passages like unto this of John: "I do testify," says he, "that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are undivided one from another."-(Adv. Prax. c. 9.) Again: "Two Gods or two Lords we never have named with our mouth: not as if the Father were not God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and each of them God."-(Ibid. cap. 13.) Again: "I every where hold one substance in three cohering together."-(Ibid. 12.) He alludes also to this text when he says: "These three are one (essence), not one (person); in like manner as our Lord hath said, I and the Father are one (essence), having regard only to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number."-(Ibid. cap. 25.) St. Cyprian seems to have a full quotation of this text with very little variation: "The Lord saith, I and the Father are one." And again, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is written: "And these three are one."-(De Unit, ec liber.)

Upon this declaration, so full and absolute, and accompanied by such testimonies, I will make no comment, but leave you to your own reflections. It should seem, if the Father be God, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Ghost, and yet they are not three, but one God. And whether the text is genuine or spurious, it is so much in the spirit of several others, that the doctrine of Christ's Divinity and the Holy Trinity neither stand nor fall with it. (Whoever wishes to see what has been advanced for and against the authenticity of this text, may consult Mills, Hammond, Pool, Henry, and Guise, in loco. See also Jones on the Trinity, ch. 3, sect. 18. There are various other persons who have written on both sides of this question. The writers who have embarked in the controversy are, Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in his letters to Mr. Gibbon in favour of it, and Messrs. Porson and Marsh against. Much is to be said on

both sides. In point of manuscripts, however, the evidence

I think is clearly against it. plainly to want the passage.

But the context seems to me

The evidence of Tertullian

and Cyprian too is very considerable. As this is the case, it would be wrong to give up the text; but imprudent to lay any very serious stress upon it, in a controversy of any magnitude. You will find a pretty accurate compendium of the arguments, both for and against the authenticity of this warmly contested passage, in the notes of the New Testament in Greek and English, printed for Roberts, 1729. The author seems to have been an Arian, and discovers in places great bitterness of spirit against those who differ from him, and therefore should be read with caution; but upon the whole, it is a work of some ability. He appears to wander far from the truth in his interpretation of some of the prophecies.)

See also 1 John v, 20.-"We know," &c. &c.

Dr. Doddridge observes upon this passage, that it is an argument of the Deity of Christ, which almost all who have wrote in its defence have urged; and which, I think, none who have opposed it, have so much as appeared to answer.

Dr. Clarke has treated this text with a great degree of disingenuousness. (See his Scripture Doctrine, page 51.) It is the more remarkable that he should apply this passage to the Father of our Lord, seeing he speaks such strong things of the Deity of the Son in other parts of his writings. In his Reply to the Objections of Robert Nelson, Esq., he says: The Son is by communication of divine power and dominion from the Father, really and truly God (p. 50). He is really and truly God (p. 52). The Son is true God, by communication of divinity from the Father (p. 62). Christ is by nature truly God: as truly, as man is by nature truly man (p. 81). His friend Whiston also, in his Vindication of the Council of Nice, says: Jesus Christ is

truly God and Lord. He is a God by nature; and was such before his incarnation, nay, before the creation of the world? (p. 8.)

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

VERAX.

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

POSTSCRIPT.

You are pleased to say, that Christ is "never in any sense called God in Scripture." I find myself under a necessity of endeavouring to establish a criterion by which we may know whether he is or is not called God in Scripture. Now I do not know of any better rule to judge by in this matter than the Divine Titles, the name of God, and particularly the incommunicable name of God, Jehovah, which is attributed to him in the Scriptures. I do not indeed pretend to say, that I can produce any text of Scripture where it is expressly said Christ is Jehovah; but if I make it plainly appear that he who in one passage of the Scripture is called Jesus Christ, is the very same person who in another passage of the Scripture is called Jehovah, I think I shall then have demonstrated what I have undertaken to prove. I certainly know not what books you look on to be Scripture, and what you reject. However you must make me acquainted with your sentiments on this subject; I consider all the books as canonical which are received as such by the universal Church.

LETTER V.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST ARGUED FROM SOME PASSAGES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

The Book of Revelation a portion of the Sacred Volume-The Seven Spirits before the Throne-Personal dignity and glory of Jesus-He is God, eternal and omnipotent-The visible and invisible Worlds are under his controul-Influence of the Truth upon Dr. Doddridge-Rev. ii. 23, compared with 1 Kings, viii. 39; an impregnable proof of the Saviour's absolute Deity-All the Angels of Heaven worship him-John calls him, the Word of God, King of Kings, the Great God, the Temple of Heaven, Light of Heaven, the Judge of the World, Root and Offspring of David, and the Bright and Morning Star-Closes the Code of Scripture with prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ.

REV. SIR,

a direct

The Book of Revelation is one of the most extraordinary and best authenticated of all the compositions in the Sacred Volume, and is supposed to have been written the last of all, and yet it is the most curiously constructed of all. It is composed with more than human skill, and has more human authority than any book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was delivered. (Mede, p. 602.) I do not find any other book of the New Testament so strongly attested or commented upon so early as this of the Apocalypse. (Sir Isaac Newton's observations on Consult Lardner's credibility, passim,

Daniel, p. 249.

for its authority.)

It opens with a description of the Person of Jesus in his present glorified humanity, and displays many of the secrets of the invisible world. In the first chapter we have

a prayer to the Three Persons jointly, Father, Son, and Spirit, with an ascription of praise to the Son alone; and then a particular account of the Person of that Son, as he appeared to his servant John.

"John to the Seven Churches which are in Asia; grace be unto you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the Kings of the earth: Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. (Rev. i. 4—6.)

Amen."

By the Seven Spirits must be meant one or more persons, since he wishes or declares grace and peace from them. Now either this must be meant of Angels, or of the Holy Ghost. There are no where prayers made, or blessings given in the name of Angels. This were, indeed, a worshipping them; against which there are express authorities, not only in the other books of the New Testament, but in this book in particular. Nor can it be imagined that Angels would have been named before Jesus Christ: so then it remains, that SEVEN being a number, imports both variety and perfection, and that was the sacred number among the Jews, this is a mystical expression; which is no extraordinary thing in a book which is all mysterious. And it imports one person, from whom all that variety of gifts, administrations, and operations, that were then in the Church, did flow: and this is the Holy Ghost. But as to his being put in order before Christ, as upon the supposition of an equality, the going out of the common order is no great matter (Burnet on the Art. p. 48); so since there was to come after this a full period that concerned