furdity. Palamon is pleased to add," that if the "fpirit and ultimate scope of the divine abode in the "temple of Jerufalem had not been manifefted, the "grand things concerning that temple would not "have been verified." That the temple of old was a type of the Meffiah, and the fymbols of the divine glory and prefence exhibited therein, intended to teach us, that God fhews himself propitious to finners of mankind only in Chrift; and that it is only in him they can find acceptance, or have any comfortable meeting with God, is readily granted but to offer any thing of this kind in fupport of the ftrange glofs our author has thought fit to put upon thefe words of our Saviour, God is a fpirit, is fuch a method of reasoning, as, I think, furpaffes all comprehenfion.

From hence it would appear, that, according to our author, Jefus intended to teach the woman of Samaria, that God was the fpirit and scope of ⚫ his own abode in the temple of Jerufalem.' This is fuch a sense of the paffage as, I believe, few, but fuch critics as Palemon, would have dreamed of. One would think, that he, who has been pleased to entertain his readers with fuch an obfcure and myftical interpretation of one of the plaineft texts in Scripture, had little reafon to grudge the popular preachers their ufe of the word myflery; for, I am perfuaded there are few paffages in any of their writings, that, for obscurity and myftifm, can equal his extraordinary criticisms on the words of our Savionr above-mentioned. What he further obferves concerning the ufe and fignification of the word fpirit, in the New Teftament, is no way to the purpofe; as it only proves, that Chrift Jefus was the great anti-type, prefigured by all the types and ceremonies belonging to the Mofaic economy, or, to ufe his own words, the

fpirit

fpirit and scope of the Mofaic inftitutions; which was never denied by any found Proteftant that I know of. And though it fhould be allowed, that the interpretation which he gives of the Apostle's words, 2 Cor. iii. 17. is genuine, which yet may be doubted, it will not prove, that the word fpirit is never ufed in any other fenfe in the New Teftament, or that it must be taken in the fame fenfe, John iv. 24. when it is abundantly evident, that fuch a fenfe is no way agreeable to the scope of the place; where our Lord, from the difficulty ftarted by the woman of Samaria concerning the place where fuch folemn acts of divine worship ought to be performed, as God required to be performed only in the place which he had chofen to put his name there, takes occafion to inftruct her concerning the nature of God, and alfo concerning the nature and effentials of that worship which he requires, and only will accept of. It is plain, that thus he intended to correct a very dangerous miftake, too common at that time both among the Jews and Samaritans, who were apt to imagine, that they fufficiently acquitted themselves in the worship of God, by the performance of fome external duties, or the obfervation of thofe rites which were either prescribed in the law of Mofes, or handed down and received by tradition from their fathers; thus overlooking, neglecting, and giving themselves no concern about the fpirituality of worship. In order to this, our Lord inftructs the woman concerning the nature of God, the glorious object of worthip, who, being a spirit or fpiritual fubftance, requires another kind of worship than that which confifts merely in bodily exercife, or a few external performances. And further, to fhew the folly of refting contented with the obfervation of external rites and ceremonies, he intimates,

C 3

that

that thofe ritual inftitutions, even fuch of them as had the fanction of a divine appointment, were not neceffary or effential parts of the worship of God, but only adjuncts or appendages of it, which might be taken away, and were foon actually to be abolished, without any diminution of that honour and worship which is due unto God the great object of worship, who is pleafed with, and will accept of no acts of worship, but thofe that are performed in fpirit and in truth, or with the heart and in fincerity.

This is a fimple and eafy view of the words; an interpretation that requires no ftraining of criticifm to fupport it: and, indeed, no other can be admitted without offering violence to the text. I am the more confirmed in this opinion, as Palamon, with all his fkill in criticifm and fophiftry, and after ftraining hard to explain away the true fenfe of this paffage, hath fo unhappily failed in his attempt, as not to be able to fix upon any other fenfe of the words, but what is fo intricate and perplexed as to be altogether unintelligible. Socinus made a like attempt before him*, and with equal fuccefs: for fome of his most learned difciples, however obfequious to him in other things, in this found it neceffary to defert him, and

*

Fauftus Socinus, who never made a fcruple of ftraining any paffage of Scripture, to an agreement with his own favourite hypothefis, and pre-conceived opinions, made bold to fupply the verb (ne, inftead of is, and would have the words to run thus: God requires, or feeks, a Spirit. Which interpretation is quite forced and unnatural, does no way agree with the context, coherence of the words, or fcope of the place, and makes the whole verfe to be nothing elfe but an uninftructive tautology, or idle repetition of what went before.

admit

admit the usual interpretation of the paffage now under confideration, as the most native and genuine. Yet the glofs which Socinus put upon this text, though very unnatural, bold, and fophiftical, is far from being fo abfurd and nonfenfical as that of our author.

As the grofs and monftrous opinion concerning the divine nature, which the letter-writer has endeavoured flily to inftil into the minds of his readers, having a manifeft tendency to fap the foundation of all religion, and perfuade, them, that what they have hitherto been taught from Scripture to believe concerning God, as being a, fpiritual and immaterial fubftance, an independent, infinite, omnipresent and unchangeable Being, is only the refult of fome philofophical notions, bonowed from the schools, gives us no favourable idea of his Theology; fo, from the great pains he has taken to obfcure, wreft and pervert one of the plainest texts in the Bible, we have too much reason to fufpect his ingenuity when commenting upon the Scripture, and that any attempts of this nature

*Crellius, a learned Socinian, commenting upon this paffage, fpeaks in the following manner: Significat Chriftus id, quod ratio ipfa dictat, Deum, cum fpiritus fit, non nifi fpiritualibus revera delectari: That is, "Chrift thereby intimates, what reason itself dictates, name, ly, that, as God is a fpirit, he takes no delight in any worship but what is fpiritual." Crell. de Deo, feu de vera Relig. Lib. 1. cap. 15. The fame author does alfo thus exprefs himself: Spiritus eft Deus: animadvertunt ibi omnes prope S. Literarum interpretes, Dei nomen, quod articulo eft in Græco notatum, subjecti locum tenere: vocem fpiritus, quæ articulo caret, prædr cati: et fpiritualem fignificare fubftantiam: ita perinde eft, ac fi dictum fuiflet, Deus eft fpiritus, feu Spiritualis Jubftantia. Ibidem.

C 4

made

made by him are intended, rather to fupport fome favourite notion he has thought fit to adopt, than to give the reader a juft view of the scope and fenfe of the feveral paffages he pretends to explain. In this cafe, they must be more credulous than wife who admit the ftrange gloffes he has been pleased to put upon certain texts of Scripture, without enquiring into the true and genuine import of the paffages themfelves, by comparing them, and confidering their connection with other parts of revealed truth. The neglect of this is one reason why many filly and unstable souls are apt to be carried away with every wind of new doctrine, and become an eafy prey to feducers, efpecially thofe cunning impoftors who are so artful, as, by a little fophiftry and falfe colouring, to difguife and disfigure the plainest truths, fo as to make them appear bdious and ridiculous; and at the fame time recommend the most pernicious errors and monftrous opinions under fuch plaufible pretexts, as will make the fimple and unwary admit them for undoubted truths. By thefe and the like artifices the letter-writer has endeavoured to undermine, and fubvert fome of the most important truths and doctrines of the gofpel, and to recommend his own wild scheme of principles; but those who will carefully examine his peculiar tenets and opinions at the bar of the facred oracles, will foon perceive the fraud, and thus efcape the fnare which he has laid for the ignorant and injudicious reader.

We now proceed to the confideration of another article of our author's creed, in which he gives us an account of the object of worship, and expreffes himfelf in the following manner.

AR