question in this and the Vatican manuscript, was acknowledged in my sermons, and accounted for, the reader is referred to my arguments. I must dissent from the conclusion of my opponent, that "if the passage was actually written by St. John, it would be found in the best and most ancient Greek manuscripts." Every candid mind must be convinced that the case may be otherwise. My opponent's next position is, that "if the passage be genuine," we should certainly find it in the great majority of the ancient Greek manuscripts.

I will only say, at present, to this argument, that if a sufficient reason can be assigned for the want of the text. in some of the ancient manuscripts, it will also account, in a great measure, for the want of it "in the great majority of them." I might reply more largely; but I shall be under the necessity of using the same arguments in answering my opponent hereafter.

His next position is: "If the passage was actually written by St. John, it would appear in the different translations made near the days of the Apostles."

To this I answer: As the art of printing was not understood in the early ages, and all depended on the pen, the translations themselves were in manuscript; and, therefore, they were liable to the same erasures and omissions as the Greek manuscripts.

In relation to printing, my opponent says, "which noble art, blessed be God, secures the church, through all future ages, from the imposition of forgery."

In all his statements, he goes evidently on the ground that forgery was a very easy thing; but that erasures and omissions were impracticable. By such a method of reasoning, three things are effected; namely, he exculpates the Arians, criminates the Orthodox, and destroys a text, whose very sound deprives him of patience, and calls forth

all the powers of his mind in anathemas, against it, I think, however, that this "noble art," as he elegantly calls printing, is as necessary to "secure the Church, through all future ages, from the imposition" of erasing and omitting, as from forgery and insertion.

My opponent's next position is: "If the passage was actually written by St. John, it would have been quoted by the fathers in their controversies with the Anti-Trinitarians; and must certainly be found in their works, particularly in the writings of Athanasius.”

I reply: This, no doubt, is to be expected. Their writings, however, might have been mutilated, as well as the Sacred Oracles, by the same hands, and for the same reasons. But history testifies, that in this respect, we have the evidence which the gentleman requires. In proof of this, the reader is referred to the third sermon, page 42-48. We have, therefore, as great evidence that the text in dispute was quoted by the ancient fathers, as can be expected at this distance of time.

But the gentleman proceeds in saying, "The burden of proof, the laboring oar, belongs wholly to those who would impose" this text on mankind, as a sacred passage.

Surely, we have no right to object against laboring in defence of the inspired writings. I would neither receive the text myself, nor recommend a belief of its authenticity to others, without a conviction that it bears the indubitable marks of divine authority.

But my opponent says, with an air of triumph, that the text in view "must be substantiated, proved, and rendered certainly genuine, by positive evidence, competent evidence, ancient evidence, sufficient evidence, such evidence as reaches back in its testimony to the period of the Apostolic age, and is attended with such corroborating considerations, as to recommend it to the impartial mind." He adds,

"This is particularly necessary in the case of a contested passage; and still more so, of so singular a passage as the one now in question."

My reply to this high-sounding argument, is: In the historical evidence which was adduced in my 3d sermon, we have ancient evidence, and, I think, sufficient evidence, to convince men whose minds are not hostile to Trinitarian doctrines."

But the gentleman gives us two grand reasons for requiring such a host of evidence to prove the authority of the text in debate. The first is, " it is a contested passage;" and the second, "it is a singular passage." To his first appalling argument, I say, if being "contested," is a sufficient reason to look on the text with a jealous eye, the whole Bible is in the very same situation. Volumes have been written to prove that the Scriptures at large are an imposition on mankind; and by men who have gloried in their philosophical talents, extensive erudition, independence of mind, and deep research. If my opponent's argument is allowed to have any weight, we must stand in doubt of every part of that which we call the word of God. His second reason against the authority of the text, is its being "so singular a passage." If all the difficulties which are charged upon it by the gentleman, were real ones, it is surely a "singular passage.” But, I must say, with the celebrated Dr. Doddridge, "I am persuaded that the words contain an important truth;" a truth expressed in a decent and intelligible manner, whether they are spurious or genuine. I cannot discover in them, by the help of all that has been said, "absurdity, contradiction, abomination," or "barbarism." The text certainly expresses, with great clearness, a plain Bible doctrine; as has been largely proved in my sermons on it. On these two reasons, I think nothing more need be said.

M

The gentleman, however, proceeds in saying, that the text in question, "pertaining to a vastly interesting subject, which has been a grand theme of violent dispute, from the very early ages of the Church to the present period," is not to "be received as genuine," unless it be "substantiated" in the manner which he has stated.

To this, my reply is: The great majority of the Church, clergy and laity, in all ages, have never thought of questioning the sacred authority of the text. My opponent speaks of it as having “been a theme of violent dispute in all ages." But, that its advocates have treated their antagonists with violence, remains to be proved. They may have suffered on this account, by the hands of the Roman Church; but for that, we deny any responsibility. If the Papal Hierarchy are called Trinitarians, we ought not to be charged with their doings; seeing there is no connection between us in religious matters. They have persecuted us; to a far greater degree than they have the Anti-Trinitarians. There has, however, been great violence used in this case, as I have largely proved in my third sermon on the text. I still think, that those men who treated evangelical Trinitarians as I have mentioned, were as likely to have been guilty of erasing and omitting it, as their opponents were of its forgery and insertion. It has been shown that Dr. Scott was fully of this opinion; and he was once an Anti-Trinitarian. See the 3d sermon, page 33. To use the words of my opponent, I am surely, in this opinion, "ranking with one of the wisest and worthiest of men." But I shall now pass by some of his observations, as they have in effect been already answered.

The next thing in his discourse which I feel bound to notice, is: “The doctrine of the Trinity, whether founded in the Scripture or not, was advocated by some in the second, and very generally by the Bishops in the third cen

tury, though not without violent opposition from the common people, as is confessed by Tertullian, Basil, and others. It was finally established, by a general council, in the early part of the fourth century, and became the reigning creed of Christendom. At this time lived Arius, who called it in question with great zeal. It became a violent subject of controversy throughout the whole Christian world. Anathemas were poured upon the head of Arius and his followers, by the Orthodox; and though Arius was restored to good standing in the Church, by an emperor who favored his cause, yet he soon came to a tragical end, probably by poison."

As I view the above statement to be very incorrect, and interlarded with some painful and unsupported insinuations, a very particular answer is deemed necessary. It is more than insinuated by the gentleman in opposition, that "the Trinitarian doctrine" was but little known in the Christian world, until some time in the second century; and then advocated only by "some." But according to approved ecclesiastical historians, the Church was orthodox, from the very days of the Apostles, for three whole centuries. The exception from this statement, was very small indeed. In respect to the Church through the whole of the first century, Milner says: "The divinity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and election, were doctrines of the primitive Church; in view and belief of which, the grace of God was so richly and gloriously displayed in the conversion of many souls." T. Abr. page 58. He says likewise, in page 86: "It appears, that a denial of the divinity of Christ could not find a person that was suffered to remain in the Church, in the course of 200 years. Every Christian, of any eminence for judgment and piety, unequivocally held an opposite language." Concerning Irenæus,