was an auditor of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John.

As for their being written by Cerinthus the heretic, no man in his wits, and that understands any thing of the dogmata of Cerinthus, can imagine it, For it is evident, that the first chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, and divers passages throughout his first Epistle, are directly opposite to the Cerinthian hypothesis, as I have fully shewn; and accordingly Irenæus and others of the ancients testify, that they were purposely written by St. John against the Cerinthian heresy, which in his time began to trouble the church. So that those heretics who fathered the Gospel and first Epistle, which we receive as St. John's, upon Cerinthus, were by Epiphanius deservedly named "AXoyo, men in this void of all sense and reason.

But before I dismiss this account of the Alogi from Epiphanius, I must not omit by the way to observe, that they rejected, not only his Gospel and Revelation, but his Epistles also, and all upon the same account, because in them there was mention made of the divine Aóyos, which they disowned, affirming Christ to be entirely and wholly a mere man that had no existence before the blessed Virgin. Now where is there any text in the Epistles of St. John concerning the Aóyos, that should give such offence to the Alogi? Surely the most likely text is that in the first Epistle, chap. v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, (ó Aóyos,) and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This text then was extant in the

Greek copies of the first Epistle of St. John, in the age wherein the Alogi lived, i. e. about the beginning of the third century. And accordingly Tertullian, who then flourished, manifestly alludes to it in his book against Praxeas, cap. xxv. in these words, "Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, "tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sunt, (oi Tpeîs ëev eiσw,) non unus." And not long after him, St. Cyprian more clearly and fully, "De Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Hi "tres unum sunti." But to proceed.

66

66

The same author tells usk, "He cannot believe “that the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth verses of the first chapter of the Epistle to the "Hebrews were originally a part of that Epistle, but "have been fraudulently added." Who can help the infidelity of one who is such a slave to his hypothesis as to resolve to believe nothing against it, though never so certain? Those verses are found in all the Greek copies of the Epistle to the Hebrews at this day extant; and all ancient versions of that Epistle, the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, render them. But the divine author's applying the words of the Psalmist concerning the creation of heaven and earth to the Son of God, ver. 10, 11, 12. is so clear a proof of his divinity, that the Socinian knew not what to say to it, and therefore resolves it shall be no Scripture. Indeed he would seem to slight the argument of the catholics from those verses, if admitted to be a part of the Epistle, and would persuade us that it is easily answered, by saying, that the heavens and earth there meant, are only the

i De Unitate Eccl. cap. iv. prope finem.

k Judgment of the Fathers, p. 30.

new heavens and earth foretold by the prophets, even the Gospel economy and state.

But can the heavens and earth, which are said to be made κar' ȧpxàs, in the beginning, or of old, as it is in Psalm cii. 25. possibly be understood of the new heavens and earth, foretold by the prophets, as to come? Can it be said of the new heavens and earth, or the Gospel-state, that they shall perish and wax old as a garment, and as a vesture be folded up? Certainly whoever can give credit to such an interpretation must be given up to a reprobate mind.

But, O Deus! in quæ nos tempora reservasti, ut ista patiamur? as the blessed martyr Polycarp was wont to say, when he heard the blasphemies of the heretics of his time: the same wretched author is not afraid to say, "There are shrewd presumptions, "that to the institution of baptism by our Saviour, "in the Gospel of St. Matthew, these words have "been added, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

66

They are presumptions, and shrewd presumptions indeed, that are opposed to the faith of all the copies of St. Matthew's Gospel at this day extant, and to all the ancient versions of it, and to the practice of the universal church of Christ throughout the world, founded on these words, as undoubtedly the words of our Saviour. But what are the shrewd presumptions he speaks of? He names but one, and that is this: "It appears in the Acts and Epistles of the apostles, "that the apostles never baptized in that form of words, but only in the name of the Lord Jesus." But where doth this appear, either in the Acts or

66

1 Judgment of the Fathers, p. 22.

Epistles of the apostles, that when the apostles baptized any man, they did it in this form only, I baptize thee in the name of the Lord Jesus? It is said indeed, that they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; i. e. into the faith and religion of the Lord Jesus; viz., according to the form of baptism prescribed by the Lord Jesus himself, i. e. In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Are not they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that are baptized according to that form? do not we all understand the Lord Jesus to be meant by the second person named in that form, viz., the Son? Hence Grotius upon those words, Acts xix. 5. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, hath this note, "In nomen Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti." And for this he refers us to his notes on Matt. xxviii. 19. where he handles this matter at large.

St.

Indeed this will clearly appear, if we do but look back to the verses preceding the aforementioned text in the Acts: there we read, ver. 1, 2, 3. that St. Paul, meeting with certain Christians at Ephesus, asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost? To which they answered, that they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. Paul, wondering at this, replies, Unto what then were ye baptized? As if he had said, How can you be ignorant whether there be any Holy Ghost? have you not been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? If not, after what form, or how have you been baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. John indeed, as the apostle rejoins, only baptized unto repentance, thereby to prepare men for the reception of the Mes

sias, that was to come after him. He did not baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, i. e. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This form of baptism was first appointed by our Saviour himself, and that not till after the resurrection, just before he was to ascend into heaven, and from thence soon after to pour out the Holy Ghost after a wonderful manner upon the apostles. Then, and not before, they were commanded by our Lord to baptize, "in plena et adunata Trinitate," as St. Cyprianm expresses it.

To the most holy and undivided Trinity, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honour and glory, adoration and worship, now and for Amen.

evermore.