Persons in Deity as we can prove that Christ is a Person of the one God. As the Holy ONE said, "besides me there is no Savior," you assume the principle, that each Person to whom the Scriptures give the title of Savior must be a Person of Deity; and as this title is given to Christ, you infer that he is the living God.

But in 2 Kings xiii. 5, we read, that the "Lord gave Israel a Savior." You will not pretend that this Savior was either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. In Neh. ix. 27, we find the Jews confessing that when their forefathers were in affliction, the Lord gave "them Saviors who saved them out of the hands of their enemies." Neither the number nor the names of these Saviors are given in the connection; but there was a plurality of them, and we may probably find their names in the history of the Judges. But are we to admit that Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, &c. &c. are Persons of Deity? If not, your argument fails.

You may indeed reply, that we are expressly told, that these were Saviors whom the LORD

gave or raised up. This is true; and it is good evidence that these persons were not the Deity or Persons in the one God. But we are no less plainly told, that "God raised unto Israel a Savior Jesus ;" "Him hath God exalted with his own right hand to be a Prince and a Savior;" and that "the FATHER sent the SON to be the SAVIOR of the world."

How then are we to reconcile the idea of a plurality of Saviors with the declaration of the high and lofty ONE, “besides me there is no Savior ?” He is the only independent Savior. He saved Israel by raising up dependent Saviors; and he saves sinners by sending his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Thus fallacious, and thus easily answered, are all the arguments to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person called the God of Israel. They either prove too much, or they prove nothing.

IN the first edition of my letters to you, I admitted, as genuine, 1 John v. 7, and endeavored to show that it contained nothing inconsistent with my own views. I was not then ignorant of the fact that the genuineness of the text had been denied; but I had not seen the evidence of its being spurious. Since that time, I have seen evidence which, I think, must be sufficient to satisfy any mind which is free from prepossessions. To admit the text, and remark upon it as genuine, after such conviction, would be little better than to countenance forgery. Instead, therefore, of again admitting the text, I shall exhibit the evidence by which I was convinced that it was an unwarranted interpolation. As the evidence will be taken from a Trinitarian author, it is hoped that it will be satisfactory to you and many others.

The writer of the "Eclectic Review" of the "Improved Version," and of "Griesbach's Greek Testament," decidedly approves of the omission of the text in those works, and says, "It is found in no Greek MS. ancient or recent, except one to which we shall presently advert; in no ancient version, being inter

polated only in the later transcripts of the Vulgate. Not one of the Greek fathers recognizes it, though many of them collect every species and shadow of argument down to the most allegorical and shockingly ridiculous, in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity; though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and after; and though with immense labor and art they extract from the next words the very sense which this passage has, in following times, been adduced to furnish. Of the Latin fathers not one has quoted it, till Eusebius of Lyons, in the middle of the fifth century; and in his works there is much reason to believe that it has been interpolated. Under these circumstances, we are unspeakably ashamed, that any modern divines should have contended for retaining a passage so indisputably spu

rious."

water, and the

Upon this text

This, sir, is the decision of one on your own side of the question; and one who has given evidence that he possesses both learning and candor. In connection with the text which has now been given up, I introduced the following verse, "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the blood, and these three agree in one." I made some observations to prepare the way for a right understanding of the passage contained in the apostles' commission. But as considerable was then said, which has no immediate connection with the main subject of inquiry, I shall here give only the leading thoughts as they relate to the institution of baptism.

By the Spirit is understood those communications of the Holy Spirit which have been given for the con

Wes of the truths of the gospel, and the promotion

of the Christian religion. By the water and the blood which bear witness, is supposed to be meant baptism and the Lord's supper, as instituted memorials of the inauguration and the death of the Messiah.

The sabbath, circumcision, and the passover were respectively memorials of extraordinary events. The Lord's day is kept as a memorial of the resurrection of the Son of God; and the Lord's supper as an instituted memorial of his death. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that baptism is, also, an instituted memorial of some extraordinary event. When our Savior was baptized by John, he was inducted into office, the Spirit descended and abode upon him, and God from on high proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." No event, prior to this, had been more worthy of a perpetual memorial. But of this event we have no memorial unless it be that of Christian baptism. Nor is there any event but this, of which baptism can naturally be supposed the memorial. Therefore, as by analogy we are led to believe that baptism is a memorial of some interesting event, and as no other event can be so naturally supposed to be the one, it is believed that it was instituted as the memorial of the Messiah's induction to office, when he was baptized with water, endued with the Spirit, and announced to the world as the Son of God. It was on this occasion that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." Accordingly, in instituting the memorial, the God who anointed, the Son who was the subject of the anointing, and the Holy Spirit, with which the Father anointed the Son, are all brought to view.

LETTER VII.

The Apostles' commission considered.

REV. SIR,

THE language of the Apostles' commission, Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, shall now be considered.

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

That the text, as it stands in our translation, does very naturally suggest the idea of baptizing by the authority of three Persons, is admitted; and of course it suggests the idea that the Holy Spirit is a Person. But when this view of the text is urged, as the only possible meaning, there is perhaps one thing overlooked, which ought to be considered; and some things taken for granted, which require proof that is not easily obtained.

In the verse already quoted, immediately preceding the one so much relied on, Christ had said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth." And what is here asserted appears to be overlooked. It was, sir, on this very ground, that he added, "Go ye, therefore, into all the world," &c. Now, if Christ had all authority in heaven and earth, his authority must have been sufficient for baptizing in his own name, without connecting any other.-Nor does it appear very natural to suppose that Christ would say to this effect, I have all authority; go ye, therefore, and baptize by the joint authority of myself and two other Persons. And has it not been also too much overlooked, that we