latter: which is a sufficient warrant for that clause in the Creed of St. Athanasius—"In this Trinity, none is afore or after other." And Dr. Clarke, I presume, apprehended something of this sort; because he has corrected the Apostle, and transposed the order of the persons in 2 Cor. XIII. 14. without the least apology, or giving his reader any warning of it. §. LV. p. 377.

XVIII.

1 John V. 7. There are THREE that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST

There has been much disputing about the authenticity of this Text. I firmly believe it to be genuine for the following reasons. 1. St. Jerom, who had a better opportunity of examining the true merits of the cause than we can possibly have at this distance of time, tells us plainly, that he found out how it had been adulterated, mistranslated, and omitted on purpose to elude the truth. 2. The Divines of Lovain having compared many Latin co

• Præf. ad Canon. Epist,

pies, found this text wanting but in five of them; and R. Stephens found it retained in nine of sixteen ancient manuscripts which he used. 3. It is certainly quoted twice by St. Cyprian, who wrote before the council of Nice and also by Tertullian; as the reader is left to judge after he has read the Passage in the Margin. Dr. Clarke therefore is not to be believed when he tells us, it was 66 never "cited by any of the Latins before St. Jerome." 4. The Sense is not perfect without it; there being a contrast of three witnesses in heaven, to three upon earth; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, whose testimony is called the witness of God; and the Spirit, the Water, and the blood, which being administered by the Church upon earth, is called the witness of men. He that desires to see this text farther vindicated from the malice of Faustus Socinus, may consult Pool's Synopsis, and Dr. Hammond. And I wish that he would also read what has lately been published upon it by my good and learned

De Unit. Eccl. 109. Epist. LXXIII.

Connexus patris in filio, et filii in paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero; qui tres unum sunt, &c. ade. Prax.

See the text in his 2d Edition,

friend Dr. Delany, in his volume of Sermons, p. 69, &c.

But even allowing it to be spurious, it contains nothing but what is abundantly asserted elsewhere; and that both with regard to the Trinity in general, and this their divine Testimony in particular. For that there are three divine persons who bear record to the Mission of Christ, is evident from the following Scrip

tures.

John VIII. 17, 18. The testimony of two men

is truc.

I am ONE that bear witness of MYSELF.

The FATHER that sent me beareth witness of

me.

1 John V. 6. It is the SPIRIT that beareth witness. And Christ has also mentioned, upon another occasion, a plurality of witnesses in heaven, -WE speak (says he) that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not OUR Witness! which can be no other than the witness of the Trinity; because it is added-no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven; therefore no man could join with Christ in revealing the things of heaven to us.

* John HII. 11.

XIX.

Isai. VI. 3. And one cried unto another and said, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the LORD OF HOSTS. See also Rev. IV. 8.

66

They are not content, (says Origen) to say it once or twice; but take the perfect "number of the Trinity, thereby to declare "the manifold holiness of God; which is

a repeated intercommunion of a threefold "holiness; the holiness of the Father, the

holiness of the only begotten Son, and of "the Holy Ghost"." And that the Seraphim did really celebrate all the three persons of the Godhead upon this occasion, is no conjecture; but a point capable of the clearest demonstration.

The Prophet tells us, v. 1, he saw the Lord sitting upon a throne; and at v. 5, that his eyes had seen the king, the Lord of Hosts.

a Non eis sufficit semel clamare sanctus, neque bis; sed perfectum numerum Trinitatis assumunt, ut multitudinem sanctitatis Dei manifestent; quæ est trinæ sanctitatis repetita communitas; sanctitas patris, sanctitas unigeniti filii, et spiritus sancti. Orig. Hom. in loc.

Now

Now if there be any phrase in the Bible to distinguish the true God, it is this of the Lord of Hosts. I never saw it disputed by any Arian writer. The author of an Essay on Spirit confesses it: and Dr. Clarke supposes the name Lord of Sabaoth (Jam. V. 4.) proper to the Father only. So that in this Lord of Hosts, sitting upon his Throne, there was the presence of God the Father.

That there was also the presence of God the Son, appears from John XII. 41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) Glory, and spake of him *.

And

a P. 65.

It is written at v. 3.

-Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of HIS GLORY. This St. John has affirmed to be the glory of Christ: but it was the glory of the Lord of Hosts; therefore Christ is the Lord of Hosts. And if the parallel passage of Rev. IV. 8. be compared with this, it will appear (as it hath already Chap. I. Art. XXIII.) that he is the God Almighty spoken of in that book. The Greek version of the LXX. has it thus. ayı, ayı, ayı

In Rev. IV. 8. it is, ayı, ayı, ayıQ KuçiQ o de c warroxpaTwp, whence it evidently appears, that xup • DEO @arroxparup is equivalent in the language of heaven to Jehovah Sabaoth: therefore as Christ is the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament, he is thereby proved ipso facto to be the God Almighty of the New. Which shews the weakness

VOL. I.

I

of