THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For DECEMBER, 1765.

An Illuftration of feveral Texts of Scripture, particularly thofe in which the LOGOS occurs.. -The Subflance of Eight Sermons preached in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, in the Years 1764, and 1765. At the Appointment of Mrs. Heathcote, and by Permiffion of the Lord Bishop of London; for the Lecture founded by Lady Mayer. To which are added, Two Tras relative to an Intermediate State. By Benjamin Dawfon, L. L. D. Rector of Burgh, in Suffolk. 8vo. 4s. Millar, &c.

LTHOUGH the spirit of controverfy in religious mattérs feems to be much on the decline; (and perhaps the illiberal manner, in which it has been too often conducted, may have difpofed moderate perfons to wifh a fpeedy end of it) yer, while mankind think religion to be of importance, and while it is found fo greatly to affect the welfare of every fociety, we fhall have little caufe to expect its abfolute termination; nor, in reason, can we hope that those we are connected with in fociety, will be totally indifferent to that which must ever support our moft effential interefts. Mankind are certainly formed for. religion. This is fo manifeft, that we need no other proof of it than the very argument generally made ufe of against it, viz. that the most fubtle politicians, as well as the wifett and greatest legiflators, have ever encouraged fome fpecies of religion in their different plans of civil polity, having always found it ready to their hand, interwoven, as it were, in the frame of government. Prieftcraft is but the abufe which narrow-fighted politicians have made of this religious propenfity, so natural to the human mind; and it would be more wifely brought as an argument for free enquiry, in order to prevent impofition, than for rejecting all religion, as meer artifice and contrivance.

very

Polemic divinity, which engages in fcholaftic queftions and metaphyfical fubtilties, is justly confidered as the most unproVOL. XXXIII.

Ee

fitable

4

fitable fpecies of writing. But freedom of debate, and even decent expreffion of zeal on the capital points of Christianity, will always be looked upon in a very different light, by the fenfible and judicious. As to those who are the profeffed guardians of religion, in them, a total indifference to its intereft would appear highly culpable; and an ignorance of thofe queftions which have exercifed the pens of the ableft divines, extremely fhameful.

In that part of the prefent work more immediately before us, the Author, though he is far from appearing lukewarm on the fubject, difcovers no unbecoming zeal for the doctrines he maintains; but rather feems defirous of a cool confideration and impartial comparison of them with the principles of the New Teftament. On this account he is certainly entitled to that indulgence from the public which he fo reasonably hopes to meet with from his diocefan, the Bifhop of Norwich; to whom, in a fhort dedication, he hath expreffed his defire of ferving, by this publication, the intereft of religion in general, and of the eftablished church in particular.

Serving the church, however, has very different ideas affixed to it by different people; and the Doctor may probably enough, in the opinion of fome of his readers, be prejudicing and betraying its intereft, while, according to the idea which others may entertain, he is doing it real honour, and effential fervice.

That our Readers may judge for themfelves, we fhall proceed to lay before them the plan of this work, with some specimens of the manner in which it is executed.

In the course of the following lectures (fays the Author) I have undertaken to prove from fcripture thefe three pofitions: ift, That he who redeemed us was very God manifested in the Aefh, not the first of created beings united to an human body, nor a mere man in whom the fulness of the godhead dwelt not. 2d, That Jefus Chrift was indeed perfect man, of a reasonable foul and human flefh fobfifting,' but that man in whom God himself and no other being, in nature inferior, dwelt. 3d, That the Holy Ghol is of a nature perfectly divine; not a distinct and Jeparate Being from the Father Almighty, inferior both to him and the Son, but true and very God; or, in other words, that he who hath fan&tified is one and the fame God with him that created and redeemed us.

The Reader will obferve with us the careful and guarded manner in which our Author hath expreffed himself in opening the defign of his performance. Aware of the difficulties in which his predeceffors on this fubje& involved themselves by the ufe of metaphyficai terms and fcholaftic forms of expreffion, he

The fubflance of the Lady Moyer's Lectures.

has

has judicioufly avoided the neceffity which they lay under, of answering fuch objections as are often drawn from a false conception of the terms themselves.

If our Readers think it worth their while to confult Dr. Waterland's fermons preached on the fame occafion with these of our Author, they will be abundantly convinced of the juftness of this remark; though our Author hath thought proper to take no notice of this great champion in the caufe, having in his eye ftill more exceptionable writers.

The firft of the forementioned pofitions the Doctor propofes to evince-from the representation given of what is generally termed the incarnation of the Son of God,-from the teftimony of the evangelifts and apostles,—and from the teftimony of Christ himself.

After having briefly obferved, from the fcripture account of the incarnation, that no mention is there made of any other than two natures, viz. the one perfectly human, the other perfectly divine, he concludes, against the Arians, that there is no ground for fuppofing that a Being who, in a pre-existant state, was diftinct from and inferior to God, was united to humanity. With regard to the teftimony of the evangelifts, he has fhewn, that they never afcribe our redemption to any other Being than God himfelf, operating in the man Chrift Jefus. They were far, fays he, (fpeaking of the people who had feen a miraculous cure performed) from giving glory to any other Being than the Moft High, nor could it ever enter their heads that it was not Ged, but fome angel or demigod united to humanity, that wrought the cure.'

In another place, on our Saviour's reftoring a dead perfon to life, he thus expreffeth himself: It was man, the man Chrift Jefus, that touched the bier and faid Young man arife; but it was God alone that gave life to the dead. It was the power of the Almighty, and not of any finite Being, which accompanied and gave efficacy to the command.'

Having cited many texts to this purpose, from the evange lifts, he concludes his firft lecture with the following vindication of the worship of the church of England, from the unjust reflections (as he conceives them to be) of both Socinians and Arians.

From the representation, therefore, which the evangelifts have given us of Jefus Chrift, and the power which manifefted itfelf in him, it appears, that we have good reafon to afcribe, to the author of our falvation, eternal power and godhead. The Socinians may declaim ever fo much againft rendering to a mere mortal that worship which is due to God alone; and they are juftified in withholding it themselves. But if they fuppofe our church warrants fuch kind of worthip, they are under a grofs

E e 2

mistake;

miftake; and, in reprefenting her in fo odious a light, they want that charity towards her, which is above all faith, being the bond of perfectness. The church of England acknowledges no God but one only living and true God. She acknowledges the humanity of Chrift, and has ever maintained that doctrine; at the fame time fhe difallows of divine honours being rendered to him on that account. Whatever gratitude be due to him as man (and the higheft no doubt is due) her adoration neither terminates in, nor is in any measure directed to an arm of flesh, but refpects the divinity itfelf, which was manifefted in the flesh, even him, by whofe power the fick were healed, the lame walked, the blind faw, and the deaf heard; him whofe mighty power ftilled the raging of the winds and the waves by a word, which called forth Lazarus, after four days interment, from the grave, and (why need I mention any other inftance of its perfectly divine efficacy?) which raised the man Chrift Jefus from the dead; and which he exercises with full authority, to the well-governing of his church univerfal both now and ever.

Let the Arians, on the other hand, exprefs what abhorrence they will of the doctrine of the Trinity, as idolatrous; and ever fo great aftonishment, that any fhould believe it; it would be extremely aftonishing (but that we fee an intemperate zeal will admit no ccol confideration of any point) that they should confider it in this unfavourable light, and not fee that their own notion borders more upon the error objected against. Which, I would ask, favours most of polytheism? to fuppofe that there is one God, the great creator and father of all, that the fame redeemed us in the perfon of Chrift, and fanctified us by his holy Spirit, being one and the fame eternal and uncreated being? or, that these, are three diftinct beings and feparately exiftent, the one uncreated and eternal, viz. our Creator; the other, a creature next to God in dignity, but not perfect God, viz. our Redeemer; and the third, a ftill inferior Being to either, yet above the angels, viz. the Holy Ghoft, our Sanctifier? I am fure the former is the doctrine of the church of England; and if the latter be not the doc-. trine of the Arians, I fhall be forry to have mifreprefented them: for in this view of it, the doctrine appears very unfcriptural, ta fay the leaft of it. I mean not by this reprefentation to retort the invidious reflection which has been caft upon our church; nor is it my intention, my brethren, in mentioning the fame, to, excite in you a fpirit of retaliation, but only to guard againft being mifled by fo injurious an objection, importing the heaviest of charges, into unfavourable fentiments of the effablifhed docurines, which, rightly understood, will be found to be pure and fcriptural. And it is your duty, therefore, to receive what has been faid in the fpirit of meeknefs and charity towards thofe that ffer from us. Let us hold our holy faith, firm and unmoved the fubtle devices of those that would undermine it, or the

bold

bold attacks of infidelity. For be affured, our faith, held in the bonds of peace and love, will be safer and better fecured to us, than it can be by the furious tranfports of a blind zeal. So pure a faith deferves our warm attachment to it, and a jealous concern for its support 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 fpirit 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 purposely omitted; because how much stronger foever they may feem, at first view, than those 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 occafióned, 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 oppofition 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 obscure and difficult paffages, but on the whole authority of fcripture, on the general conftant tenor of the gospel. For whatfoever is inconfiftent with that must be falfe, as whatsoever is confiftent therewith is truth; and truth thus entrenched within the strong mounds of fcripture, which the holy spirit hath raised about her for her defence, fhe 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 refpects 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 firft verfes and the 14th of St. John's Gofpe), in confirmation of which, he has illuftrated a variety of our Saviour's expreffions, as recorded by

Ee 3

this