great erudition, employed in the fervice of religion: we have Teen with regret, that by applying them to fubjects which they were unable to explain, the author has in most inftances failed, and in fome, we fear, may have drawn a little ridicule on that religion which he venerates, and which he wishes to fup port. If, in the courfe of our examination, we may have ever feemed to treat the fubject too lightly, we are at least certain, that it is owing to no disrespect for the author: our whole conduct must have affured our readers that it could not have proceeded from a more improper fource,

Difcourfes on Scripture Myfteries, preached before the University of of Oxford in the Year 1787. By William Hawkins, M. A. 8vo. 45. in Boards. Rivingtons.

TH

HE Bampton Lecture is the arena into which the modern polemic defcends to combat with heretics, and with fectarifts. He dictates ex cathedra with confidence, and affumes the high ground of mystery and infpiration; ground which his antagonists difpute at the firft onfet, Mr. Hawkins fucceeds the lecturer whom we have examined in our prefent Number, (See p. p. 489.) and flatters himself that he has chofen more advantageous ground than many of his fellow-földiers in this field. The event is, however, to be decided in the contest; and we are cautious of giving a pofitive opinion, left we should be numbered ourselves with the combatants. We fhall mention the fubjects of Mr. Hawkins' enquiries, and give a short account of his principal arguments.

The first difcourfe is on John xviii. 38. What is truth ? He deduces the excentricities of fectarists from the abufe of the exercife of private judgment, in matters of religion; a foundation which is fufficiently ftrong, yet which we would not willingly allow, without fome explanation. Vanity and obstinacy are undoubtedly connected very intimately with ignorance; and of courfe, the vagaries of a weak understanding, when applied to religion, may be often injurious. But all private judgment fhould not be put on the fame footing; and even its abufes, if not carried into action, and become obnoxious by innovation, fhould be left untouched. It is one of thofe important fubjects, where the line cannot be properly drawn, and where a little abufe may be allowed, rather than chain the mind by the fetters of authority. The question of the text is examined in various ways; and our author is led, by the aufwers, to the doctrines of the Trinity, and the refurrection of the body, which form the fubjects of the lectures: he is led to ftate, what mysteries are; and to fhow that the doctrines, which in religion are deemed myfterious, are not more fo than many which must neceffarily be admitted. Myfterioufnefs and incomprehenfibility do not, in his opinion, preclude our affent, for infinite fpace and infinite time are incomprehenfible; the confiftency of free will with ne

ceflity;

ceffity; and of the divine perfections with the exiftence of evil, are mysteries, though they must be admitted. We are not quite certain, that these arguments will be deemed forcible; and we fufpect that the Arian will change his ground, and allege that they are not fairly stated, fince the different doctrines do not reft on the fame undeniable bafis. The fubject of free-will is a very doubtful one; and, instead of its being confiftent with neceffity, many metaphyficians think that our feelings on this fubject are delufive, and that it has no real exißence.

But, in the fubfequent part of the volume, in the fecond dif courfe, Mr. Hawkins endeavours to put thefe different fubjects on the best foundation that can be laid, the authority of fcripture. It is from John v. 39. Search the fcriptures.' The introduction is fomewhat fingular.

• Without laying before you at prefent all, or the principal texts by which the doctrine of the Trinity is fupported, or in which the abfolute divinity both of the Son and of the Holy Ghoft is explicitly afferted, or neceffarily implied, we may previously remark that, fuppofing them to be authentic, unequivocal, and intelligible, the infidel is in fact precluded from taking advantage of thofe paffages which are declarative either of the acknowledged humanity of Jefus Chrift, or of the gifts and operations of the bleffed Spirit: that humanity, and thofe operations being things manifeftly distinct from the divise effence, and real perfonality. What we fhall have to do therefore will be to enquire, in due time and place, whether the exceptions which have been made against the texts with which the the catholic doctrine is fortified, are grounded in principles of common candour and common fenfe; or, in other words, whether the interpretations of anti-trinitarians are critically juft, and agreeable to the rules which are generally allowed to govern interpretation.'

In this manner, all argument is precluded; the conteft is terminated without a blow, fince the antagonist is immediately difarmed. But we must attend to the evidence, which, though indirect and collateral, appears to our author to be irresistible: the various fcriptural proofs which fill the fecond fermon will not furnish any new information to intelligent readers on this fubject.

In the third fermon, our author adduces many observations to prove that the great mystery of the gofpel was gradually expanded, and perfected only by our Lord's refurrection, which at once attefted his divinity. He then endeavours to flow, that the fubfequent accounts of the propagation of the gospel are u niform and confiftent on this hypothefis, and open to us the whole of the Trinitarian fyftem: this is evinced by a careful and exact enquiry into the conduct of the apostles and their preaching, as recorded in various paffages of the Acts. This enquiry

enquiry fills the remainder of the third and a part of the fourth fermon. Mr. Hawkins proceeds to the writings of the fathers; and he thinks that he finds the leading truths of Christianity, though incidentally and not fyftematically alluded to, uniformly taught. The fecond Epistle of Clement our author fuppofes to be genuine. The incidental arguments, from fome practices of the primitive church, and other lefs refpectable fources, are of very unequal value.

In the fifth difcourfe Mr. Hawkins begins with the folemn declaration from John v. 20. This is the true God.' He thinks that the divinity of Chrift has in the preceding pages been, beyond all reafonable doubt, afcertained; and he proceeds to confider more particularly the Socinian and Arian fyftems." Our Saviour is not spoken of by the prophets, as a mere legifla tor, as a mere moral inftructor. His moral code is not fuper◄ eminently distinguifhed, fince it. firft precepts our author finds in the philofophical works of other authors. It is his divinity which diftinguifhes him it is the fupreme God who has pur on a human form, but ftill retains the divine effence. We are not willing to confirm thefe opinions, with our approbation, for reasons which we wish to avoid enlarging on. The morality of the Gospel ought not to be compared with tranfient paffages in a few authors, or a patch-work from the various unconnected fyftem of the Pagans. Its precepts are pure and unfullied; uniform and confiftent; extenfive and practical. Antiquity must be fearched to find occafional paffages, which resembles its tenor; but no fearch will discover a code, which difplays at once its fpirit aud confitency. We have no objection to fixing religion on its proper bahs; but we think, that few will fuppofe it can stand more fecure, if this bafis be rendered more narrow, or if the fuperftructure be unconnected with what can afford it additional fupport. Would any arguments eftablish a religious fyftem, whofe tendency was immoral ? Why then fhould we reject, as an aid, what would be fo materially injurious in oppofition? On the Arian fuppofition his obfervations are more concife; and there is, he thinks, no difference between fuppofing two Gods and twenty. But it is referved for his fixth fermon to fhow, that the anti-trinitarian caufe is fupported only by difingenuous evafion, flimzy fophiftry, or wilful mif conftruction. The particular anfwers to the various Antitrinitarians we cannot abridge, but fall felect one, in our author's own words.

There are two remarkable paffages in St. Paul's Epiftles, which, as they are claimed by our adverfaries with more appearance of right than the foregoing, it will be proper to take into confideration. "Who (i. e. Jefus Chrift) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himfelf of no reputation," &c. This text is often

quoted as afferting the true divinity of our Saviour. I am therefore concerned to deliver it from the conftruction which

3

the

the Arians with much affurance put upon it; and which many amongst ourselves have, I think, very unwarily admitted; fubjecting themfelves thereby to the neceflity of having recourfe to a hackneyed, and after all mere verbal distinction between felf-existence and neceffary existence, in order to reconcile their admiffion with orthodox principles. Thought it not robbery,' &c. ex aprayor nynσato, i. e. (fays Novatian and many with him,) he never compared himfelf with God the Father, nunquam fe Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit; the reafon follows, memor fe effe ex fuo Patre. Every Arian will abide by this explication; and how do the advocates for Novatian get clear of the imputed confequences? "Why, fays Dr. Waterland, this interpretation of the text (fuppofing it juft) implies no more than this, that Jefus Chrift never pretended to an equality with the Father in refpect of his original, knowing himself to be fecond only in order, not the firit Perfon of the ever-bleffed Trinity." Dr. W. obferves, that the whole paffage in Novatian, rightly understood, affords a ftrong proof of the co equa lity of the two Perfons; and that it is quoted accordingly by Dr. Whitby in his treatife De vera Chrifti Deitate. But as this can only be done by help of the above diftinction, I must afk why Novatian's sense of this text must be admitted as the true one? He did not affect, fay fome, did not claim, did not take upon him, &c. to be honoured as God. Notwithstanding the great authorities of Grotius, Tillotson, and Clarke, &c. with which this interpretation is fortified, I can not help thinking the reading in ufe, thought it not robbery tobe equal with God, not barely to be the more eligible, but indeed the proper reading. For, not to infift on one circumstance in its favour, which is the non-agreement of the several interpretations of the learned gentlemen above mentioned, it de ferves to be noted, that though the phrafe εχ αρπαγμον ηγησατε would admit the conftruction contended for, yet the context will be found abfolutely to revolt against it. Granting the phrafe, being in the form of God, to be in itself of undetermi nate fignification, yet when predicated of him who is one with the Father, who was in the beginning with God, and really and truly was God, it certainly is to be regarded as fynonymous with thofe expreffions; and confequently as importing an entire equality with God. But herewith the conftruction of Novatian, and of the Arians, not to fay of Dr. W. himself, is totally incompatible. The reading in use therefore must be allowed to be not only natural, but neceffary. He thought it not robbery, i. e. to be no violation of right, or justice.'

The two laft fermons are on the refurrection; and Mr. Hawkins not only examines the fcriptural evidence of a refurrection, but the opinions of the earlier fathers. He engages alfo in a difqui fition on Dr. Sykes' opinion on the subject, and on Mr. Locke's controverfy with Dr. Stillingfleet. In general, he is pretty fuc cessful, but our refpect for Mr. Locke, notwithstanding the

many errors and herefies, to which his works have given occafron, makes the terms pitiful evafion,' 'cavils'. quibbles," "captioufnefs,' &c. appear much too harsh and illiberal.

The annotations are useful to illuftrate many paffages which, from the nature of the compofition, would not admit of parti cular extracts or more minúte criticifms. They difplay much learning, and an intimate acquaintance with the fubject. Though Mr. Hawkins often advances opinions, in which we cannot coincide with him, though he affumes pofitions which we think indefenfible, yet his erudition and labour demand our commendation. In our late polemical contests, we have seen too much of the illiberality of an intolerant age, to be always able to commend the temper or often the decorum of the combatants.

A General Defeription of China. Tranflated from the French of the Abbé Grofier. 2 Vols. 8vo. 155. in Boards. Robinfons.

T

HIS vaft empire, and its inhabitants, have occafioned various fpeculations. A people, though infulated among barbarians, who poffefs arts in a perfection unknown to the moft cultivated Europeans; whofe political ftate has affumed a form which a series of ages alone can bestow; whofe antiquity is faid to exceed every thing but what the neighbouring inhabitants of Indus boat; and whofe pure morality is excelled: only by divine infpiration, muft neceffarily excite the curiofity. of the fpeculative philofopher, and render the result of any enquiries interefting. The jealoufy of the Chinese have hitherto, in a great degree, difappointed us. They anxioufly" conceal thofe arts in which they fear a rival; and, with a cautious jealoufy, exclude the prying eyes of ftrangers. From the miffionaries we have received some satisfaction; from the Chinefe paintings more particular information has been obtained; but they still excel us in many arts, which we have attempted to imitate in vain. When we enumerated their peculiar advantages, we did not mean to copy the panegyrics of fome authors, who declaim with as little foundation as others blame.. China has been evidently long a kingdom; and whatever changes the incurfions of Tartars, or even a Tartar prince, may have occafionally introduced, we find the conquerors foon melt into the conquered, and the arts avenge the victory which the fword has gained. Their antiquity is uncertain, for their boafted pretenfions are extremely fallacious; but, whatever. it may be, and it is probably confiderable, their progreffive improvement feems to have been fmal!. To the advantages of their foil, the peculiar qualities of their vegetables, we must attribute their varnishes, their tea, and fome of their lighter, kinds of manufactures. We are not certain that we fhould attribute the perfection of their porcelain to this caufe. The materials which have been tranfmitted to us are not of a fuperior quality to ours; and, in the substance of their porcelain, we