rians, it is said that the revelation of the new doctrine was reserved until after the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost. Let us look then at the preaching of the Apostles at that time, and subsequently. We find it to be exactly the same; the same language is used concerning God, without any hint that it is to be taken in a peculiar sense. These are their words: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus, whom God hath raised from the dead." And again: And again: "This Jesus hath God raised up. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” This language is repeated in the first six or seven chapters of the Book of Acts, over and over again; and God is always spoken of without any qualifying word, as the only Supreme Being, by whom Christ was sent, raised up, and glorified. Does this look like the revelation of a new doctrine concerning God?

In the seventeenth chapter of Acts, Paul makes a distinct declaration concerning God. He found an altar in Athens, erected to the unknown God, and said, "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Now, what is this declaration ? "That God who made the world, and all things therein, is Lord of heaven and earth; that in him we live, and move, and have our being; that we are his offspring, and that he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

The time would fail me, to speak of all the instances of this kind. The Epistles are full of them. The common mode in which God is there spoken of is, as "the God and

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ "; as, for example, 2 Cor. i. 3, "Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort." Again, Eph. iii. 14, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And, Phil. ii. 11, "That every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Observe, that these passages not only imply the supremacy of one God, but they also declare that this one God is the Father only. The same God whom the Apostle elsewhere calls "the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power everlasting." (1 Tim. vi. 15.) All these are words of the New Testament. I ask you again, Could they be made more explicit? If I, as a Unitarian minister, were to task myself in finding words to express the perfect unity and absolute supremacy of God the Father, could any words be found more conclusive than these?

It appears, therefore, that the language of the Bible is uniform, from first to last, on this subject. Moses and the Prophets, Jesus Christ, both before and after his resurrection, and the Apostles, both before and after the day of Pentecost, assert, in the same unqualified words, that the Father is the only living and true God.

Upon what ground, then, are we authorized to divide that absolute Unity? Suppose that we were to find two or three passages which seem to imply such a division. Ought we not to explain them, if possible, in accordance with the great prevailing doctrine? Ought we, for the sake of them, to introduce inextricable confusion into our ideas of God? I

think not. When we have so strong a general case made out, we ought not to feel troubled by a few difficulties in detail. The language which we have quoted is so plain, that we cannot be mistaken in its meaning. We hold to that plain meaning, and by doing so we are Unitarians. I say this, not because the difficulties in our way are many or great, but because it is important for the young inquirer to take this position. He ought not to expect to explain every text of Scripture to his perfect satisfaction; some difficulties will still remain, but they ought not to trouble him, where the general conclusion is so well established. In the present case, however, the remaining difficulties are few.

There are but two texts of any importance which are supposed to imply the doctrine of a Trinity. The first is the form of baptism: "Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But this teaches no Trinity of persons, much less of equal persons in the Godhead. On the contrary, the use of the word Son implies inferiority. The words mean that we should be baptized into faith in God as our Father, in the Son of God as our Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit as the guiding influence which proceeds from God. This comprises the whole Christian faith. It is sometimes said, that to be baptized in the Son is a proof of his deity; but it is not so; for Paul speaks of the Jews as having been baptized into Moses. Nor does it follow, because the three are spoken of together, that they are equal to each other; for in Numb. xxi. 5, 7, we read, "The people came to Moses and said, We have sinned; we have spoken against Jehovah and against thee." And again, 1 Chron. xxix. 20, "All the congregation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah and

the king." And 1 Sam. xxv. 32, "David said to Abigail, blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from shedding blood." You will observe the strength of this language. It is an ascription of praise, — first to Jehovah, God of Israel, then to her advice, and then to herself. But the ascription is to be understood differently in each case. So, when we read that they worshipped Jehovah and the king, we understand the first as supreme worship, and the second as the homage of respect. In all such cases, which are frequent in the Bible, common sense saves us from error. Although two or three subjects are spoken of in the same connection, it does not follow that they are spoken of in the same sense, much less that they are the same thing, or equal to each other.

Nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit is a person because we are baptized into its name. For, according to a common mode of expression among the Jews, the name of a thing often meant the thing itself; so the Rabbins speak of being baptized into the name of liberty, and the Samaritans circumcised their converts into the name of Mt. Gerizim.

If you feel any remaining doubt as to this passage, which is regarded as the great bulwark of the Trinitarian belief, I can refer you to a great many Orthodox authorities which admit the interpretation now given. Among them are the celebrated Erasmus, Dr. Wardlaw, Schleusner, Michaelis, and Professor Stuart of Andover. They all of them declare, that, although the baptismal form will bear a Trinitarian meaning, it may also be interpreted differently without violence to the language.

The other text to which I referred is 1 John v. 7:

"There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Of which we say, first, if we admit its genuineness, it affords no argument against the doctrine of the unity. The Greek word translated one is in the neuter gender, and means, not one being, but one thing; which is, according to the use of Scripture, not identity, but agreement; as when it is said, "He that soweth and he that watereth are one ; or as the Saviour prays for his disciples, "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." It is so that the passage is interpreted by Calvin. He says: "The expression 'these three are one,' refers not to essence, but to consent; as if the Apostle had said, the Father and his eternal word and spirit harmoniously bear testimony to Christ. There is no doubt that the Father, Word, and Spirit are called one in the same sense as blood, water, and spirit, in the following verse.' The same explanation is given by the celebrated Beza, one of the great Orthodox authorities; and McKnight, the author of an Orthodox commentary, has these words: "It was not to John's purpose to speak here of the unity of the heavenly witnesses, in respect either of their nature or of their number. I am therefore of opinion, that, when he wrote 'these three are one," he meant only that they are one in respect of the agreement of their testimony, conformably to the use of the same phrase in other parts of the New Testament." With such authority, therefore, as that of Calvin, Beza, and McKnight on our side, to which I might add that of twenty-two others, equally distinguished as Trinitarians, whose names I have now before me, we need not hesitate to give a Unitarian explanation to this famous text.

Truth compels me, however, to add, that the text, such as it is, is spurious. It has no proper place in the Bible, of