distinguish. For, in works of

any

confiderable extent, the leading doctrines, and particularly those which it was the particular design of the writers to inculcate, will occur frequently, and they will often be illustrated, and enforced by a variety of arguments; so that those things only will be dubious, the mention of which occurs but feldom, or which are not expressly afjerted, but only inferred from particular expressions. But by attending only to some particular expressions, and neglecting, or wholly overlooking others, the strangest and most unaccountable opinions may be ascribed to writers. Nay, without confidering the relation that particular expresfions bear to others, and to the tenor of the whole work, sentiments the very reverse of those which the writers meant to inculcate may be ascribed to them.

If, from previous instruction, and early habits, we find it difficult to ascertain the real meaning and design of a writer in this way, we shall find much assistance by considering in what sense he was actually understood by those persons for whose use.he

d

wrote, and who must have been the best ac-
quainted with his language. For if a writer
expreffes himself with tolerable clearness,
and really means to be understood (being
well acquainted with the perfons into whofe
hands his work will come) he cannot fail
to be fo, with refpect to every thing of
confequence.

If we wish to know whether Homer, for
instance, entertained the opinion of there.
being more Gods than one, we need only read
his poems, and no doubt will remain con-
cerning it; the mention of Jupiter, Juno,
Mars, &c. and the part they took in the
fiege of Troy, occurring perpetually. If any
difficulty should still remain, we must then
confider what were the opinions, and what
was the practice of the Greeks, who read
and approved his poems. In this way we
fhall foon fatisfy ourselves, that Homer
held the doctrine of a multiplicity of Gods,
and that he, and the Greeks in general,
were what we call idolaters.

In like manner, an impartial person may eafily fatisfy himself, that the writers of the books of fcripture held the doctrine of B 2

one

one God, and that they were understood to do fo by those perfons for whose use the books were written.

If we confult Mofes's account of the creation, we fhall find that he makes no mention of more than one God, who made the heavens and the earth, who fupplied the earth with plants and animals, and who alfo formed man. The plural number, indeed, is made ufe of when God is reprefented as faying, Gen. i. 26. Let us make man; but that this is mere phrafeology, is evident from its being faid immediately after, in the fingular number, v. 27. God created man in his own image, so that the creator was still one being. Alfo, in the account of the building of the tower of Babel, we read, Gen xi. 7, that God faid let us go down, and there confound their language; but we find, in the very next verfe; that it was one being only who actually effected this.

In all the intercourse of God with Adam, Noah, and the other partriarchs, no mention is made of more than one being who addreffed them under that character.

The

name by which he is diftinguished is fometimes Jehovah, and at other times the God of Abraham, &c. but no doubt can be entertained, that this was the fame being who is first mentioned under the general title of God, and to whom the making of the heavens and the earth is afcribed.

Frequent mention is made in the fcriptures of angels, who fometimes fpeak in the name of God, but then they are always reprefented as the creatures and the fervants of God. It is even doubtful whether, in fome cafes, what are called angels, and had the form of men, who even walked, and fpake, &c. like men, were any thing more than temporary appearances, and no permanent beings; the mere organs of the deity, used for the purpose of making himfelf known and understood by his creatures. On no account, however, can these angels be confidered as Gods, rivals of the fupreme being, or of the fame rank with him,

The most express declarations concern❤ ing the unity of God, and of the importance of the belief of it, are frequent in the Old Teftament. The first commandment is,

Ex. xx. 3. Tbou Malt have no other Gods before me. This is repeated in the most emphatical manner, Deut. vi. 4. Hear, O TJrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord. I have no occasion to repeat what occurs on this fubject in the later prophets. It appears, indeed, to have been the great object of the religion of the Jews, and of their being distinguished from other nations by the fuperior presence and superintendence of God, to preserve among them the knowledge of the divine unity, while the rest of the world were falling into idolatry. And by means of this nation, and the discipline which it underwent, that great doctrine was effectually preserved among men, and continues to be fo to this day.

Had there been any distinction of persons in the divine nature, such as the doctrine of the trinity supposes, it is at least so like an infringement of the fundamental doctrine of the Jewish religion, that it certainly required to be explained, and the obvious inference from it to be guarded against. Had the eternal Father had a Son, and also a Spirit, each of them equal in power and

glory

1