judge a Traitor, or a Jacobite to defend the Title of the Brunswick Family to the Crown of England.

Thirdly, Doctors in Phyfic.-Thefe attend fick and dying Beds, and, from the very Nature of their Profeffion, have that, Accefs to all Families which other Men have not; therefore that fuch fhould give the required Security for the Soundness of their religious Principles, is moft confiftent with the Welfare of the Church, as otherwife they might be left to introduce Popish Priefis, or Popish Principles, or if not thefe, yet infidel Principles, to corrupt and deprave the Minds of Men, in those Hours, when found and Christian Principles can be their only well-grounded, and abiding Support. Job xxxiii. 19-25.

As for Perfons who have no better Reason for their Subfcriptions, than the Inhabitants of Shechem had for their Circumcifion, Gen. xxxiv. or than the People had for following Chrift from Tiberias to Capernaum, John vi. 26. it is no Wonder that they complain of fubfcribing what they do not believe; but when once thefe Lucre-Seekers can prove, that the Scriptures are to be accommodated to the Maxims of the World for the Ease of Men's Confciences, and Men's Confciences not to be conformed to the Scriptures, then it may be granted, that not only Subfcriptions, but the Articles themfelves, the more agreeable they are to the Scriptures, the more they ought to be repealed. Till this can be done, I trust and hope, that our Proteftant Mounds against Popery and Infidelity will remain entire and unimpaired, and be like unto thofe Bars and Doors of the great Deep, which confine the Waves within the decreed Place, and are the Means of fulfilling the Almighty Injunction:-" Hitherto "fhalt thou come and no farther."

For my own Part, I feel happy in having this public Opportunity of teftifying my most unfeigned Love, Regard, Attachment, Honour, and Veneration for the Church of England as by Law eftablished. Were I to call her infallible, fhe would herfelf condemn me by her own Acknowledgment of the contrary, as may be gathered from her 21ft Article. But when I compare, what in my Apprehenfion is right in her, with what I apprehend to be wrong in her Oppofers and Detractors, I am thankful, and I truft fhall be thankful to all Eternity, that my Lot has been caft within her Pale, which, Gop being my Helper, it shall be the Bufinefs of my Miniftry to enlarge and ftrengthen ; and if those who eat of her Bread lift up their Heels against her, may GOD of his infinite Mercy bless, preferve, and keep thofe, who dare oppofe themfelves to their Malice, and ftand forth as Witneffes to the Truths which they have fubfcribed.

I would obferve, that, though I have looked into feveral Writers on the Articles, yet I have followed none, because they have gone upon a Plan I do not fo much approve, as a fimple Reference to the Word of God. The Authorities cited from Fathers and Councils, ought to have no farther Weight, than as they agree with Scripture; therefore I have not perplexed the Reader with a less Authority, when a greater was in my Power: However, I beg Leave to fubjoin a few Obfervations on fome difputed Texts, as my own Juftification for laying them before the Reader in the Place they ftand.

...

Let

A.

Let those who doubt whether the Word (Aleim) which we tranflate GOD be plural, confult the following Paffages in the Hebrew Bible. Gen. i. 26. iii. 22. | xi. 7, | xx. 13. XXXV. 7. Job. xxiv. 9. | 2 Sam. vii. 23. | PS. lviii. 12. I. vi. 8. where they will find it joined with Adjectives, Pronouns, and Verbs plural, Vid. alfo Prov. ix. 10. | xxx. 3. | Eccl. xii. 1.

This appears to me to reduce the Adverfary to this Dilemma, either

1. The Bible does not reveal the True God; or, 2. It teaches Polytheism; or,

3. It reveals a Plurality of Perfons in the GOD

HEAD.

The first of thefe must destroy all revealed Religion at once.

The fecond is abfolutely declared against throughout the whole. Therefore

The Third is the Truth, as is evident from those

Jehovah יהוה אלהים,two Names of the Deity

Aleim. The one Singular, having no Plural, defcriptive of the One SELF-EXISTENT ESSENCE; the other Plural, defcriptive of a PLURALITY OF PERSONS in that ESSENCE; thus both together fetting forth the ever bleffed TRINITY IN UNITY.

B.

It is a juft Remark which Mr. Alix makes in his excellent Book of The Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians, Chap. 9. that here is a plain Idea of Plurality of Perfons in the GoDHEAD, the Words in the Hebrew being He is the I 2

Holy

Holy GoDs: Like that Eccl. xii. 1. Remember thy Creators. And indeed this is a Place antiently

noted by the Chriflian Doctors, (whom the Jews call Heretics) who afked R. Samlai, as the Jews then clves tell us, what he had to anfwer unto thefe Words, Ye cannot ferve the Lord Ki Aleim Kedefhim Hu, because He is the Holy GoDs, who had nothing to reply, but that Joshua doth not say, They are the holy GoDs, but He is the holy GoDS, which is the very fame we affirm, that He is Three in One. This is in Berefchith Rabba, mentioned by Raymund, in his Pugio Fidei; and by J. Wagenfeil, in his Confutation of Lipman's Carmen Memoriale. Vid. Patrick on Joshua xxiv. 19. Vid. also the fame learned Prelate on the Words "Let us,' Gen. i. 26.

C.

It is not my Purpose to enter into, or attempt to decide at large, the Controverfies concerning this Text. As it is a Mill-ftone about the Neck of the Arian and Socinian Caufe, no Wonder if all Advantages have been taken against its Authenticity, from its not appearing in fome Manufcript. Copies. However, what has been faid on both Sides may be feen pretty fully in Hammond and

Mills on the Place.

If the great and capital Truth which this Text contains, was to be met with in no other Part of the Scripture, the Sufpicion which its Adverfaries maintain of its being a Forgery or Interpolation, would carry fome Probability; but as this is by no Means the Cafe, it does not feem likely that the Orthodox (as they are called) fhould run the Rifque of needlefly expofing themselves to Cenfure,

as

as Corrupters of God's Word, in order to prove a Point fo clearly and univerfally proved already throughout the reft of the Sacred Volume.

The Propofitions in this Text are, ift, That there are three heavenly Witneffes, or three divine Perfons, who bear Record (or Witnefs, paglupavles) in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghoft. Is not this afferted elsewhere? For Instance, John viii. 16. I am one (fays Chrift) that BEAR WITNESS of myself, and the Father that fent me BEARETH WITNESS of me, &c. John xv. 26. When the Comforter is come, whom I will fend unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify (μagrugńce, BEAR WITNESS) of me.

Nots, one Perfon,

2dly, Those three are one. but Ev, Unum, one Thing- οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς Ἑν εἰσι· Our Saviour fays, John x. 30. 'Eyw x maling "Ev Eoμev, I and the Father are One. Unum. The only Difference which can be gathered from the two Paffages, when compared together, is this, the one afferts the Unity of the Father and the Son by 'Ev iouer, the other the Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit by "Ev sio; but both proceed on one and the fame Principle, which is to affert a Plurality of Perfons in the GODHEAD, and that thofe Perfons, though diftinct in Point of Perfonality, are yet One in Nature and Effence.

In fhort, this famous Text may be called an evangelical Expofition of the first great Commandment of the Law. The Lord our GOD is one Lord,

יהוה

אלהינו

JEHOVAH, [fubfifting in] OUR ALEIM, [or Plu

אחר
יהוה

rality of Perfons, [is but] ONE JEHOVAH. Deut,

vi. 4.