tians into Christ, proves him to be God, then the baptism of the Israelites into Moses, proves him to be God. And if it does not in the case of Moses, neither does it in the case of Christ.

I go further, and say, that people might be baptized into things, as well as persons, and so the form of baptism will not even prove the Holy Ghost to be a Paul says, person. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto (literally into) repentance." If anything into which men were baptized, were a person, then death and repentance are persons. And if men were baptized into things, as well as persons, then the occurrence of the phrase "Holy Ghost," in the form of baptism, does not prove it to have been a person. The argument, therefore, which is derived from the form of baptism, to prove both the Deity of Christ, and the personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost, falls to the ground.

I have here adverted to the form of baptism, chiefly for the purpose of noticing the most unwarrantable inferences which have been drawn from it. Three articles of a creed, as I shall hereafter show, are transformed into three Persons of a Trinity. This inference has been expressed in a set form of devotion, and thousands and tens of thousands are made to pray every Sunday to three objects of worship, in a form totally unauthorized by the Scriptures; "O God the Father, have mercy upon us; O God the Son, have mercy upon us; O God the Holy Ghost, have mercy

Now

upon us." Perhaps not one in a hundred is aware, that the second and third classes of this form, are altogether unscriptural. There is nothing like them to be found, either in the Old or New Testament. They are nothing but uncertain inferences, exalted into positive dogmas, and incorporated into the most solemn worship. There is no such phrase in the Bible, as "God the Son," or "God the Holy Ghost." The nearest approach there is to "God the Son" is "the Son of God." there is not only a difference between "God the Son" and "the Son of God," but an infinite difference. "God the Son" must be God, but the Son of God CANNOT be God. Neither can "the Son of God" be a Person of the Trinity. God, when the word stands by itself, even according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, stands for the whole Trinity. The Son of GOD then, must be the Son of the whole Trinity. The Son of the whole Trinity cannot be a Person in the Trinity. Besides, no derived being can be God, and the word" Son," so far as it expresses any thing, expresses the idea, that the person, to whom it is applied, is a derived being, and of course cannot possess underived, independent and eternal existence. very phrase then, "God the Son," is not only unscriptural, but a self-contradiction in its very structure. And yet Christians are heard to repeat this phraseology Sunday after Sunday, without reflecting either upon its origin or its import.

The

The true meaning of the epithet, "Son of God," when applied to Jesus, may be learned from many parts of the New Testament. It was merely an equivalent

expression to " Messiah," or "Christ." This is shown conclusively by comparing two parallel passages in John's first Epistle.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

According to these two texts, to believe that Jesus is "the Christ," is the same thing as to confess that he is "the Son of God." To be baptized into the name of "the Son," does not mean then, being baptized into a profession of belief in Jesus as a Person of the Trinity, or as "God the Son," but simply into a profession of belief in him as "the Christ," or "Messiah."

The plan of the course of lectures in which I shall endeavour to engage your attention this winter, is purely expository and practical. I wish to engage you all in the study of the Bible. I wish to lead each one to investigate for himself, that his opinions may be no longer founded on the authority of any man, but on personal examination; that, in the language of the Apostle, "we may be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine." And the only way to study the Bible, is to bring together all the texts which relate to any subject, and compare them with each other. Unless we do this,

we are liable to deduce from

detached passages the The meaning of one text

most erroneous conclusions. must be allowed to modify the meaning of another; the great majority are to be taken as the rule, a small minority as the exception. That which is plain, must

be suffered to throw light on that which is obscure, that which is literal, permitted to interpret that which is figurative.

If the opposite course is adopted, if a small minority is taken as the rule, and the great majority made the exception, if what is dark is to give a meaning to what is plain, and make that dark too, if the figurative is to be made to interpret the literal, then the Scriptures will become a mass of contradictions, a collection of riddles, and their authority can be sustained only under cover of the plea of mystery.

I intend to go through the whole Bible, and explain. all the principal texts which relate to the unity or plurality of the Divine Nature. I shall compare the texts which are thought to prove the Unity, with those which are considered to prove the Trinity, as to number and conclusiveness. I shall then take up the principal passages, one by one, which are quoted to prove the Trinity. I shall examine critically the seventh and ninth chapters of Isaiah, the first chapter of John, the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the book of Revelation. The remaining lectures will be

of a more miscellaneous character.

In the pursuit of this investigation, it will be my sincere desire and endeavour to avoid giving pain to any one who may entertain different opinions from myself, or who shall be conducted to different conclusions from the same premises. Every man's sincere opinions are entitled to respect, and shall always receive respect at my hands. I merely ask all to review the grounds of their own opinions. If they are well founded, all I

can say will not shake them. If they are merely traditionary, it will give them the opportunity of verifying, by their own examination, what they have hitherto taken on trust. At any rate, it will increase their knowledge of the Bible, the great storehouse of divine truth. It will enable them better to understand a subject deeply interesting to all.

And I am not without my hopes of great practical good resulting from doctrinal discussion, for if I know my own heart, I had rather make one practical Christian, than fifty skilful polemics. The wisest of us possess only an approximation to the truth.

What we

rather to be

than blamed

And it is our

believe, we have embraced upon the best information we have possessed. We ought then, helped on to something better in future, for what we have believed in time past. duty always to keep our minds open to new accessions of truth, to discard, as far as possible, all prejudice, and never to be ashamed of being wiser to-day than we were yesterday. Ever be ready to listen to what any honest man has to say for his honest opinion, for no human mind has ever seen the whole of truth. It follows of course, that it exists in fragments among the various sects into which the church has been divided. Although you may not be convinced by what seems irresistible demonstration to another, you may be led to see that he has strong reasons for his faith, strong enough at least to rescue him from the imputation of want of integrity and want of sense.

I know of no way in which the narrow sectarianism, which deforms and distracts the Christian Church, can