Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

capacity. The author's defign is to excire fome of their most active minifters, or leading men among the laity, to call a general meeting, to renounce the Regium Donum, to declare their principle to be the right of private judgment to all men without exception, and to establish fome mode of uniting their body, for is perpetual preservation.

CONTROVERSY.

The Harmony of the Truth; the Second Part, called the Harmony of the Scriptures. 8vo. 25. Law.

This writer flames with Athanafian zeal against Mr. Locke, Ben. Mordicai, and other writers; but particularly Mr. Lindsey. A confiderable part of this tract confifts of a comment on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and a comment on the fecond Pfalm*.

DIVINIT Y.

Concordia. Seu Sacra Cana Theoria Sacra Auctore, P. D. K
S. T. P. 8vo. 25. 6. Dilly.

The learned author has favoured us with the following account of his hypothefis, which we fhall infert verbatim, as we wish to do juftice to it, by a fair and impartial reprefentation.

• The defign of the Concordia is, if poffible, to terminate the unhappy difputes about the doctrine of the facrament, which have. fo long divided the Proteftants, by thewing, where the fault on both fides feems to lie, viz. in not diftinguishing between the laft individual fupper given by our Saviour himself to his apoftles. alone, and that ordinance established afterwards in the Christian church, called the sacrament, between which two there feems to be a great difference. For Chrift's defign in the former appears to have been, actually to effect and to enter here on earth, with the eleven faithful apoftles, as his own church then, and in them with the church univerfal, into that substantial, intimate, and eternal union, which is implied by the new covenant, for imparting eternal life to them, by means of his body and blood, or human nature, as the only fit one for this purpose, eternal life being inherent thereunto by virtue of its perfonal union with the divine nature. Of this his body and blood he accordingly then made the apoftles really participate in an invifible and incomprehenfible manner, as far as was confiftent with this prefent life; which is made evident from the words of our Saviour himself, fpoken to the apoftles at this laft fupper, rightly explained and compared with his fpeeches after it, as related in the gospel of John, ch. xiv. to xvii. as alfo that in ch. vi. and from the use of the fymbols of bread and wine, adopted by Chrift at the fame time.

But the facrament feems to be defigned for a memorial of that union effected by Chrift at the forementioned laft fupper, whereby all true believers may be affured of its perpetuity, as well as their fhare in it under the influence of the Holy Spirit,

See Critical Review, vol. xlii. page, 395.

F 4

until

until its confummation at Chrift's fecond coming, and whereby the union of the members of Chrift's church here on earth, amongst themselves, might be for ever cemented, as we learn from ch. x. xi. of St. Paul's firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, who was exprefsly commanded by Chrift himself to introduce this ordinance in the Chriftian church.

This distinction being admitted, it is plain, that, though the Lutherans not unjustly infift upon the proper or literal fenfe of these words of Chrift, this is my body! this is my-l blood! yet they have no right to argue from thence the nature of the facrament, thefe words not refpecting it, but only the individual action then performed by Chrift, when he gave this laft fupper. And as they proteft, that they contend only for the truth of thefe words of Chrift in their literal fenfe; this being admitted in regard to that individual action, their end is answered, and confequently there is no reafon on their fide for continuing the feparation on this account.

Again, it is equally plain, that the Calvinifts cannot with reafon difpute the proper or literal fenfe of the forementioned words any longer, if afferted only in regard to the laft fupper given by Chrift himself to his apoftles. If therefore the Lutherans admit the prefent ordinance of the facrament to be a memorial only of the faid laft fupper, and the union effected therein, though not quite an ineffectual one, the Calvinists have what they can poffibly defire in regard to this point, and, confequently, there is no reafon on their fide for continuing the feparation on that account. On the whole, this tremendous controversy appears to be merely an exegetical question.'

The author adds, he fhould not be against treating the fubject in a more ample manner, and a more familiar method, if thought ufeful in English; knowing how little attention is now paid to Latin books, especially books of divinity; and having chofen the Latin language and mathematical method only first to explore more eafily the fentiments of the learned, both here and abroad, of his hypothefis.'

There certainly can be no objection to his having written this tract in Latin, as it is chiefly intended for the learned. It will on all hands be allowed, that the fhorter it is the better; and therefore it feems to be unneceffary to treat the fubject in a more ample manner.

The true Sanfhip of Chrift investigated. And bis Perfon, Dignity, and Offices explained and confirmed from the facred Scriptures.

12mo,

25. 6d. Dilly.

That Jefus is the Son of God is a point, in which all Chriftians are agreed; but in what fenfe this expreffion is to be under ftood, has been the subject of many unhappy controverfies. Some have held him to be the fon of God from the generation of his divine perfon by the Father from all eternity; others, from the miraculous formation of his human nature by the divine power at his incarnation; others, from his confecration to the

character

character and office of Meffiah; and others from his refurre&tion. This writer fupports a different opinion, which, he thinks, ftands clear of those difficulties, with which all others are attended. He first endeavours to prove, that there are two natures, the divine and human, or the second perfon, of the Trinity, and a human foul and body, all coexifting in the perfon of Chrift; he then delivers his own hypothefis in the following terms, which he afterwards more fully explains.

Is the pre-existent living principle in human generation, not the refult of the Father's will, nor dependent upon it for existence, but exifts in and with him, by the fame law or neceffity of nature as himself exists; fo the divine Logos co-exifts with the other divine perfons in the fame divine effence, and by the fame neceffity of nature, by which the Divinity in general, and every perfonal fubfiftence in that Divinity does exift. Does human generation confift in the unition of this original living principle, with an acceffary fubftance derived from the female parent; or in acceffion of fuch fubtance to the original principle; fo this divine generation conifts in the unition of the divine Logos, not only with a human foul created by God, but with a human body alfo derived from the fubftance of the Bleffed Virgin, and both united with the divine Word. Is this addition to the original principle made by the generation of the father, the conception of the mother, and the energy of the living principle; fo God the Father, by whofe peculiar agency this human nature was formed and united to his divineWord, is affirmed to have begotten this glorious perfon, Pfalm ii. 6. The Bleffed Virgin of whom his body was formed is faid to have conceived and born him, Ifaiah vii. 14. And the Word to have partook of human nature, and to be made in human flesh, Heb. ii. 14. John i. 14. From this unition of the original principle with the acceffary fubftance, is there conftituted and produced a more visible and complex perfon, poffeffing the nature of both parents, and taking its denomination of Son from both, but chiefly from the Father, from whom the chief conftituent of its perfon was derived; fo from the incar nation of the divine Word, is conftituted the complex perfon of Immanuel, partaking perfectly the nature of God and of man, called not unfrequently nor improperly the Son of man, yet chiefly and moft frequently the Son of God. Is a fon fprung of both parents the best pledge of their love, fo we fhall find this glorious Godman is the beft pledge of friendship between God and man, and formed for every office of Mediator betwixt them. Such is the amazing agreement between the incarnation of the divine Word and human generation. To no other view of our Saviour's perfon that ever has been given do thefe primary evidences of his Sonfhip apply. To no other view that can be given of him can they apply. In every effential and neceffary point do they apply to our Saviour's incarnation, and the conftitution of bis complex perfon, which we have here affigned as the foundation of his Sonfhip, and therefore they furnish a moft convincing evidence that in this fenfe, and in this only, is Chrift Jefus the Son of God.'

The author proceeds to treat of the dignity of Chrift's character, the offices which he was to execute, the rewards to which he was exalted, and the duties which we owe to him as our Saviour.

This is one of the best tracts we have feen in favour of the Athanafian doctrine of the Trinity.

An Enquiry, whether we have any Scripture-warrant for a direct Addrefs of Supplication, Praise, or Thanksgiving either to the Son or to the Holy Ghoft? By the late Rev. Paul Cardale. 8vo. 1s. Johnfon.

The Rev. Mr. Paul Cardale was a pious and learned diffenting clergyman at Evesham, in Worfterfhire, the author of feveral publications; the most diftinguished of which appeared in 1767, under the title of the True Doctrine of the New Testament concerning Jefus Chrift confidered*. He died March 1, 1775, aged 70, and has left behind him a very confiderable number of devotional pieces in manufcript.

In this tract he endeavours to prove, that we have no fcripture-warrant for a direct addrefs of fupplication, praise, or thanksgiving, either to the Son or the Holy Ghoft. We are, he fays, to honour our Saviour as the appointed mediator, lawgiver, and judge of mankind. But, he adds, whilft Jefus Chrift was on earth, no worship was ever paid to him as God, either in a way of religious fupplication, or of thanksgiving; and after his refurrection and afcenfion, we have no inftance, either of his being called God, or invoked as fuch, in the way of prayer or praife; unless where he was either perfonally prefent, or visible to the worshiper, as in the inftances of St. Thomas and St. Stephenwhich are here particularly confidered.

To this Enquiry is fubjoined a letter on the perfonality of the fpirit, which was fent to the editor, Dr. Fleming, in the year 1762, by the late Dr. Lardner. The purport of this letter is to prove, that, by the Holy Ghoft, in the New Teftament, is not to be understood a divine perfon, but a power, a gift, or an effufion of fpiritual gifts.

A Sermon preached at Nottingham, Dec. 13, 1776, being the Day appointed for a General Faft. By George Walker. 8vo. 1S. Johnfon.

An animated reprefentation of our national depravity, from

Rom. i. 28.

MEDICA L.

A feled Number of schirrhous and cancerous Cafes, fuccessfully treated without cutting, by the peculiar Remedy of Melmoth Guy, Surgeon, 800. IS. Nichol.

Twenty Cafes are here related, we think, with fidelity, of glandular tumors, fome of which were evidently cancerous, all cured by Mr. Guy, without recourfe to excifion. We heartily with fuccefs to a discovery of so much importance to mankind. The Oeconomy of Quackery confidered, in a Reply to Mr. Spilsbury's Free Thoughts on Quacks and their Medicines. By Tho. Proffer. 8vo. 25. Bew.

This pamphlet is publifhed as a reply to a defpicable production, written by one Spilfbury, entitled, Free Thoughts on

* See Critical Review, vol. xxiv. p. 331.

Quacks

Quacks and their Medicines. The reply is fenfible and juft; and the author deferves the greater commendation, that he could have no other inducement to expofe fuch a fhameless effufion of empiricifm and ignorance, than the defire of preferving the public from becoming a prey to the most deftructive species of impofture.

POETRY.

An Epifle to Dr. Shebbeare: to which is added an Ode to Sir Fletcher Norton. By Malcolm Macgreggor, of Knightsbridge, Efq. Author of the Heroic Epiftle to Sir William Chambers, &c. 4to. 1s. 6d. Almon.

[ocr errors]

This piece is undoubtedly the production of the author of the Heroic Epiftle. There is, in both, the fame fmoothness of numbers and energy of expreffion, the fame fportive irony, the fame keennefs and delicacy of fatire. If this poem is inferior to the former in point of fublimity, it must be attributed to the inferiority of the fubject. For, as the fage Malcolm Macgreggor, efq. very properly remarks, the different ranks of the two perfons, to whom these two works are addreffed, require a difference to be made in this matter. It would be unpardonable not to difcriminate between a comptroller of his majefty's works, and á hackney fcribbler of a newspaper, between a placeman and a penfioner, a knight of the polar itar and a broken apothecary. The author, however, introduces himfelf to the hero of his poem with this pompous afpiration.

O for a thousand tongues! and every tongue
Like Johnson's, arm'd with words of fix feet long,
In multitudinous vociferation

To panegyricize this glorious nation,
Whofe liberty refults from her taxation.
O, for that paffive, penfionary spirit,
That by its proftitution proves its merit!
That refts on RIGHT DIVINE, all regal claims,
And gives to George, whate'er it gave to James;
Then fhould my Tory numbers, old Shebbeare,
Tickle the tatter'd fragment of thy ear!
Then all that once was virtuous, wife, or brave,
That quell'd a tyrant, that abhorr'd a slave,
Then Sydney's, Ruffel's patriot fame should fall,
Befmear'd with mire, like black Dalrymple's gall,
Then, like thy profe, fhould my felonious vérfe
Tear each immortal plume from Naffau's hearse,
That modern monarchs, in that plumage gay,
Might ftare and ftrut, the peacocks of a day.
But I, like Anfty, feel myself unfit

To run, with hollow speed, two heats of wit.'

}

The poet gives us a humourous account of his former publications, pays fome compliments, en paffant, to the doctor, and then, in the language of a courtly bard, predicts the fuccefs of our arms in America:

• Where foon, we trust, the brother chiefs shall fee
The congrefs pledge them in a cup of tea,

Toaft

« AnteriorContinuar »