bold attacks of infidelity. For be affured, our faith, held in the bonds of peace and love, will be fafer and better secured to us, than it can be by the furious transports of a blind zeal. So pure a faith deferves our warm attachment to it, and a jealous concern for its fupport under the continual and various attacks of its adverfaries. But let not a fufpicion of its danger ever betray us into an uncharitable opinion of our opponents, and in confequence thereof, into unchriftian and unwarrantable measures of defence; knowing this, that an oppofition to the most orthodox faith, grounded on error alone, and not conducted by a spirit of contention, is far lefs culpable in the fight of Almighty God, than the maintenance of the fame on the principles of perfecution.'

Having, in the next place, quoted many texts from the apostles in proof of the divinity of our Saviour, that have a plain and obvious meaning, others (fays he) more commonly infifted upon in treating this fubject, I have purpofely omitted; becaufe how much stronger foever they may feem, at first view, than thofe I have produced in fupport of this tenet, yet the tranflation, the genuineness of the text, or the fenfe of them, has been with fome reafon queftioned by the learned, and occafioned, tho' without reafon, fome triumph to our opponents.'

Two inftances of thefe he produces; and having fully fhewn the infufficiency of them to answer the purpose for which they are generally brought, he obferves, It would be endless therefore, and can ferve only as an handle to keep up an opposition to the established doctrines of the church, to argue on dubious authorities and difputed paffages of fcripture. The errors of our opponents will be most effectually expofed, when the defence of our holy doctrines refts not on the mere found of words and fentences, picked out here and there from the most obfcure and difficult paffages, but on the whole authority of fcripture, on the general conftant tenor of the gofpel. For what foever is inconfiftent with that must be falfe, as whatfoever is confiftent therewith is truth; and truth thus entrenched within the strong mounds of fcripture, which the holy fpirit hath raised about her for her defence, she may be annoyed now and then from the outworks of the enemy, but is not to be circumvented by the subtile ftratagems, nor forced by the rudeft attacks of the fons of error and infidelity.'

We come now to that part of the work which respects the teftimony arifing from our Saviour's own account. It seems to be the fubftance of three lectures, and appears here under the title of A Critical Differtation on the LOGOS. Our Author hath advanced a new interpretation of the three first verses and the 14th of St. John's Gofpel, in confirmation of which, he has illuftrated a variety of our Saviour's expreflions, as recorded by

Ee 3

this

this evangelift. We are at a lofs how to give our Readers the idea we could wifh of this curious piece of criticism; but fhall, however, prefent them with a view of his tranflation and fenfe of the former of the above mentioned paffages: referring them to the work itfelf, as the only fufficient fpecimen of the dextrous manner in which the Doctor has fupported his interpretation, obviated the objections most likely to be made to it, and contrafted it in point of grammar, fentiment, and scripture-connection, with all the former interpretations that have been offered in illuftration of this contefted paffage of facred writ.

Having given a concife view of the different explications of the evangelifts affertion concerning the LoGos, by Trinitarians, Arians, Socinians, and Sabellians, he thus prepares the minds of his Readers for an equitable reception of his own, by the following fenfible and candid remark:

Were thefe different explications, fays he, contended for by the enemies of revelation; if each of thefe denominations endeavoured to expofe the opinions of the reft, in order to expose the weakness and abfurdity of the Chriftian religion, this mutual contradiction among our adverfaries were not to be regretted. But it is painful to confider that this difference is among ourfelves. For many, a great many, of each clafs, it cannot be doubted, have been well-wifhers to our holy religion, and fhewn themselves not more zealous than able in the general defence thereof. It were to be wifhed therefore, that fuch a fenfe could be clearly difcovered to belong to this paffage, as fhould be liable to no exception with any denomination of fincere believers; and it is to be fufpected, from the great difference among themselves, that they are under one common mistake. This I fhall endeavour to point out, and offer an explication of the paffage, againft which, in point of doctrine, no objection can lie with those who believe Chriftianity at all.

The WORD here fpoken of by the evangelift, is by all of them underflood to relate to the perfon of Chrift. The word was God, that is, (fay they) fus Chrift was God or a God. But by the word, I apprehend, the evangelift means (what is meant by it in all other places of feripture) the gospel; and with a small but material variation of the conftruction of this fo much difputed paffage, the following natural and easy fense of it will appear, that God is the original author of our falvation.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and God was the word. 2. It was in the beginning with God. 3. All· was done by him; and without him was not any thing done of that which has come to pafs.

This must be owned to be a more exact tranflation than the other, and is to be preferred on this account, viz. that it doth not neceffarily convey the idea of any difputable doctrine, but may

be

be understood in a fenfe to which no perfon, that believes Chrif tianity at all, can have any objection.

St. John feems to mean no more by thefe words than to preface his account of the gospel which he ftiles the word, with the high original of it. This was, he tells us, from God himfelf; for that in the beginning, before it was publifhed to the world, it was with God, God was the word, the original author and giver of it. It was in the beginning with God, lay hid from the foundation of the world in the eternal counfels of the Almighty. All was done by him, the whole was from God, and without him was not any thing done of that which has come to pafs; that is, every part of the gospel difpenfation, published by Jefus Chrift, was from God; and whatever works he wrought in confirmation of it, not one of them dev was of himfelf, or came to pafs, opis T8 08, without God.'

In the next difcourfe our Author proceeds to maintain his third pofition, viz. That the Holy Ghoft is of a nature perfectly divine, &c. but this we pafs over for the fake of brevity; juft obferving, that the Doctor, in his attempt to illuftrate this point, reaps no small advantage from the wary manner in which he has expressed himself, as well as from his carefully diftinguifhing, with regard to those circumstances by which the opponents of the doctrine seem to have been mifled.

The next difcourfe is introduced with fome pertinent obfervations on the method of divine providence, in bringing all men to the acknowledgment of the true faith, that there is but one God and one Mediator betwixt God and men, the man Chrift Fefus.

It is the laft of thefe pofitions (fays he) which I propofe to illuftrate, the former having been already confidered in the preceding lectures. Our Mediator, it is afferted in the text, was man, arpwπos Xpisos Inces, the man Chrift Jefus. The perfect humanity of Chrift is as effential and fundamental an article of our faith as that it was God himself, the perfect divinity, who wrought and was manifeft in him. If we admit the fuppofition, that he was not really and truly man, but a being of a fuperior, though limited nature, refiding only in the human body, we can have no confiftent idea of the account given us, either of the incarnation, or of the mediatorial office of the Son of God.'

Having fully proved the confiftency of his opinion, on this head, with the general ftrain of fcripture, he proceeds to confider thofe texts which are commonly urged, as well by Trinitarians as Arians, in fupport of their different hypothefes. He differs from both in his explication of them, though it is the latter only which he profeffedly attacks. The texts relate to the creation of all things by Jefus Chrift. Our Author fhews that this afcription of the creation of all things to Chrift cannot have a reference to the outward frame and fyftem of things; fuch an Ke 4

inter

interpretation being inconfiftent both with the Mofaic account of the creation and the design of the facred writers in the texts under confideration, but to the new and fpiritual creation or gospel inflitution.

The concluding difcourfe is entitled, The proper use of reason in judging of revealed doctrines, applied particularly to the doctrine of the church of England concerning the trinity. It contains many fenfible and judicious reflections, which fhew that the Author entered not on this fubject without having fully confidered the ftate of the trinitarian controverfy, nor without having obferved the neceffity of refting the defence of the established doctrines relating thereto, on a different footing from what hath ye be n done.

He engages folely in defence of the fentiments of the church, on this article, without confidering himself as answerable at all for the expreffions in which they are cloathed; and he anticipates a queftion which may very naturally be afked here, viz. By what rule then fhail we come at the true fenfe of the church on this head, if her expreffions are liable to be misunderstood? He anfwers, By the fame rule that we should come at the meaning of any difputed paffage of feripture; that is, by interpreting her words in confiftence with the general tenor and universal strain of her liturgy, as well as articles. For, he adds, whatever acceptation of her expreffions makes her inconfiftent with and contradictory to herself, that must be wrong, and will imply what fhe means not to affirm. And here, continues our prudent Vindicator, I cannot proceed without expreffing the re-. gret I feel on reviewing the feveral defences of the trinity, even by the most eminent divines of our church. They appear to me to have expended their ingenious labour on the defence of the terms and expreffions in which this doctrine hath been cloathed by the compiler of the creed commonly called the Creed of St. Athanafius, too much to the neglect of defending the doctrine itfelf on the plain and undoubted principles of the liturgy in general. Hence has arifen that mutual contradiction and difputation among themfelves, fo much to the difgrace, I will not fay, of the doctrine of the trinity; but, however, to the advantage of their common opponents, who are not only ready to take advantage of them, but to use it also against the doctrine itself, and triumph in it, as if they had gained fome victory over the church. But they have gained none here. The doctrine itself remains entire; and though the fences raised about it by weak and fallible men, jealous of the leaft innovation, may be broken through, it is, for all that, perfectly fafe, being fenced about by the strength of the Almighty, in proofs of holy-writ: for, defended on the general principles of the church of England, it will be found to be perfectly confiftent with fcripture principles.

Hand

Handfomely faid, we muft allow, of the church of England, and perhaps juftly observed! But would the Doctor have exceeded the bounds of difcretion in acknowledging the expediency of a reformation in point of expreffion at leaft? fince the confeffed obfcurity of the terms now in ufe can serve but to these two bad purposes, to encourage oppofition to her doctrines from her illwifhers, and to encrease the danger, or perpetuate the difgrace, which is already brought upon her from the mistaken notions of those who are zealously affected towards her.

The two tracts annexed to the work we have been reviewing, relate to the doctrine of an intermediate ftate, and are infcribed to the Rev. Dr. Law, Mafter of Peterhouse, Cambridge. The former of them was originally published in a Letter to the Monthly Reviewers; and contained remarks on the firft of Mr. Steffe's letters on that fubject. It appears now with feveral additions, occafioned by fome ftrictures we thought it not impertinent, at that time, to make upon them: how far they were proper, we leave the learned to judge, after affuring Dr. Dawfon, that as we received his remarks, at first, with great pleafuret, so we are now far from being disobliged by his additional obfervations on us.

The latter tract was originally publifhed (fays the Author) in the Grand Magazine for April 1758 ‡, in answer to Mr. Steffe's Brief Defence. In both these critical pieces the Dr. avoids taking either fide of the queftion concerning the ftate of the foul after death; confining himself to the confideration of what Mr. Steffe advances from fcripture, and fhewing the infufficiency of the four texts produced by him to prove the doctrine of an intermediate ftate. In this he hath acted a prudent part, as things go. The clamour against Dr. Law's Appendix is well known; and the fpirited writer of an historical view of this controverfy has lately informed the world, that a very learned and candid

See Monthly Review for May 1757.

The author of An Historical View of the Controverfy concerning an Intermediate State, speaking of Mr. Steffe, fays, Remarkable it is, that the very man who had put the cause upon the determination of fcripture alone, finding there was no managing Dr. Law's Appendix, or an acute and ingenious tract in the Monthly Review, which had taken him to tafk, this very man did not fcruple to call to his aid Pythagoras, Homer, &c. though, to fave appearances, it was under the pretence of making them interpreters to Mofes, Solomon, &c. What the fuccefs was of this expedient may poffibly appear upon fome other occafion.' Hence we conjecture this Author had not feen Dr. Dawfon's fecond reply to Mr. Steffe. It was indeed prefented to us; but having a great number of articles at that time upon our hands, we could not give it a place in our Review: it, therefore, appeared in the Grand Magazine.

$

The Author is mistaken; it was May 1758.

advocate