this evangelift. We are at a lofs how to give our Readers the idea we could wifh of this curious piece of criticism; but shall, however, prefent them with a view of his tranflation and fenfe of the former of the above mentioned paffages: referring them to the work itself, as the only fufficient fpecimen of the dextrous manner in which the Doctor has fupported his interpretation, obviated the objections moft likely to be made to it, and contrafted it in point of grammar, fentiment, and fcripture-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 these 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 our felves. For many, a great many, of each clafs, it cannot be doubted, have been well-wishers to our holy religion, and shewn themselves not more zealous than able in the general defence thereof. It were to be wished therefore, that such a sense could be clearly discovered 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 endea vour to point out, and offer an explication of the paffage, against which, in point of doctrine, no objection can lie with thofe who believe Chriftianity at all.

The WORD here spoken of by the evangelift, is by all of them understood to relate to the perfon of Chrift. The word was God, that is, (fay they) Jefus 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 fcripture) the gospel; and with a small but material variation of the conftruction of this fo much difputed paffage, the following natural and easy sense 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 pass.

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 Chriftianity 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 files 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 fr m 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, publifhed by Jefus Chrift, was from God; and whatever works he wrought in confirmation of it, not one of them yde ev was of himfelf, or came to pafs, xwpis T8 bx, without God.'

In the next difcourfe our Author proceeds to maintain bis 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 fmall advantage from the wary manner in which he has expreffed himself, as well as from his carefully diftinguishing, with regard to those circumstances by which the opponents of the doctrine seem to have been misled.

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 last of these positions (fays he) which I propose to illuftrate, the former having been already confidered in the preceding lectures. Our Mediator, it is afferted in the text, was man, aroрwños Xpisos Inges, 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 those 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 inter

E 4

interpretation being inconfiftent both with the Mofaic account of the creation and the defign of the facred writers in the texts under confideration, but to the new and fpiritual creation or gofpel 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 state 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: been done,

Hengages 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 fhall we come at the true fenfe of the church on this head, if her expreffions are liable to be mifunderstood? 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 the means not to affirm. And here, continues our prudent Vindicator, I cannot proceed without expreffing the regret I feel on reviewing the feveral defences of the trinity, even by the most entinent 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 doctring 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 ufe it alfo 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 ftrength 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 must allow, of the church of England, and perhaps justly obferved! 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 illwithers, and to encrease the danger, or perpetuate the difgrace, which is already brought upon her from the miftaken notions of thofe 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, 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 several 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 afluring Dr. Dawfon, that as we received his remarks, at firft, with great pleafuret, fo we are now far from being difobliged by his additional obfervations on us.

The latter tract was originally published (fays the Author) in, the Grand Magazine for April 1758 1, in anfwer to Mr. Steffe's Brief Defence. In both thefe critical pieces the Dr. avoids taking either fide of the queftion concerning the state 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 state. 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 hiftorical 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, fpeaking 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 tak, 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

advocate for the doctrine of the faid Appendix, has, on account of his publishing his fentiments relative thereto, undergone fome fuch hardships as have not been heard of for many years in this proteftant country.' We have had occafion to take notice of this alarm to the public in our review of that work: and whatever reafon there may be for delaying the publication of the cafe of the worthy perfon referred to, the friends of free enquiry muft be naturally impatient to have it, as promifed, with all its circumftances.

To return to our Critic: whatever be his own fentiments of the doctrine itself, he certainly appears to be an able difputant, and has particularly recommended himfelf by that clofenefs of argument and punctual adherence to the question, (as refted on fcripture) in which his antagonist appears very deficient. Mr. Steffe's affectation of wit, too, when argument only fhould have been used, is properly treated by the Doctor, who takes occafion, from it, to introduce the following pertinent and pleasant remark upon a Right Reverend Author:

After pronouncing Mr. Steffe's witticifm to be perfectly in nocent, he adds, But will the R. R. Author of The Divine Legation of Mofes be thought to have exercifed this fame talent of wit, either, in a manner worthy of himself, or, indeed, with innocence? It can, furely, be deemed but a vulgar pleasure his Lordship feems to take, in calling the controverters of the doctrine of an intermediate ftate by the name of Dreamers, Sleepers, Middle-men, &c. Such language is more worthy of that inferior and popular clafs of writers, (to which indeed it has hitherto been chiefly confined) than that eminence, which the Bishop of Gloucefter holds in the learned world. Thefe gentlemen too, with whom his Lordship makes fo merry and fo free, have been too long dinn'd with fuch fort of names to have their sleep broken by a repetition of the rude noife. Nor can the R. R. Author be thought to have acquitted himfelf with more decency and propriety of character, in making a very ferious expreffion from a facred writer ferve the purpofe of a witty farcafm. "St. Jude's filthy dreamers only defiled the flesh. Thefe defile the fpirit." But, though we cannot fuppofe that St. Jude and the Bishop are equally ferious, yet it is not fo clear, that his Lordship, in bringing this charge of fpiritual defilement against the dreamers, is altogether in jeft. Certain it is, that, however unwilling his Lordship might be to fupprefs fo jocular a fentiment, he is willing we should confider the doctrine in a ferious light, as of a dangerous and defiling nature. For the learned author of Confiderations on the Theory of Religion, is reprefented as a reviver of the Sadducean opinion, of the extinction of the foul on death, his valuable quo→

Sce Review, Vol. XXXII. p. 345.

tations