been adulterated, mistranslated, and omitted on purpose to elude the truth. 2. The divines of Lovain having compared many Latin copies, 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,a 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.b Dr. Clarke, therefore, is not to be believed when he tells us, it was never cited by any of the Latins before St. Jerom."c 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 he would also read what has lately been published upon it by my good and learned 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

a De Unit, Eccl. 109. Epist. LXXIII.

b Connexus patris in filio, & silii in paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero; qui tres unum sunt, &c. adv. Prax.

c See the text in his 2d edition.

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 true. 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 ta 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.

XIX.

Isa. vi. 3. And one cried unto another and said, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the LORD OF See also Rev. iv. 8.

66

HOSTS.

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

a John iii. 11.

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

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, ver. 1. he saw the Lord sitting upon a throne; and at ver. 5. that his eyes had seen the king, the Lord of Hosts. 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;a and Dr. Clark 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.†

a P. 65.

f It is written at ver. 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 bath it thus:

azıt, azı, ayı&, Kupi&, cabbawb.

In Rev. iv.8. it is, az!Tï¤j¡T‚¤Ÿ¡T„Kups& o Oε& o waνronfarwg Whence it evidently appears, that Κυριο ο Θεο ο παντοκράτως 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 of those frequent remarks Dr. Clarke has bestowed upon the word wavrexparag as the great term of distinction between the person of Christ, and that of God the Father,

And that there was the presence of God the Holy Ghost, is determined by Acts xxviii. 25. Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, &c. then follow the words which the prophet affirms to have been spoken by the Lord of hosts.

The text of John xii. 41. which being compared with this of Isaiah, proves the second person of the trinity to be the Lord of hosts, is evaded by Dr. Clarke in the following manner: "The glory which Isaias saw, Isa. vi. 1. is plainly the glory of God the father ; whence the followers of Sabellius conclude, because St. John here calls it the glory of Christ, that therefore the Father and the Son are one and the same

individual person." 998 It is concluded by the Orthodox of the church of England, that the person of Christ, and the person of God the father, are not one and the same individual person, but one and the same Lord of hosts; because the scripture, thus compared hath affirmed them so to be; and THIS is the conclusion Dr. Clarke should have answered. But instead of this, he has produced the monstrous aud impossible doctrine of Sabellius, that they are one and the same individual person, and answered that: which to be sure is easily done, and is quite foreign to the purpose. The other conclusion, which is the only true and natural one, is kept out of sight, because it cannot be answered: and this of Sabellius is slurred upon his credulous readers, as the doctrine of the orthodox, who disclaim and abhor it. This is no slander; for let

a Page 102.

any person read his book with a little circumspection, and he will soon find who and what he would mean by the followers and doctrine of Sabellius. And let me give the reader the following caution, which he will find to be of great service in detecting the fallacious answers of the Arian writers in their controversies with the orthodox. Always be careful to examine whether they have replied to the proof itself, or to something else in the place of it. For when you have obtained any clear evidence from the scripture, that two or more perons are one God, one Lord, &c. they will give a new face to your conclusion, by changing the terms God or Lord, which are names of a nature, for that of person, which can belong only to an individual. And then they shout for victory. O, say they, this man is a Sabellian! he believes three persons to be one person! But on the other hand, if you make it appear that in the unity of the one God or Lord there are more persons than one, then they change the word persons for that of Gods: so that you are confuted this way also; and they cry you up for a Tritheist, a maintainer of three Gods! By the help of this artifice, Dr. Clarke attempted to deal with the scripture; and the author of an Essay on Spirit with the Creeds and Liturgy of the church. And, though it be a matter scarce worth mentioning, thus also the authors of a Monthly Review have attempted to deal with myself. Some time ago I published a full answer to the Essay on Spirit, which has since been reprinted in Ireland, and I humbly hope may have done some little service. But when these gentlemen had