of Scripture not only the Rule, but the IVhole and the only Rule of Truth-the only foundation we have to go upon." And he proves it thus because no man

66

"Iras since pretended to have any new Reve"lation." An argument that will prejudice few people in favour of his sincerity. For though there has been no new Revelation SINCE the Books of the New Testament, as we all confess; does it follow that there was no old Revelation BEFORE them? and did this author never read, that the same GOD, who spake in these last days by his Son, spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets? yet he affects to know nothing at all of the

matter.

And as to the use he makes of the New Testament, who would expect, that a man who has made Nothing of one half of God's Revelation, should be very nice in his treatment of the other? In the first place, he has not vouchsafed to follow the Apostle's Direction of comparing spiritual things with spiritual, thence to collect their true meaning; but sets down his Texts in such an order, as makes them to be all single and independent of one ano

a Heb. I. 1.

ther;

ther; and that gives all possible liberty to the Imagination to thrust in what sort of comment it pleases. When he refers to any parallel place (which I think is never done, but on one side of the Question) the Reader is not directed to the text itself, but to the meaning he has fastened upon it. At the beginning of every Chapter, he sets down his own opinion at large, as the Title of it: and you are to believe, that all the passages of that Division do certainly prove it; which if cleared of his comments, and compared with other texts, are found to prove no such thing, but the very contrary. And this he calls The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity: but if we call it by its true name, it is-Clarke's Doctrine of the Scripture; that is, of half the Scripture. How it came to pass, that he should thus boldly set down his own resolutions upon the most profound article of the Christian Faith, without consulting all the Evidence that relates to it, or rightly examining any part of it: how this came to pass, God is to determine, to whom all things are naked and open. All I have to do with him, is to rescue the Word of God from such deceitful handling.

And I have prevailed with myself to make these few Reflexions, because I find some modern Objec

But is it not

tors of a lower Class have used this Book in Conversation and in Print, as the Oracle of the Party, taking the Scripture upon trust as his principles would give him leave to retail it. I know it will be accounted an hard thing, and called invidious, to rake thus into the Ashes of a writer, who is not alive to answer for himself. And I confess, I am very far from taking any pleasure in it. much harder, that the ashes of this man should be scattered over the land, to breed and inflame the plague of heresy, till the whole head is sick and the heart faint, and the whole body full of putrifying blains and sores? Arianism is now no longer a pestilence that walketh in darkness, but that brazens it out against the sun's light, and destroyeth in the noon day. It is a canker, which if it be encouraged much longer, will certainly eat out the vitals of Christianity in this kingdom: and when the faith is gone, the Church in all probability will soon follow after it; for if the holy oil bẹ wasted and spilt, the Lamp that was made to hold it, will be of no farther use.

CHAP.

CHAP III.

THE PLURALITY AND TRINITY OF PERSONS.

I.

That Hebrew name so often used in the Old Testament, which we have translated by the word God is Elohim, a noun substantive of the plural number, regularly formed from its singular*, and very frequently joined with plural verbs and plural adjectives, to express a plurality in the divine nature: though for another obvious reason, it is generally constructed with verbs and pronouns of the singular number, and gives a good sense, though the Grammar of it be somewhat irregular.

The Jews would persuade us not to con sider this word as a plural noun, but on some particular occasions. Whoever will be at the

mb and na; see the Heb. of Deut, XXXII. 17. and Hab. I, 11.

pains to examine their reasoning, will find it to be very childish and inconsistent, wholly owing to their hatred against the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the notion of a Trinity. But when the Jew is become a Christian, and the stumbling-block of the Cross removed out of his way, he can allow the name Elohim to be plural as readily as other men; and it is one of the principal points he chuses to insist upon, to convince the world that his eyes are open, and he is sincere in his profession of the Christian religion.

John Xeres, a Jew converted here in England about forty years ago, published a sensible and affectionate address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein he lays before them his reasons for leaving the Jewish religion and embracing the Christian. "The Christians

(says he *) confess Jesus to be God; and "it is this that makes us look upon the Gos

pels as books that overturn the very prin

ciples of religion, the truth of which is "built upon this article, the Unity of God, In this argument lies the strength of what you object against the Christian religion." Then he undertakes to prove that the unity

* P. 53.

of