is this," writes Dr. Lardner, "that they should teach men to receive and profess the doctrine which Jesus had taught with authority from God the Father, and confirmed by miracles done by the finger, the power, or the spirit of God." The Greek word ovopa, onoma, is used to denote doctrine. Schleusner shows, that it means doctrine, religion, and especially the Christian religion, and the profession of it. See Mat. x. 22, xii. 22, xix. 29; Mark xiii. 13; John xvii. 6; Acts v. 41, ix. 15.

"That baptism into the name of any person," observes Mr. Belsham in his Calm Inquiry, "signifies nothing more than the acknowledgment of his authority, and expresses no belief in his proper Deity, is evident from what the Apostle says of the Israelites, I Cor. x. 2, that they were baptized into Moses.' And when the same Apostle expresses his apprehensions, 1 Cor. i. 15, lest any should say that he had baptized into his own name,' he could not suspect, that they would represent him as claiming divine honours, but merely, as assuming to be the head and leader of the Christian sect. Nor does the uniting the name of the Son with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the administration of baptism, prove the deity of Christ, or that he is any thing more than an exalted human being, much less does it prove that he is the proper object of religious worship. For, waiving the consideration, whether the text be genuine, whether it was intended as a formulary of the rite, whether the names of the Father and Spirit were ever used in primitive baptism, whether the precedents in the New Testament are not all into the name of Christ only; and finally, whether a positive institution, which contains no direct address to an invisible being, can, with any propriety, be regarded as an act of religious worship; it is certain that no inference of equality in rank or homage can be drawn from the association of different names in the same sentence. 1 Chron. xxix. 20,All the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.'1 Sam. xii. 18, The people feared the Lord and the king.'-1 Tim. v. 21, 'I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things.'"

See

1. That the interpretation which we have given is correct, appears from the words which were employed by the Apostles in the performance of the baptismal service.

"Baptism," says Dr. Wardlaw, "was to be administered in the name of all the three, in the very same way." Dr. Wardlaw has not been in the habit, we suppose, of reading the Acts of the Apostles, and must surely have access to sources of information, from which all other Christians are withheld. Luke has related many instances of baptism, but has not mentioned one example of the use of the form of words in Mat. xxviii. 19. Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ," Acts ii. 38. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," Acts viii. 16. "He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord," Acts x. 48. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord," Acts xix. 5. If the words in Matthew were given as a baptismal formulary, and were designed to inculcate the doctrine of the Trinity, they would certainly have been used by the Apostles, and by all the primitive Christians. But they baptized in the name of Christ, an expression, which, according to our interpretation of the passage in question, declares the same sentiment as the words used by Christ. They were baptized in the name of Jesus, i. e. into the religion of Jesus, the messenger of God, who confirmed his mission by signs and miracles which He did by him.

2. Had this passage been intended to be a baptismal formulary, and to convey the doctrine of the Trinity, it would have been recorded by the other Evangelists. But Mark, Luke, and John have not recorded it: an omission, in our opinion, unaccountable on the popular interpretation. As Christ uttered no other form of words which can possibly be perverted to favour the doctrine of the Trinity, had the Evangelists been Trinitarians, they would have carefully preserved the text under consideration, in all their Gospels. But the words are no where else to be found than in Matthew.

If these observations are founded in truth, the great support of the Trinity is removed. This momentous doctrine, a belief in which is now asserted to be essential to salvation, is not revealed in the Four Gospels, in the Acts of the Apostles, or in any book of the New Testament. The concluding benediction of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which is urged in proof of the doctrine, we shall hereafter endeavour to show, is no proof of, nor contains any allusion to, the doctrine of the Trinity.

(To be Continued.)

Extracts from a Manuscript Address to a Clergyman holding Calvinistic sentiments.-No. I.

Do you ask what are those grand principles of religion and sources of happiness, which the heretical Unitarian holds in common with all those who acknowledge the divine authority of the Scriptures? They are such as the following: That there is One only God, of infinite perfection, the sole Creator and absolute Disposer of the Universe-a God who, in the plainest language of those writings, is "good to all, and whose tender mercies are over all his works;"-that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, was " very man," and that he delivered, by a divine authority, precepts of the purest religion and morality, which he illustrated by a life of uniform and spotless obedience, under the most difficult and trying circumstances, and thus exhibited a most perfect example for our imitation; that he suffered and died, "the just for the unjust, that he might bring them unto God;" that God did not suffer "his holy one to see corruption," but, on the third day after his crucifixion, raised him from death to a state in which "he dieth no more,—death hath no more dominion over him;" and that this great and glorious event is a proof and pattern of a similar event to all bis faithful followers, when he shall appear again to "judge the world in righteousness," and to reward every man according to his works. These, Sir, are some of the great leading principles, which, in common with yourself and the great body of professing Christians, we derive from the Scriptures.

99

Now, Sir, I appeal to your own sober judgment, whether these principles, insisted upon by the Unitarian, whom you refuse to acknowledge as a brother, and appear to regard as an enemy, are not of the greatest and most indispensable importance? Without a God of infinite power, and of universal, impartial, and pure goodness, what would become of poor mortals, or of that admirable system of nature by which they are sustained and cherished, and their various powers of action and enjoyment are exercised, gratified, and improved? And when they "return to the dust out of which they are made," whence could they derive their hope of an immortality of life and of elevated bliss, but from the glorious Gospel of the ever-blessed God? Had they no elder brother to conduct them through the

dark valley of the shadow of death, to the light of everlasting life, could they penetrate the thick veil of oblivion which is thrown over them in the grave, and raise their affections from earth to heaven, in that admirable manner in which they are instructed by the precepts, and by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? Were erring, sinning man not assured that God is merciful to forgive his sins, on repentance, and that, "knowing his frame," he will overlook many of his failings, provided he is himself ready to make due allowances for those of his fellowmortals, where would be his confidence, what his solace, in reviewing his past sins, or his encouragement to future efforts for improvement? When he reflects on the many and grievous trials and persecutions to which those "of whom the world was not worthy" have been subjected, while their selfish and merciless oppressors have been clothed in purple and scarlet, and fared sumptuously every day, where can he look for the final triumphs of true religion and virtue, but to the accomplishment of those glorious predictions of the ultimate establishment of the kingdom of God and his Christ, which abound in those treasuries of divine wisdom? Amid all the inequalities which prevail in the allotments of men in this life; in which avarice is accumulating its thousands and tens of thousands, and humble, useful industry is crushed like the moth, under the foot of his lordly superior; in which scriptural truth is branded as damnable error, and darkness is put for light, and light for darkness,-ah! where shall the eye of reason and humanity turn for a ray of heavenly light to relieve the sad perspective, but to the glorious declaration of "the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness,"" The time is coming when all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done well to a resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to a resurrection of judgment;" and “ every man shall receive the reward of the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

But, Sir, though I suppose you will not deny that these doctrines are taught in the Bible, nor that they are of great importance, yet you appear to regard them as of no real value, as devoid of all saving efficacy, unless connected with those other tenets which you term evangelical doctrines, and regard as the essence of vital Chris

tianity. It is here, indeed, that you most essentially differ from the Unitarian; for, to his apprehension, so far are those tenets from having any necessary connection with the principles which you mutually maintain, that they are totally irreconcileable with each other. There is no subject which has been more fully investigated by persons. originally "orthodox," and who became Unitarians in consequence of the inquiry, than the question, whether the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, and the other tenets to which those of your persuasion have appropriated the epithet evangelical, are actually taught in the sacred writings. Their researches have terminated in the conviction, that, however some few terms and phrases severed from the context, and viewed through the medium of creeds since formed, may seem to favour such opinions, yet, when impartially considered in their just relation to the context, and with the scope of the writer, the circumstances and the idiom in which he wrote, and with the general contents and purport of the Scriptures, those opinions do not and cannot form any part of them, being in reality, at variance with their great and universally acknowledged principles. We will endeavour to illustrate this last conclusion, by a few examples.

There exists, we mutually maintain, a God of infinite perfection-the Creator, and absolute Disposer of the universe. If so, all created existence, and every modification of it, must be the effect of his power, and depend wholly on his will and pleasure; nothing can exist or act, but in subservience to his purposes. But with his other perfections, he unites infinite goodness: "God is love." He can do nothing and permit nothing, in which goodness, loving kindness, and mercy, are not the actuating motives. How, Sir, can such a Being first create, or suffer to be introduced into being, myriads of creatures incapable of obeying laws which he prescribes, and then destine them to endless torments for not doing that of which they are incapable? Can any two ideas be more irreconcileable with each other, than those of a God who is love itself, who is "long suffering and kind, very pitiful, and of great mercy," who is represented by the father in the parable, anticipating, with lively compassion and parental joy, the penitential confession of his disobedient son, and who actually received the Gentiles, notwithstanding the gross criminalities of their past conduct, into his blessing