merit attention. In the prefent work, Dr. Cooper profeffes to caft new light upon a prophecy, which has divided and perplexed the Commentators, and which has, in his opinion, been univerfally misunderstood.

The prophecy in queftion is Isaiah, vii. 1-16. This paffage has hitherto been fuppofed to contain two prophecies, both delivered at the fame time, and referring to the fame event; namely, the affuring Ahaz, that the attempts of the combined forces of the Kings of Ifrael and Syria against Jerufalem would be ineffectual and it has been generally agreed, that the latter prediction, "Behold a virgin fhall bear a fon," &c. was to be a fign to Abaz of his prefent deliverance, and at the fame time a prediction of the birth of Jefus Chrift. The difficulties attending former interpretations our Author ftates in their full force, and pronounces them infuperable. He then gives his own fenfe of the paffage, which we shall endeavour to lay before our Readers as accurately as a concife abridgment will admit.

The prophet Ifaiah being fent to the idolatrous King Ahaz, before the fiege of Jerufalem by the Kings of Ifrael and Syria was begun, affured him that the confederate Kings fhould fail in their attempt, and that Samaria, after 65 years, should cease to be a people. The former part of this prophecy was, foon afterwards, accomplished; yet Ahaz continued to addict himself to idolatry. The prophet was therefore, after a long interval, sent to him again, to endeavour to bring him back to the acknowledgment of the God of Ifrael. For this purpose he calls upon Ahaz, to chufe a fign, or miraculous difplay of divine power, in any part of nature. Moreover the Lord spake unto Ahaz, faying, Afk for thyself a fign of the Lord thy God: afk it either in the depth, er in the height above. Ahaz impiously refused the offer, replying, I will not ask, nor will I make trial of the Lord. The prophet, obferving the unconquerable perverfenefs of Ahaz, and finding that it would be in vain to say any thing farther to him fingly, now addreffed himself to the whole houfe of David: Hear ye now, O houfe of David, do you not find it a difficult thing to contend with men? how then, and by what means, are you to contend against God? The prophet now begins the fecond prophecynot as a confirmation of the former, which had now been accomplished, but as a prediction of the birth of the Meffiah, and the exact period when this great event fhould happen-The Lord himself fhall give you a fign; Lo! THE virgin fhall conceive and bring forth a fon, and thou, O virgin, fhall call his name Emanuel, or, God with us. The prophet goes on to predict, that, between the time of the birth of the Emanuel, and the age in which children ufually acquire knowledge, Ifrael having long ceased to be a feparate kingdom, Judea alfo fhould be deprived of its government. Butter and honey shall he eat (that is, wisdom and sweet

nefs

nefs of fpeech fhall 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 fhall conceive, &c. was literally and completely fulfilled in Jefus, and there is no proof whatever that it was fulfilled in any one elfe. The clofe of the prophecy muft 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 ingenioufly and eloquently fupported; but, at the fame time, we must add, that it does not appear to us to be without its difficulties.

It may be afked, whether the fingle phrafe "The Lord fpoke again to Ahaz," be fufficient to mark two diftinct prophecies, delivered at different times;-whether the original word, rendered fign, does not moft 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 House 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 Gospel 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 verses,

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 chuse the good; for, before this child knows to refuse the evil and chufe the good, the land, by whofe two kings thou art straightened, 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 respect 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 rested 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 demonstration may, nevertheless, have some weight: the Author's reasoning 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. John 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. 8vo. 4s. Boards. Rivington. 1786.

A

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 adversary occafion of triumph.

We see some reason to apprehend, that these discourses 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 against the objections of the principal fects, frequently overfteps the bounds of moderation, and advances pofitions which he will not find it easy to main

tain.

Our Author acknowledges the obligations of natural religion, and, at the fame time, inconfiftently denies the poffibility of complying with them in practice. Whatsoever 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 eaftern 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 supposed to defcribe 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 stress upon types and allegories, it is not furprifing that he should 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 ufed 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 endeavours to justify the damnatory clauses of that creed, as merely declaratory of the general fentence of divine judgment against 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 firft 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 pofition, 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 feveral other

places,

places, we find him holding a very different language. Difcourfing upon our Saviour's exhortation, "Yea, and why even of yourfelves judge ye not what is right?" he reprefents it as our duty to receive the doctrine of the Trinity, without inquiring in what fense it is true-that is, in other words, to profess our faith in a propofition, without attempting to conceive its meaning. And, in another place, he afferts, that, if Transubstantiation, &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 abfurdity? 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 feparate from a church once established, the fame right every individual may claim to form a system of doctrines and opinions for himself:' again, It was an abfurdity reserved for modern days, to imagine, that every man was qualified and authorized to frame a fyftem of belief for himself;' 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 separation; 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 Prefbyterian at Edinburgh, a Papift at Rome, and a Mahometan at Conftantinople.

In many places our Author appears averse to intolerance. He acknowledges that the spirit of enquiry ought not to be reftrained 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 confolatory 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-else 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: