of faith and opinion. Mr. Beatfon's treatife we would willingly rank with thofe of the first clafs; it appears to be a well meant attempt; but as nothing new is added to what has been repeatedly published, the debate remains in the fame ftate as before. The book proves that the Author is himself satisfied in what is termed the orthodox opinion, but other perfons must fill be left to form a judgment for themfelves, as well as they are able, from the Scriptures, The Writer has chosen to deliver his fentiments in the form of a dialogue, which though it may be fometimes more amufing and engaging than that of a continued difcourfe, is yet liable to objections, efpecially when the dialogue turns on difputed points; fince the difputants are equally in the Author's power, and he may give the victory to which he pleases. In the inftance before us, Philanthropos, who engages on the orthodox fide, is all along fuppofed to be pleading the cause of truth, and Neophytus, as he is called, appears like one in an error, who propofes his arguments with little ftrength, is foon refuted, and speedily brought over to the opinion which the Writer wishes to establish. But whatever objections may lie against his performance, Mr. Beatfon declares, that fhould any perfon in a cool, difpaffionate, and chriftian-like manner, endeavour to convince him that any of his arguments are not properly fupported, all due attention will be given to what is faid; as he is perfuaded, that no fincere enquirer after truth will act in fo difingenuous a manner, as to take advantage of a fingle fentence, which may perhaps be left unguarded, fince no merely human author can plead an entire exemption from errors.' If we have appeared to fpeak with any degree of hesitation in the beginning of this article, as to the book's being written with a Christian fpirit, it has arifen principally from what we meet with in the entrance on the dialogue, where Neophytus intimates, that his difficulties were greatly occafioned by a tract then in his hand fubfcribed, A Lover of the Gospel. Philanthropos immediately replies, a lover of the gospel, and deny the divinity of cur Lord! it furely cannot be. He may, I will allow, love what the Apoftle calls another gofpel, but he certainly cannot love the gofpel of the grace of God.' This is, we think, rather prefumptuous, confident, uncandid, and unfuitable to the profeflions of the preface, as well as to fome other parts of the treatife. HI. Art. 55. Free and candid Remarks on a Sermon preached on a public Occafion, by the Rev. William Graham, A. M. intitled, Repentance the only Condition of final Acceptance." In a Letter to the Author. By George Haggerston. 8vo. Is. Buckland, &c. 1773. How doctors differ, and divines difagree! Yet, all the time, if they rightly understood each other, their meaning would often be found nearly the fame. Mr. Graham infifts, that repentance and obedience are the conditions of forgiveness and eternal happinefs. His antagonist allows they are neceffary, yet thefe gentlemen appear to think themselves widely diftant from each other in their fentiments on the fubject. While each allows the neceffity of repentance and obedience, each will alfo allow, without doubt, the neceffity to every perfon of that mercy, or that grace, offered in the gofpel: why then hould they contend? In fome refpect they may fill embrace a dif ferent ferent opinion, or there may be mistakes on each fide; but the more thoroughly they understand themselves and each other, and the more they attain of Chriftian meeknefs and humility, the more clearly will they see that there is no great reafon for employing their time in difputation. The wider their difagreement in fpeculative points, the greater room have they for the exercife of candour and charity. Mr. Haggerfton agrees with Mr. Graham, that wrath and rancour are no virtues ; but he asks what Mr. G. means by charity? If it means love to God and man, he readily acknowledges, that the want of it is the want of Chriftianity; if it means a favourable opinion of those who diffent from us in refpect to religious principles, he alfo allows its rectitude fo far as, what he calls the vitals of Chriflianity are not affected; but if men's opinions are fubverfive, in his view, of the main scheme of the gofpel, then he may fhew his charity and love to them by endeavouring to convince them; but, as a Chriftian and an honeft man, he thinks he cannot have charity for them so far as to believe them in a fafe and a happy ftate, while they appear to him in a way unsafe and erroneous. Here Mr. Haggerfton feems not to be thoroughly mafter of his fubject; for who fhall determine for other perfons, in every refpect, what are the vitals of Christianity What fallible man ought dogmatically to prefcribe to another in matters of faith and confcience? He may determine for himself, but he will be uncandid and unchriflian if he condemns another whofe faith does not exactly tally with his own. Our Readers will form but an indifferent opinion of this performance when we tell them, that the Writer, toward the conclusion, acquaints Mr. Graham, that the leading title of his fermon is an abfolute falfhood.' As this expreflion is rath, fo would it be also in us, should we, from hence, utterly and immediately condemn a pamphlet which appears to be well intended, and contains fome juft remarks, though formed on a narrow and mistaken plan. Hi. Art. 56. The Cafe of Duelling confidered, with refpect both to the Challenger and Challenged. By Robert South, D. D. late Prebendary of Westminster, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxon. Small 8vo. 6d. Nicoll. 1774. Extracted from the fermons of the famous Dr. South; but fuch fober, pious objections to this abfurd cuftom, are probably of little effect. A fenfe of religion is required to feel the force of them, but religious men do not engage in duels. Our tilters are not reafoners. N. Art. 57. Enquiries into the Archetype of the Septuagint Verfion, its Authenticity and different Editions. By the Rev. H. S. Cruwys. 8vo. 15. 6d. Law, &c. 1774. Mr. H. S. Cruwys, whoever he is, feems defirous, from his title, that this little pamphlet fhould be confidered as the refult of enquiries which he has made into the fubject propofed, whereas it chiefly confifts of collections from different writers who have made that fubject their study. It may have coft this Author fome pains to felect the remarks of other men; but the Reader will find very little that is material or new to direct his opinion on the point, or indeed hardly any inferences or conclufions drawn by the Writer from the remarks of the authors he mentions, in order to answer the different questions he propofes. However those who have not thought much on the fubject, may here perufe a brief hiftory of the Septuagint Septuagint verfion, which may yield them fome fatisfaction. The Art. 59. A Differtation on the distinct Powers of Reason and Reve · Very blamable, in our opinion, are those perfons of whom Dr. Cowper here speaks, who, inftead of bringing their judgments to accord to the word of God, make the word of God to conform to their opinions, and will receive it on no other terms.' But may we not be allowed to afk, whether it must be neceffarily concluded, that all perfons who do not fully embrace fome articles of faith for which the Writer pleads, or which are accounted orthodox, must therefore have been unwilling to fubmit to the decifion of fcripture? Have there not been pious and humble enquirers who were ready to re⚫elve all that was taught in fcripture, but who have been unable to discover, there, every tenet which has been proposed to them as certainly making a part of the true Chriftian doctrine? This pamphlet is agreeably written; it is fenfible, well intended, and discovers the ferious and pious temper of the late worthy Author, whofe death has been announced to us by the public papers, Since this little tract iffued from the press. Art. bo. A clear Difplay of the Trinity from divine Revelation ; with an impartial Examination of fome Traditions concerning God, in Systems contrived by Councils, Affemblies, and Synods, and impofed upon Mankind as Articles of Faith. In three Parts. I. The divine Character of a Plurality in Deity proved. II. The œconomical Character of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft illuftrated. III. The fcholaftic Doctrine of the Trinity examined. The whole written in an easy and familiar Manner. By A. M. a Layman, 8vo. 4s. Robinson, &c. A. M. a layman, has judged it requifite to add this volume, confifting of about four hundred pages, to those almoft innumerable theets (many of them to very little purpofe) which have been already publifhed on this fubje&t. Several parts of his performance confift of obfervations that have been repeatedly offered by the advocates for this doctrine: but he rejects as unfcriptural the scholaitic terms and diftinétions which most of them have employed; and here he writes with fuch a freedom, that it might be fuppofed by fome readers he did not receive the doctrine of the Trinity. While he pleads Vid. Review for August 1773, p. 156. for Hi. ལཔ་ ༤ for a plurality in Deity as a fcriptural truth, he confiders the diftinetions of Father, Son, and Spirit as economical, or as relative to the accomplishment of different parts of the chriftian fcheme. He does not appear deftitute of the learning proper for the enquiries he has. undertaken, and he difcovers both candour and good fenfe; but he is, we think, fometimes led away by fancy and conceit, as particularly when he speaks of our Saviour's direction to worship the Father in Spirit and in truth. The spirit and truth here, fays he, does not mean, as is commonly fuppofed, that they fhould worthip in their bearts and in fincerity (true worshippers always do) in oppofition to worshipping with the body and in hypocrify; was this the fenfe, it might then be inferred from our Saviour's words, that none of the Old Testament faints worshipped God with their bearts and in fincerity, and that Chriftians are not to worship God with their bodies; whereas they are commanded to ferve God with their bodies and spirits which are his. But Chrift here teaches, that Christians were to worship the Father in him, who is the spirit of all the figns and fhadows, and the truth of all the promifes and prophecies in the Old Teftament with refpect to holy times, places, and things.' But what need is there of this refinement on a plain and important paffage of fcrip- ) ture? Is it not clear that our Lord here oppofes the worshipping of God in Spirit and in trath, to the observation of those external rites and ceremonies which for wife reafons had been appointed to the children of Ifrael? In the addrefs to enquiring Chriftians at the beginning of the volume, the Author pleads with fenfe and fpirit for the rights of private judgment and for freedom of enquiry. Hi. Art. 61. Miflakes in Religion expofed: In an Effay on the Prophecy of Zacharias. By H. Venn, M. A. Chaplain to the Earl of Buchan, and Rector of Yilling, Huntingdonshire. 12mo. 35. Boards. Oliver, &c. 1774. - There are fome perfons of a sceptical turn who will endeavour to bring all fubjects and principles into doubt and uncertainty, till at length they will not allow there is any fach thing as truth. There are others of a different temper, who will embrace and ftrenuously fupport those points as truth, which in all ages of mankind have been confidered as difputable and uncertain. But as, notwithstanding all the quirks and fophifms of the former, there ftill remain such things as truth, decency, virtue, and religion; fo alfo, notwithstanding the pertinacity with which fome of the latter may infist on their explication of certain doctrines, they may ftill continue matters of debate and uncertainty. Mr. Venn, the Author of the prefent vo lume, tells us, that the fole defign of these pages, is to prove the baneful influence of notions contrary to the doctrine believed by the univerfal church in every age.' It will be difficult for him, we apprehend, to fix on a period in which the universal church were entirely agreed in points of doctrine. However, while he is endeavouring to point out mistakes in religion, we are perfuaded he has candour enough to allow that it is poffible he may fometimes be mif taken himfelf, and that too perhaps in fome favourite points; which ftill remain of a doubtful kind, whatever human names, authorities, and fanations may be brought for their fupport. All Proteftants will furely unite in afferting, that every doctrine of the religious kind, A kind, by whomfoever maintained, is dubious and uncertain, which 1774. We conceive of this Writer as an honest and a pious man; and we fhould approve his zeal, did it not appear to us that he can hardly admit of piety unconnected with the reception of a certain fet of principles which human invention has endeavoured to make the ftandard of faith. This we infer, and we believe not unjustly, from the general strain of his pamphlet, and from his fpeaking of a blow of an uncommonly alarming nature, which, he tells us, has been fome time meditating againft our Zion; referring, we imagine, to the bill lately propofed for the removal of fubfcriptions to articles of religion. This pamphleteer feems to judge of the rife and fall of religion, by the warmth with which fuch articles are maintained. The methodistical minifters and hearers are chiefly favoured by his pen; but not those who follow Mr. Wy. The Rev. Mr. Re comes in for a large fhare of praife, as alfo do some others both among the minifters in the establishment, and among the dif enters, who embrace his principles. There are fome characters drawn from real life in one part of the pamphlet, which may afford a pfeful admonition to those who make profellions of religion. SERMONS. Hi. Hi. I. De Davidis in Saulum et Jonathanum Threno. Concio ad clerum babita in templo S. Mariæ coram Academia Cantabrigienfi, Junii 1, 1773. Pro gradu doctoratus in facra theologia. A. E. Churchill, S. T. P. Aula Clarenfis nuper focio: 4to. s. White, &c. There is nothing very remarkable in this brief oration. The principal criticifm relates to the first verfe of David's affecting elegy, the beauty of Ifrael is flain on thy high places, &c. The Doctor afks, whom does the poet here addrefs? and he answers, the people of Ifrael. I am fenfible, fays he, that fome learned men think far otherwife; fome fuppofing that David fpeaks to Saul, others that he addreffes Jonathan: O Saule, decus Ifraelis, tu occifus es fuper excelfa tua! &c. But he adds, we fhall find this exordium very pertinent and proper if we fuppofe that David addreffes himself neither to Saul or Jonathan in this verse, but speaks to the Ifraelites concerning them both: O Ifrael, decus Ifraelis (Saulus nempe et Jonathanus) fuper excelfa tua peremptum eft. Quomodo ceciderunt fortes! (cum Saulus et Jonathanus fint perempti.) The observation feems juft, and this probably is the fenfe in which the paffage is moft generally understood II. The Duellift, a Brave to God, and a Coward to Man; and, therefore, impoffible to be A Man of Honour." Being a Difcourfe preached in the City, and at the Court End of the Town, and published Hi. |