is not in the original, but is supplied by the translators, to make out what they thought the sense. The Greek preposition, ε, rendered, in our version, in, has a great variety of significations. Among others, it often means through, indicating the instrument by which anything is done. For instance, "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils," literally, sv, in. "Such can come out only through prayer and fasting," literally, ɛ, in; and a host of other examples might be given. Translating the second "," by through, as the indication of the instrument, and leaving out the word even, which was arbitrarily put in, we have the meaning clear and consistent: "We are in him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ," that is, through his instrumentality; which is precisely the fact, and corresponds with the former part of the sentence, as will appear when we put it all together: "We know that the Son of God is come, and has given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life," referring, not to Jesus Christ, but to "him that is true," that is, God, in whom we are through Jesus Christ.

There is another passage, of nearly the same nature, which has often been adduced to prove the Trinity, which, when examined, is found to look precisely in the opposite direction. It is found in Christ's conversation with Thomas, probably at the last supper. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father except by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my

Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." At first sight of this passage, the Trinitarian would exclaim, perhaps, What more explicit assertion of our doctrine could we ask than this? What words could Christ have chosen more decisive than these? But, on a nearer examination, it is found not only not to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but to be inconsistent with it. Taking the words in their literal import, they would assert that he was the Father himself, in his whole personality, and that he himself had no personality beside. Now is this consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which strenuously maintains that Jesus had a human nature, a human body, and a human soul? Allowing that he had a human body and a human soul, then, if he who saw him saw the Father, it would follow that the Father became incarnate, which Trinitarianism positively denies. The Son became incarnate, but not the Father. The Father, the first Person of the Trinity, sent the Son, who is the second Person. But here the Father came himself. This text, then, if taken literally, would prove too much, too much for the very doctrine which it is brought to substantiate. But, as he proceeds, he explains himself, and shows that it is not of a literal seeing God that he speaks, nor is it of a personal union with him. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself;

"The

the Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." If these words proved the incarnation of one of the Persons of the Trinity, it would prove that of the Father. The way then, in which God appears in Christ, according to this language, is, that God wrought his miracles, and gave him his doctrines. Those who saw his miracles and heard his doctrines, gained a clearer knowledge of God. There is no intermediate agency of any such person as is called the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. For he, possessing infinite attributes, would naturally have exerted them in performing the miracles of Jesus. If there were such a person in Christ, he was entirely quiescent, and is passed over in the profoundest silence. Neither can he be supposed to be included in the person represented by the pronoun "me," in the sentence, Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," for one Person of the Trinity, cannot be supposed to dwell in, and do the works of another. There is nothing left then, in this representation, but the Father and the human nature of Christ. That this indwelling does not constitute a personal identity, appears in the very language: "The Father that dwelleth in me." He who affirms that God dwells in him, denies, of course, that he is God. So that this passage, which is so often. appealed to as proving the Trinity, when examined and analyzed, is found to be utterly inconsistent with it, and to teach, in fact, the simplest form of Unitarianism. The connection between God and Christ, which is here pointed out, is the very one that Unitarians acknowledge. Through Christ, we believe,

God was manifested to the world in a more full and glorious manner than he is in any other way. But the idea, that he who fills immensity and inhabits eternity, became incarnate in a finite human being, seems to them to be in itself a most astonishing imagination, equally repugnant to the essential attributes of Jehovah, as to the express language of the Scriptures. And then, were there any such things as persons in God, the objections to incarnation would lie in equal force against either, and against all.

But it is said, that the Apostles and early Christians worshipped Christ. If he was not God, then they were idolators. It is said, that Stephen worshipped him in his last moments. Our Bible tells us: "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."

I would first remark upon this passage, that the word God is not in the original, but was supplied by our Trinitarian translators, as you will perceive, on examining your Bibles, that the word is printed in italics. It was honestly done, doubtless, for they thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught in other parts of the Scriptures, and therefore saw no harm in putting it in here.

It is only necessary to go back a few verses, and read what Stephen saw in vision at that moment, to remove all apprehension that he worshipped Christ as God. "And he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of GoD,

and Jesus standing on the right hand of GoD, and said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Now for one, I am unable to imagine that Stephen could have worshipped, as God, a person whom he so carefully distinguishes from God, and whom he saw standing on the right hand of God. That he should have addressed him, and said what he did to him, is perfectly rational : "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ; " for he saw him in a state of power and glory, and able therefore to welcome his departing soul to heaven. Jesus himself had said: "In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." But whatever power and glory he had, arose from the fact, not that he possessed them himself intrinsically, but that he stood on the right hand of God.

He is recorded to have uttered the expression, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," before he knelt down. After this we read, "And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." There is nothing in these words to determine whether they were addressed to God or to Christ, as the term Lord is an appellation in the Scriptures applied to God, to Christ, and to inferior beings. Most' probably it was addressed to God, and is similar to the prayer of Christ upon the cross : "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

Or even if it were addressed to Christ, it