shew, that the external evidence is in favor of the genuineness of the verse, as well as the internal. The internal evidence is decidedly in favor of the verse being genuine.

On that, therefore, I found my doubts of the interpolation of this verse. I argue from the context of the preceding and following verses. I maintain, that there is an evident chasm (if this verse is rejected,) which makes the passage nugatory and unmeaning, and destroys the connexion between the former and the subsequent verses. Consider the whole passage together. ("This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. And there are Three that bear witness on Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and

* in

the Blood and these Three agree One.") Then, omit the middle one of the three verses, and I ask, how can you explain the connexion between the first and the third verses? Without pretending to have searched the various manuscripts, and editions, to discover why the verse has been deemed an interpolation by many, and by others as genuine, It appears to me not improbable, that it may have been accidentally omitted, at a distant period, by a transcriber, and that the omission being observed, it was then inserted in the margin. This copy being seen in this form, it might afterwards have been considered as a marginal addition, instead of a restoration of the original text; for the opposition, or rather the comparison, of the Three that bear witness on Earth with the Three that bear record in Heaven, seems clear and plain, but otherwise there appears no

*Or rather are in one, as To ëV Elol.

reason for the insertion of the third verse. This comparison may be imagined to present a faint analogy between the union and distinction of the Three in Heaven with the three things on Earth, which are combined in one human being, viz. the breath of life, the water in the pericardium, and the blood: but I restrain myself from proceeding further, even by analogy, or presuming to glance at a shadowy explanation of that "mystery of godliness" which, as it pervades every part of the Scriptures, I am bound faithfully to believe, and humbly to adore. Well may I say, that the grand fundamental doctrine pervades the whole of the sacred volume; for if there is not a plurality, as well as an union, in the Great Jehovah, several expressions in the first chapter of Genesis cannot well be accounted for, and similar expressions occur throughout most of the other books of the Old Testament, and almost in every chapter of the New. The Sun of

Righteousness indeed does not shine, like the sun in the firmament, with equal clearness to minds of all descriptions; its rays are blunted when directed against the mind of the carnal and natural man ; but it shines with all its glorious splendor on minds capable of "discerning things spiritually." As the sun in the Heavens is not seen by those who are unfortunately born blind; so does the Sun of Righteousness shine in vain to those, who resolve to close the eyes of their minds against every doctrine of Divine Revelation, that is of a mysterious and incomprehensible nature. To such the moral part alone of the Gospel is of any benefit or utility; the divine and doctrinal part is by them rejected: but be it recollected with trembling, that "if now the Gospel be hid, it is hid to those who are lost."

In defiance of positive proof Socinians have presumed to assert, that the belief in the Doctrine of " the Trinity in Unity"

is comparatively of a modern date, and that for many centuries after the times of the Apostles, no such doctrine was supposed to be found in the Scriptures: but a reference to the writings of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, will abundantly refute the falsehood and boldness of such an assertion. Innumerable writers of eminence have, by quotation and argument, fully proved that the belief in the Trinity is the "ancient faith." I will name, only a few of those who, within the last fifty years, have fully and clearly demonstrated this fact. Bishops Horsley, Porteus, Huntingford, Magee, Randolph, and the sublime, and every thing but inspired, Bishop Horne; his pious and learned chaplain, Mr. Jones, of Nayland; Archdeacons Nares and Daubeny; Doctors Hales and Lawrence, and Mr. Rennell. I will, lastly, mention a recent pamphlet* by my meritorious friend, Mr.

* Scripture compared with itself, in proof of the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and (by neces