which the disputed clause was omitted, though it is retained in the second.

(2.) The great scarcity of antient Greek copies, caused by the persecutions of the Christians by the Roman emperors, would leave the rest open to the negligence of copyists, or to the frauds of false teachers.

(3.) The negligence of transcribers is a cause of other omissions. The seventh verse begins and ends in the same manner as the eighth, and therefore the transcribers might easily have overlooked the seventh verse, and consequently have omitted it by mere accident.

(4.) The Arians might have designedly expunged it, as being inimical to their doctrine.

(5.) The orthodox themselves might have designedly withdrawn it out of regard to the mystery of the Trinity.

(6.) Several of the early fathers may have designedly omitted to quote the clause in question, from considering it as a proof of the unity of the testimony of the heavenly witnesses to the Messiahship of Christ, and not of the unity of their nature, and consequently not relevant to the controversies in which those writers were engaged.

(7.) The silence of several of the earlier Greek fathers is no proof at all that their copies of the Greek Testament wanted the clause in question; since in their controversies they have omitted to quote other texts referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, with which other parts of their writings show that they must have been well acquainted. Besides, the silence of several of the fathers is more than compensated by the total silence of all the heretics or false teachers, at least from the days of Praxeas (in the second century); who NEVER charged the orthodox fathers with being guilty of interpolation.

Such are the principal arguments which have been adduced on the very important question under discussion. Upon a review of all the preceding considerations, the disputed clause (we think) must be abandoned as spurious; nor can any thing less than the positive authority of unsuspected manuscripts justify the admission of so important a passage into the sacred canon. Much stress, it is true, has been laid upon some points in the internal evidence, particularly on the supposed grammatical arguments (Nos. 2. and 3.), and the reasons assigned for the omission of this clause. But some of these reasons have been shown to be destitute of the support alleged in their behalf; and the remainder are

wholly hypothetical, and unsustained by any satisfactory evidence. "Internal evidence," indeed, (as Bishop Marsh forcibly argues,) "may show that a passage is spurious, though external evidence is in its favour; for instance, if it contain allusions to things which did not exist in the time of the reputed author. BUT NO INTERNAL EVI

DENCE CAN PROVE A PASSAGE TO BE GENUINE, WHEN EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IS DECIDEDLY AGAINST IT. A spurious passage may be fitted to the context as well as a genuine passage. No arguments, therefore, from internal evidence, however ingenious they may appear, can outweigh the mass of external evidence which applies to the case in question." (Lectures on Divinity, part vi. p. 27.)

But, although the disputed clause is confessedly spurious, its absence neither does nor can diminish the weight of IRRESISTIBLE EVIDENCE, which other undisputed passages of holy writ afford to the doctrine of the Trinity.* "The proofs of our Lord's true and proper Godhead remain unshaken- deduced from the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah's person in the Old Testament-from the ascription to him of the attributes, the works, and the homage, which are peculiar to the Deity-and from those numerous and important relations, which he is affirmed in Scripture to sustain towards his holy and universal church, and towards each of its true members." (Eclectic Review, vol. v. part i. p. 249.)

* On this subject the reader is referred to a small volume by the author of this work, entitled, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity briefly stated and defended, &c. (Second edition, 12mo., London, 1826.) In the appendix to that volume he has exhibited the very strong collateral testimony, furnished to the scriptural evidence of this doctrine, by the actual profession of faith in, and worship of, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as of God the Father, by the Christian church in every age; together with other documents illustrative of this important truth of divine revelation, derived from ecclesiastical history and the writings of the fathers of the three first centuries of the Christian æra.

SECTION VI. - On the Second and Third Epistles of Saint John. Although some doubts were, in the fourth century, entertained respecting the canonical authority of these Epistles, yet that point has long been considered as determined by the fact, that these Epistles have been cited by Christian writers of the third century, as well as by many in the ages immediately following. The similarity of style also attests that they are the productions of the same author as the first epistle of Saint John, who probably wrote them about A. D. 68 or 69.

The SECOND EPISTLE is addressed to an eminent Christian matron, the Lady Electa, whom the apostle commends for her virtuous and religious education of her children; and who is exhorted to abide in the doctrine of Christ, to persevere in the truth, and carefully to avoid the delusions of false teachers. But chiefly the apostle beseeches this Christian matron to practise the great and indispensable commandment of Christian love and charity.

The THIRD EPISTLE of Saint John is addressed to a converted Gentile, a respectable member of some Christian church, called Gaius or Caius: most probably Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14.), whom Saint Paul calls his "host and the host of the whole church." (Rom. xvi. 23.) The scope of this Epistle is to commend his steadfastness in the faith, and his general hospitality, especially to the ministers of Christ; to caution him against the ambitious and turbulent practices of Diotrephes, and to recommend Demetrius to his friendship; referring what he further had to say to a personal interview.

Jude or Judas, who was surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, and was also called the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55.), was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the

Less, and one of the twelve apostles. We are not informed when or how he was called to the apostleship; and there is scarcely any mention of him in the New Testament, except in the different catalogues of the twelve apostles. Although the Epistle, which bears his name, was rejected in the early ages of Christianity by some persons, we have satisfactory evidences of its authenticity for it is found in all the antient catalogues of the sacred writings of the New Testament: it is asserted to be genuine by Christian fathers of the third and following centuries; and, independently of this external evidence, the genuineness of the Epistle of Saint Jude is confirmed by the subjects discussed in it, which are in every respect worthy of an apostle of Jesus Christ. There is great similarity between this Epistle and the second chapter of Saint Peter's second Epistle. Jude addressed his letter to all who had embraced the Gospel: its design is to guard them against the false teachers who had begun to insinuate themselves into the Christian church; and to contend with the utmost earnestness and zeal for the true faith, against the dangerous tenets which they disseminated, resolving the whole of Christianity into a speculative belief and outward profession of the Gospel. And having thus cancelled the obligations of morality and personal holiness, they taught their disciples to live in all manner of licentiousness, and at the same time flattered them with the hope of divine favour, and of obtaining eternal life. The vile characters of these seducers are further shown, and their sentence is denounced; and the Epistle concludes with warnings, admonitions, and counsels to believers, how to persevere in faith and godliness themselves, and to rescue others from the snares of the false teachers.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.

It is a remarkable circumstance, that the authenticity of this book was very generally, if not universally, acknowledged during the two first centuries, and yet in the third century it began to be questioned. This seems to have been occasioned by some absurd notions concerning the Millenium, which a few well-meaning but fanciful expositors grounded on this book; which notions their opponents injudiciously and presumptuously endeavoured to discredit, by denying the authority of the book itself. So little, however, has this portion of holy writ suffered from the ordeal of criticism to which it has in consequence been subjected, that (as Sir Isaac Newton has long since remarked) there is no other book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so early, as the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John: for, besides the strong internal evidence afforded by the similarity of its style to that of the apostle's other writings, we have an unbroken series of external or historical testimony, from the apostolic age, downwards. The revelations contained in this book were made to St. John during his exile in the Isle of Patmos, towards the end of Domitian's reign, though the book containing them could not have been published until after his release on the emperor's death in the year 96, and after his return to Ephesus. The year 96 or 97 may, therefore, be considered as its true date. The scope of this book is twofold: first, generally to make known to the apostle "the things which are" (i. 19.), that is, the then present state of the Christian churches in Asia: and, secondly and principally, to reveal to him "the things which shall be hereafter," or the constitution and fates of the Christian church, through its several periods of propagation, corruption, and amendment, from its beginning to its con

X