from hence, that they cannot produce one instance of worship to three persons and one God. Otherwise, men of sense and learning would not have recourse to such an expedient, as hath no other tendency than to turn the scripture into ridicule, and expose it to the scoffs of profane and sceptical

men.

Athanasian. I freely allow the grand importance of this plain matter of fact, drawn from the article of religious worship. But I would just

take notice of a text, that seems to imply the doctrine of a trinity in unity, though no instance of worship paid to such a being appears in scripture. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the spirit; and these three are one. (1 John, v. 7.)

Unitarian. Ever since I became acquainted with this subject, it has been matter of serious lamentation to me, that common christians have been so much imposed upon by the sound of this famous text, which, if written by the apostle John, is nothing to the purpose, the sense of it being evidently this; that these three are one, as agreeing in the same testimony. But it is a matter of fact, well known to the learned, that it is a spurious, interpolated text, and has been given up, as such, by some athanasian writers; and, consequently, this text ought not to be read in churches as the word of God. You may see every thing relating to it faithfully represented, in Sir Isaac Newton's Letter to Mr. Le Clerc; in the Defence of the Appeal

to Common Sense, printed in octavo, 1760, p. 431; and in Mr. Lindsey's Apology, p. 98.

Athanasian. Without entering into the merits of this question, for which I am not qualified; if some learned professors of the trinity in unity have given up this text, as not written by the apostle John*, it must be allowed that no stress should be

Athanasius himself never referred to this text. (Trin. Controversy Reviewed, p. 447.) Erasmus insisted that it was in no ancient manuscripts, and had never been cited by those fathers, who had disputed the most against the arians, as Athanasius, Cyril, and Hilary. (Jortin's Life of Erasmus, v. 1. p. 345.) Luther and Bullinger omitted it in their German translations of the bible. (Lindsey's Apology, p. 99.) Even " in the first English bibles after the reformation, in the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. it was printed in a different character, to signify its being wanting in the original, which distinction came afterwards to be neglected." (Clarke's Script. Doct. 3d edit. p. 232.) Dr. Wall says, "This verse is in no Greek manuscript, nor was in the bibles of the ancient christians; nor ever made use of by them in their disputes with the arians. Mill has so defended it, that he who thought it genuine before, will now conclude it to be interpolated by some Latin scribe first." (Trin. Controversy Reviewed, p. 448.) Dr. Bentley, in his famous lecture at Cambridge, when he stood candidate for the chair of regius professor of divinity, entirely gave up this text, and publicly proved it to be spurious. (Hist. Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, p. 101.) Dr. Waterland, on being asked whether Dr. Bentley's arguments did not convince him, replied, "No, for he was convinced before." Nor does the doctor, I think, ever quote that text as genuine in any of his writings. Which, says Whiston, in so zealous and warm a trinitarian, deserves to be taken notice of as a singular instance of honesty and impartiality. (Ibid. and Sykes's Connexion, p. 271.) Dr. Sykes "owns that he vehemently sus

laid upon so controverted a passage. But after all the concessions I have made regarding the article of worship, are there not, in scripture, several high titles and attributes ascribed to the son and holy spirit, which surely have a tendency to induce christians to think them equally divine with the Father?

pects it;" (External Peace of the Church, p. 18.) and elsewhere, that "this text is proved spurious, if it be possible for any passage to be proved so." (Modest Plea, p. 15.) Dr. Jortin calls it " A spurious text, which is still maintained in bold defiance to the fullest and clearest evidence against it." (Remarks on E. H. V. iii. p. 100.) Dr. Randolph "has not quoted it in his vindication of the doctrine of the trinity, in answer to the Essay on Spirit, though he has collected the most considerable texts that are usually alleged to prove the athanasian doctrine." (Trin. Controversy Reviewed, p. 448.)

Notwithstanding these, and a great number of other testimonies, Mr. Travis has addressed several letters to Mr. Gibbon, in defence of the authenticity of this text, so lately as 1784. He has however been very properly and ably reproved in some remarks published in "Commentaries and Essays," v. 1. p. 511-539. From whence we may finally conclude, in the words of Dr. Jortin, that " At present, this passage and all that relates to it hath been so fully discussed, that none, except stubborn and perverse people, pretend to deny that the heavenly witnesses are an interpolation." (Life of Erasmus, v. ii. p. 102.)

Mr. Porson, fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, has finally proved the spuriousness of this text, without leaving any probability of any further vindication or reply, in his late very learned and very satisfactory Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 8vo. 1790.

Unitarian. I am persuaded, that if a person who had never heard of the athanasian doctrine and worship, was to read the New Testament*, he would be surprised to find that such a doctrine and worship ever prevailed in the christian world. But (to give a direct answer to your a direct answer to your objection, drawn from the high titles and attributes ascribed to the son and holy spirit) it is no wonder that great things are ascribed to Christ, and to the operation of the spirit or power of God, since they are frequently concerned in, or connected with, the

* When Job Ben Solomon, the African prince (who was master of the Arabic, and had acquired a competent knowledge of the English language), was in England, about fifty years ago, and was asked, after reading the New Testament, if he found three Gods there: he replied, "No, No! ONE GREAT GOD, ONE GREAT GOOD GOD."

It is also observed, by one who lived several years familiarly with the Indians of North America, "The great article that they stick most at, is this: they exclaim against the supposition, that the divine word was shut up for nine months in the womb of a woman: and say, that it is a thing unheard of, that, for the expiation of Adam's sin, God should put God to death to satisfy himself; or that the peace of the world should be brought about by the incarnation of God, and his shameful death. They affirm that reason ought not to be controuled by any law, or put under a necessity of approving what it does not comprehend; and, in fine, that what we call an article of faith, is an intoxicating potion to make reason reel and stagger out of its way; for as much as the pretended faith may support lies, as well as truth, if we understand by it a readiness to believe, without diving to the bottom of things." La Honton's New Voyage to North America, v. ii. cited in Cardale's True Doctrine of the N.T. 2d. edit. p. 360.

grand work of man's salvation. But the sacred writers have taken all imaginable care to secure the supremacy of the one God and Father of all, when they speak in the highest strain of the one mediator, the man Christ Jesus, and the holy spirit the comforter. With respect to the title of God, in some few passages ascribed to our blessed lord, it is extremely plain, from the Old and New Testament, that such title is sometimes used in an inferior sense; Moscs, magistrates, and angels being styled Gods, consistently with the acknowledgment of the supreme God; and Christ himself, in his answer to the Jews, when they charged him with blasphemy, expressly contends for the use of the word God in an inferior sense. (John x. 34-36.) But, it is sufficient for my present purpose, to observe in general, that when this, and other high titles and attributes ascribed to Christ (for the holy spirit is never expressly styled God, or Lord) are collected together, and presented to the reader with all possible advantage, which is frequently done by athanasian writers; our lord himself, and his apostles, have assured us, in the most solemn manner, that he (viz. Christ) RECEIVED his being, high titles, and attributes from God the Father; that God advanced him to high dignity and honour, upon account of his perfect righteousness, and obedience unto death (see Philip. ii. 8, 9, &c.); and that the whole redounds to the glory of God, the Father.

This plain and solemn account effectually overthrows the argument usually drawn from the most pompous recital of our lord's high titles and attri