loss to know, whether he means by the word "Spirit," the Father himself, or, only his operation. The gentleman's scheme, certainly forbids us to believe that he means by the Spirit, a Divine Person, distinct from the Father. If by the Spirit, he means merely a divine operation, then there can be no distinction between the Spirit and "miraculous powers:" but, if by the Spirit be meant the Father, then Jesus Christ is the Spirit's son; and christians are baptized in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and again in the name of the Father; that is, twice in the name of God, and once in the name of a mere creature. This is a great incumbrance to the Anti-Trinitarian system; and it makes them appear to as great a disadvantage in our view, as we can possibly appear in their's by not producing a text, which they will acknowledge to express the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.

My opponent speaks of "water baptism," as a way “in which men profess faith in the divine mission" of Christ; but, surely, this is as unscriptural language as the expression Trinity in Unity. But the gentleman has probably adopted the phraseology, to escape saying, "in which men profess faith in his" blood. The latter, however, is certainly the most Scriptural manner of expressing the object of a christian's faith.

His observations on the Lord's supper, accord strictly with his views of baptism. The administration of these ceremonies, as he calls them, he considers as "the witness of men," in distinction from "miraculous powers," which he views as "the witness of God." But my learned antagonist, is certainly under a great mistake in this case; for there is no human testimony mentioned by St. John, as bearing witness to the facts which he has mentioned. The Spirit is certainly not a human witness; and neither are "the water and the blood." The whole account is the

witness of God, whether we include or exclude the text in debate. Those who wish to be farther satisfied on this point, are referred to Dr. Scott's exposition of the 9th verse, from which, undoubtedly, my opponent has formed this opinion.

But in the view of my opponent's Greek arguments, I will mention an observation made on Anti-Trinitarian writers, by Mr. Blackwall, in his sacred classics, Part 2. Chap. 5. He says;-"They outrage the sacred writers in a double capacity: first, they debase their sense as theologists and commentators, and then carp at, and vilify their language as grammarians and critics." That ingenious and pious divine, Dr. A. Fuller, says; "They are obliged, on almost every occasion, to have recourse to interpolation, or mistranslation; and are driven to disown the apostolic reasonings as a proper test of religious sentiment." He adds "When they have mangled and altered the translation to their own minds; informing us, that a term may be rendered so―and such a passage should be pointed so—and so on-they seem to expect that their opponents shall quote the Scriptures accordingly; and, if they do not, are very liberal in insinuating, that their design is to impose upon the vulgar. But, though it be admitted, that every translation must needs have its imperfections, and that these imperfections ought to be corrected by fair and impartial criticism; yet, where alterations are made by those who have an end to answer by them, they ought always to be suspected, and will be so by thinking and impartial people." See Fuller's Letters, page 252.

But, on the internal character of 1 John 5. 7, my opponent observes," that the manuscripts, versions, and quotations of this passage vary very much in their language— some of them omitting the word Holy before Spirit-` some quotations having it "these three are one God," which

is the reading of no manuscript or version whatever-and some manuscrips and versions have it "these three agree in one.” Some omit the last clause of verse 8th and attach it to verse 7th, which is the case with Cardinal Zimminies's complutension polyclot, on which so much dependence is placed by the advocates for the genuineness of the passage. Now this diversity, in so singular a passage, ingenders a strong presumption, that it has been tampered with, by more hands than one; and, that different forgers, have been at variance with respect to the best method of wording the interpolation. Had it been written by St. John, as we have it in our Bibles, it would have been in every man's memory and mouth; and quotations, versions and manuscripts, would have been as much one, as the heavenly witnesses are said to be."

To this, I reply;-If different manuscripts and versions, disagree in reading, in respect to this text, then, something of it is to be found in them. The gentleman in opposition, has more than insinuated, that almost all the ancient manuscripts and versions of Scripture, are without any thing of the text in dispute. He says, however, the word "Holy," is omitted in "some of them" before "Spirit ;" and, therefore, in such manuscripts and versions the text is entire, with the exception of one word. In others, he says, "we have it," "these three agree in one :" and, therefore, in them, the text is entire, with the exception of the word in, and the addition of two letters, making are to be the word agree. He acknowledges likewise, that the greater part of the text is to be found in the complutension polyclot of Cardinal Zimmenies. In that my opponent says, "the latter clause of verse 8th, is omitted, and attached to the 7th verse and, therefore, the text in dispute reads, "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three agree in one.”

This is an omission of the word for, and the addition of two letters, making the word are, to be agree.

In respect to some quotations of the ancient fathers, my opponent complains, that they have added to the verse in debate, the word God. "These three are one God." In quoting, many writers aim to give the sense of a text, without confining themselves to its words;—and, therefore, such quotations are a powerful evidence of the authenticity of the passage in question.

My opponent's conclusion, "that it has been tampered with by more hands than one," is, probably true; for, it has been as much the interest of Anti-Trinitarians to annihilate its existence, or obscure its sense; as it has been the interest of the Orthodox to preserve its being, or defend its proper import. Granting it to be a genuine passage, it must have been a very "speckled bird" during the reign of Arianism, which was, with very little variation, from the early part of the fourth century to the middle of the sixth.

The gentleman's last remark, that "had it been written by St. John, quotations, versions and manuscripts would have been as much one as the heavenly witnesses are said to be," is very far from being conclusive. There are various readings of texts in the different versions of Scripture, which stand undisputed in respect to authenticity. We find quotations from the Old Testament in the New, differing as much in words, as the text in dispute. These quotations are from the Septuagint translation, which was made some hundred years before the birth of Christ. Gen. 5. 24, reads in our translation, "And Enoch walked with God;" but, as it is taken from the Septuagint, in Heb. 11. 5, it is rendered, "he pleased God." In that translation, it is said of Christ,-Heb. 1. 6, "Let all the angels of God worship him :" but our translation of the 97th Psalm,

9th verse, is, "Worship him all ye gods." The authenticity of these passages, is not called in question on account of such variations.

When we take into view the state of the christian world in the Arian age, and the nature of the text in dispute, we need not wonder at finding it involved in some degree of obscurity. The gentleman's arguments are far from destroying the internal evidence of 1 John 5. 7, as a genuine text of Scripture; and his historical testimony against its authority, shall be carefully considered in the next dis

course.

L