so clearly and fully taught in the days of old, who can suppose that the sublime doctrine of Three in one was entirely unknown to the Old Testament Church? On this subject, Bishop Horsley's Sermon from Mal. iii. 1.; Dr Dick's Sermon from Isaiah ix. 6, in which he shows that the ancient Church expected a Divine person in the character of Messiah, and that none but a Divine person could have realized the hopes of the Church; and Dr Wardlaw's Discourse on the Unity of God and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, are highly worthy of attention. The reader may also consult, with much advantage, Dr Dwight's Sermon entitled, "Testimonies to the Doctrine of the Trinity from the ancient Christians, Jews, and Heathens." When quoting the sentiments of ancient Jews, Dwight states, that Philo, who flourished in the first century, calls the Logos "the eternal Logos, or God ;" and says, " he is necessarily eternal, and the image of the invisible God." He shows, too, that similar expressions were employed by the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and other Jewish commentators. They hold, it appears, that " there are three degrees in the mystery of Aleim or Elohim;" and these degrees they denominate " persons." They affirm of them," they are all one, and cannot be separated." R. Judah Hakkados, who lived in the second century, uses the expression "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,-three in unity, one in trinity."

Of the four passages in the New Testament Scriptures, cited by Witsius to show that the three Divine persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, two are at once clear and indisputable, namely, Mat. xxviii. 19. and 2 Cor. xiii. 14. The other two are Rom. i. 4. 1 John v. 7.

With regard to Rom. i. 4, it unquestionably makes mention of Christ as the Son of God, and thus alludes also to the first person in the godhead under the character of the Father. But if the worthy Author intended to intimate, that the expression " according to the Spirit of holiness" refers to the third person, usually called the Holy Spirit, the accuracy of his interpretation may certainly be questioned. Calvin, Doddridge, and several other respectable interpreters indeed, have adopted the same view of this phrase. Many judicious writers, however, are of opinion, that it refers, not to the Holy Spirit, but to Christ's own divinity; which is contrasted with the flesh, or human nature, mentioned in the preceding verse. Such were the sentiments of, at least, Tertullian and Ambrose among the ancients. The same interpretation is embraced by a large propor• Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, Disc. i. + System of Theology, Ser. lxxi.

tion of modern critics and divines, including Paræus, Erasmus, Cameron, Hammond, and the continuators of Pool. Beza reasons powerfully and successfully in its defence. Dr Macknight translates the verse thus-" But was declared the Son of God with power, with respect to his holy spiritual nature, by his resurrection from the dead." Dr Guyse, in fine, has the following Note on this verse: "If the Spirit of holiness is here considered as expressive of the sense in which Christ was the Son of God, it evidently signifies his own Divine nature, in opposition to what he was according to the flesh; and so the antithesis is very beautiful between (xaтa vua) according to the Spirit here, and (xara ragna) according to the flesh, ver. 3. But if we consider it as the principle of the power by which Christ was raised from the dead, for demonstrating him to be the Son of God, it may signify either his own divine nature, or the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the adorable Trinity. And yet, unless his own divine power concurred in raising him from the dead, his resurrection, abstractly considered in itself, no more proved him to be the Son of God, than the resurrection of believers by the power of God, and by his Spirit, who dwells in them, (Rom. viii. 11.) proves any of

them to be so."

With respect to the other distinguished text referred to, to wit, 1 John v. 7, its authenticity has been warmly disputed. Dr Mill, Bengel, Pool in his Synopsis Criticorum, Dr Hammond, Sloss, Whitby, Brown, and many more, zealously contend that it is genuine; whilst Michaelis, Griesbach, and others, no less strenuously urge that it is spurious.* The doctrine of the Trinity, it is of importance to remark, by no means hangs on this, or any other single verse of Scripture; and although its spuriousness were established by irrefragable proofs, the believer in the Sacred Three has no just cause of alarm.

The laws of candour, too, it should be noted, strictly forbid us to consider one's doubting or even denying the genuineness of this controverted text, an unequivocal evidence of heresy. Luther would never admit it into his German translation of the Scriptures; and Calvin, in his Commentary on the passage, while he expresses an inclination to retain it, yet, on account of its being omitted in many Greek Manuscripts, intimates a doubt of its authenticity in these words, "Vix quicquam asserere audeo,” i. e. "I can hardly venture to make a positive assertion on the subject." The orthodoxy, never

• According to these writers, all that is genuine in verses 7th and 8th is thus expressed in English,-" For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."

theless, both of Luther and Calvin, with regard to the true divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, is completely indubitable. The learned Griesbach himself, though, in consequence of his Diatribe on 1 John v. 7, 8, and several other critical discussions of a similar nature, some have rashly regarded him as a patron of Socinian errors, most solemnly professes his persuasion of the Saviour's divinity, in a passage which has been thus translated,-" I publicly declare, and appeal to God for my sincerity, that I never doubted of the truth of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. There are, indeed, arguments and passages of Scripture in its support so numerous and so satisfactory, that I am at a loss to conceive how any person who admits the authority of Scripture, and adopts a fair method of interpretation, can call it in question. That single passage, John i. 1—3, is itself so plain, and so free from every just exception, that the boldest efforts of interpreters and critics will be found incapable of wresting it from the hands of the defenders of the truth."*

From the manner in which Witsius refers to 1 John v. 7. it appears that he was one of those who consider this verse as forming a part of the inspired record; and his Translator, though he does not pretend to be very thoroughly acquainted with the numerous writings on the question, will take the liberty to say, that he has not yet seen sufficient reason to embrace the contrary opinion. It gives him pleasure also to find, that, although it has now become very fashionable to abandon the defence of this text, its spuriousness is by no means universally admitted by the learned. Bishop Horsley supports its authority with his usual decision. Milner seems to have viewed it in the same light, and adduces an historical argument on its behalf, of considerable weight. "It deserves to be noticed," says he, "that in their exposition of the Apostles' Creed, the Waldensian Reformers give us the well known text in 1 John v. 7. as a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. They were, it seems, perfectly satisfied of its authenticity, and most probably, at that time, had never heard of any suggestions to the contrary."+ Dr Macknight also, whilst he declines" passing any judgment on a matter which hath been so much contested," makes the following remarks in its favour." 1st,

This faithful translation of Griesbach's words is copied from a Review of Dr Jack's useful "Lectures in vindication of some of the most important doctrines of the Christian Religion," which appeared in the Christian Repository, Vol. ii. pp. 159, 160, where the original Latin is also quoted from the Preface to Griesbach's 2d vol. of the Greek Testament, which he published in 1775. It is to be regretted, that in the Preface dated 1806, prefixed to the 2d vol. of the work, as printed at London 1818, this interesting declaration respecting the divinity of Christ is omitted.

+ Milner's History of the Church of Christ, vol. iii. p. 467. 3d edit.

That this verse, properly interpreted, instead of disturbing the sense of the verses with which it is joined, rather renders it more connected and complete. 2dly, That in verse 9th the witness of God is supposed to have been before appealed to; If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And yet, if verse 7th is excluded, the witness of God is nowhere mentioned by the Apostle."

On the whole, amidst the difficulties arising from an acknowledged deficiency in the proofs from ancient copies, versions, and quotations, and amidst the jarring accounts which learned critics, in some instances, have given of the reading in the same Manuscript, the internal evidence for the genuineness of the text is considerably powerful. Notwithstanding the attempts which have been made to account for the insertion of the 7th verse by a mystical interpretation of the 8th having been inserted in the margin, and at last introduced into the text, still greater probability appears to attach to the conjecture, that, owing to the similarity of the beginning of the 7th and 8th verses, or to some other cause, a transcriber might incautiously slip over the seventh. Were we to entertain the harsh and improbable supposition, that, on one side or other, unhallowed liberties have been wilfully taken with the apostolic record, it admits of no doubt, as it is expressed by Dr Guyse, that "the Trinitarians had less occasion to interpolate this verse, than the Anti-trinitarians had to take it out of the sacred Canon."

The objections urged against the doctrine of the Trinity, though repeated very frequently by its enemies with an air of triumph, have often received satisfactory answers. Nothing can be more unjust, as well as uncandid, than the reiterated attempts which are made to convict Trinitarians of holding a contradictory doctrine. Did they affirm, indeed, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three in the same sense in which they are one, and one in the same sense in which they are three, they might be justly accused of self-contradiction. But this is by no means their doctrine. They assert that the Divine Persons are three in a certain respect, and one in another respect; whilst they frankly acknowledge their incapacity fully to comprehend or explain the manner in which these Three subsist in the same uncreated and undivided essence. On the testimony of God, who no doubt possesses a perfect and infallible knowledge of himself, and who cannot possibly lie or deceive, they believe a sublime and, to fallen mankind, a deeply interesting fact relative to the Divine be

Macknight's Literal Translation of the Apostolic Epistles, with a Commentary and Notes, in loc.

412

hension of mortals. And why, it may be boldly asked,-why should ing, while the modus of the fact confessedly surpasses the compre unquestionably sure of many things as to their existence," says Bishop swek being be deemed preposterous, or irrational? "We may be Wins, "and yet we may not be able to explain the nature of them.

No man in his wits can

make any doubt whether there be such things

as motion, and sensation, and continuity of bodies: and yet these things are commonly esteemed inexplicable. So that our not being able to see to the bottom of things, and to give a distinct account of the nature and manner of them, can be no sufficient cause to doubt

of their being.'

"*—Reason has its mysteries as well as Revelation.

That the Almighty existed from eternity, is unquestionably a doc. trine of Natural Religion. "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and godhead." Yet every

capable of reflecting on the subject, must be sensible, that it is no less impossible for us to form an adequate conception of the doctrine of God's existing from eternity, than of his subsisting in three distinct persons. No man, therefore, who admits the one doctrine notwithstanding its mysteriousness, and rejects the other because it exceeds his comprehension, can be successfully vindicated from the charge of gross inconsistency. But instead of prosecuting this subject farther, suffice it to refer the reader to Wardlaw's Discourse on the Unity of God mentioned above, and to an enlightened and able "Review of the Socinian and Unitarian Controversy" in the Christian Instructor.t

NOTE XXXII. Page 130.

"All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," says the Author, "are hid in the mystery of God, and the Father, and of Christ." In the authorised English Version of the Bible, we read, Col. ii. 3. "In whom (i. e. in Christ) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." The original expression, however, & à, rendered “in whom," is equally capable, as is obvious to every one at all acquainted with the Greek language, of being translated "in which,” and might, therefore, be referred to the mystery mentioned in the 2d verse. Our Translators have done well in referring it to "Christ;" but Witsius is not singular in applying it to "the mystery." Dr Hammond decidedly refers it to the mystery "of the Gospel, or

Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, Book i. ch. 3. sect. 3. + Vol. 12th, pp. 28, 176, 323, 386, et seq.