that it is amazing that any one, acquainted with the Scriptures, should ever entertain the idea that JESUS CHRIST was the very Person who had been called the God of Israel.

In regard to the texts which have been relied on to prove that Christ is the very Person who was called the God of Israel, it may be observed, that the most of them would be easily explained, and the argument set aside, by only making a proper distinction between the ANGEL of God as the MEDIUM of Divine manifestation, and the GoD who was manifested through that Medium; or by only observing that whatever God does by Christ, may be properly attributed either to God or his Son. Many of the principal texts of this class have been already examined; and it is hoped enough has been said to convince you, that the hypothesis that Christ is the Person who is called the GOD OF ISRAEL, is without any solid foundation in the Bible. But the circumstance, that this hypothesis has been so long and so generally admitted by pious Christians, may be considered as evidence that it has had advocates who were esteemed eminent for piety and ability. For it is difficult to conceive, how any thing short of distinguished eminence of character in its advocates could ever have given currency and popularity to an opinion so manifestly repugnant to the express declarations of CHRIST and his apostles, and to the general tenor of the gospel.

If you, sir, should be disposed to say, that you never implicitly denied that Christ is the Son of God, let me ask, Is not an attempt to prove that Christ is the very Person who is called the God of Israel, an implicit denial that he is the Son of God? Would not a serious attempt to prove that Isaac was the very person

who was called Abraham, imply a denial that Isaac was the Son of Abraham?

POSTSCRIPT.

NO one thing relating to this subject has astonished me more than the attempts of ministers to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person called the "God of Israel." With just the same reason, and show of argument, you might attempt to prove that he is the very Person called "God the Father." Any argument by which you attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is the Person called the God of Israel is of the same weight to prove that he is God the Father. This circumstance, if duly considered, may give you reason to suspect that absurdity or sophistry is implied in all such arguments.

In Isa. xliii. 11, the Holy ONE says, "I am the Lord, and besides me there is no Savior ;" and as Jesus Christ is called our "Lord and Savior," you infer, that Jesus Christ is the Holy ONE of Israel, who said, "Beside me there is no Savior." This is one of your strongest arguments.

Now all you here wish to prove is, that Jesus Christ is a Person in the one God; but if your argument proves any thing, it will prove that Jesus Christ is the God and Father of himself, or that God the Father is not a SAVIOR. For the Holy ONE did not say, besides us there is no Savior, but "besides me there is no Savior." Yet we have as full evidence that the title SAVIOR Originally belongs to God the Father, as we have that he is the SUPREME BEING, or the "God of Israel."

Besides, in your argument, a principle is assumed by which we can as fairly prove more than three

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 Sox 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 ap 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.

too much, or they prove nothing.

They either prove

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."

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 water, and the blood, and these three agree in one." Upon this text I made some observations to prepare the way 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.

for a

By the Spirit is understood those communications of the Holy Spirit which have been given for the confirmation of the truths of the gospel, and the promotion