by Mr. Travis. He first cites Tertullian, who lived in the beginning of the second century. The very words of that ancient father, M. Sloss says, are these:

"The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes three joining together, the one of which is from the other, which Three are One Thing." Tertull.. Contra Prax. Chap. 25. This, my author says, "is an exact translation of the latter clause of" the verse in dispute. He says, that "Cyprian, who lived in the next century, cites this text; saying, "And again it is written, of the Father, Son, and Spirit, These Three are One." Cyp. de uni. Eccl. cap. 4. ad finem.

This quotation from Cyprian, is evidently the last clause of 1 John, 5. 7. But it is needless to swell my pages with the evidence that follows, for it is in exact accordance with the historical testimony of Mr. Travis. In one word, all who have written in defence of the text, have given the same historical account of its authenticity; it is needless, therefore, for my opponent to think to carry his point, by sinking the respectability of Mr. Travis as an author.

But the gentleman says-" To conclude-so fully abandoned is this passage in England, by Trinitarians, that in the London Evangelical Magazine, published in the latter part of the last century, and continued in this, and read by the people very generally, I have seen the severe strictures of Professor Michaelis upon this passage quoted with approbation."

In regard to the British Trinitarians having given up the text under consideration, sufficient has been said already.

I cannot say what the London Evangelical Magazine contains, in reference to this passage, being wholly unacquainted with that publication. But there is no doubt in

in my mind, that there are many things published in England under specious names, whose complexion is AntiTrinitarian. It is well understood that gentlemen of that school, in England, are struggling for victory, with a zeal that would confer honor on a better cause.

The gentleman closes his elaborate discourse, with the following tremendous sentence; namely-" If any man, after being made acquainted with these various facts, now presented to him, is so devoid of candor, of modesty, of the sense of shame, and the love of truth, as to rely upon this notoriously spurious passage, in proof of a three-fold God, I feel compelled to adopt the language of the Almighty, and say, "Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone."

I shall only say, in reply to this extraordinary effort of my opponent's talent and spirit, that it may be considered as some apology for the severities of which I may be deemed guilty, in the course of my strictures on his performance. But, after all that he has said, I remain in the belief, that the text in debate is of divine authority.

I

If I be, however, "devoid of candor, of modesty, of the sense of shame and the love of truth," the crime is great; but, I am not yet convinced of any guilt in this matter. am not willing to be frightened out of my opinion, by the mere force of unsupported expressions. The gentleman's eloquence far exceeds, in my view, the power of his argu

ments.

These things, however, must be submitted to the candid judgment of the christian world, as far as they may fall un

der their review.

There is one circumstance, however, which prevents me from closing my reply, with what has been said, to my accomplished opponent. In the fourth sermon, seme notice was taken of the faith of the Syrian christians, in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity; which led him to

complain, that I had omitted one thing that ought to have been mentioned; namely, the situation of the manuscripts, which Dr. Buchannan found in their possession, respecting the text in dispute. For this omission my apology is; I had not the Researches of that worthy minister of Christ before me, when I mentioned the belief of the Syrian christians, in the doctrine of the Trinity. What I then said, was taken from an extract.

When my sermon was written, I did not feel myself capable of doing justice to that part of the subject, from the mere strength of memory. I had expressly acknowledged, that the text in dispute was wanting in many versions and manuscripts of the Scriptures; and that was all which I supposed to be incumbent on me. My opponent has wholly overlooked the argument himself, in his written discourse. But, as he has now mentioned the thing, a reply becomes necessary; and, at present, the Researches are before me.

It is true, that Dr. Buchannan acknowledges that 1 John, 5. 7, is not in any manuscript or copy of the Scriptures, which he examined among the insulated christians of Syria. But the Dr. says, their Bishop did not claim an antiquity for the oldest of them, above one thousand years; which does not carry them above the 9th century. It is highly probable, that those Eastern christians were furnished with their Scriptures in the time of the Arian controversy; and, therefore, no new argument arises from that quarter, in opposition to the text in view.

According to the account which they gave to the Dr. they received their version of the Scriptures in the fourth century. They had evidently some connection with the rest of the christian world, during the Arian contest; for, the name of one of their Bishops is found on the doings of the Nicene council. After the Dr's. statement, that the

text in debate is not in any copy of the Syrian Scriptures which he had seen; he expressly says:

"But notwithstanding this omission, and notwithstanding the great display of learning in maintaining a contrary opinion, I believe the passage to be genuine." We see, therefore, that one European Trinitarian divine of the first eminence, and who, to use the words of my opponent, "has lived with ourselves in the same enlightened age,' has not abandoned the text in question. The reasons which induced him to be of this opinion, must, undoubtedly, have an equal weight with many Trinitarians in England, and on the European continent.

It is highly probable, that the same reasons induced Dr. Buchannan to believe in the authority of the text at issue, on which my own mind rests.

There is no other way,

that I can see, in which he could account for the want of it in the Syrian Scriptures. But the opinion of that learned and justly celebrated divine, must have great weight on candid minds. The character he sustained-the abilities he possessed-the time in which he lived-and the advantage he was under to know the true merits of this controversy; set him on high ground, to judge with accuracy in the case.

I shall now close my reply to the gentleman in opposition, without changing my mind as to the authority of the text in dispute. It is my design, in the next sermon, to sum up the evidence on each side of the grand question; carefully to weigh it; and then, make some reflections on the subject. Amen.

SERMON IX.

I JOHN, V, 7.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are

one.

In the view of my sermons on this passage, and the contest with my opponent on its authenticity; I shall now proceed in summing up the evidence on each side of the question, and then make some reflections.

The testimonies, for and against the text in debate, have been sufficiently illustrated. It only remains, to select the main things on which a reliance may be placed; and to form an impartial decision in relation to its spuriousness or authenticity.

Here, the seat of the disinterested and unbiassed judge should be taken, instead of the stand of the warm advocate, or the zealous feelings of the partizan of a particular system. Candor and close attention are very necessary, to form a correct judgment in a case of this nature. But, to take this elevated stand, which is so beautiful in theory, so proper in itself, and so expressive of a noble and generous mind, is not very easy for beings, who possess the feelings of fallen men. We can very easily see the want of