« السابقةمتابعة »
interpretation being inconsistent both with the Mosaic account of the creation and the design of the sacred writers in the texts under consideration, but to the new and spiritual creation or gospel institution.
The concluding discourse 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 shew that the Author entered not on this subject without having fully considered the state of the trinitarian controversy, nor without havins observed the neceffity of resting the defence of the established doctrines relating thereto, on a different footing from what hath ye: bn done.
He cngages folely in defence of the sentiments of the church, on this article, without considering himself as answerable at all for the expresions in which they are cloathed; and he anticipates a question which may very naturally be asked here, viz. By what rule then thail we come at the true sense of the church on this head, if her expressions are liable to be misunderstood! He answers, By che fame rule that we should come at the meaning
any dispuied paflage of scripture; that is, by interpreting her words in confiftence with the general tenor and univerial itrain of her liturg', as well as articles. For, he adds, whatever acceptation of her expressions makes her inconsistent with and contradiciory to herself, that must be wrong, and will imply what fne means not to affirm. And here, continues our prudeat Vindicator, I cannot proceed without expreffing the regret I feel on reviewing the several 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 expresions 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 itself on the plain and undoubted principles of the liturgy in general. Hence has arisen that mutual contradiction and disputation among themselves, so much to the disgrace, I will not say, of the doctrine of the trivity ; but, however, to the advantage of thcir 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 some victory over the church. But they have gained none here. The doctrine itself reinains entire ; and though the fences raised about it by weak and fallible men, jealous of the least innovation, may be broken through, it is, for all that, perfectly safe, being fenced about by the strength of the Almighty, in proofs of holy-writ: for, défended on the general principles of the church of England, it will be found to be perfectly consistent with scripture principles.'
Handsomely said, we must allow, of the church of England, and perhaps justly observed ! But would the Doctor have exceeded the bounds of discretion in acknowledging the expediency of a reformation in point of expression at least ? fince the confessed 'obscurity of the terms now in use can serve but to these two bad purposes,—to encourage opposition to her doctrines from her illwilhers, and to encrease the danger, or perpetuate the disgrace, 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 state, and are inscribed to the Rev. Dr. Law, Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge. The former of them was originally published in a Letter * to the Monthly Reviewers; and contained remarks on the first of Mr. Steffe's letters on that subject. It appears now with several ada ditions, occasioned by some strictures we thought it not impertinent, at that time, to make upon them: how far they were proper, we leave the learned to judge, after assuring Dr. Dawfon, that as we received his remarks, at first, with great pleasure t, so we are now far from being disobliged by his additional observations on us.
The latter tract was originally published (fays the Author) in the Grand Magazine for April 1758 I, in answer to Mr. Steffe's Brief Defence. In both these critical pieces the Dr. avoids taking either fide of the question concerning the state of the soul after death; confining himself to the consideration of what Mr. Steffe advances from scripture, and shewing the insufficiency of the four texts produced by him to prove the doctrine of an intermediate state. In this he hath acted a prudent part, as things go. The clamour against Dr. Law's Appendix is well known; and the spirited writer of an historical view of this controversy 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 Controversy concerning an Intermediate State, speaking of Mr. Steffe, says, • 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 task, this very man did not fcruple to call to his aid Pythagoras, Homer, &c. though, to save appearances, it was under the pretence of making them interpreters to Moses, Solomon, &c. What the success was of this expedient may possibly appear upon some other occasion.' Hence we conjecture this Author had not seen Dr. Dawson's second reply to Mr. Steffe. It was indeed presented 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 for the doctrine of the said Appendix, has, on account of his publishing his sentiments relative thereto, undergone fome fuch hardships as have not been heard of for many years in this protestant country.' We have had occasion to take notice of this alarm to the public in our review of that work *: and whatever reason there may be for delaying the publication of the case of the worthy person referred to, the friends of free enquiry muit be naturally impatient to have it, as promised, with all iis circumstances.
To return to our Critic: whatever be his own sentiments of the doctrine itfelf, he certainly appears to be an able disputant, and has particularly recommended bimself by that closeness of argument and punctual adherence to the question, (as reited on fcripture) in which his antagonist appears very deficient. Mr. Steffe's affcctation of wit, too, when argument only ínould have been used, is properly treated by the Doctor, who takes occafon, from it, to introduce the following pertinent and pleasant Iemark upon a Right Reverend Author:
After pronouncing Mr. Steffe's witticism to be perfectly itnocent, he adds, But will the R. R. Author of The Divine Legation of Moses be thought to have exercised this fame talent of wit, either, in a manner worthy of himself, or, indeed, with innocence? It can, surely, be deemed but a vulgar pleasure his Lordship feems to take, in calling the controverters of the doctrine of an intermediate state by the name of Dreamers, Sleepers, Middle-men, &c. Such language is more worthy of that inferior and popular class of writers, (to which indeed it has hitherto been chiefly confined) than that eminence, which the Bishop of Gloucester holds in the learned world. These gentlemen too, , with whom his Lordship makes fo merry and so free, have been too long dinn'd with such sort of names to have their fleep broken by a repetition of the rude noise. Nor can the R. R. Author be thought to have acquitted himself with more decency and propriety of character, in making a very serious expreffion from a sacred writer serve the purpose of a witty sarcasm. “ St. Jude's filtby preamers only defiled the flesh. Thele defile the spirit.” Buty though we cannot fuppofe that St. Jude and the Bishop are equally serious, yet it is not so clear, that his Lordship, in bringing this charge of spiritual defilement againft the dreamers, is altogether in jeft. Certain it is, that, however unwilling his Lordfhip might be to suppress ro jocular a sentiment, he is willing we should confider the do&rine in a serious light, as of a dangerous and defiling nature. For the learned author of Considerations on the Theory of Religion, is represented as a reviver of the Sadducean opinion, of the extinction of the foul on death, his valuable que
* See Review, Vol. XXXII, p345.
Home's Inquiry into the Nature, &e. 419 tations from scripture fcornfully térmed, A Number of Wonder, ful Things, and this scrap of fcripture, there be gods many, judged by the R. R. Author to be a stronger text against the unity of the godhead, than any this learned writer has produced for his opinion. The late worthy Dr. Taylor of Norwich is called • Another of these Sleepers,' and a very sensible quotation from him has the following decent reflection passed upon it: “ This is the old exploded trah of Coward, Toland and Collins.' And yet, I dare say, his Lordship will think this writer as honourably claffed, in point of authorship, with Coward, Toland, and Collins, as the Bishop of Gloucester would be, should fome one, illnaturedly pleasant, and availing himself of his Lordship’s decent ex, pression, class his performance on this subject, with the old, popular--trafhof Goddard, Steffe and Fleming.'
An Inquiry into the Nature, Cause, and Cure of the Croup. By
Francis Home, M. D. his Majesty's Physician, and Fellow
R. Home, who has already given the world several proofs
of the useful application of his genius and abilities, proposes, in this little piece, to ascertain the history, nature, cause, and cure of the croup; a disease which he looks upon as hitherto undescribed, and entirely, he says, unknown as to its nature, cause, effects, and cure.— The croup, from our Author's history of the disease, we apprehend to be a species of catarrh, attended with an inflammatory fever; and, fo far as it is local, chiefly affecting the mucous membrane and the numerous glands of the trachea or windpipe. He obferves that it is peculiar to children ;--that he never saw or heard of one, above twelve
September 29th, 1760, I was called to a boy of seven years of age, who had been some days fick. He lived on Leithbridge, had been ill of the chin-cough the preceding winter, and had recovered of the meafles about fix weeks before this. He had been frequently purged, and had been tolerably well,
excepting a Night cough, till he was seized, four days before I saw him, with fever, heat, thirst, and the thrill croupy voice. When I saw him his pulse was quick, with a little degree of hardness, but not strong. He swallowed easily; but complained of a pain in the trachea, when he spoke, or when I pressed it with my fingers. His face had been swelled. Great drought. Breathing high, but not very quick. He fometimes expectorated, and had often frothy saliva upon his lips : the urine had a white
ouzy sediment: his senfes and his head were quite clear and distinct. He was immediately blooded, and at night had leeches applied to his throat, and a blister round it: the next day his pulse was weaker, and beat 175 in a minute : breathing quicker, and often altered : distinct in all his senses : died that night.
* On laying open the parts, there was no appearance of any infammation on the fauces: but to my great surprize, the whole superior internal surface of the trachea was covered with a white, foft, thick, preternatural coat or membrane, easily feparable from it, and generally lying loose upon it, and purulent matter lodged below, and around it. The subjacent parts were red; but no great degree of inflammation. As we searched downwards, the same appearances continued through the ramifications of the aspera arteria, though the membrane seemed here Lofter, thinner, and to become of a more purulent nature. All the branches of the windpipe and bronchiæ were filled with purulent matter ; and we could easily squeeze it out, in great plenty, from all these pipes. The substance of the lungs was quite sound, and in a natural state.'
From this and the other histories and diffections related by the Author, he deduces his corollaries. In the first corollary, are pointed out the pathognomonic symptoms of the croup: a peculiar, sharp frill voice, not calily described, and which can be resembled to nothing more nearly than the crowing of a cock; a remarkable freedom from all complaints when in imminent danger; a quick, laborious breathing; frequent pulse, strong at first, but soft and weak towards the end ; little difficulty in deglutition or inflammation in the fauces ; often a dull pain, and sometimes an external swelling in the upper part of the trachea ; the senses quite distinct to the last; and all the symptoms moft rapid in their progress :---sufficiently characterize this disease. --From the Thrill voice and difficult breathing, which our Author says are the leading symptoms, he calls it the suffocatio firidula ; but whether it can with propriety be called an undea, cribed disease we pretend not to determine : those who will turn to Boerhaave's account of the angina infiammatoria when it attacks the trachea ; or to Sauvage's Cynanche trachealis; will find the wox acula, clangosa, sibilans, firidula ; respiratio parva, frequens,