the tenth part of the riches which he brought along with him. Will it be faid that the king of Salem was priest of the most High God, and that Abram gave the tenth to him as fuch? But we have feen that chen is not neceffarily to be restricted to that fenfe. Befides, may not Abram be deemed a prieft with as great propriety as the king of Salem? Do we not read of Abram building an altar to Jehovah, who appeared to him, and there calling on the name of Jehovah? Abram is indeed no where called then lal alioun. Is he not, however, exprefsly called, "the friend of God?"Will it be faid that Abram gave the tenth to Melchizedeck as king of Salem, in acknowledgment of his dignity and his own inferiority? But was not Abram more than the king of a petty district? Was he not at this very time the conqueror of four fuch kings, and, for aught I know, much greater ones than this king of Salem ?-On the whole, the fense which I have given to the paffage under confideration appears to me to be the true one-that the king of Salem would greatly have enriched Abram-'

Did the limits of this work allow, we might eafily prefent other extracts to the reader: but we muft fatisfy ourselves with fome general obfervations. The notes concerning Noah and his fons are of fome length: we fhall only infert the following lines; Noah, to exprefs the greatnefs of his displeasure at the undutiful and indecent behaviour of his young fon Canaan towards him, his apprehenfion that fome curfe would befal him on account of it, and his high approbation of the different treatment which he had received from his fons Shem and Japhet, prayeth that God would be the God of Shem-would honourably diftinguifh Japhet-humble his young fon Canaan, and make him a fervant of, much inferior and fubject to, his brethren.-What is there now prophetical in this fpeech of Noah ?— What evidence is brought to prove, that it was dictated by the fpirit of God, and delivered by Noah juft before his death?Surprising as it may appear-no divines or commentators, as far as I know, have ever attempted a proof of this fpeech being prophetical, which furely was fundamentally neceflary to their laying fo mighty a ftrefs, and raifing fo many wonderful theories, on it as they have done. But as they have no firm ground to ftand on, no folid foundation firft laid, all the fuperftructure

muft fall.'

Thus our Author is inclined to difcard in fome inftances explications long established; and, in the prefent cafe, may probably have truth and juftice on his fide, as he undoubedly has when he difmiffes, without any particular infertion of them, the many typical fignifications and myfteries to be met with in Auguftine, Ambrofe, and other writers ancient and modern; they are, as he fays, to be looked on as the iffue of a wild and luxu

riant imagination; too whimsical and extravagant to stand in need of a confutation, or indeed to merit any attention. attention. At the fame time, we are not to rank with thefe, all thofe interpretations and remarks which have been advanced by men of underftanding, and fupported by fente and learning; to depart from and furrender which, is not to be done without caution and mature reflection.

Mr. Dawfon, after enumerating fome of the remarks made by Shuckford, Heidegger, Patrick, &c. on the difperion of mankind, obferves, Here is certainly miracle, vengeance, confufion enough. Bit can all this be colletted from the words of Scripture? Can this be called explaining ? is it not rather, I do not mean intentionally, burle.quing Scripture? If in commeating on this ancient camoir, as containing a literal hiftorical narration of a fact, recourte matt be had to numberless extravagant opinions and wild fancies, would it not be much better to con.ent ourlelves with tranflating it faubfully as an ancient mythological account of the ficft peopling of the carth, the dif perfion of mankind over the face of it, and of the origin and diverity of languages in the world?' Commentators, it must be owned, have given too much occafion for reflections of this kind: yet furely the word mythological (tabulous) is stronger than this writer, on farther deliberation, would have chofen to infert.

In another place he obferves, I have not entered into any geographical difquifitions, nor attempted to align habitations and fettlements to thefe firit inhabitants and proplers of the earth, after the flood. A work this, if at all poble, of much greater difficulty than importance! The curious reader may have recourse to D. chart, Mede, Le Clerc, Michaelis, &c. who have written proteffedly on the fubje&t; and if he meet with nothing or very little that is certain, folid, or fatisfactory, he may be amufed, however, by fome ingenious conjectures, and many whimfical etymologies and veftiges of ancient names.—' All critics and antiquaries will not entirely concur with our author in thefe reflections. Poibly fome little attention to geography might not have been unfuitable to his work: a few illustrations, which have fome foundation and folidity, might have been acceptable and uleful; for it by no means follows, that because a great part of the observations that have been offered are frivolous, or fanciful, or unfupported, therefore the whole is to be fet afide, and rejected with contempt.

But it is time we thould finish this article.-We could ftill with that Mr. Dawfon had exprelled the liebrew words in the eriginal characters, inttead of the Italic which he continues to ufe.-in his preface, he does not appear to be any great advocate for a new English verfion of the Scriptures; but, he adds, there is another work which would be a much lefs arduous one, in which there

there would be much lefs danger of committing any material faults, and which, fays he, in my opinion, would be of much greater, because of more general utility; and that is, A revifal of our Book of Articles and Liturgy.' This he ftrenuously recommends in the words of the late Dr. Durell and his own. Hence he paffes to obferve the neceffity there is that minifters fhould make the books of the Old and New Teftament their principal ftudy and employment. With which remark we thall take our leave of this Writer.

Aar. IX. Sermons on different Subjects. By the Rev. John Hewlett, of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and Lecturer of the United Parishes of St. Vedaft, Folter-lane, and St. Michael le Querne. Svo. 65. Boards. Rivington. 1736.

HERE is fcarcely a fermon in this collection from which we might not eafily make copious extracts for the fatiffaction of our readers, and to the advantage of the author's repu tation; but we must content ourselves with only enumerating the fubjects of the different difcourfes, at the fame time referring our readers, for farther gratification, to the fermons themselves; from the perufal of which, we doubt not, they will receive pleafure, as well on account of the elegant fimplicity of the ftyle, as the liberality of the fentiments.

The first fermon treats on the benefits of experience and reflection. Sermon II. On the charity and forbearance of Chrit, contrafted with the manners of the world. The fubject is ingeniously treated from A bruifed reed fhall he not break, and fmoking flax fhall he not quench.' III. and IV. On devotion, in which the author difcovers a ftrong understanding, and a liberality of mind which is rendered more pleafing by his ufual eloquence and addrefs. V. Is an admirable charity fermon. VI. and VII. On the refurrection and immortality of the foul. VIII. and IX. On chriftian humility, illuftrated from the conduct of the pharifee and the publican, recorded by Luke xviii. 10. The following extract from the former of thefe difcourfes will ferve as a fpecimen.

By humility we are not to understand that grovelling difpofition, or flavifh turn of mind, which often characterizes the moft worthlefs of the human fpecies, and which is always affociated with the meaner vices. Chriftian humility is fo far from being an abject fubmiffion, that it is in reality the higheft exaltation of the foul. It thould fpring from the two great fources of every mental excellence, our reverence of God, and our love of man. It is equally remote from pride and meannefs: it is a habt of mind arifing from internal fentiment, rather than from fue obfervance of any pofitive precept; a difpofition that teaches

us to confider all mankind as brethren, and is never found in confiftent with true dignity, except when it is mifconceived by the ignorant, affected by hypocrites, or affumed by knaves.

Study humility in this fenfe therefore as the true fource of focial love; and fhould you ever be inclined to think unjuftly of the world, before you cherish the hateful principles of mifan thropy, carefully examine your own bofom, and afk if no pharifaical pride lurks there, which fills you with ideas only of your own merit, and makes you defpife others; confider if no fenfe of feeks for juftification from the worst examples; no felflove, or erroneous opinions, that make you view men with unprejudiced eyes.'

Sermon X. is on the frailty of human virtue and the neceffity of guarding againft temptation. The text is, Lord, is it I?' XI. On unanimity: here our author inveighs against the ribaldry of Voltaire, and the frofty fcepticifm of Hume.' XII. On the parable of the good Samaritan. XIII. On death. XIV. On the government of the temper; an excellent discourse. XV. The caufes confidered, that made our Lord's word with power.' XVI. On the fufferings of Chrift. XVII. On the birth of Chrift; fhewing how that event was calculated to promote on earth peace, good-will toward men.' XVIII. On the duties of youth. XIX. On the benevolence and mercy of the Deity, who knoweth our frame and remembereth that we are duft.'

We cannot difmifs this article without congratulating the Public on the appearance of a work which deferves their attention, and displays the genius, learning, and piety of the author. Though we feldom difcover want of power in Mr. Hewlett, yet we cannot always acquit him of hafte and negligence. The language has fometimes a tendency to pleonafm, and a few of the fentences are rather too long. But any little defect that we have obferved in this volume, weighed in the balance against its general merit, is only as a grain of fand to a mountain.

ART. X. An Elucidation of the Unity of God, deduced from Scripture and Rafon. 4th Edition; to which is fubjoined, A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 8vo. 35. fewed. Wilkie. 1785.

THIS

HIS piece, which was first published under the title of Reflections on the Unity of God, &c. is here reprinted, with large additions. It flates at length the arguments for the strict and proper unity of the divine nature, both from reafon and fcripture, and is written with great decency and temper. The defign of the Author appears to be, rather to remove what he judges to have been crroneous opinions concerning the Supreme Being, than to cftblifh either the Socinian or Arian hypothefis concerning the perfon of Chrift.

In the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the point which the Author [Mr. James Gifford] labours, is, to obtain fuch an alteration of the public forms of religion as fhall remove out of fight the controverfies concerning Jefus Chrift, by fpeaking of his nature and offices in the LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE. The following extract contains fentiments which merit the serious attention of thofe who are difinclined to liften to any proposals for farther reformation.

The confining our felves within the narrow pale of our forefathers, betrays an inexcufable indolence, and a manifeft lukewarmness for the further propagation of the gospel. It may be confidered as a certain fact, that the wife and benevolent Author of nature, plainly intends (notwithstanding fome partial exceptions), that the rational part of his creation fhall not ultimately decline; fhall not become less enlightened; more ignorant and depraved; but fhall affuredly move forward, by gradual fteps, in the paths of ufeful knowledge and improvement. If this be granted, how contradictory to thefe gracious' defigns doth it appear, that we fhould implicitly rely on our remote anceflors for our prefent opinions and practice, and by obftinately or fupinely continuing on the fame ground, contract all our ideas within the circle of their knowledge?

'I believe, however, that this laft is far from being now the prevailing inclination. The neceffary diftinction between found faith and thoughtless credulity, is no longer heretical. I greatly rejoice when I reflect, that no inconfiderable number of our moft refpectable clergy, not only conceive themfelves to be bound in their profeffion, by fome very hard and illiberal engagements of human conftruction, but many of them are alfo fenfible, that fome further amendments in our doxologies, and forms of worship, are become abfolutely neceffary: they justly think, that thefe may be rendered more generally unexceptionable and fafe, by reducing them to a more dire congruity with thofe of the fcriptures. Were this meafure ftrictly adopted, it must prevent all controverfy and uneafinefs, on the point in queftion (at leaft among the reafonable part of mankind), fo long as our holy records are confidered as the incontestable rules of our faith. It would be most injurious to fuppofe, that thofe reverend gentlemen who are zealous for fo defirable a reform, have not the welfare of Chriflianity as much at heart as their oppofers. Their wishes can proceed from nothing but a watchful and confcientious attention to religion, and a fincere love of it; with a conviction of its infinite importance to the world when rightly understood; and they well difcern, that if fuch a Rep were taken, it would at once free the whole from a weight of atiety and vexation, which every honeft man would be happy to fee them fairly rid of.'

In this page, and indeed through the whole work, the writer expreffes himfelt like an honest and candid inquirer, and a good

man.

**For our former accounts of Mr. Gifford's publication, fe Review, vol. Ixvii. p. 550, Reflettiers on the Unity of Gul: Və vol ixxi. p. 79; and vol. lxxiu. p. 397, Letter to the A, cbpop of Canterbury, Sc.

ART.