OR,
THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY,
AND THE MINISTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
THE LEADING AND PERTAINING DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ADDRESSED TO THE HUMBLEST UNDERSTANDING,
AS WELL AS TO THE MOST ENLIGHTENED.
IN A SECOND LETTER TO MRS. JOANNA BAILLIE,
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY.
SALISBURY
1834
ADVERTISEMENT
The history of the Old Testament exhibits the Jewish Nation under the immediate government of God. In the New Testament the same government is continued in the presence and ministry of hid Incarnate Son; and under the visible and invisible ministration of his Holy Spirit. The Doctrine of the Trinity, manifested in the Divine government of the Church, has been demonstrated by some learned men from the books of the Old Testament alone. [Dissertation of Mysteries of the Trinity, Joanni Meyero, Horderovici, 1712. The doctrine is illustrated by this writer from the Rabbinical writings, especially of the Cabbalists, as it has been also by Dr. Allen and Mr. Oxlee.]
The purpose of the following pages is to show, that it is the prevailing Doctrine of the New Testament. Dissent from the doctrine, as generally professed by the Christian world, having been promoted in the last century by Dr. Clarke's work, entitled The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, it may be useful to some readers to show the failure of his Final Conclusions from the two main points of his work, and of his Objections to the controverted Verse of St, John , which are the subjects of the Postscript and of the Appendix to the following Letter.
Salisbury, April 30, 1834.
The object of the following Tract, to assist unlearned readers in tracing the evidence of the Doctrine of the Trinity through the several books of the New Testament.
1. Evidences of the doctrine from the first three Gospels: —
The Divinity and Incarnation of Christ.
The distinct Personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
2. Evidences of the doctrine from the fourth Gospel:
The eternal Deity of Christ.
His Incarnation.
The threefold testimony of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to the Son of God.
Three evidences of his Death on the Cross.
3. From the Acts of the Apostles:
The testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Resurrection of Christ.
The Government of the Church by the Holy Spirit.
Preparation made by Providence, connected with the festival of Pentecost.
4. From the Epistles of St. Paul:
The supreme Deity of Christ, and the equality of the Three Divine Persons.
5. From the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation of St. John :
The eternal Deity of Christ.
His Incarnation.
The threefold testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit to the Son of God.
Three evidences of his Death on the Cross.
External and internal evidence of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7.
Postscript. — On Dr. darkens Final Conclusions from his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.
Appendi10:— On Dr. Clarke's Objections to 1 John 5:7.
Madam,
Your kind acceptance of a former Letter, which I had the pleasure of addressing to you, has induced me to renew the subject of it in the pages which I now present to you, in which I have endeavoured to bring it within the view and apprehension of readers previously uninstructed in the doctrine of the Trinity. Believing, as I do, that that doctrine is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, and that, as such, the belief of it is necessary to my own salvation, I cannot but wish to render the record of it as intelligible, as demonstrable, as certain in the apprehension of others, as it is to my own mind. You will not, therefore, I am sure, think my time ill-employed in this renewed discussion of the doctrine itself, or of the passage of St. John , with which it is intimately connected.
I continue the investigation of that passage, as of any other subject of great interest, because it is a subject of great interest, — because I believe it to be a genuine passage of Scripture, and the charges of fraud and forgery, applied to it, to be most unjust, and wholly unfounded, — and because, as in all subjects of much research, perseverance often leads to the development of lights, which escape the observation of hasty or brief inquiry. I continue it, because every time that I return to the consideration of the passage, adds to my conviction of its authenticity by some new view of its external or internal evidence.
The late discoveries of Dr. Scholze and Dr. Wiseman afford strong grounds of confidence in the first editors of the Greek text of the New Testament, and in the fact, that the Verse was extant in the MSS. from which the Greek Testament was edited;— a confidence confirmed by the internal evidence of the passages, and by the inextricable difficulties and mysticisms attending the construction and interpretation of the eighth verse in the absence of the seventh, which must always be felt, and is sometimes acknowledged.*
I have always thought that the writings of Dr. Clarke have had more than their due influence in promoting opinions differing from the generally-received doctrine of the Christian Church, which is the subject of the following Letter. I have, therefore, in the Postscript to it, and in the Appendix, taken some pains to show the failure of his final conclusions from the premises of the two main parts of his Work on the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, as well as of his objection to the controverted Verse of St. John .
“I am far from satisfied" (says a learned opponent of the seventh Verse) "that I have given the right interpretation of this difficult passage," the eighth Verse. (Dr. Shuttleworth ad loc,)
Dr. Clarke's objections to this Verse, though confined to very narrow limits, comprehend the main substance of the opposition which has been made to it in relation to MSS., to the Fathers, and ancient Versions. I have, therefore, in the Appendix, adopted Dr. Clarke's Note, and Mr. Gibbon's in another Tract, as compendiums of the controversy, for the convenience of readers not initiated in the Inquiry. An answer to Dr. Clarke, or to Mr. Gibbon, is, in truth, an answer to Michaelias and to Griesbacb, and therefore to Mr. Porson's Letters, when divested of their wit and ridicule, and other extraneous and distracting ornaments.
I am. Madam,
With very sincere respect,
Your faithful Servant,
T. SARUM.
TO MRS. JOANNA BAILLIE.
Madam,
THE value of every religious doctrine depends on its accordance with the revealed Word of God; and for the belief of such doctrine, a Christian’s only concern is to determine, as far as he can by himself, or by the aid of others, whether it be a part of the written Word of God, or not: a principle which is acknowledged by your own candid appeal to the authority of the Scriptures.
The Scriptures, therefore, are the standard, to which alone, in every religious question, an appeal can properly and ultimately be made. For "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). And therefore the Church of England holds, "that whatever is not read in Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (Article 6).
It teaches, that the doctrine of the Three Creeds (and, therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity, which is professed in one of them) "ought thoroughly to be received and believed, because it may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture" (Article 8.)
And it may not unreasonably be supposed, that any doctrine which the Christian world has generally professed, and believed to be true, is read in Scripture, and may be proved thereby. Yet, in all ages of Christianity, there have been dissentients from the general doctrine of the Church, even in points most intimately connected with the first principles of the Christian Faith.
In our present time, while some maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity is the leading and pervading doctrine of the New Testament, others have thought, that a man of plain understanding, previously uninstructed, may read through the whole of the New Testament without being aware of the doctrine.
In this late period of Christianity, and in the present advanced state of general knowledge, it may be difficult to find any one so wholly uninstructed in Christian doctrine as the hypothesis requires, and at the same time competent to form an adequate opinion of what he reads. But admitting that there may still be found persons who “have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19:2), it may not be without its use or interest, even to professed believers, to trace the evidences of the great doctrine in question, progressively through the several books of the New Testament, as they lie in the way of a reader, who, for the first time, enters on the study of the Sacred Volume.
The first event recorded in the New Testament is the birth of the Son of God, which our Inquirer finds in the first chapter of the first Gospe50:In the narrative of this event, compared with the same event in St. Luke 's Gospel, he finds recorded Three Divine Persons, distinguished by the names of the Holy Ghost, the Highest, and the Son Of the Highest, or, as he is also called, the Son of God: “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:20). Of this miraculous influence Mary had been forewarned: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy child that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35); "the Son of the Highest" (1:32). "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; that is, being interpreted, God with us" (Matthew 1:21, 22).
In this narrative of the birth of Christ, the plainest understanding must readily perceive that the Holy Ghost, the Highest, and the Son of the Highest, are Persons — distinct Persons — not one, but Three Persons, and (the Common Version, “holy thing." Son being Emmanuel, or God with us) Three Divine Persons; and, therefore, our humble Inquirer, in this first lesson of the Christian faith, — the birth of Christ,— will have made some advance in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The next event which occurs in the Gospel history (the annunciation of the birth of Christ to the Shepherds), will add not a little to our Inquirer's perceptions of the doctrine. For though it relates only to one of the Three Divine Persons, yet the supreme Deity of that One, if made evident from Scripture, constitutes an essential proof of the doctrine.
The birth of Christ was thus announced to the Shepherds: “Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). The last words of these heavenly tidings describe the name by which Joseph was directed to call the Son of Mary: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Our unlearned reader must now be informed, that the word Jesus, in Hebrew, means Lord and Saviour: the word Jah, which forms part of its composition, being synonymous with Jehovah, or Lord. Christ is therefore called, in various passages of the New Testament, oar Lord and Saviour. Elizabeth, the mother of the Baptist, called Christ, before his birth, her Lord: “Whence is this, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43).
In this high sense of the word, Thomas addressed himself to Christ after his resurrection, “My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), on his conviction that he saw before him his Lord and Saviour. In the same high sense he was announced to the world by his precursor, the Baptist: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the Prophet Esaias" (John 1:23). The prophecy which the Baptist applies to himself, as related by St. John , the other Evangelists unanimously apply to him: "This is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:2, Luke 3:4).
In how high a sense Isaiah understood this designation of the Messiah may be seen by the title which he gives him of “Immanuel" (chapter 7:14), and ''the mighty God" (9:6).
In the commencement of St. Matthew's Gospel our Inquirer has seen the Evangelist's interpretation of the title of Emmanuel, as God with us. In the conclusion of the same Gospel he finds the title verified in Christ's omnipresence, declared in the promise to his disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (28:21), as well as in his former promise, that ''whatever they should ask in prayer, believing, they should receive" (21:22); or, as it is expressed in another Gospel: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do" (John 14:13, 14): a promise which God only could perform. The infinite attribute of omnipresence and inspiration are equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit and to the Son of God (Matthew 10:19, 20; Mark 11:11; Luke 12:12, and 21:15).
The narrative of the Baptism of Christ will present to our humble Inquirer another evidence existence and personality of the Three Divine Persons, — the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he [the Baptist] 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, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16).
"And John [the Baptist] bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, like a dove, and it abode upon him" (John 1:32).
Again, in the conclusion of the first Gospel, when our Inquirer reads Christ's injunction to his disciples to “baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," he cannot hesitate to acknowledge here the same Three Divine Persons, as before in the narratives of the birth and baptism of Christ. He may observe, also, an intimation of their unity in the direction which is given to baptize in the name, not names, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
In proportion as he discerns in the Three Divine Persons the same infinite attributes of omnipresence and inspiration he will be disposed to believe, that they all equally partake of the same Divine and infinite nature.
From these first lessons of the Christian faith, contained in the first three books of the New Testament, a reader of the humblest understanding may become so far acquainted with the evidences of the Divinity of Christ, — the distinct Personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, — and their infinite attributes of omnipresence and inspiration, as to have acquired some apprehension of their equality and unity in one Divine nature. The fourth Gospel will supply a further and fuller illustration of the same doctrine.
II. If the Son of God were not equally God with the Father, he could not be one with Him in the same Divine nature; nor could the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be Three Persons in one God, But we know from Scripture, that the Son of God is truly God — was from eternity with the Father, — and united with him by the same infinite attributes.
The fourth Gospel commences with two important evidences of the eternal Deity of Christ, — his pre-existence before the creation of the world, and a declaration that he was not only with God “in the beginning," but was God. We are here informed, that "all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made, that was made."
He was, therefore, himself not made nor created; and being uncreated must have existed from eternity; — “that everlasting life which was with the Father," as the same Evangelist expresses himself at the beginning of his First General Epistle; "the true God and eternal life," as he writes in the conclusion of the same Epistle.
Our unlearned reader must here be informed, that the Word here mentioned by Saint John was not an attribute, but a Person, — that Divine Person, who, in the creation of the world, said, "Let there be light, and there was light;" and said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water," as recorded by Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. The Son of God, in his pre-existent state, created the world by the same power as, in his incarnation, he healed diseases: “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed" (Matthew 8:8).
Our humble Inquirer should also be here reminded, that Christ's pre-existence, before his incarnation, is frequently alluded to in the Gospels. Thus, by the Baptist: "This was he of whom I spoke; he that comes after me is preferred before me; for he was before me" (John 1:15). And by Christ himself: “What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” John 6:62). Again: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, who was in heaven" (John 3:13). [So it should be translated. In the common Version it is “who is in heaven." The original is which has a past sense as well as present, having no past participle. In the common Translation, “who is."] “No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which was in the bosom of his Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18).
And thus: '' Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). And again in that most interesting passage, which, in its sublime sense, comprehends all the preceding: "O, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:7.) In his discourses with the Jews, he spoke of himself and his Father in such terms as, in their opinion, to “make him God," and "equal with God." The Jews answered him, saying, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because thou being a man makes thyself God” (John 10:33).
These living witnesses of Christ's declaration of himself were competent judges of his words; and their sense of them is perfectly consistent with the testimony of St. John to declarations made in the presence of his disciples. On an occasion before the one last quoted, “the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his own Father, making himself equal with " God'' (John 5:18).
When, therefore, the Jews charged him with blasphemy, and making himself God, because he said, “I and my Father are one" (10:30), they must have understood him to mean, of one and the same Divine nature and power. And though their malice or prejudice might have led them to misconceive his words, yet their sense of their agreeing perfectly with what he said of himself on another occasion (17:7, etc.) with the Evangelist's report of a preceding part of the same discourse, where he says of his believing disciples, “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand " (10:28).
In the unity of the Son of God with the Father we have a clear Scripture-proof of the unity of the Three Divine Persons. For as the Son is one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and the Son, all Three must be one, necessarily, in nature and in power.
Of their distinct Personality, the fourth Gospel contains some peculiar and interesting proofs. For in this Gospel alone is recorded Christ's promise of the Comforter, and in this Gospel alone occurs the threefold testimony of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to the Divinity of Christ; and the threefold evidences of Christ's death on the Cross: "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me" (John 15:26). “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, hears witness of me " (John 8:17, 18). To this threefold testimony of the heavenly witnesses, St John refers in his First General Epistle, 5:7: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
The three evidences of Christ's death on the Cross, are, his expiration and the blood and water which issued from his side. "And he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost” (John 19:30); that is, "yielded up" his spirit according to our Saviour's own words:
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46.) "And one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knows that he saith true, that ye might believe" (John 19:34, 35). The evidences of Christ's death, and therefore of his human nature, St. John has so emphatically confirmed by the assurance of his own personal knowledge of what he saw, as to leave no doubt that he had in view the heresy that denied that the Son of God was come in the flesh; the heresy which he has twice reprobated in his Epistles as the work of “deceivers and antichrist’s” (1 John 4:2, and 2 John 1:7).
His Gospel and the Epistle, by their numerous correspondences in doctrine and diction, mutually prove that they were written by the same person. And of the many coincidences and references which contain the evidence of such identity, none are more decisive than the coincidence of die diction and doctrine of the threefold testimony in both verses with the Gospel of St. John.
Of the external and internal evidences of the disputed Verse of St. John (as far as they can be brought within the view of an un-learned reader," more will be said in a subsequent part of these pages.
III. In the preceding books of the New Testament we have seen proofs of the distinct existence and personality of the Holy Spirit in the narratives of the Birth and Baptism of Christ; and of his infinite attributes of omni-presence, inspiration, and omniscience, as promised by Christ to his disciples. Throughout the remaining books of the New Testament, our humble Inquirer will have to peruse the record of the Holy Spirit's abiding presence in the immediate and (if I may so express myself) the personal direction and government of the Church after our Saviour's ascension to heaven. Of this our Christian Theocracy, the first instance is given by St. Luke, in stating that “Christ was taken up, after that he, through the Holy Ghosts had given commandments to the Apostles, whom he had chosen” (Acts 1:2).
The next event of the Divine government of the Church, which occurs in the Acts of the Apostles, is the effusion of the Holy Spirit on that great day, for ever to be remembered by the Church, which gave to a few fishermen and '' peasants of Judea," the means of " changing the religion of the world," by communicating the glad tidings of salvation to "every nation under heaven " (Acts 2:5).
In their own language: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they [the Apostles] were all with one accord in one place and suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongue like as of fire and it sat upon each them: and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance — other than their native tongue of Galilee foreign, but not unknown tongues; — for they were known to the multitude of devout men who were dwelling at Jerusalem at that season from every nation under heaven, who were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, [Some MSS. read Idumea.] and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and in Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes" a (2:6— 11).
In the concourse of strangers, out of every "nation under heaven," who were brought to Jerusalem by their annual national festival, we see the wonderful providence of God in preparing the world for the universal propagation of the Gospel. The commercial spirit of the Jews ane had induced them, like the Phoenician from the remotest times, to settle in every part of the world, where their industry could find employment and profit from the natural and artificial productions of the country. So conterminous, indeed, were the countries of Phoenicia and Judaea, according to Strabo (L. 6: p. 1063, ed. Falconer), and so congenial their commercial pursuits, that where-ever the adventurous spirit of one of the two nations may be traced, it would, in all probability be equally known to the other, from the gold mines of Ophir or India, to the Cassiterides of Britain. I dwell with pleasure on the probable consequences of this great annual festival as a means of conveying to the remotest regions of the earth, in which the Jews were dispersed, the intelligence of the miraculous event of which these strangers, from every country under heaven, were the astonished witnessed; because it appears to remove all the difficulty which is sometimes attached to the tradition, that the Gospel was preached in India by St. Thomas.
The tradition is entitled to a high degree of probability, when it is considered as recorded by Origen in the third century, and by Eusebius in the fourth, and confirmed by the existence of a Christian Church on the coast of Malabar for many centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese in that country. It adds not a little to the probability of the tradition, when it is recollected, that the first Epistle of St. John is, in some copies, addressed to the Parthian Christians from whose country were some of the devout men who attended the memorable festival; and the first Epistle of St. Peter is addressed to ''the strangers dispersed throughout Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia," three of the countries whose inhabitants were present at the same time; and that St. James 's Epistle is addressed generally to the twelve tribes that were “scattered abroad" in all nations.
It may be remembered, too that in the time of the Apostles, Persia was called Parthia; and that Persia was the western boundary of India. The Parthian Jews, therefore, could be no strangers to India.
It is remarkable, too, that at this festival "three thousand souls" were converted by the preaching of St Peter— and who were so likely to be of that number as the devout strangers who had heard the wonderful “works of God" miraculously delivered to them in their own tongues, through the power of the Holy Spirit? And these men, returning to their several countries must have happily prepared the way of the Lord for the preaching of the Gospel among them by the Apostles.
An instance occurs soon after, in the Acts of the Apostles, of such providential opportunities of extending the knowledge of the Gospel to remote countries, in the conversion of an Ethiopian a man of great authority under Candace, Queen of Ethiopia. He “had come to Jerusalem for to worship, and was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Esaias the Prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go and join thyself to this chariot; and Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the Prophet Esaias. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the Eunuch said. See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believes with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the Eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus " (Acts 8:27—40).
Let those who doubt the fact of St. Thomas's preaching the Gospel in India, follow back the strangers from every country under heaven to their homes in Parthia, Media, Egypt, Rome, etc. (many of them, probably, like the Ethiopian carrying with them the glad tidings of the Gospel), and then doubt, if they can, whether the Apostles, under the immediate guidance and protection of God, would or could have gone to Ethiopia, or Parthia, or India, or other "utmost bounds of the earth,” in Asia, Africa, or Europe, as they were commanded by Christ to do, and as Clemens Romanus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Theodoret inform us they did do.
When Cornelius had been directed in a vision, for his conversion to the faith of Christ, to send for St. Peter, the Holy Spirit said to the Apostle, “Behold men seek thee; arise, therefore and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them (Acts 10:19, 20).
Soon afterwards, the Holy Spirit was graciously pleased to interpose for the furtherance of the Gospel, by the special appointment of Barnabas and Saul to the work of the Ministry: “As they ministered unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2.)
Again: "When they had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia; after they were come to Mysia, they essayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit suffered them not" (Acts 16:6, 7).
St Paul, in his farewell address to the Elders of Ephesus, reminds them of the charge which they had received from the Holy Ghost: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
But though the Church was under the immediate government of the Holy Spirit, yet was that government united with the ever-present grace and protection of the Son of God; as was experienced by St. Paul from the time of his conversion, to that of his trial before Caesar, when "the Lord stood with him, and strengthened him, and delivered him out of the mouth of the lion" (2 Timothy 4:17).
The supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit (an essential part of the doctrine of the Trinity) is manifested by the distribution of his spiritual gifts, "severally as he will," even if he were not expressly called God, as he is (Acts 5:3, 4).
IV. In the Epistles of St. Paul, our Inquirer will find evidence of the supreme Deity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, and of their equality with the Father, and, consequently, of their unity with Him in the same Divine nature. In the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, he writes thus: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated to the Gospel of God (which he had promised afore by the prophets of the Holy Scriptures), concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:1 — 4). In this passage, our Inquirer will observe the contrast between Christ's being "made of the seed of David according to the flesh” and his being "declared to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead.'' He was proved to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead, being loosened from the pains of death, because [through his Divine nature] it was not possible that he should be held of it " (Acts 2:24).
The Divine and human natures of Christ are contrasted here, as in St. John's Gospel: He who “was God, was made flesh'' (John 1:14), and became man by his birth of the Virgin Mary. The same contrast between the two natures, our Inquirer will find expressed by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3:16: “God 'was manifested in the flesh;" and in Romans 9:8: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the fleshy Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." And so in Philippians 2:6, 7: "Who, being in the form of God," — was made in the likeness of men.'' According to the Common Version. But I am inclined to think, that the expression relates to the pre-existence of Christ before his incarnation, and should be translated, who was. See before, p, 44, Note, and compare John 8:58, and Colossians 1:17.
In his Epistle to the Colossians (1:15, 16, 17), the Apostle has fully expressed the Divine nature of Christ in his pre-existent state, by the attributes of creation, omnipresence, and providence: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature [born before all creation]; for by "Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible; whether they be thrones, or dominions or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
In the second chapter of the same Epistle (verse 9), the Apostle has expressed the union of both natures in Christ: "For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." To the declaration of the Divine attributes of Christ, may be added the celebrated one in the Epistle to Titus (2:13): “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" that is, our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ: for so it ought to be translated, for certain grammatical reasons, of which our humble Inquirer can be no judge, and on the authority of the most learned of the ancient Fathers of the Church, which he may reasonably respect and trust.
To return now to the passage with which Saint Paul commences his Epistle to the Romans, “declared to be the Son of God — by the [his] resurrection from the dead." The Deity of the Son of God was proved by his resurrection from the dead; for not only was he loosened from the pains of death, “because it was not possible that he should be held of it;" for “in him was life" (John 1:4).
''As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in HIMSELF " (John 5:26): who has "power to lay down his life, and power to take it up" (John 10:18): who said, “I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25): and was " that eternal life, which was with "the Father before the creation of the world, and from eternity."
He was proved to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, because by it he fulfilled his own prediction of his death and resurrection (John 2:1 9, 20; 14:28, 29), which his disciples remembering, they believed the Scriptures, and "the words which Jesus had said." They believed the Scriptures; that is, the Prophecies of the Old Testament, which not only foretold his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, applied to Christ by Saint Peter), but declared him to be the Messiah, — the Lord, — the Lord our Righteousness, — Emmanuel, or God with us, — and the Mighty God.
Though, in the perusal of the Acts of the Apostles, our Inquirer has seen frequent instances of the Holy Spirit's personal interposition and presence in the government of the Church, yet so important is the doctrine to the faith and comfort of every Christian, as well as essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, for our Inquirer's sake, I here add some passages from St. Paul's Epistles, interesting either as relating singly to the Holy Spirit, or relatively to the Three Divine Persons of the Deity: “The Spirit helps our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us (Romans 8:26). [So it should be translated, and not “the Spirit itself" as in the Common Version. The Greek word requires the neuter, but the English Spirit, and the Latin Spiritus require Himself.]
"Whereof the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us; for after that he had said, This is the covenant that I will make with them, saith the Lord" (Hebrews 10:15). "To one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit; to another faith, by the same Spirit; — but all these works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (Hebrews 10:8—11).
So demonstrative of distinct Personality and Divinity are the preceding passages, that our Inquirer can have no doubt of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, even if he were not called God in the Scriptures. We have, however, seen, in the Acts of the Apostles, that the Holy Spirit is called God by St. Peter (5:5). We find, also, St. Paul using the terms Holy Spirit and God synonymously for each other: " Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Corinthians 3:16).
"Know ye not, that your " body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which dwells in you?" (1 Corinthians 6:10). With such evidence, as we have seen, from St. Paul's Epistles, of the infinite attributes and omnipresent Deity, both of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, — when our Inquirer finds St. Paul uniting, in the same prayer or benediction, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christy and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14),— ascribing to them the personal qualities of grace, love, and communion, or fellowship, — what less can he conceive or believe of them, than that they are Three distinct Divine Persons, and all equally objects of Divine worship? When he also reads in the same Apostle the following passages, — "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing" [that Christ came to be the Saviour of the world], that ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost " (Romans 15:13); and, "No man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3); and, "Through Christ we have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Ephesians 2:18); and compares them with our Saviour's words:
“No man can come to me, except the Father draw him" (John 6:44); and, "No man knows the Son but the Father; neither knows any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matthew 11:27); again, “When the Spirit of Truth is come — he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you” (John 16:13, 14); — what less, I say, can our humble inquirer conclude, from the relative nature of the transcendent attributes recorded in these passages, than that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Three Divine Persons, of the same omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal nature?
THE EPISTLES AND BOOK OF REVELATION
V. Our humble Inquirer after truth, in his perusal of the four Gospels, and especially that of St. John, has seen frequent mention of Three Divine Persons,— distinct Persons, — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, — distinguished by personal attributes and actions, — attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, and inspiration, which belong only to God. He has also seen, that the Three Divine Persons are each expressly called God; and he has learned, from the same Sacred Volume, that there is only one God. He must therefore be led, by the testimony of Scripture, to conclude, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Three Persons in One God.
He is led to this conclusion on the general authority of Scripture. But there are particular testimonies in various passages of the New Testament which enforce the same conclusion, that the Three Divine Persons are only One God.
The unity of the Son with the Father is declared by Christ himself (John 10:30); and the immediate context (ver. 28, 29, assigning to the Son the same omnipotence as to the Father), and the blasphemous sense which the Jews, his hearers, imputed to the words, show, that unity of motive and power was the obvious meaning of the expression, “I and my Father are one."
This unity of nature is evident from the identity and equality of the infinite attributes ascribed to the Father and the Son by St. John in the beginning and the conclusion of his First Epistle, in which the Son is called, “that eternal life which was with the Father" (chapter 1, verse 2), and “the true God, and eternal life " (chapter 5, verse 20), and in the Apocalypse the same eternal nature is ascribed both to the Father and the Son, 1:8: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;” which by some is applied to the Father, and by others to the Son; and 1:11, and 21:6, which are the words of Christ.
The unity of the Son with the Father in the same Divine nature is also evident from the unity of the Spirit of Christ with the Spirit of the Father. The prophets of the Old Testament "spake as they were moved by the Spirit of Christ" (1 Peter 1:11), and “by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). The Apostles, in their defence before magistrates, spake (according to the Saviour's promise) as they were moved by the Spirit of Christ (Luke 21:15), and by the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). The Spirit of the Son, therefore, is one with the Spirit of the Father; and, consequently, by the same unity of nature, is the Son one with the Father. And, as the Son is one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is one with both, all Three must necessarily be one in nature and power.
This unity of the Three Persons of the Deity is also evident from the testimony of St. John, in his First Epistle (chapter 5, verse 7): "There are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.” They are one incidentally by the sameness of their testimony, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; they are necessarily one by their unity of nature. And the Apostle's argument from their threefold testimony is infinitely augmented and enforced by their unity of nature. The testimony was true by the Jewish law, because it was the concurrent declaration of three witnesses; but it was, a fortiori, humanly speaking, more true; because the Three are, by their Divine nature, One. And therefore it is said, in the ninth verse, “If ye receive the witness of men," — of three men,— who are only incidentally one, — the witness of God, in the Three Persons of the Deity, is greater.
The passage has been strangely misunderstood in considering it as a testimony of St. John to the Trinity, instead of being a testimony of the Trinity to the Divinity of the Son of God, — the same threefold testimony which the Apostle has recorded in his Gospel.
Of the celebrated passage of St. John 's Epistle, our inquirer will be told, that its authenticity has been disputed by many learned men for these last three centuries: in answer to which, he must be told, that if it has been disputed by many, it has been received and defended by more; and that its authenticity was never denied before the sixteenth century, nor ever questioned during the fifteen centuries which preceded that period, though it had been constantly alleged against the Arians, and other unbelievers in its doctrine, from the middle of the fifth century.
He will be told, that the verse is not to be found in the most ancient Greek MSS of the New Testament. He should, in answer, be informed, that there are only two Greek MSS, containing the Epistles of St. John, remaining of the first eight centuries and that it might have been in many of the hundreds of MSS. that are lost; for it is contained in the Latin Version, which is more ancient than the most ancient Greek MSS that omit it.
And the Latin Version is an evidence of its Greek original. He should also be informed, that there are two genuine Greek MSS now extant, which contain the Verse: one at Dublin, and the other in the Vatican; one of which MSS is at least as ancient as some which are quoted against the Verse; and the other more ancient than many that are opposed to it. He should also be told, that it was contained in the Greek MSS from which the Greek Testament was first edited by the Complutensian Editors, and by Erasmus in is third edition, and by Robert Stephens as we are assured by the several Editors.
He should moreover be informed that the disputed verse has the same internal evidence of its authenticity, as that which authenticates the whole of the Epistle of St. John; namely the coincidence of its diction and doctrine with the language and reasoning of St. John in his Gospel, with this additional proof in its favour, that the threefold testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses, in the seventh verse, and the name by which the second Person of the Trinity in thus distinguished, are peculiar to the Gospel the Epistle of St. John, The eighth verse in also remarkable as an evidence of the Epistle by its coincidence with the three signs of Christ's death on the Cross, contained in the 19th chapter of the Gospel, verses 30, 34: “And he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost,” — yielded up his spirits — “And one of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced his side; and forthwith came thereout blood and water.”
The seventh and eighth verses, therefore, are summary confirmations of the two great doctrines of the Epistle. There are two great doctrinal subjects in the First Epistle of St. John,— the eternal Deity of the Son of God, and his Incarnation; and two principal moral subjects, — the love of God, and of the brethren. In the first chapter of the Epistle the Apostle states the doctrine of the eternal Deity and the Incarnation of Christ, as in the first chapter of the Gospel. In the subsequent chapters, he reprobates the anti-Christianity of two heresies: one denying that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and the other denying that the Son of God was come in the flesh (1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7); and, lastly, be proves the former doctrine by the threefold testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses in the seventh verse of the fifth chapter; and of the latter by the three evidences of Christ's death on the Gross, in the eighth verse.
The context, which precedes and follows the controverted passage, requires the seventh verse; and its coincidence with the diction, and the threefold testimony in the Gospel, demand it. The absence of the Verse, wherever it occurs in manuscript or in print, is the loss of St. John's strongest proof of the Divinity of Christ, deranges the Apostle's reasoning in illustration of his main subject, and extinguishes the principal test of the authenticity of the whole Epistle.
I have endeavoured. Madam, in the preceding pages, to trace the Doctrine of the Trinity through the several books of the New Testament; and to show, that the doctrine, as now generally professed by the Christian Church, is the leading and pervading Doctrine of the Sacred Volume; and to give such evidence of the doctrine as to show, to an unprejudiced Inquirer, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one, but Three Persons; and, from the equality of their infinite attributes, which belong only to God, that they are not Three, but One God.
* In the Gospel, Christ considered his single testimony of himself as (legally speaking) not true (chapter 6:31, 32), without the concurrent testimony of his Father; and, therefore, St John says, "the Spirit is truth: FOR there are THREE that bear record," — of whom the Spirit is one.
I am, Madam,
Tour very faithful Servant,
T. SARUM.
POSTSCRIPT
ON DR. CLARKE'S FINAL CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
Though Dr. Clarke disclaimed the name of Anti-Trinitarian and, as such, acknowledged the eternity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, yet his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity by his mode of treating the subject, contributed not a little to the credit and progress of Arianism in the last century. It may, therefore, be of importance to some readers to point out the failure of his Final Conclusions from the premises of the two main portions of his work.
The learning and ability of his opponents (especially of Dr. Waterland) formed a powerful counterbalance against the weight of his name and talents. His own regret, expressed several times to the Chevalier Ramsey before he had ever published his Scripture Doctrine may be considered as a reasonable ground of doubt as to the correctness of the views on which he had formed his opinion on the subject.
[Dr. Clarke owned to me some time before his death, after several conferences that I had with him, how much he repented that he had ever published his work, the "Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.” (Extract from the Chevalier Ramsey's Letter, quoted by Whittaker in his History of Arianism, p. 457).]
But the remarkable failure (which I do not remember to have seen noticed) of his Final Conclusions from the premises of the two main portions of his elaborate work, appears to me to afford indisputable proof of the error of his general judgment on the subject which he was investigating.
At the close of the first part of his Work, that is, after the enumeration of 1251 passages of the New Testament, he says: "From all these passages it appears, beyond contradiction, that the words [God] and [the Father] not [God] and [the Three Persons] are always used in Scripture as synonymous terms." This sentence consists of two propositions: (1), That the words God and the Father are always used in Scripture as synonymous terms; (2), That the words God and the Three Persons are not always used in Scripture as synonymous terms. Scripture Doctrine, 3d ed. p. 232. London 1732.
If Dr. Clarke had drawn out his conclusion into its particulars, he would have seen that it not only fails in its general assertion, but in the results which he expected from it.
(1), The word God is not in all passages of Scripture synonymous with the Father. It is synonymous with the Son in John 1:1, Romans 9:5, 1 Timothy 3:16, 17. It is synonymous with the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:4.
(2). The word God is not always synonymous with “the Three Persons.” If it is ever in Scripture synonymous with the Three Persons or the Three Persons with God it is sufficient to negative Dr. Clarke's former proposition, and to overthrow his whole theory of a supreme and a subordinate God. The terms are synonymous in 1 John 5:7 (the 1248th of the Scripture passages quoted by Dr. Clarke): "There are three that bear record in heaven; and these three are one." The term is peculiarly applicable here to Christ, as the Creator of the world. For the Greek, in its primary and proper sense, signifies Maker, Creator, as he is described in verse 3.
This Verse, though often disputed, has never been proved to be spurious. See a Vindication of it from Dr. Clarke's Objections below, p. 85.
One God say the ancient Christian authorities, — the Council of Carthage in the fifth century, Fulgentius and Cassiodorus in the sixth, the Author of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles in the seventh (if not earlier, for in
the ninth century it was ascribed to Jerome, and commented on as his). So modern, indeed, is the interpretation, “one in testimony or consent,” that Mr. Person challenges Archdeacon Travis to produce a single ancient author, Greek or Latin, who follows that "unorthodox" sense.
That the word God is synonymous with the Three Persons may be shown from the following considerations of the unity of the Three Divine Persons, arising from the mutual relation and connexion of their infinite attributes. As the Spirit of the Father is of the same nature with the Father, and the Spirit of the Son of the same nature with the Son, the Spirit of the Father and the Son being one and the same Spirit, all Three must be of the same Divine nature.
Again: as the Son is one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is one with the Father, the Father must be one with both, and all Three must be One.
Again: as the Son is one with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and the Son, all Three must be One. So far, indeed, is it from being true, that the words God and the Three Persons are not synonymous terms in the Scriptures, that the word God when expressed by itself, always, and necessarily, means the Three Persons, because the truth of Scripture, and the integrity of the Divine nature, as revealed in the Scriptures, requires that we should understand by the word God all that the Scriptures teach us of God, namely, that there are Three Persons of the Deity, and only One God.
Dr. Clarke concludes the Second Part of his Scripture Doctrine with the enumeration of all the passages of the New Testament, in which the Three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together, to which he adds the following observation: “From all these passages it appears, even to a demonstration (the words God and the Father being promiscuously used for each other), that God in Scripture language, does not signify the Trinity but the First Person of the Trinity, according to this of Theophilus, i.e., the Trinity which is God, and his Ward, and his Wisdom.''
The words of Theophilus, and the passages of Scripture, which Dr. Clarke here enumerates, demonstrate only that the word God, when it is used together with the Son and with the Holy Spirit, means the Father, and that the
Father is a distinct person from the Son and from the Holy Spirit. But it does not demonstrate that the word God is not as synonymous with the Three Persons, as the word Jehovah with the plural Elohim. The Father is not the Trinity, and the Son is not the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity, but the word God has before been shown to be synonymous with each of the Three Persons individually, and also with the Three, when mentioned together, and is necessarily expressive of all that the Scripture teaches of the nature of God, namely, that there are Three Divine Persons, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal, and only One God. Scripture Doctrine, p. 384, third edition.
A remarkable self-deception seems to hare possessed the mind of Dr. Clarke in his conclusion from "the Titles given in the New Testament to the Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity, when all mentioned together, that the word God does not signify the Trinity, but the First Person of the Trinity," — not perceiving that the word God, when so used, is necessarily limited to One Person, and does not then mean the Three, only because a part is not the whole. But the word God is in itself a complex and comprehensive term, and when used by itself, signifies, as I said before, all that the Scripture teaches of the nature of God, namely, a Deity of Three distinct Persons, or Three Persons in One God.
Dr. Clarke observes, that the word God does not signify the Trinity, but the First Person of the Trinity. This expression, First Person, is, I believe, unknown to the Scriptures. The use of it may have led him to his idea of a supreme and a subordinate God; and was the more remarkable after his acknowledgment of the eternity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit. For in Three Eternals there can be no priority of time, no first nor last in one exclusively of the others. In the Revelation of St. John, the Father and the Son are equally called “the first and the last" (chapter 1, 21 and 22.) In chapter 3:14, the Son is called "the beginning of the creation of God;" that is, the first cause, the beginner of the creation, the Creator, "by whom God made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2).
The language of the Apostle is every where wholly adverse to Dr. Clarke's idea of the subordination of Deity in the Son of God in his pre-existent state; for he not only emphatically calls him “the beginning of the creation of God," but, in the 21st chapter, calls him "the beginning and the end," by an emphasis, in the original text, which he does not apply to the Father in chapter 1 verse 8.
APPENDIX
Dr. Clarke quotes 1 John 5:7, in the 1248th of his Scripture passages. He does not call it spurious, nor stigmatise it with the opprobrious charges of falsehood frauds and forgery; but he gives four reasons for saying that it ought not to have much stress laid upon 4t in any question, in every one of which reasons he is mistaken, as well as in his conclusion from them.
1. He says, that ' it has never yet been proved to be found in any Greek manuscript before the invention of printing."
It is found in the Montfort MS., which Dr. Adam Clarke, who examined it at Dublin, pronounces to be a genuine MS., and more likely to be of the thirteenth century than the sixteenth. It is found in the Codex Ottobonianus, which was written at the latest in the fifteenth' century, and therefore before the publication of the first printed edition of the New Testament. It was in the Codex Britannicus, from which Erasmus printed it in his third Edition. It was in Robert Stephens's Greek MSS.; for he says, in the Preface to his first Edition, that there was nothing in his text (ne literam quidem) which he had not from very ancient MSS. It was in the Greek MSS., from which the Complutensian Princeps Edition was printed; as it is found, with nearly the same readings, in the Codex Ottobonianus. It was in the Greek MSS. of Bryennius, of the fifteenth century; — and of the Author of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which was written many centuries, perhaps ten, before the invention of printing.
2. He says, "It is not found in the text of "any ancient Version."
It is extant in the old Latin Version, as quoted by the African Fathers, who had the Version, which was in use before Jerome's revision. It is in the most ancient MSS. of Jerome's genuine Version, as we are informed by its Editors, Martianay and Vallarsras.
3. “It was not cited by any of the numerous writers in the Arian controversy.
It was cited by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in the year 484, in the presence of their Arian opponents, and by Fulgentius in the same or following century, in refutation of the Arian heresy. In the Note to his text he says, "It is cited by no Greek Father in any genuine work at all.” Bengelius denies this assertion, and quotes several Greek Fathers as directly or indirectly alluding to it.
4. "The sense of the Apostle is very complete without it."
If the object of the Apostle in this Epistle be (1.) to assert the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ, and (2.) to condemn the two heresies, which were opposed to that doctrine; and (3.) if the seventh Verse contains the threefold testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses to the Divinity of Christ, as recorded in St. John 's Gospel; and (4.) the eighth has the three evidences of the death of Christ on the Cross, recorded in the same Gospel (if these several positions be evident, as I have endeavoured to prove), then the sense of the Apostle is not complete without both Verses.
Dr. Clarke concludes, from his four reasons, that the Verse "ought not to have much stress laid upon it in any question.” If the question relate to the Sabellians, the distinct existence and personality of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is decisive against their heresy; and at the same time the unity of the Three Persons in One God is equally conclusive against the Arians. The controverted Verse is truly, therefore, what the Editor of the Unitarian Version calls it, but with no "friendly voice,” a passage of "great importance;" and much stress has accordingly been laid upon it by the most learned Expositors of the Christian Faith.
* Fulgentius among the ancients; Pearson, Hammond, Bull, and Atterbury among the moderns.
THE END.
SALISBURY:
W. B. BRODIE PRINTERS AND COMPANY,
CANAL.
1834