(Corresponding to p. 92-97.)

1. Numb. vi. 24-26: Jehovah bless thee,...; Jehovah...; Jehovah, &c. 2. Isa. vi. 3: Holy, holy, holy [is] Jehovah of hosts.

We are not aware that any judicious writer has ever cited these texts in proof of a Trinity of persons in the one God. Dr. Wardlaw considers them as having only a "tacit reference" to this doctrine. For Grotius, see p. 92.

3. Isa. xxxiv. 16: .... for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it, &c. His spirit.] Potentia ejus, his power.-Grotius. A change of person for my spirit.- Vatablus. For the mouth of Jehovah hath given the command, And his spirit itself hath gathered them.- Lowth. See p.92.

4. Isa. xlviii, 16: And now the Lord God, and his spirit, hath sent me.

Bishop Lowth and Dr. Adam Clarke admit that there is an ambiguity both in the original, and in their own translation. See p. 92.

5. Matt. iii. 16, 17: .. And he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, &c.

In these days there is scarcely any one who would adduce such a text to prove that there are three co-equal and co-eternal persons in the Godhead.

6. Matt. xxviii. 19: ... baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.

into the belief of the Father, &c.-Whitby's Com. It is evident that the phrase, "to be baptized into the name of any one," denotes to profess one'sself devoted, by the rite of baptism, to his name, doctrine, institution, authority.-Schleusner, v.ßaxT1}W.

"To be baptized into any one" is to be baptized into the obligation, belief, and profession of any religion, worship, doctrine, or institution. The apostles at first baptized in the name of Jesus; thus asserting their belief, THAT HE WAS THE MESSIAH, which was controverted by the Jews.-Rev. E. Valpy. Note in Greek Testament.

For a quotation from Parkhurst, see p. 96.

(Corresponding to p. 98–101.)

7. 2 Cor. xiii. 14: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the holy spirit, [be] with you all.

Commented on by Dr. Whitby (Commentary), and referred to by Bp. Burgess (Tracts, p. xxxvi), in support merely of distinct personality.

The order of setting down is no note of dignity or priority in the Scripture.-Dr.Hammond on Rev. i. 4.

There is one point, and only one, in which the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity seems at all defective. In it [2 Cor. xiii. 14] Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not called God in express terms.-Orthodox Presbyterian, July, 1830.

S. 1 John v. 7, 8: .... in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.

Unam eandemque rem suo testimonio confirmant. By their testimony they confirm one and the same thing.-Schleusner.

These three are one in respect of the UNITY OF THEIR TESTIMONY. - Macknight's Paraphrase.

See his valuable note in loc,

They agree (prorsus consentiunt) exactly as if they were one witness, as indeed they are one in nature. But this, as appears to me, is NOT TREATED OF in the passage, which is also acknowledged by what is called the interlineary gloss. The Complutensian edition reads, s ro iv se, that is, they agree in one, as in the following clause.-Beza. From the Latin quoted by Macknight.

The words "These three are one," relate NOT TO UNITY OF ESSENCE, but to harmony of testimony.-Calvin's note in loc.

Even although we should admit this verse, we cannot positively affirm that it teaches an unity of nature in three persons; for it may mean nothing more than an agreement in that record which all the three are there said to bear.-Dr. Hill's Lectures on Divinity, vol. I. 535-6.

Though St. John's words, in his first epistle, (v. 7,) assert NOT AN UNITY OF NATURE, but of testimony, yet is the passage a valuable proof of the distinct personality of the three heavenly witnesses. -Bishop Burgess's Tracts, p. 170.

THE TEXT OF THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES AN INTERPOLATION.

(Corresponding to p. 100-1.)

We are unspeakably ashamed, that any modern divines should have fought, pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so INDISPUTABLY SPURIOUS....... They are, in our esteem, the best advocates of the Trinitarian doctrine, who join in exploding such a GROSS INTERPOLATION, and in protesting against its being still permitted to occupy a place in the common copies of the New Testament.-Eclectic Review, March, 1809.

Since the ample discussions which, within the last fifty years, have been given to the disputed passage which forms a part of the 7th and 8th verses of the first Epistle of John, it would not have been an unreasonable assumption, that no man of competent information would have farther doubt of the spuriousness of that passage..... By a weight of evidence which it is no exaggeration to call a moral demonstration, it has of late years been GENERALLY REJECTED by those who have taken the pains of making themselves acquainted with the subject. We sincerely hope, that an end will be put to the dregs of this controversy.-Congregational Magazine, as quoted in Christian Pioneer, April, 1828.

I am not ignorant that, in the rejection of the controverted passage, LEARNED AND GOOD MEN ARE NOW, FOR THE MOST PART, AGREED; and I contemplate, with admiration and delight, the gigantic exertions of intellect which have estabblished this acquiescence. -Bishop Middleton, as quoted by Dr. J. P. Smith.

Accordingly, the text of the three heavenly witnesses has been rejected by Professor Griesbach, Dr. Adam Clarke, Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. J. Pye Smith, and many other eminent individuals in the ranks of the Trinitarians. It is passed over in total silence in the more recent works of Stuart and Carlile on the Deity of Christ.

The seven spirits.

...

9. See Rev. i. 4, 5. Seven ministering spirits.-Newcome. There appears no reason why the seven spirits of God should not be the angels of God; the same that stood before God, chap. viii. 2, as here they were before his throne. These seven spirits we find again, chap. iv. 5; where, in reference to the number of the lamps on the candlesticks in the sanctuary, they are called seven lamps. And they there seem to refer to the seven deacons in the church of Jerusalem, God being before likened to the Bishop, and the saints to the twenty-four elders.Dr. Hammond. For Dr. A. Clarke, see p. 100.

The doctrine of the Trinity is rather a doctrine of inference and of indirect intimation, deduced from what is revealed respecting the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and intimated in the notices of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, in the form of baptism, and in some of the apostolic benedictions, than a doctrine directly and explicitly declared. ..... A DOCTRINE OF INFERENCE OUGHT NEVER TO BE PLACED ON A FOOTING OP EQUALITY WITH A DOCTRINE OF DIRECT AND EXPLICIT REVELATION.-Rev. Jas. Carlile. Jesus Christ the Great God our Saviour, p. 81, 369.

INCONSISTENCIES AND CONCESSIONS OF TRINITARIAN WORSHIP.

(Corresponding to p. 38.)

It is a curious circumstance, and one which strikingly exhibits the force of truth, even when encountered by the strongest prejudices, that though Trinitarians, particularly in their controversial writings, are much disposed to consider the appellation Father in the Sacred Writings as sometimes signifying the three persons of the Trinity, they almost invariably employ the word to represent the first person; and many of them, in their acts of devotion, address this Being as if he was the only object of religious homage, and Christ merely some inferior, but great Intelligence, whom the Father sent into the world to redeem mankind. This is undoubtedly a species of Unitarianism, but may be well ycleped Unitarianism in a mist; for the very prayers which contain the worship of the Father as the Supreme Person, are not unfrequently closed with an antiscriptural doxology to "the ever-blessed Trinity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

We do not mean to assert that all Trinitarians are, in this respect, inconsistent with their professed principles; for many of them, instead of ascribing the whole honour to the Father, and of worshipping him as the only Being entitled to supreme adoration, single out the Son as the great object of their religious affections, and neglect the Father and the Holy Ghost-the former as if he performed little or no service in the work of redemption; and the latter, as if he was merely an agent in the hands of the Saviour.

The truth of these observations may be readily evinced by any one who will take the trouble of examining the Prayers and Hymns that are made use of by the members of different churches. The adherent to English episcopacy, who, in the Litany, presents his prayers to a suffering and crucified God, and who not unfrequently employs a short ascription of praise to the Trinity, unwarranted by any part of the Holy Scriptures, is yet so inconsistent with his own profession of the co-equality of the "three Divine Persons," as to offer up to the one Being, the Father, a vast majority of his petitions; unlike, in this respect, to his Roman Catholic brother, who mostly adores Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. It is worthy of particular remark, that the Wesleyan Methodist, who has communion with the established church of England, almost uniformly, in his spiritual songs, presents his prayers and ascriptions of praise to "God the Son;" generally omitting any address to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as such, except in a few doxologies to the "Blessed Trinity :" an observation which may be applied with equal justice to the Moravian Brethren. While, on the other hand, the generality of "Orthodox" Presbyterians--if we may judge from the prayers that we have heard, and from the Psalms of David and Scripture Paraphrases which they sing-address the God and Father of all as one person or being, in the name of the Mediator Jesus Christ; taking care, however, to append to their prayers, as a mark of their orthodoxy, a brief recognition of the glory and honour which they conceive to be due to "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost."