and confined his otherwise lofty muse. The conquest of the Britons by the Romans, as is well known, was not accomplished easily; but when at length effected, the usual course of things took place, viz. the introduction of the language, laws, manners, and religious observances of the conquerors. The Roman language, as a matter of course, became afterwards spoken and written in the colleges of Bangoriscoed, St. David's, and the religious houses of Glastonbury, &c. From this cause, many Roman words were introduced into the language of the aborigines. Hence the partial affinity observable in the two languages at the present day. The Romans held their power in Britain until the irruption of the northern hive, under "Alaric the tremendous," when, making their way to the walls of Rome itself, her proud ramparts became occupied by Gothic barbarians. But our limits warn us that we must, for the present, close our observations on a subject too capacious for a single notice. We can assure Mr. Parker that, notwithstanding our disapproval of his metre, we shall recur to the remainder of his poem with great pleasure. This we intend to do in our next number; and if, in the meantime, the cheering song of the birds, and the vegetation newly starting into life, in the early Spring, (a season highly favorable to poetic effort,) should cause our author to in voke his muse in a new dress, we shall not fail, at the same time, to express our delight at having an opportunity of bestowing praise less qualified than we have felt we could honestly do on the present occasion. Clerical Legacy. Published for the use of the younger Clergy in the Diocese of Bangor. By P. Williams, D.D. rector of Llanbedrog. 1 vol. 18mo. Evans, Caernarvon. WE learn from the preface to this little work, that the reverend, learned, and truly estimable author, is now nearly the oldest clergyman in the diocese of Bangor. But, although he has reached a period of life when a man's age is but labour and sorrow, the sermons with which he has presented us, were composed at a time when his intellectual powers were in full vigour, and were delivered to an audience most competent to appreciate their excellences, and to detect errors or defects. After a diligent perusal of these truly interesting and instructive discourses, we have no hesitation in recommending them to the attention of educated Christians, and more especially to the younger clergy, for whose use they are chiefly designed. In the first discourse, which is on the subject of our Lord's ascension, (John, vi. 61, 62,) the reverend and learned doctor takes occasion to expose the errors of those who deny the deity of the founder of our holy faith. This is a subject which has too generally excited in the minds of disputants on both sides of the question, feelings of an angry and uncharitable nature. We were happy to find that Dr. Williams, while he strenuously maintains the doctrine of the church, of which he is an ornament, mixes no rancour with his arguments, nor does he slide over those of his opponents, but, with great fairness and candour, states their objections in the words of their most eminent writers; he, moreover, acknowledges them as his brethren, a concession which would be very reluctantly, if at all, accorded by more modern champions of orthodoxy. By these, Socinians and Unitarians are commonly regarded as unbelievers, although some of the ablest defences of the truth of the Christian religion, are from the pens of individuals of those sects-witness Locke and Lardner. We greatly fear that a dispute, which has agitated the Christian church for more than fourteen centuries, is not likely to be set at rest in our days. The natural difficulties of the subject have been aggravated by futile attempts to explain, by metaphysical terms of human invention, the mode of the divine subsistence. The words of the excellent and learned Stillingfleet, (in the preface to his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity,) administer a plain and a wise rule, which, were it observed by divines, would greatly con tribute to heal the wounds which both truth and charity have received in this controversy. "Since both sides yield," says he, "that the matter they dispute about is above their reach, the wisest course they can take is, to assert and defend what is revealed, and not to be peremptory and quarrelsome about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension; I mean as to the manner how the three persons partake of the divine nature." The course thus wisely recommended, is that which our author appears to have followed. In a postscript to the sermon, Dr. Williams gives a sketch of the character and opinions of the celebrated Hindoo, Rammohun Roy, who is now in this country. We offer no apology for inserting this postscript. "As much ado is made by modern Unitarians in favor of their sect, by the conversion of Rammohun Roy, and of his preference of their creed, I will here transcribe the impartial, though rather long, account given of that extraordinary man by the Rev. J. T. James, in his valuable book, the Semisceptic, chap. viii. P. 321. "A strong testimony has been borne,' says Mr. James, 'to the superiority of the Christian religion over all others, within these few years, by the selfconversion of a native Bengalese, named Rammohun Roy; a person possessing, as it appears, a large property in that country, and enjoying a considerable reputation for his talents and liberality. Nor is his fame at all impaired by the manner in which he has treated the subject, to which his attention has been for many years engaged. "He first made his appearance as an author by the publication of a treatise in the Persian language, in the year 1804; the chief object of which was to inveigh against the adoption of idolatrous worship in any form of religion. Consistently with his professions, he employed himself, for some years afterwards, in endeavouring to purify the Hindû religion from this charge, as well as another, to which equal exception might be taken-the admission of a plurality of gods; and he seemed to have entertained strong hopes of being able to clear it of those errors and abuses, which were the natural result of such doctrines. One of his most celebrated works is the abridgment of the Vedants; in the preface of which he states his conviction that, "the superstitious practices which deformed the Hindû religion, have nothing to do with the pure spirit of its dictates." And he labours, in consequence, to set forth to the world his view of what ought to be called a pure system of Hindû Deism. "His mind, however, does not, by any means, appear to have long rested satisfied with the Hindû system, even in this reformed state; and, after making some researches into the Koran, which do not seem to have repaid his pains, he turned his thoughts toward the Christian religion, and his choice at once was fixed. His words are these: 'I found the doctrines of Christ more conducive to moral principles, and better adapted for the use of rational beings, than any other which had come within my knowledge.' It was not, however, until he had spent some years in the acquisition of the Hebrew and Greek languages, and had diligently perused the sacred writings in their original tongue, that his mind felt at ease upon the subject; and that, as he says, he became a Christian. "It is necessary to observe in this place, that Rammohun Roy is, as to his principles of belief, a professed Unitarian, and has even become a zealous po lemic in behalf of that sect. That his mind should have taken this turn, is a fact which admits an easy explanation. He set out originally in search of a religion that might be more satisfactory to him than that in which he and his countrymen had been brought up. Finding the Christian religion to afford the most perfect system of morality, he adopts it immediately on that ground; and on that ground only, rejecting whatsoever else might belong to it, if it did not accord with his taste. He was actuated by no sentiment of piety, he felt none of that awe for the Supreme Being, which is the very corner-stone of all religion, and aimed at gratifying the speculative passion of his own mind, rather than sought to perform a duty to God. One may justly question, from his style of writing, whether such a notion ever entered his thoughts: he appears rather to be so far transported by the selfishness of enthusiasm, as to forget the Divinity altogether; and may be said to exhibit one more example of that unconscious duplicity of feeling, which seems almost invariably to attach to the profession of Deism. "We must not look upon him in the light of a religious man of any de scription, but merely as a caterer in morality; one who carves out for himself, and for the use, as he says, of his brethren, just what pleases himself, and rejects what displeases him; though at the same time professing to believe the gospel to be the message of God. "The parts of the New Testament which he has published for the Hindûs, under the title of "The Precepts of Jesus," are mere selections of those passages, which he supposes to contain an exposition of the moral law. This is all vastly well, as far as it goes; but Rammohun Roy ought to have known that, supposing the establishment of a system of good morality to be the main end of the gospel, yet that on which it depends for establishment is the efficacy of the means which it employs. On these, as he ought to know, infinite stress is laid in various parts of the gospel, and it is those peculiar means belonging to it which make Christianity, to use his own words, "better adapted" for the use of rational beings than any other system of religion. "Here then we detect that feeling by which he was secretly, and, perhaps, almost unwittingly, impelled in his design. He had commenced his labours on the subject of religion, with the laudable intention of exterminating all the superfluous gods of the Hindú system; and, still warm with the same ideas of reformation, his mind instantly revolts against any thing which seems in his view to involve a contradiction to his ideas; for this reason it is, that, though otherwise holding it in the highest admiration, he demurs to those articles of faith which Christianity requires. He is still haunted by the remembrance of his discarded and supernumerary deities, and objects to the doctrine of the Trinity as if it were another species of that Polytheism from which he has just escaped: he attacks it not indeed with similar animosity, for the subject would not admit of it, but with all the feelings of a man who had been successful in one combat, and looked to nothing but triumph in a second. He will not stop to consider the real nature of a Christian's belief on this subject, and seems as if unwilling to understand that we abhor a multiplicity of gods as strongly as he does, and denounce such belief in terms at least as positive and as sincere. He will not remember, for an instant, what it is that we assert when we call ourselves worshippers of Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.' "He repeats the words indeed, but declares them to be utterly unintelligible; making use of the phrase which has been so often brought forward by the Deist and Unitarian, that three cannot be one, or one be three. Here then we come to his point, and will examine its meaning: we will concede, that, speaking of material substances, the assertion cannot be said to be true; but speaking of immaterial, it certainly may, and not only may but is clearly and demonstratively shown to be so with regard to our human selves. How much more then have we a right to assume it to be the case with God, 'who is a spirit,' a perfect immaterial being? With regard to ourselves, we know that the soul, the will, and the perception are three, and yet it cannot be denied that they are also indivisibly one: they offer, therefore, an illustration of the common doctrine with regard to the Trinity, which no one will venture to impugn. He alludes, indeed, himself to this mode of illustration, but has got into confusion by an error with regard to the word substance, which he understands in a sense that never could have been intended by the author of the Athanasian creed, or any other rational Christian. "But let us examine his words: "The Trinitarians,' he says, 'should establish, first, that the soul, will, and perception, are three substances;" now, had the usual distinction between matter and spirit been present to his thoughts while writing, he never could have been guilty of the absurdity of imagining, that those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity could mean, by the word substance, to express a material being, or even could expect any one so to interpret it. The Greek word for substance is ovoia, or being, (whether used as explanatory, or originally so written, is of little consequence,) and unity of substance is ouo-ovoia, or togetherness of being: and it is evident that nothing more is meant by the use of the word substance, than to give that analogy from matter which might be applied to assist our conception of the divine nature. "Another common point of the Unitarians, and which Rammohun Roy mentions, is the application to Jesus Christ of the word sent; which, he says, implies the 'subordinate nature of him, a messenger, to the nature of God, by whom he was sent.' This error again arises from a forgetfulness, on his part, of the very first condition under which we form a notion of the divine nature, namely, that it is every where present. If the word sent were to be interpreted as we use it with regard to ourselves as material beings, it would be as he states it; but we ought to read the expression under an idea of the universal presence of God: and, therefore, sent cannot, whether applied to Christ or to the Holy Ghost, be capable of being construed after his fashion. 'Sent' is not sent as men would send, but is spoken in allusion to the character of the Godhead: we add, however, that when the phrase is used with regard to Christ in his character of man, it becomes literal in its application; that is, so far as his humanity is concerned, but this is all that can be said. ""Most of the difficulties, if not all, that Rammohun Roy meets with in the expressions of the New Testament, arise from his not duly distinguishing between them, when applied to Christ in his human character, and when they are so in his spiritual: which if the attentive reader of scripture hold in mind, he will easily unravel much of the sophistry of the Unitarian. "The unfortunate divisions which so long have existed upon this subject, have arisen from the attempt, on the part of mankind, to define and describe, with too much precision of language, those things and relations of which we have, in this our present state of being, but an imperfect idea: and the pushing analogies from "earthly things," which are only used in condescension to that imperfection, to an extreme to which they never are meant to be carried. The cases, however, which are stated in this publication, are not of a very difficult nature: we have light enough, even of ourselves, to discover where the error lies, and to explain the pretended mystery of the objector. "As to the rest of this work of Rammohun Roy, it is written, certainly, with great industry and ingenuity, and, during the earlier part of the correspondence which he maintained with the missionaries in the East, with much appearance of candour. If he subsequently departed from the strict impartiality which he originally prescribed to himself, it is no more than might be expected from human nature; and it must be said, that the argument which he has constructed upon his view of a variety of passages selected from the |