sional.'* But in this author's estimation, every writer that opposes the faith of the Church of England, is ipso facto invincible: and consequently, this retailer of Dr. Clarke's opinions, whoever he is, must come in for his share of merit and applause; 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 surer way, to answer them as they were offered by Dr. Clarke himself; and have, therefore, no apology to make for neglecting some of his disciples, who have not made any improvement on his arguments, as I do not find that this gentleman hath, the second edition of whose Appeal was published in 1754, since which there have been two editions of the Catholic Doctrine' in England, and one or more in Ireland.

By all the observations I have been able to make, the greater number of those who disbelieve the Trinity upon principle (for many do it implicitly, and are credulous in their unbelief) do not profess to take their notions of God from the Bible, but affect to distinguish themselves from the common herd by drawing them from the fountains of Reason and Philosophy. We cannot be persuaded, that the Trinity is denied by

* "Which book,' says he, has passed through two editions without any sort of reply that I have heard of. This looks as if able writers were not willing to meddle with the subject, or that willing writers were not able to manage it,' p. 320. The Rev. Mr. Landon published an answer to this book in 1674, printed for Whiston and White: and he has mentioned another himself in a note. But had the case really been as he hath reported in his text, it will by no means follow, that a book is therefore unanswerable, because it hath received no answer. If this be good logic, I could present him with a conclusion or two, which he would not very 'well like,

reasoners of this complexion, because the Scripture hath not revealed it, but do rather suspect, that some philosophers dissent from this point of Christian doctrine, because they are not humble enough to take the Scripture as a test of their religious opinions. In which case, the whole labor of collecting texts, and framing of comments, and fishing for various readings, is an afterthought. It is submitted to rather for apology than proof, to reconcile readers of the Scriptures 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 Christian, can seldom do his work effectually without a Bible in his hand: a consideration which may help us to a sight of the consequences, if persons were permitted to teach in our churches without any previous inquiry concerning their religious sentiments, and so allowed to take the same liberty, either through mistake or ill design, as was taken by the arch-deceiver in the wilderness,* who never meant to use the Scripture for edification, but only for destruction; not to apply it as an instrument of good, but to turn it, so far as he was able, into an instrument of evil. The Bible was given us for the preservation of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, as the Book of Statutes in this kingdom is intended to secure the authority of the government, together with the life, peace, and property of every individual; and we want no prophet to foreshow us the consequences, if all the malecontents in the nation were allowed to be public interpreters of the laws.

These considerations I leave the judicious to apply as they find occasion. I use them chiefly as hints, for the

*Matt. iv. 6.

benefit both of such as may be in danger of wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction, and of such philosophers as those alluded to by St. Paul,* who through the profession of fancied wisdom fell into real folly, and purchased a reputed knowledge of things natural and metaphysical, at the lamentable expense of losing the knowledge of God.

Pluckley, Jan, 1, 1767.

*Rom. i. 22. 2 Cor. i. 21.

TO THE READER.

THE Christian religion is best known and distinguished by the God proposed in it, as the object of our faith and obedience and as there is no true religion, but the religion of Christians, so there is no true God, but the God of Christians.

Before the coming of Christ, and the fulfilling of the law, God was known by the name of Jehovah, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. The Israelites, who were the seed of Abraham, and drew their whole religion from a divine revelation, and the knowledge of the true God; and the people of every other nation, who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,' were also without God in the world.'* Though they talked much of God, and wrote much of him, and offered him many sacrifices, yet they knew him not: the being they served was not God, but another in the place of him, falsely called by his name. And though some modern Christians have forgotten there was any difference, yet the very heathens themselves, upon some occasions, were ready enough to allow it. Naaman, the Syrian, when he was cured of his leprosy by the prophet Elisha, made a public confession of it- Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel.'

* Eph. ii. 12.

+ 2 Kings v. 15.

The

same is affirmed by the inspired Psalmist

All the gods

of the heathens are idols;'* and God himself declares

them all to have been vanities. †

The case is now with the Christians under the Gospel, as it anciently was with the Jews under the law: they believe in the only true God; while the unchristian 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 profess and call themselves Christians, there are too many who are almost come to be heathens, without knowing it. For there is a fashionable notion propagated by most of our moral writers, and readily subscribed to by those who say their prayers but seldom, and can never find time to read their Bible, that all who worship any God, worship the same god: as if we worshipped the three letters of the word God, instead of the Being meant and understood by it. The Universal Prayer' of Mr. Alexander Pope was composed upon this plan, wherein the Supreme Being is addressed as a common Father of all, under the names, Jehovah, Jove, and Lord. And this humor of confounding things, which ought to be distinguished at the peril of our souls, and of comprehending believers and idolaters under one and the same religion, is called a catholic spirit, that shows the very exaltation of Christian charity. But God, it is to be feared, will require an account of it under another name; and though the Poet could see no difference, but has mistaken Jove or Jupiter for the same Father of all with the Lord Jehovah, yet the Apostle has instructed us