sunk in the consideration of the injurious Influence upon society. We presume no one will urge its necessity. In this peaceful period of our country and of the world, what news can reach us to justify the indecorum of issuing and distributing a Newspaper on the Sabbath? Our citizens cannot need it for their gratification or employment; the reading of a public journal at such an hour can answer no better purpose than to prevent the reading of religious books, to distract the thoughts, perhaps to prevent attendance on church, or to carry us thither with the cares and passions, the tumults and the hopes of a distracting world. We have learnt, that this town stands alone in the responsibility of such an abuse; and that whatever may be urged as to the indispensable labour of the printing-offices, no Paper is issued or distributed during the Sabbath in any other of our cities. We have only fulfilled a duty inviting the attention of our readers to the subject; and it would be with deep regret, that we should find ourselves called to repeat a remonstrance against a disorder, so injurious to our religious character as a town, and so wounding to the most enlightened and serious portion of our community.

UNITARIAN EXPOSITOR.

No. I.

UNDER this head we intend to give explanations of some of the texts which are adduced as strongest in support of the Trinitarian doctrine. We suppose no one will be unwilling to admit, that the prevailing tenour of scripture is in favour of the proper unity of God, and that, but for a comparatively inconsiderable number of texts, the theory of a trinity of persons would, before now, have been discarded.* As Unitarians, we of course believe, that the real sense of these passages is not inconsistent with Unitarian views, and we wish in shewing this to remove a stumbling-block. The plan which we propose to follow, until we see good reason for changing it, is to remark ; 1. On some of the passages which are brought in support of the doctrine of a trinity of persons; 2. On some of those which are understood to prove the deity and distinct personality of the Holy Spirit; and 3. On some of those which are

* We do not say,-would never have been received; for we have no idea that it had its origin even in mistaken views of revelation; but in a Source entirely distinct.

understood to shew the deity of Christ. We shall avail ourselves at will of the labours of others, and shall generally in clude our remarks under this head within a short compass, both to avoid being tedious, and that they may be the better remembered.

Two of the most noted texts which have been brought to shew a trinity of persons in the Godhead are, that of the three heavenly witnesses, and the form of baptism.

"There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' 1 John v. 7. These words are no part of the Bible. People in general are not aware of this fact; but there is not a clergyman in the nation, who is fit for his place, but knows it. By whom the verse was written we are ignorant; but it was not part of the original epistle, and was not written by St. John. No theological scholar who has the shadow of a reputation to lose, will now think, whatever be his theological views, of quoting it as authentic. "If it were worth while," says Gries. bach, the trinitarian editor of the standard edition of the New Testament, "I could defend six hundred readings, the most worthless, and rejected by all, by testimonies and arguments equally numerous and strong, nay, far more so, than are those on which the advocates of the genuineness of this passage rely. Nor would the defenders of the genuine text have in those instances so many and weighty arguments to oppose to my vain attempt, as have been produced against the supporters of this verse. The Calvinistic editors of the Eclectic Review speak of it thus:

"Upon this we need not spend many words. It is found in NO Greek Manuscript ancient or recent, except one to which we shall presently advert;- in no ancient Version, being interpolated 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 favour of the doctrine of the Trinity, though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and after, and though, with immense labour 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

* It has been attempted to be shown that Tertullian and Cyprian have cited the last clause of v. 7. Our readers may be satisfied, on this subject, by referring to Griesbach Nov. Test vol. ii. App. p. 13-15; or Porson's letters to Travis, 240-282; or Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. 421-424. See also, for a lamentable contrast, Travis's Letters, 3d ed. 82, 53, 75—128.

Eucherius 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 fought pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen or half a score passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation.

"One Greek Manuscript we have said contains the clause. This is the Dublin, or Montfortianus; a very recent MS. glaringly interpolated from the modern copies of the Vulgate, and distributed into the present division of chapters."

The way in which this verse was introduced into the place which it yet to our shame holds in our printed Bibles, was this. When the first edition of the New Testament was printed under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, at Alcala, in Spain, this verse was inserted, either on the authority of some very modern Greek MS., or more probably on that of the Vulgate Latin, the authorized version of the Romish church; into which version, either by fraud, or by the carelessness of a transcriber in transferring a commentary from the margin into the text, it had found its way sometime after the eighth century. Erasmus, who published his first edition about the same time with that of Cardinal Ximenes, Trinitarian as he was, was too conscientious to adulterate the word of God, and did not introduce the supposititious verse in question. Such a clamour, however, was raised, that in his third edition, he printed it, "to remove," as he expressly says himself, "occasion of unfounded reproach." The fifth edition of Erasmus, in which the verse was retained, was the basis of that of Stephens. This, in its turn, was the basis of that of Beza, which was the standard of our common English version. Thus this famous blunder of a scrivener, or fraud of a priest, goes out into the world, edition after edition, with all the authority of holy writ. It belongs to nobody to take it from its place, and there it stands, and will stand, a most eloquent refuter of all our pretences to reverence for the word of God. It is something however, that with so universal a consent of theological scholars, its spuriousness is acknowledged. Whatever sense critics might give to it, it was really with the great body of readers the main support of the doctrine of the trinity; and with the exposure of its spuriousness, we doubt not, that doctrine has received its death blow. It may linger for a long time, but its fate is sealed.

"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in [or into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. xxviii. 19.-The sound of these words in the ear seems something like the trinity, but we are at a loss to know how one would proceed to deduce the doctrine from them. There are different paraphrases of them, but with very slight variation of sense. That which, on the whole, we prefer, is this; baptizing them into the faith revealed by the Father, communicated through the Son, and confirmed by gifts of the Holy Ghost. To be baptised into, or into the name of, a person, is to become by the form of baptism the proselyte or pupil of what he teaches. The Christian faith may with equal propriety be said to be taught by God, by his messenger, and by the spirit of holiness which fixes its truths in men's minds. (Job xxxvi. 22. Mark vi. 34. 1 Cor. ii. 13.) And this without implying in the least that God's messenger and witness are beings equal in power and glory with himself. A person who would collect such a sense from the words would be no more discriminating, than the Athenians, who thought that Paul was claiming worship for two strange Gods, when he spoke of Jesus and the resurrection. (Acts xvii. 18.)

What then is the argument founded on this verse? There is nothing said of the Son or the Holy Ghost being God, or of their being with the Father three persons and one God, which is the doctrine they are brought to support. Is it argued from the three persons being named in such close connexion, that they are the same being? One might conclude otherwise, from their being separately named. But if the reasoning be good, then are Abrabam, Isaac, and Jacob, in the Old Testament, the same being,-then are the spirit, the water, and the blood, (1 John v. 8.) the same thing.

Does the stress of the argument lie here then, that we cannot be baptized into the name of any but a person in the Godhead? This will not do. Tertullian speaks of baptism into repentance, into the remission of sins; and the apostle (Rom. vi. 3.) of baptism into the death of Christ, and of the Israelites being baptized into Moses (1 Cor. x. 2.)-Can we become disciples then of none but a person in the Godhead? Moses (John ix. 28.) John, (Matt. ix. 14.) and the Pharisees, (Matt. xxii. 16.) had theirs.-Can we believe in none else? The Israelites (Exod. xiv. 31.) believed [in] the Lord and in his servant Moses.

If those who deduce the doctrine of the trinity from this text, do not draw their inference in some of the ways we have noticed, we acknowledge ourselves ignorant in what way they draw it.

SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF THE LATE
REV. JOHN E. ABBOT.

THERE are some men whose characters belong to the public. They, whom providence has placed in a conspicuous station and who adorn that station with eminent virtues, may improve mankind by their example, and therefore their example belongs to mankind. Their history and character may do good, when they are no more, and should not be hidden. Although, therefore, we are no advocates for indiscriminate biography, and for laying open the private retirements of all good men, yet we conceive that there are cases of unquestionable propriety and even duty, when the example of those who have left us should be fully set forth, that men may see it, and be led to glorify our Father who is in beaven. There are few things which more affect, encourage, and animate the living, than to know how they endured and what they accomplished, who have gone before them in the path of glory.

We are unwilling, therefore, to suffer the late Rev. J. E. Abbot to sleep with his fathers, without endeavouring to perpetuate the remembrance of what he was, and exhibiting his character to the imitation of christians. To those who know him, no description or eulogium can adequately portray the image which remains upon their memories. There are traits which may be perceived and felt by the intimate observer, but which cannot be presented in language. We can attempt no more than to give the leading incidents of his short life, and so to display the beauty of his religious character, as to promote the cause of truth and piety.

JOHN EMERY ABBOT was born in Exeter, N. H., on the sixth of August, 1793. He e seems to have been destined to the ministry from his very birth. His mother, whom he is said to have greatly resembled, and who lived but a few months after his birth, solemnly dedicated him to God before her death. The knowledge of this circumstance made an impression on his mind, and he seems never to have lost sight of his destination. His religious character commenced early; he probably never knew the time when he was destitute of religious impressions. The same amiableness of disposition and gentleness of demeanour marked his childhood, which characterized him when a man, and made him then, as he was always, an object of more than ordinary interest to those who knew him. "While in the Academy," says one of his schoolmates, "no one regarded him as capable of doing wrong-we looked on him as a purer being than others around him."