taught from the prefs, (and the author feems to be very much in earneft) that the only fure way of reducing Christianity to its primitive purity, is to abolish all Creeds and Articles. But the great rock of offence with this writer, is the Trinity; to get rid of which, he would at once diffolve our whole ecclefiaftical conftitution, and form of worship.

THIS wild project furnishes a melancholy confirmation of the cenfure paffed upon us by fome learned Proteftants abroad, who have reflected upon England as a country productive of literary monfters; where fome old herefy is frequently rifing up, as old comets have been fuppofed to do, with new and portentous appearances. And the reader whofe fight can penetrate through the vehement accufations of popery, bigotry, perfecution, impofition, and other fiery vapours with which this author hath furrounded his performance, will difcover little, if any thing, more than Arianifm at the centre.

THE Scripture is the only rule that can enable us to judge whether that or the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is more agreeable to truth: therefore I have confined myself to this unexceptionable kind of evidence for the proof of the latter, and have made the Scripture its own interpreter. But our adverfaries, though they allow the fufficiency of the Scripture, and unjustly pretend to diftinguish themselves from us by infifting upon it, do nevertheless make fuch frequent ufe of a lower fort of evidence to bias common readers, and fhew the expediency of what they are pleased to call Reformation; that I have thought proper to exhibit a fpecimen of their method of proceeding in that respect, by adding to this

VOL. II.

* In a new work, intitled The Confeffional. + Carpzov. Pref. in Pfeudo Critic, Whiffonii.

I

edition A Letter to the Common People, in answer to fome popular Arguments against the Trinity. Thefe arguments are extracted chiefly from a fmall book, intitled, An Appeal to the Common Senfe of all Chriftian People; a thing very highly commended by the author of the Confeffional*. But in this author's eftimation, every writer that opposes the faith of the Church of England, is ipfo facto invincible: and confequently, this retailer of Dr. Clarke's opinions, whoever he is, muft come in for his fhare of merit and applaufe; which I by no means envy him.

So far as the Scripture itself hath been thought to furnish any objections to the received doctrine, I judged it the fairer and the furer way to answer them as they were offered by Dr. Clarke himself, and have therefore no apology to make for neglecting fome of his difciples, who have not made any improvement on his arguments, as I do not find that this gentleman hath: the second edition of whofe Appeal was published in 1754, fince which there have been two editions of the Catholic Doctrine in England, and one or more in Ireland.

By all the obfervations I have been able to make, the greater number of thofe who difbelieve the Trinity upon principle, (for many do it implicitly, and are credulous

"Which book," (fays he) "has paffed through two editions without any fort of reply that I have heard of. This looks as if able writers were not willing to meddle with the fubject, or that willing writers were not able to manage it." p. 320. The Rev. Mr. Landon published an answer to this book in 1764, printed for Whifton and White: and he has mentioned another himself in a note. But had the cafe really been as he had reported in his text, it will by no means follow, that a book is therefore unanfwerable, becaufe it hath received no anfwer. If this be. good logic, I could prefent him with a conclufion or two, which he would not very well like.

in their unbelief) do not profess to take their notions of God from the Bible, but affect to diftinguish themfelves from the common herd, by drawing them from the foun tains of Reafon and Philofophy. We cannot be perfuaded that the Trinity is denied by reafoners of this complexion, because the Scripture hath not revealed it: but do rather fufpect that fome philofophers diffent from this point of Chriftian doctrine, because they are not humble enough to take the Scripture as a teft of their religious opinions. In which cafe the whole labour of collecting of texts, and framing of comments, and fishing for various readings, is an after-thought. It is fubmitted to rather for apology than for proof: to reconcile readers of the Scripture to that doctrine which they would be more jealous of receiving if they knew it to have been originally borrowed from another quarter. He that would deceive a Chriftian, can feldom do his work effectually without a Bible in his hand: a confideration which may help us to a fight of the confequences, if perfons were permitted to teach in our churches without any previous enquiry concerning their religious fentiments, and fo allowed to take the fame liberty, either through mistake or ill defign, as was taken by the archdeceiver in the wildernefs *, who never meant to ufe the Scripture for edification, but only for deftruction; not to apply it as an inftrument of good, but to turn it, as far as he was able, into an inftrument of evil. The Bible was given us for the preservation of the kingdom of Chrift upon earth; as the Book of Statutes in this kingdom is intended to fecure the authority of the government, together with the life, peace, and property, of every individual: and we want no prophet to forethew us the confequences, if all the malecontents in the nation were allowed to be public interpreters of the laws.

* Matt. iv. 6.

THESE Confiderations I leave the judicious to apply as they find occafion. I ufe them chiefly as hints, for the benefit both of fuch as may be in danger of wrefting the Scriptures to their own destruction, and of fuch philofophers as thofe alluded to by St. Paul*, who through the profeffion of fancied wisdom fell into real folly, and purchased a reputed knowledge of things natural and metaphyfical, at the lamentable expence of lofing the knowledge of God.

* Rom. i. 22. I Cor. i. 21.

PLUCKLEY, Jan. 1, 1767.

ΤΟ ΤΗΣ

READER.

THE HE Chriftian religion is best known and distinguished by the God, propofed in it, as the object of our faith and obedience and as there is no true religion, but the religion of Chrif tians, fo is there no true God, but the God of Chriftians.

:

Before the coming of Chrift, and the fulfilling of the Law, God was known by the name of Jehovah, the God of Abraham, and of Ifaac, and of Jacob. The Ifraelites, who were the feed of Abraham, and drew their whole religion from a divine revelation, had the knowledge of the true God; and the people of every other nation, who were "aliens from the commonwealth of Ifrael, "and ftrangers from the covenants of promife," were alfo "without God in the world'." Though they talked much of God, and wrote much of him, and offered him many facrifices, yet they knew him not; the being they ferved, was not God, but another in the place of him, falfely called by his name. And though fome modern Christians have forgot there was any difference, yet the very heathens themselves, upon fome occafions, were ready enough to allow it. Naaman the Syrian, when he was cured of his leprofy by the prophet Elifha, made a public confeffion of it. Behold, now I know that there is no God in all "the earth, but in Ifrael." The fame is affirmed by the infpired Pfalmift- All the gods of the heathens are idols;" and God himself declares them all to have been vanities.

The cafe is now with the Chriftians under the Gospel, as it antiently was with the Jews under the Law: they believe in the only true God; while the unchriftian part of mankind, who are by far the majority, either know him not, or wilfully deny him; as Pharaoh did the God of the Hebrews when he was told of him. And we are now got to such a pitch of indevotion and ignorance, that among those who profefs and call themselves Chriftians, there 4 Jer. xiv. 22.

Eph. ii. 12.

2 2 Kings v. 15.

3 Pfal. xcvi. 5.