9. If there be three persons in the Godhead, does the word person mean a whole being or only part of a being? 10. Is each person finite or infinite? Will three finite persons make one infinite person?

11. Will three infinite persons make only one infinite person?

12. Can there be more than one infinite person?

13. Can the whole of an omnipotent and infinite being be confined to a human body?

14. If the Hebrew term ALEIM must be translated Gods, why speak from it of three persons, and not of three Gods?

15. When the term ALEIM is put for the individual Moses, how many men does it mean?

16. What is the reason that the termination im belongs to Metzrim, Egypt; Shemim, Heaven; terrpim, an image, and many other nouns, which are and must be singular?

17. Why is the term ALEIM often connected with singular verbs, and represented by singular pronouns ?

18. How does it happen that although there are one hundred and thirteen ancient Greek manuscripts, the text 1 John v. 7. is not found in any of them but one of late date?

19. Is it not strange that the expression, "of God," (1 John iii. 16.) and the words, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," (Rev. i. 11.) are not found in the best manuscripts, and the oldest versions of the New Testament?

20. Why is it that the Greek words latreuo, sebomai, liturgeo, and proseuchomai, translated worship, are restricted to God, and that proskuneo, which signifies obeisance, and is also translated worship, is applied to kings, rulers and masters ?

21. What is the reason, that the expression en to onomati is used some scores of times in the Greek Testament, and is always rendered in, by or through, and never at the name, only in Phil. ii. 11?

22. Why is the phrase en Christo translated "for Christ's sake," (Eph. iv. 32.) when it literally signifies in or by Christ?

23. Did Christ appear on earth to reconcile God to man, or to reconcile man to God?

24. Can a being of infinite justice punish men eternally, for doing what his own irresistible decree compelled them to do?

25. Was Christ a Saviour in and of himself, or was he appointed to be a Prince and a Saviour by God?

26. Did Moses redeem the Israelites or did God redeem them by Moses?

27. It is said that the sacrifice for sin must have been infinite because sin was committed against an infinite being. Could man, a finite being, commit an infinite offence?

28. Why is it that the words used by many to express their peculiar doctrines are borrowed from heathen philosophy, and cannot be found in the gospel of Christ?

TRINITARIANS AGAINST THE TRINITY.

I HAVE been equally surprised and delighted in the course of my theological reading, (which has not, indeed, been as yet, very extensive,) to observe, in numerous instances, the interpretations of scripture usually given by Unitarians, fully corroborated by Trinitarian expositors. It is pleasing thus to witness a growing spirit of candour among enlightened men; it is pleasing to witness the best informed of that Christian sect, whose obvious interest it is, to contend earnestly, even for every appearance of evidence for their own views, sacrificing prejudice at the shrine of honesty; and thus censuring, with merited and wholesome severity, the blind prepossession, and pertinacious discandor of their

less educated brethren.

The following explanations of upwards of forty texts, (some of them leading ones,) generally protruded in support of the popular doctrine of the Trinity, are selected, exclusively, from the writings of so-called Orthodox divines, of the highest character for learning and ability. It will be seen, that according to their views, delivered in moments of composed reflection ; or, with still greater virtue, in times of controversial ardour, these texts afford no evidence for the doctrine which they are weekly-daily-hourly-from the pulpit, from the press, and in private conversation, subpoenaed to establish. It appears that they are easily and perfectly reconcilable, both to the faith and to the practice of the "true wor shippers of the Father." And for this remarkable and important fact, we have the best of all possible testimonies-the testimony of theological opponents—of

men who had subscribed the Athanasian Creed, or the Westminster Confession; and were thus predisposed to find, in every plausible passage, an assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity. When individuals thus circumstanced-individuals, too, of critical power and skill-interpret portions of Holy Writ as not inculcating their favourite dogma, we are necessitated to believe that those interpretations are just and true, and such as would naturally be given by learned and candid

minds.

The following selections exhibit the extraordinary spectacle of upwards of forty texts usually adduced in proof of Trinitarianism, confronted and overthrown by Trinitarians!

I deem their publication valuable for many reasons. They are valuable as exhibiting the correctness of those expositions of Biblical phraseology, which we are in the habit of submitting to the consideration of our people; for such expositions are adopted by some of the best commentators, British and Continental. They are valuable as exonerating us from the oft-repeated calumny, of wresting and torturing the Scriptures to favour our private views of Christian doctrine; for these are the glosses of persons whose religious opinions are the perfect antipodes of ours. They are valuable as aids, by whose means we can apply to other portions of the Bible, which are seemingly obscure, the lights of rational and accredited criticism. They are valuable as a warning to the people, not to receive with implicitness, and adopt without examination, the notions of their pastors on points, whose inquiry is quenched for ever, and the unalterable faith, both of teacher and of taught, prescribed by parliamentary or synodical legislation. They are valuable to the ministers of the so-called Orthodox churches, as a warning to eschew the common discandour (would dishonesty be too harsh?) of profiting by the ignorance and prejudice of their hearers, to found arguments on such words as Elohim, on such texts as Gen. i. 26, or John, x. 30, or on such forgeries or false readings as Acts, xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16, and 1 John, v. 7. They are valuable as testimonies to the omnipotence of truth; for it is not to be expected that men, such as those whose opinions are here quoted, would have yielded up, one after another, the strong holds and fastnesses of their

creed, unless compelled by a superior power; it is not to be expected they would forsake the ramparts of their peculiar faith, so long as they could be honourably, conscientiously, and virtuously defended.

R.E. B.M.

In my opinion this plural is a proof that the Hebrew language was formed when Polytheism was the prevailing religion; on the destruction of which, this form sunk into the expression of majesty and dignity.

EICHHOM.

Do the plural forms ALEIM and ALEI, denote a plurality of persons when applied to the one true God? No not any more than ADONIM and ADONI denote a plurality of Lords; BURAIM and BURAI a plurality of creators; FENIM and FENI a plurality of faces, or HIM a plurality of lives. It is truly strange that such a notion should ever have been entertained; and indeed it is only a modern notion, of the same age with scholastic theology. BISHOP GEDdes.

Monendi sunt lectores, ut sibi a violentis ejusmodi glosJOHN CALVIN !!!

sis caveant.

II.

Gen. i 26. And God said, let us make man in our image, after OUR likeness.

iii 22. And the LORD God said, Behold the man is become as one of us.

xi. 7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.

Isaiah, vi. 8. Also I heard the voice of the LORD saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us.

The Hebrews, in order to aggrandise the persons and things of which they treat, speak of them in the plural number, although in their nature they are singular. DR. MACKNIGHT.

Nothing is more usual, than for a person in authority to speak of himself in the plural number.

DR. DODDRIDGE, n. on John, iii. 11.

Whereas, many Christians draw from this place, (Gen. iii. 22) the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Deity, I fear their argument is not solid.

JOHN CALVIN !!!

It is a custom of the Hebrews to speak of God as a King Kings are guided by the advice of their principal subjects in important matters,-1 Kings, xii. 6; 2 Chron. x. 9. So is God represented-1 Kings, xxii. 19, 20.

GROTIUS.

Some of the Jewish writers, with whom agree some of our best commentators, find in "Let us make no more than an emphatical and majestic mode of expression, insinuating both the power and the dignity of the Creator. BISHOP GEDDES.

(To be Continued.)

:

REVIEW.

REMARKS ON CONVERSION. By the Rev. David McKee, Anaghlone, pp. 24-1836.

THIS tract was written to expose a committee of the Seceding Synod, who had been appointed to examine the candidates for the ministry in that body. The committee, it seems, questioned the students about their conversion, their internal evidences of grace, and their call to the Holy Ministry; and as the majority of the young men "did not like to tell lies," they were reject ed. That our readers in general, and especially our Seceding and Synod of Ulster brethren, may form some idea of these secret committees, we subjoin a list of some of the Queries proposed to the young men :—

1. What were some of your feelings on going forward to the Lord's table?

2. Do you think you derived any benefit from it? If any, state them.

3. In going forward, did you as far as you recollect, do so worthily?

4. Are you converted?- or state really and candidly, are you a converted man?

5. As you hope you are converted, how long do you think you have been so?

6. Do you remember any particular texts or passages of Scripture that were the means of converting you?

7. Must there not be a certainty in the case?

8. Do you think it possible for a man to be converted, without being conscious of it?

9. What evidence bave you given of your conversion?

10. Do you really think that you have received a call to the Christian ministry?

11. Is the Bible sweeter to your taste than honey from the comb?