is an ambiguity here that deserves some treatment. It is common to say from the pulpit in stating this offer, it is made to all who will accept of it: very true-but is this all? Is it not also made to those who will not accept of it? "O Jerusalem-how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT:-For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper." Luke xiii. 34, xiv. 24. The inference is, that those preachers who offer salvation only to those who are willing to accept of it, of fer it only to those who possess itfor none but the regenerate are willing; and so they perform not half their duty in this department, they do not, in this respect, half preach the gospel. I do not, indeed, even in thought, question their piety or implicate their motives-I only make an important abstract inference against a mode of preaching which, I am persuaded, misrepresents the gospel of God. Nothing can be plainer than that the gospel is offered to its final enemies and rejectors; and if so it is a most prominent and eventful characteristick of the ways of God.

Equally exceptionable is that mode of solution which proposes to vindicate the divine administration on the ground of human ignorance. "We know not," it is sometimes said, "who are to be saved, and hence we offer salvation to all." Indeed! your ignorance is not questioned, and the consistency of your ways with it is admitted-but what has this to do with the subject? who are "we ?" the offerers, or the mere organs of the offerer ? It is plain that ministers are mere instruments in the hands of God, by whom He offers salvation to men. How then does human ignorance affect the case? God knows who will believe upon his Son "to life everlasting," and who will "behold, and wonder, and perish." Omnis

this fact is one that, I trust, none will dispute; a fact that spreads its thousand ramifications through the moral government of God and the moral history of man; a fact, the recognition of which in the day of judgment will be infinitely mementous, and the due practical apprehension of it, by the members and ministers of Christ in this world, is just as far removed from "unimportant" as truth is from error-as the glory of God, vindicated to universal conviction, differs from the dark semblance of ways, the glory of which-to say the leastcould never be discovered.

I am as far as any one from harbouring the cardinal lie, that God was under the least obligation to provide a Saviour at all for fallen men. The ill-desert of sin as a transgression of law, I believe to be infinite-worthy of the eternal "wrath and curse of God." Still, this does not alter the case in respect to the truth and sincerity of God in his mediatorial dealings with fallen though accountable men

it does not vindicate Him in executing "greater damnation" upon the impenitent of our country for rejecting the gospel, than upon "Gentiles who know not God." If he aggravates the punishment of the lost for rejecting salvation, surely salvation was really, consistently and sincerely offered to them! How can we reject what was never offered? And how can he offer salvation except on the ground of atonement? I am such an anti-So

serve, nor arrogance in treating illogical conclusions with satire.*

And, Mr. Editor, I beg leave to take the opportunity of saying here, that the name of the author is affixed to these "gleanings and hints," for the reason stated to you in private. It is simply this: He was willing to take off from the shoulders of the editor, and to lay on his own, the whole responsibility of the quotations and references. I shall now proceed in my defence.

And First-There are certain detached portions of circumstantial evidence which may be usefully exhibited in this stage of our argu

ment.

1. There is in our verse not only nothing foreign to the doctrines of Christianity, but there is in it, as every body knows, a doctrine which pervades the holy pages of the gospel. And one of the learned men on the other side has laid this very thing down as a mark, or test of authenticity," that a book, or passage of a book, to be genuine, must, in

Robert Stephens had inserted our verse in his edition, on the authority of seven MSS. The opponents of the verse, not being able to find these seven MSS., supposed that certain MSS., which they had seen, must, for some reasons, have been the MSS. of Stephens: and from these singular premises they conclude that Stephens was not justifiable in inserting the 7th verse; because these MSS., which they conjectured to have been his seven, did not contain the verse. They allude to certain MSS. in the French king's library. Mr. Travis visits Paris to examine them. He does it satisfactorily and shows that such is the difference between these MSS. and Stephens's text, that he certainly had not followed them. Dr. Marsh attacks Mr. Travis. He ad. mits that there is considerable difference between the French MSS. and the text of Stephens, but maintains that there is a general resemblance (a very safe assertion). And then he employs an algebraic theorem to prove the identity of these MSS. with those of Stephens. He applies algebra to a moral or critical inquiry! See Butler's Hor. Bibl. vol. i. p. 393. Perhaps the opponents of the good bishop may propose to extract the square root of his argument, or measure it by yards and

feet!

the first place, contain nothing foreign to the doctrine of the author to whom it is ascribed." But the "three in unity," is no new, nor soreign doctrine. Our text is in fact an epitome of what is spread out on the pages of John's gospel-as we have already shown in the first number. The Father did bear testimony from heaven to the mission of his Son. The Word did bear testimony from heaven to Stephen, and to Paul at his conversion, and by shedding down on the church the Holy Ghost. Acts ii. SS. 56. And the Holy Ghost did bear testimony in "descending like a dove from heaven" at our Lord's baptism. And, as is proved out of the holy scriptures, by every system of theology laid before the public, each of these distinct persons is called by the name of the only true God. Each of them has the incommunicable attributes of Deity bestowed on them by the Spirit of unerring truth: each is exhibited to us as the object of divine worship. Each of them is God. But "the Lord our God is one Jehovah." Therefore, even had our text never existed, we should have been thus drawn to this necessary conclusion: "These three are one." Our text, then, is supported by that test of authenticity which even our opponents, and all the learned have laid down.

2. There is an allusion to our verse, if not a direct quotation of it, in a Greek dialogue of very great antiquity. It has been ascribed to Lucian, and is in the editions of Lucian's works. It is entitled Philopatris. It is in the Amsterdam edition of A. D. 1687, tom. ii. pp. 770. 568. I find it also in Dr. Thomas Franklin's edition of Lucian, vol. iv. The editors of the Amsterdam edition have shown that this dialogue is more ancient than any of Lucian's works. The author speaks as if he had been baptized, but had apostatized he alludes thus to St. Paul, we think, in plain

terms: "I have fallen in with a Galilean with a bald head, and a long nose, who passed through the air; and got up into the third heavens, where he learned the most wonderful things: he hath saved us by water." (Kettnerus has rendered it thus: "authorem per aquam renovavit." p. 16. See also Thomas Franklin's Lucian, vol. iv. p. 461.) Now Lucian lived to the year 171. If then the author of the Philopatris alludes here to St. Paul, he must have lived before the year 67, in which Paul departed this life. And he seems also to congratulate the emperor Trajan on his victory over the Persians (p. 779. tom. ii. Amstel. edit., and Franklin's edit. vol. iv. p. 476.), and Trajan died in the East in the year 117. This places the author before the times

of Lucian.

Now in this very ancient dialogue a Christian is represented as catechising a heathen, and explaining to him the mystery of the Trinity. The heathen says, " By whom shall I swear?" The Christian is made to reply: "By God ruling on high, Great, Eternal; the Son of the Father; the Spirit proceeding from the Father: One of three; and three of one:" "EV EX TRIWY, Nαι Ex *evos Tgiά;" "unum ex tribus et ex uno tria." "These do thou consider to be Jove (Aa, Jovem): This one reckon thou to be God." The heathen further says, "I do not understand what you say; one is three; and three are one, "" Tgia, και τρία δεν This he makes the subject of ridicule. Now it is not conceivable by me, that this ancient writer could frame this discourse"EV TRIα, NαI TRIα y," "unum tria, et tria unum," unless he had read this verse of John, or had heard it quoted by Christians whom he ridiculed. And in order to either of these taking place, it does appear to me, that it must have been in ex

istence in the scriptures at that very early date.

3. The sentiment, or the doctrine conveyed to us in our verse, and the expression "these three are one," was the constant subject of debate, on the rising up of every new sectary, during the first three centuries. The Jews, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, directed their hostile attacks on not only the thing, or the doctrine of the unity of the persons, but also against the words, "these three are one." In the second century the sectaries disputed against this position, "that the Father, and the Son, and Holy Spirit are one God." The Artemonistæ denied that they were one. Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote, affirmed that they were one. But, then, it was interpreted in a wrong sense. These persons were, in his view, one person. In the third century, the Sabellians entered the field of conflicting opinions. The main subject of debate between the church and these sectaries was this question, "Are the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost one? The Sabellians affirmed that "these three are one." But, then, they made them one-literally one and the same thing.

And I confess that it is utterly impossible for me to persuade myself that these persons did not quote, and constantly use, and bend to their own purpose, and sense, this very verse, "These three, are one." One thing cannot be contested, that at a very early period, as shall be shown more fully in its place, the Christian fathers also quoted this verse, and by a critical discussion vindicated its meaning, and orthodox sense. The following will prove and also illustrate this point.

Tertullian wrote his book against Praxeas about eighty or ninety years after the death of the apostle John. In this book he gives quotations from Praxeas, in order to refute him. The following are

3 Z

some of these. Praxeas, to show that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, are literally one and the same thing, quotes these texts: "I in the Father, and the Father in me." "He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father:" he adds, "Pater est solus unus Deus, et unus est persona: tres unum sunt, these three are one." Tertullian takes up each of these, and explains and refutes Praxeas. When he comes to the last quotation of Praxeaswhich we affirm to be our text-he uses these words: "ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, non unus; quomodo dictum est, &c." (Basil. Edit. of Tertul. A. D. 1521. Kettneri, p. 9, 10.) And omitting others for the present, we find these words in Fulgentius, in his "Responsio Contra Arian:" "In like manner that text, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." "Hi tres unum sunt." "Let Sabellius," continues he, "hear sumus and tres, and believe that there are three persons. Let Arius hear unum, and not say that the Son is of a different nature: since a different nature cannot be unum." (Quoted by Kettner. p. 170; and Horne, from Max. Bibl. Patrum Tom. ix. p. 41.) Fulgentius was born A. D. 468.

On the whole, we have arrived at this conclusion, that the idea or doctrine contained in our verse, was, on the appearance of each new sectary, made the subject of debate between the church and them: and during these discussions, in expressing their idea, the very words of the text seem, not obscurely, to have been used on both sides. 4. There is no trace of evidence that any of the different sectaries brought an accusation against the Christian fathers, of having interpolated this verse. It is a fact on record that our verse was received

by the western churches in Europe, in general, at a very early period. Now on the supposition that this verse had not existed in the ancient genuine MSS. and that the Christian fathers had brought it forward, and quoted it publickly, without effective evidence of its authenticity, how is it to be accounted for, I pray you, that all the sectaries kept silence? The Sabellians, and the Arians, had both the disposition, and the power, and the means in their hands to expose the audacity, and to punish the sacrilegious deed of these fathers, who had committed the interpolation. If they could not discover the first who dared to add to God's word, they could easily discover the first who dared to make use of the fraud. How can it be accounted for that they never brought any charges of this kind? It cannot be affirmed that our verse never was quoted against them. This was done. It was done publickly by those brave Christian bishops, who, in Africa, "bearded the lion in his den." I allude to the famous assembly of bishops in Africa, who laid in their solemn testimony before the king of the Vandals, and the Arian bishops. In the year, 484, Hunneric, by an edict did summon all the orthodox bishops of Africa, and the isles dependent on his power, to appear before him in February of the following year, and to defend and establish out of the Scriptures, their doctrine of the unity of the three divine persons; their doctrine of the oμoovi. They had nine months allowed them and their antagonists to prepare themselves; to confer, and to collect MSS. and to draw up their confessions of faith respectively. At the time fixed by the royal edict, there appeared, says Gibbon in his Roman History, four hundred and sixty bishops from the orthodox African churches. They presented their confession of faith to the king. They had known their danger from that man of blood.