disciples, believers in Jesus; but when questioned whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed, they declared that they had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost. Acts xix. 2. Is it possible that this could have been the case, had they been taught that there was a person in the Godhead called the Holy Ghost, equal with the Father, and equally with him an object of worship, of praise and thanksgiving? John told his disciples, when he baptized them, that he baptized them in water, but that he that should come after him, would baptize them in the Holy Ghost. Mat. iii. 2. That this did not imply a person, called the Holy Ghost, is manifest from the case of these twelve. Further, what Jew would have been baptized into the belief of a triune God? Such, they had not been taught to be the God of their Fathers.

That this doctrine was not taught by the apostles, is further evident from the declaration of Paul before Felix. "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers." Acts xxiv. 14. And from the charge of the Jews against him before Gallio, that he persuaded men to "worship God, contrary to the law." Acts. xviii. 13. Not that he worshipped any but him whom they considered the true God. No where is he, or the other apostles, or Christ, or the disciples, charged with worshipping the Holy Ghost, or any other than him whom the Jews believed to be the true God. But when have the Jews acknowledged a triune God, or a dual God, or a person, or subsistence, or being, called the Holy Ghost, or an object of worship, or praise?

On the whole, it is to me most evident, that all praises offered to God, as a trinity of persons, is not only not warranted by scripture, but is a direct violation of positive precept, and what no Jew would have submitted to, and what neither Christ nor the apostles could with safety to themselves, have either taught or practised.

Let it not be inferred that this is a denial of spiritual gifts or influences. God is a Spirit. He is omnipotent. He is every where; and can operate on his creatures, and effect his purposes, without the intervention of a supposed third person, or of any agents whatever.

I will now, in as few words as possible, state the grounds of my belief that there is but one only, selfexistent, and true God, and that Jesus Christ is not that being. On this subject, I know not better to whom to resort for information, than to him who was commissioned of the Father to bear witness to the truth, and was of him taught what he should say, and what he should speak.

In addressing his Father in prayer, Christ says, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John xvii. S. Trinitarians assert, that the Godhead consists of three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But Christ here asserts, in language as plain and unequivocal as can be devised. that the Father is the only true God, saying nothing of the Holy Ghost, and expressly distinguishing the Father from himself. I know not how words can be more explicit. This Father he declares to be the Lord of Heaven and earth; to be "his God" and "his Father;" and addresses him as such.Luke x. 21.-xxiii. 46. John xx. 17. Mat. xxvii. 46. Mark xiv. 36. In his conversation with the scribe he asserts, that "the Lord our God is one Lord;"* Mark xii. 29. and approves of the scribe's reply, who said, "There is one God, and there is none other but He."Mark xii. 32. No where can I learn that Christ ever made any pretentions to be the self-existent God, or to be possessed of underived power. On the contrary, he repeatedly asserts, that of himself he could do nothing, John v. 19, 30, and that the Father which dwelt in him did the works. Once was he charged with making himself equal with God, and once with making himself God, and in both instances he refuted the charge. The first time, because "he said that God was his Father." John v. 18, 19. To this he immediately. replied, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." And directly after, "I can of mine own self do nothing." John v. 30. If at this time he could, of his own self, either as God or Man, have done any

*Or according to the translation of Campbell and others, "The Lord is our God: The Lord is one.

دو

2*

thing, can he be acquitted of the charge of guile? The second time, for saying, "I and my Father are one." From which declaration the Jews drew the inference, that he made himself God." He however shews them, that by this declaration he only made himself the Son of God, and immediately proves to them that by calling nimself the "Son of God," he had assumed a lower title than God himself had given to their rulers. For He had called them gods. "Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods;" quoting the 82d Psalm, in which God addresses the Jewish rulers? "If he called them gods, (continues Jesus) unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, (or contradicted,) say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the work, thou blasphemest, because I said I am (not God, but) the son of God?" John x. 30-36. How can words be more intelligible than these? On another occasion he shews, to use the language of the learned Doctor Campbell, "the infinite disparity" between himself and the great God. When charged with casting out devils by Beelzebub, he says, "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven. him." Mat. xii. 32. Where then is the supposed equality between the Father and the Son? And why forgiveness in the one case, and not in the other, if the dignity of both be equal?

In another instance, when addressed by the title "Good master," he immediately replies, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God?" Mark x. 18. Does he not here plainly distin guish himself from the great fountain of original and underived goodness?*

My rule in the investigation of this subject has been, to construe passages of doubtful import, by those which

* So in the Revelations, (xv. 3, 4.) they who sing "the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the Song of the Lamb," a song not in honour of Moses or the Lamb, but of the Lord God Almighty, are represented, "saying, great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of Saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name, for thou only art Holy: For all nations shall come and worship before thee.”

are plain and unequivocal, and to consider Christ's declarations of himself, to be of primary regard. I know, that to the repeated declarations of Christ, of his lumited power and knowledge, and of his dependence on the Father for aid, it is answered, that he had two natures, and that in these cases he spake of himself in the human nature. But, as neither Christ nor the apostles have given us any such intimations, and as it is, in my opinion, utterly impossible to reconcile such a supposition with the character of uprightness, and freedom from guile, uniformly attributed to Christ, I am bound to reject such supposition.

I will now attend to the words of the apostles.Paul says to the Corinthiaus, that "there is none other God but one," "though there be that are called gods.”— "But to us, there is but one God, the FATHER; and one Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. xiii. 4-6. He says also to the Ephesians, that there is "one Lord," and "one God and Father of all," and that the latter "is above all, and through all, and in all." Eph. iv. 5, 6. He says also, that the Father is "the God of Christ," Eph. i. 17. that He is "the head of Christ." 1 Cor, xi. 3.That "Christ is God's." 1 Cor. iii. 23. That Christ, since the ascension, "liveth unto God," Rom. vi. 10; and that he also "liveth by the power of God," 2 Cor. xiii. 4; which Christ also says of himself. John vi. 57. He says also, that at the resurrection. Christ shall deliver up his kingdom to the Father, and that "the Son also himself shall be subject unto Him (the Father) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”— 1 Cor. xv. 28. He says also of God, in distinction from the "Lord Jesus Christ," that He is the "only Potentate," and that HE "only hath immortality." 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. Jude also plainly distinguishes between "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."* Jude 4.

* Paul says also to the Romans, (i. 19, 20.) that "that which may be known of God," "even his eternal power and Godhead," are manifest from the works of creation. But who will pretend to say that these works shew the existence of God in three persons? And if they do not, he either does not so exist, or the declaration of the apostle cannot be true.

These passages are all plain, intelligible to the smallest capacity, and about which there can be no dispute. But it is said, that notwithstanding all this, Paul has asserted that Christ is God, and equal with God the Father. Is it credible, that a man of intelligence, inspiration out of the question, will assert things contradictory to each other? And if Paul has asserted Christ to be God equal with the Father, has he not contradicted himself? And has he not, by necessary implication, asserted that there are two Gods? Does not such equality necessarily imply plurality? But he has made no such assertions. The passages referred to are, Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii. 6. Heb. i. 8, 9. About the meaning of which, trinitarians have differed among themselves, as well as with others, and for no other reason but because the passages admit of different interpretations. And it ought not to be forgotten, that our translation was made by trinitarians. As to the passage in Romans, it is maintained that the words admit of this translation as well as that in our Bibles, "God, who is over all, be blessed forever." As to the other two, and those in Colossians and Ephesians, which speak of Christ's creating all things, the context, in each passage, plainly shews inferiority, and derived power. That the crea tion there spoken of cannot be the material world and heavens, is evident, because it is again and again asserted, that of these the Father was the Creator. Acts iv. 25. xvii. 24. Mark xiii. 19. Isa. xliv. 24. Isa. xlv. 12. And the Father and the Son could not, each, have been the Creator of the same things. The creation therefore spoken of in these passages, must be other than the material world, unless it be understood that it was the Father who was in the Son, who created all things; and to this interpretation I have no objections. It should also be remembered, that although Christ be called God, yet the Father is still called his God. But who is the God of the Father? No where is it said that the Father has a God.

It is said also of John, that notwithstanding he recorded the words of Christ, that the Father is the only true God, he has yet asserted that the Son is the true God. Can both propositions be true? Can the Father