« PreviousContinue »
the following fheets, which I am defirous of rendering univerfally useful, I have taken care to write the third and fourth chapters in fuch a manner, as that they may be read separately by perfons to whom the preceding part of the work might be difficult or unneceffary.-The plan I have purfued throughout is as follows.-Having, as I think, fet afide Mr. Lindfey's foundation of argument in the introduction, and fhewed the fallacy or inconclufiveness of what he builds moft upon, I have in my first chapter ftated the proper premises upon which our reafon is at liberty to act with respect to fcripture truths. fecond, I have endeavoured to fhew the nature of the evidence which is borne to that great fcripture truth to which our faith is required. And in the fubfequent parts of the work have fhewed what the evidence itself is.I have but one request to make of
of my reader, which is, that he will do by me as I did by Mr. Lindsey; and when he is reading my book, that he will place the Bible befide him; for, by my agreement, with that only do I defire to ftand; nay, if I fhall be found to difagree, I wish to fall. In fome few inftances, for the fake of continuing a fentence, I have changed the perfon used in a fcripture precept, and, instead of abfolutely adhering to fuch words as do have fometimes faid we are defired to ye, do, &c. and in a few inftances have omitted a multitude of nominatives, where one anfwered the purpofe full as well, as in Rev. vi. 15, 16, where it is faid that the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains; and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man hid themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the mountains; in fuch cafes I have used only the firft. Of this I think it neceffary to apprize my reader, left he should charge me with inaccuracy in my quotations; whereas I will promise him that, throughout the whole work, he will not find the smallest alteration made in the fenfe. The paffages with which I have taken this liberty are but very few alfo; but
let him lay the Bible beside him, and there is no great danger of his being misled. Sometimes instead of quoting I have paraphrased; but that will always appear in the inftance. In the 67th page I have made a comment upon John viii. 58, and confuted an objection brought against it by an author who styles himself "a Lover of the Gofpel." The paffage which I have treated of was pointed out to me; it remained on my mind, and by mistake I have afcribed it to Mr. Lindsey. This is but of small importance. I mention it only that I may apologize to him for it.
The few additional paffages that have been inferted in this Third Edition, are chiefly intended to obviate such strictures as the work has heretofore undergone; they are not however delivered in the style of controverfy, nor is the particular obfervation which they are defigned to fubvert, pointed out, by any reference, to the eye of the reader. Had I confidered these additions as an important improvement to the volume, I should have collected them into b
a feparate pamphlet for the gratification of those who have purchased the former editions.
The additional paffages may be found in p. 54, 55, 57, 69, 74, 75, 96, 121, 122, 130, 132, 148, 154, 158, 166, 167, 170, 202, 231.
ERRAT U M.
P. 133. for 1 Cor. 10, &c. read 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c.
SCRIPTURAL CONFUTATION, &c.
HE conduct of Mr. Lindsey, in refigning the vicarage of Catterick on certain fcru ples, excited my curiofity to know what his particular objections to the fubfcription of the Articles of the Church of England were. His refignation was foon followed by a book under the captivating title of "The Apology of Theophilus Lindsey, A. M. on refigning the vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire." With this book, which was greedily bought up, I also furnished myself. What I expected to have found in it, is of no confequence to the public; but I did indeed find a much larger circuit taken" than the title promised, and that "the defign was not barely to offer a vindication of the motives and conduct of a private perfon," but to affail every fundamental doctrine of the church, from the ministry of which he had retired; to degrade the God of our falvation; to snatch from us the object of our religion; and to evince, that Jefus Chrift is not one, with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, God. Upon what foundation he has raised the Aimfy fuperftructure of his own doctrine, or rather with what engines he has endeavoured to fubvert the fixed fabrick of our religion, and force it from the bafis of revelation, I fhall proceed to fhew; and without infi