been numerous. Every hearer must see the force of this reply. I am not prepared to say, however, that my opponent has originated the objection; but no candid mind can allow it to have any weight. It is not my design to defend this, or any other part of our translation, only on the ground of fair reasoning.

In my sermons on the text, I have explicitly acknowledged that its authenticy has been doubted, by some gentlemen of candor and intelligence, and have stated their reasons; but I must weigh those reasons for myself and not abandon the passage, until I am convinced of its spuriousness. It was to give you, my hearers, an opportunity of judging the merits of this debate, that my discourses on the text were delivered. We must give an account unto God for our conclusions on the subject; and therefore, we must not be improperly swayed, either by the influence or assertions of men, who have no claim to infallibility.

But I must not overlook any of the grounds which my opponent has taken. He proceeds, as if the case was clearly proved, saying, that some wicked Trinitarian has forged the text; using these words, "this Trinitarian forger." He tells us also of his motive in this action; "namely, to have in scripture one solitary passage at least, which might declare in plain language, the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, or that the three are numerically distinct, yet one God only." He adds;-"In every age the Trinitarians have been called on to produce at least one plain passage of Scripture, which like the orthodox creeds, asserts the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, or of three persons in one God; and they have appeared to great disadvantage in the eyes of their adversaries, that they have never been able to do it. Unquestionably, therefore, it must have been the design of the forger to wipe off this aspersion, and to introduce a plain proof text."

That the Trinitarians "have appeared to great disadvantage in the eyes of their adversaries," may be true; but, that they have ever felt themselves to be greatly pressed on this ground, I am not prepared to admit. My own mind has never been embarrassed on that account; neither have I known of any other Trinitarians, suggesting the thing as a difficulty. It does not appear to have been the design of God, to have a system of doctrines comprised in any single text, or to have them arranged in any part of the Scriptures, in the order of a creed. This demand of our opponents, we must consider as being captious and unreasonable. It may easily be retorted upon themselves, by requiring them, "to produce at least one plain passage of Scripture, asserting" their opinion that Christ is a mere man, and the natural son of Joseph and Mary. This is their creed, as really as the doctrine of the Trinity is our's-but, if the truth of it could be made to appear from a combined view of the Scriptures, we would never think of calling upon them to produce a complete statement of it in a single passage to command our belief. If any farther reply be thought necessary, the enquirer is referred to the 4th inference of the fourth sermon; which is, in my opinion, a complete answer to this formidable objection my opponent.

of

But I must now proceed in answering his subsequent objections to the authority of the text in debate.

He refers us to the memorable prayer of Christ, recorded in the 17th chap. of John, to convince us that the Greek word" & V. one, signifies unity of harmony in the same cause, instead of identity of essence.

That this is the meaning of the expression, in the place to which we are referred, there is no doubt. The nature of the subject warrants this construction. We fully believe that Christ is one with the Father "in the same

K

cause;" and in that sense, men, through divine grace, may be one with them; but, that is no proof that the Greek word Ev is capable of no other signification. Particular modes of expression, are applied to different things in every language; but the sense of them must be determined by the nature of the subjects to which they relate. If the Greek word EV, be capable of no other import but " unity of harmony in the same cause," all the learned worldmust have always known it; and, therefore, the text in question would never have been cited by any classical writers, as a proof of the Unity of the divine essence. With this answer, I shall consider my opponent's objection sufficiently removed.

But the gentleman in opposition, after charging the supposed forger, with a barbarism in language, states;-"The term, V, is the most unfortunate, that he could have selected for his purpose. The declaration— These three are one, meaning one God, is something worse than wandering from his subject; it is a deadly assault upon the argument. What means this parade of a multitude of witnesses, but to establish more firmly the fact to which they testify? grounded on several independent witnesses, who must of course be distinct and separate beings, or consciousnesses, in order to corroborate and confirm the testimoof each other. Therefore, to say these three witnesses are one God, one being only, is striking away the corner stone of the argument, and demolishing at a stroke the foundation of the superstructure erected. Let me illustrate this case. Suppose I tell you that a certain fact was sworn to by a colonel, by a judge, and by a lawyer, three persons of distinguished veracity. You say, at once, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I proceed then (to answer a purpose best known to myself) to state, that these three are one man, one being, one

ny

individual consciousness, who was colonel, judge, and lawyer at the same time, and whom I therefore, denominate three persons. Aye, say you;-that alters the case materially. Let us have more than one individual being, if you make out three witnesses. If your colonel, judge and lawyer be but one individual man you must have two more men, to make out three witnesses.

"Thus, on every hand, the forger is detected, and the impious hot-headed zealot is slain with his own weapons. This interpolation throws every thing about it into absurdity and confusion. Erase this from the Epistle, and the argument of St. John stands fair and consistent. In the Spirit, we have the witness of God by miraculous powers, testifying that he hath given us eternal life, through Jesus Christ his Son; and in the ceremony of water baptism, in which men profess faith in his divine mission, and in the ceremony of the Lord's supper, in which they commemorate his death in the ratification of the new covenant, that brings life and immortality to light, we have the witness of men, to the same fact. Hence the apostle pertinently remarks, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater."

To all this, I answer :-If we were Sabellians, and contending for the divine authority of the text in dispute, the gentleman's argument, could not by us be consistently resisted. The case of his "colonel, judge and lawyer, perfectly illustrates their views of a Trinity in God, but not our's." We do not consider the Almighty as being one, in the sense of a man sustaining three offices. In my sermons on this subject, it may be clearly seen, that there is an important sense, in which God is three distinct persons; and, therefore, he is properly capable of bearing witness in a threefold manner. We do not hold, by any means, that the infinite Jehovah is only "one individual consciousness.'

My opponent must first convince us, that his view of the manner of the divine existence is correct, before we can feel the force of this argument. If we were of his opinion about God, we would, no doubt, readily unite with him, in questioning the sacred authority of the text in debate.

But it is our fixed belief, that there is as real a personal distinction in the Godhead, as there is in three men; yet, an entire unity of essence. Such a unity of nature or essence, no created persons can consistently claim. It has been fully proved, that the three Divine Persons, who are mentioned in the text, do bear a distinct witness; and that they are only one essence or being. The gentleman, therefore, has brought up a doctrine which we fully believe, and placed it in a misrepresented light, to destroy the authority of a text that proves it. I should not have thought, that he would resort to such arguments, to convince Trinitarians, of the spuriousness of the text in question. But with these remarks, I shall dismiss the present objection. I cannot see how the "forger," as he is called, " is detected" yet; nor how such weapons could slay him. Neither can I see how the text in view, "throws every thing about it, into absurdity and confusion."

You have seen, my hearers, that men of the first classical eminence have thought otherwise. In my judgment, therefore, "the argument of St. John, stands" more "fair. and consistent" with, than without this text. To your decision, however, the grounds of this conclusion are submitted.

But that saying of my opponent claims some attention; namely, " In the Spirit, we have the witness of God by miraculous powers, testifying that he hath given us eternal life, through Jesus Christ his Son." To me, his words seem to be involved in a great degree of ambiguity. I am at a