is in Christ Jesus.' As long as this faith flourished in the church, these Scriptures were much read, and profitably understood: but now it is dwindled into a dry, lifeless system of morality, they are become in a manner useless; and some (it grieves me to say) even of those who have undertaken to teach others, want themselves to be taught again this first element of Christianity, that the New Testament can never be understood and explained, but by comparing it with the Old.

Of this error and its consequences, we have a sad example in the celebrated Dr. Clarke; a man whose talents might have adorned the doctrine of Christ, had not his faith been eaten up by a heathen spirit of imagination and philosophy. He published a work, entitled, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity;' a work of great pains and premeditation. In a short preface, he allows the subject to be of the greatest importance in religion-not to be treated of carelessly —but examined by a serious study of the WHOLE SCRIPTURE. And to convince the world that this and no other was his own practice, he affirms in his Introduction, p. 17, and prints it in capitals, that he has collected ALL the texts relating to that matter. Yet, his whole collection is finished and shut up without a single text trom the Old Testament! I cannot find that he has even mentioned such a book. 'The Christian revelation,' says he, p. 1, 'is the doctrine of Christ and his apostles.' This, he calls, p. 4,

The books of Scripture;' and again, p. 5, The books of Scripture-not only the rule, but the whole and the only rule of truth-the only foundation we have to go upon.' And he proves it thus―' because no man has since pretended to have any new revelation.' An argument that will prejudice few people in favor 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 another; 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

* Heb. i. 1.

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 reflections, because I find some modern objectors, 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 a 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. But is it not much harder, that the ashes of this man should be scattered over the land, to

102

THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

breed and inflame the plague of heresy, till the whole head is sick, and the heart faint, and the whole body full of putrefying 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 be wasted and spilt, the lamp that was made to hold it will be of no farther use.

THE

PLURALITY AND TRINITY OF PERSONS.

CHAP. III.

I. THE 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 consider this word as a plural noun, but on some particular occasions. Whoever will be at the 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,

* and see the Heb. of Deut. xxxii. 17, and Heb. i. 11.