nefs of speech shall he poffefs) before he knows either to lay hold of evil or to chufe good (or whilft he continues yet a child). Because that, before he knows by experience good or evil, the child rejects wickedness to chufe the good, therefore the land which thou reverest shall be deprived of both her kings, or governments. The former part of this prophecy, Lo, a virgin fball conceive, &c. was literally and completely fulfilled in Jefus, and there is no proof whatever that it was fulfilled in any one else. The close of the prophecy must therefore be understood to refer to fome event fubfequent to the birth of Chrift, in whatever fenfe the word fign be understood; that is, it must refer to fome land which had once two kings, or two governments, both of which were finally diffolved, between the time of his birth, and his arrival at the ufual age of difcretion. And this was exactly accomplished with respect to the kingdoms of Ifrael and Judah; for it was during the infancy of Jefus, namely, upon the banishment of Archelaus, that Judea ceafed to have a government and jurifdiction within itself.

Such is our Author's explanation of the prophecy in question. We readily acknowledge, that it is ingeniously and eloquently fupported; but, at the fame time, we muft add, that it does not appear to us to be without its difficulties.

It may be afked, whether the fingle phrafe "The Lord spoke again to Ahaz," be fufficient to mark two diftinct prophecies, delivered at different times;-whether the original word, rendered fign, does not most properly fignify a confirmation of some preceding prediction ;-whether Ifaiah may not be supposed to continue his addrefs to Ahaz, King of Judah, under the appellation of the Houfe of David ;-whether the Author's bold deviations from the Hebrew text, with which he confeffes himself unacquainted, are to be relied upon; and laftly, whether it be not more natural to fuppofe that the prophet, through the whole context, has a connected reference to the fame events, than that, in the midst of predictions which confeffedly relate to the affairs of Ahaz and Judea, the prophet, rapt into futurity, should pour forth an infulated prediction concerning the Meffiah.

To avoid the difficulties attending the fuppofition that this prediction, either in the whole or in part, primarily referred to Chrift, many have attempted to fhew that the whole paffage may be explained as refpecting Ahaz. Grotius's explanation of this matter in his Commentary on Matthew ii. 23. ought not to be overlooked. And Mr. Wakefield, in his Tranflation of the Gofpel of Matthew, with Notes, has endeavoured to prove that the general defign of the prophecy was, to affure Ahaz, that within a period of time fufficient for the production of a child, and its arrival at maturity, peace and plenty would be restored to the kingdom, and the land of his enemies become defolate. We fhall quote Mr. Wakefield's verfion of the 15th and 16th verfes,

that

that the Reader may compare them with our Author's. "Butter and honey will he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil and chufe the good; for, before this child knows to refuse the evil and chufe the good, the land, by whofe two kings thou art ftraightened, will be forfaken." We agree with the writer juft quoted in thinking, that "the method of felecting from a prophecy, and tearing from the context, what fuits the circumftances of Jefus, and rejecting the reft, has too much the appearance of ferving the interefts of Chriftianity at any rate, to gain much credit with the inquifitive friends of revelation." Whilft therefore we are very much inclined to pay all due refpect to the zeal and ingenuity of our Author, we have too much regard for the caufe for which he is an advocate, to wish to fee its whole authority refted upon the evidence of a prophecy, which, after all that he has advanced, will, we apprehend, be commonly thought obfcure, and of doubtful import. An argument which does not amount to perfect demonftration may, nevertheless, have some weight: the Author's reafoning is not without plaufibility; and every friend of truth will fay of it, Valeat quantum valere poteft.

ART. IV. Eight Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1786, at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. Joha Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury. By George Croft, D.D. late Fellow of Univerfity College, Vicar of Arncliffe, Mafter of the Grammar School in Brewood, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Earl of Elgin. Svo. 45. Boards. Rivington. 1786.

N advocate ex officio is always in fome danger of faying too much. It is therefore doubtful, whether fuch inftitutions as the Bampton Lecture are of real service to the cause they are meant to support. At the fame time that they afford an opportunity for the difplay of learning and ingenuity, it is also poffible they may give birth to feeble reafoning, and vague declamation, which will, in the iffue, afford the adverfary occafion of triumph.

We see some reafon to apprehend, that thefe difcourfes will be thought to furnish an example in confirmation of the truth of our remark. Dr. Croft, in executing his defign, which is to vindicate our Eftablished Church againft the objections of the principal fects, frequently overfteps the bounds of moderation, and advances pofitions which he will not find it eafy to maintain.

Our Author acknowledges the obligations of natural religion, and, at the fame time, inconfiftently denies the poffibility of complying with them in practice. Whatfoever we do, fays he (page 8.), actuated folely by motives of common prudence and mere morality, hath in it the nature of fin.'

On the fubject of prophetic infpiration, Dr. Croft admits of double and allegorical interpretations, and juftifies them by an analogical argument, not very conclufive. Among the Latin poets, who never foared into the regions of imagination with the fublimity of eattern poetry, there are many paffages which have a hidden import beyond the literal meaning." According to our Author, the fimilarity of the poet's golden age, to the time of man's innocence, is a proof, that the heathen fables were many of them borrowed from the records of truth;--the fong of Solomon may, upon the principles of juft criticism, be fuppofed to describe the union between Chrift and his church;-Sarah and Hagar were intended to prefigure, firft the comparative state of the Ifraelites and the Gentiles, and afterwards that of the Jews and the Chriftians; and the fojourning of the Ifraelites in Egypt, their journey through the Wilderness, &c. have a folid foundation in the morality and doctrine of Chriftianity.'

While our Author is himself thus difpofed to lay much ftrefs upon types and allegories, it is not furprising that he fhould attempt to vindicate the allegorical and myftical language, and to apologize for the credulity, of the Fathers. We are glad to find, however, that he does not adopt their weak reasoning, so far as to admit the argument for the Trinity from the plural form of the name of God in the Hebrew language. Perhaps too much ftrefs is laid upon the expreffion, "Let us make man in our image." The plural is frequently applied to one only, and the language of confultation is evidently used in condefcenfion to human infirmity. It were dangerous to reft an article of faith upon that, which may be only a mere idiom.'

་

For the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Athanafian Creed, Dr. Croft is, notwithstanding, a zealous champion. He endea vours to justify the damnatory claufes of that creed, as merely declaratory of the general fentence of divine judgment againft obftinate unbelievers. But before thefe claufes can be vindicated, even in that fenfe, it must be proved, firft, that the Athanafian doctrine is that of the Scriptures; and fecondly, that the term of acceptance required in the Gofpel is fomething more than a good life.

The Author's confident affertion, that the well-known paffage in the 5th chapter of the first Epiftle of John is new proved to be genuine,' many will prefume as confidently to deny.

On the fubjects of free inquiry, and toleration, our Author is, by no means, confiftent. At the entrance upon his plan, he lays it down as a general pófition, that Chrift requires no blind deference to authority and established opinions:' and afterward, To the spirit of free inquiry alone (fays he) we wish to be indebted for the permanency of our church.' But, in several other

places,

places, we find him holding a very different language. Difcourfing upon our Saviour's exhortation, "Yea, and why even of your felves judge ye not what is right?" he represents it as our duty to receive the doctrine of the Trinity, without inquiring in what fenfe it is true-that is, in other words, to profefs our faith in a propofition, without attempting to conceive its meaning. And, in another place, he afferts, that, if Tranfubftantiation, &c. had been found in the facred writers, our oppofition to it would not be warrantable.'-What is this, but fuppofing that God might teach, and man be bound to believe, a palpable absurdity? In the fame fpirit, he fays, The principle which has given a fanction to all the wildness and extravagance of enthusiasts and fectaries is this, whatever right any body of men claim to separate from a church once established, the fame right every individual may claim to form a fyftem of doctrines and opinions for himfelf:' again, It was an abfurdity referved for modern days, to imagine, that every man was qualified and authorized to frame a fyftem of belief for himfelf;' and We leave to enthufiafts the abfurdity of requiring men to form a fyftem for themfelves.' We fhall leave it to Dr. Croft to fay how a man who does not form opinions for himself, can be faid to pay no blind deference to authority,' or of himself to judge what is right:" we only afk, how large a body of men have a right to feparation; how it is poffible for an individual to know what mafter he ought to follow, without comparing their respective doctrines; and what reason, without this, any man can give for not being a Presbyterian at Edinburgh, a Papift at Rome, and a Mahometan at Conftantinople.

In many places our Author appears averfe to intolerance. He acknowledges that the fpirit of enquiry ought not to be refrained by human laws.' Yet, he speaks of a certain just extent of power, to which we are not willing to proceed:" he expreffes, in the ftrongest terms, his approbation of the prohibition of preaching upon the doctrine of predeftination, of which the puritans complained, afferting, that no government in any age could iffue forth a more wife, a more useful, and a more confola#tory prohibition: and he gives it as his opinion, that the legal indulgence granted to ignorant inftructors, though it cannot, or will not, be withdrawn, is indeed and in truth a detriment inftead of an advantage.'-Not, furely, on the whole-elle it might and ought to be with-held: the only difficulty would be to afcertain, who are ignorant preachers, and what doctrines are dangerous.

On the subject of a reformation in the Established Church, Dr. Croft fpeaks cautiously. To the Roman Catholics, indeed, he feems difpofed to be fufficiently liberal. Speaking of them, he fays, How far time may effect a re-union is impoffible to con

jecture:

jecture: the moft probable means will be to lay afide former animofity, and, agreeably to the idea of our first reformers, to imitate whatever is ufeful in their inftitutions, unaffected by invidious appellations, fome of which are the more offenfive because they are borrowed, and perverted, from fcripture.' Why does not the Doctor speak plainly? Does he mean, that the terms Antichrift and the Man of fin have been improperly applied to the Church of Rome? Does he prefer the retrograde motion towards Popery to the direct motion towards reformation? It fhould feem fo: for the only improvement which he is willing to allow, for the relief of those within the church who are diffatisfied, or for the accommodation of those without it who, at prefent, fubmit to feparation as a neceffary infelicity, is (p. 160.) fome flight alterations in the Matrimonial Service, and the Leffons, a Rubric explanatory of the real tendency of the Athanafian Creed, and a lefs frequent repetition of the Lord's Prayer.' Such trifling conceffions as thefe, could not poffibly be fufficient to fatisfy the moft moderate of those who object to the Athanafian doctrine. The truth is, the prefent enlightened ftate of the world renders more fubftantial alterations highly expedient. In order to preserve the refpectability, and the influence of a religious establishment, and render it productive of those advantages to fociety which may reasonably be expected from it, its doctrines and inftitutions must be, from time to time, accommodated to the general opinions and tafte. In the present age, the laity, and perhaps we may add the clergy too, have very little zeal for controverfy. And they would have ftill lefs, if it were kept out of fight in their forms of public worship, by fubftituting, wherever it is neceffary, the plain words of Scripture, inftead of the metaphyfical language of the schools.

We fhall conclude our remarks upon thefe Sermons, by expreffing our hearty concurrence with the Author in the following liberal fentiments:

• Many of the extravagancies of every denomination are given up, and how many more will hereafter be given up, is impoffible to conjecture. Every conceffion brings us nearer to unanimity, though the infirmities of our nature will probably always keep us at a confiderable diftance from it. But in proportion as men are lefs tenacious of outward modes, and lefs addicted to vain fpeculations, they will become more attentive to the effentials of religion, they will encourage and promote univerfal benevolence.'

The fubjects of thefe Sermons are; The Ufe and Abufe of ReaJon; Objections against Inspiration confidered; the Authority of the Ancient Fathers examined; On the Conduct of the firft Reformers; The Charge of Intolerance in the Church of England refuted; Objec tions against the Liturgy answered; On the Evils of Separation; The Prefent State of Religion, with conjectural Remarks upon Prophecies to be fulfilled hereafter.

ART,