It is not the profoundness of thought, the ingenuity of argument, or the fairest flowers of rhetoric, that best accomplish the ends of instruction; and they, who have made the noblest progress in christian knowledge and holiness, best appreciate those simple truths, in which the great and the humble, the learned and the ignorant are alike concerned, and which are able to make us wise to salvation, through faith that is in Christ.

With respect to the portion of the day, not occupied in the public service, it will be acknowledged, that the New Testa-. ment prescribes no particular directions. The circumstances of the christian church at its first establishment and the practice, which either from principle or expediency long continued among the primitive disciples, of honouring the seventh day, may sufficiently account for the want of more explicit com mands. If, however, as some have supposed, we are to regard the Christian Sabbath as the substitute or successor of the Jewish, it would follow, that we are bound to rest from our worldly labours; or if, as seems to us a much less disputable ground, it is our duty to attend public worship, then it is equally our duty, and consistency requires it, to abstain from any pursuits during the leisure of the day, that may prevent or impair the benefit we might derive; efface the good impressions of our devotions; weaken the resolutions we may form, or chill the ardour of our holy affections. All our em, ployments should correspond, at least they should not be incompatible, with the sacred duties and the right improvement of the day." We are not to find our own pleasure, nor do our own works."

It will not be supposed, that we are contending for the rigid and austere observance of the Lord's Day, that was practised and enjoined by our Fathers. We regard the Sabbath as a day, not only of instruction and worship, but of sacred pleasure and most reviving hope. We regard it as favourable in the highest degree to our social and benevolent as well as to our devout affections; and that we are rendering an acceptable service to the God of Sabbaths, in exercising and cherishing a kindly intercourse with each other. But if there be an error in exclusive appropriation of the whole period to acts of worship and religious seclusion, it surely is not the error of the present time. The danger, we apprehend, is from the opposite extreme; and in our impatience of the severity of our fathers, we are perhaps yielding to indulgences, no less unfriendly to the true spirit and just demands of piety. Possibly, too, in the confi dence we feel in the general order and sobriety of this portion of our country, in the general respect, which is undoubtedly New Series-vol. II.

felt for the institutions of religion, we are not aware of the abuses, which may insensibly creep in; and as there is no state more dangerous to the individual, than that of self-complacency and imagined security; so among the members of a community, where much is fondly boasted of their good principles and steady habits, there may be found indulgences and disorders, which would not obtain a tolerance in older countries, and in cities more populous, and on the whole more corrupt.

We are well aware, that it is but an invidious task to point out prevailing abuses, more especially when they can plead in their support either the opinion or example of those, whom we justly regard with deference and esteem. Yet we hesitate not to say, that the too common interchange of visits of friendship or courtesy, during the intervals of worship, however sanctioned and with whatever kind intentions paid, is a violation of the sacredness of this day. We are not of course referring to such as are prompted by christian sympathy or benevolence; but to those of convenience, politeness, pleasure, or fashion. We object, that such visits are, or ought to be, an interruption to every well ordered family; that they lead to thoughts and conversation unfavourable to the improvement of the public service; that they are not in their nature, or as they are usually conducted, to be distinguished from some of our most worldly occupations; that it propriety or friendship demand them, they may be made with equal ease at other times; or in the choice of alternatives, who will deny, that these lesser duties to give them their highest name-should be totally omitted, rather than interfere with the spirit of the ordinances of God?

We may be found as those, who beat the air and reason with the whirl-wind, for who has ever yet obtained a successful hearing against the solicitations of worldly ambition or gain? Still we must regard as totally incompatible with the order and improvement of the Sabbath, some of the habits to which time and example have given their currency in our cities. Can it require proof to any reflecting mind, that the resort to the public Exchange, the employments and conversation of the NewsRoom, the bustle around the Post-Office, and all the mingled feelings of curiosity, anxiety, pleasure or pain, attending the expectation or reception of news, must be injurious at least, if not fatal, to the religious improvement of the day. Is it urged, that nothing of all this can be dispensed with in the commercial world? We answer, that in the first and noblest commercial city of the world, much of all this is dispensed with: that

in London the Post-Office, as well as the Exchange, is closed; that no mail is opened, 'and none departs from the city on the Sunday; and we believe, that with all her vast population, the stranger would witness no such resort for news, &c. as is to be found in our comparatively little cities. Is it urged, that the affairs of life cannot proceed with the interruptions which a stricter observance of the day would demand? We answer, that he, who ordained the Sabbath, knew, better than we, all that is necessary for man; that he has enjoined nothing incompatible with the best promotion of human interests; that the order and improvement of society, still more, the instruction and preparation of our minds, require such a respite from the common employments of life; and that with the divine injunction to consecrate a portion of our time to his service, we are no more at liberty to bring that portion within our calculations of pleasure or business, than if it had been totally withdrawn, or placed irrevocably beyond our disposal. We do not complain, that the rest of midnight comes to interrupt our gains ;—we welcome its repose. Do our immortal souls less require release from the business and temptations of a distracting and corrupting world? Is it urged, finally, that many, who thus pass the leisure of the Sabbath, are kept from worse employments? We cannot perceive the soundness of the reasoning, that would defend and perpetuate one acknowledged abuse through fear of the possibility of another. It is, we believe, to mere habit and perhaps to an inconsiderate liberality of interpretation as to the duties of the Sabbath, that the disorder we lament is chiefly to be ascribed; and we have too much deference for the principles and characters of a large proportion of those, who are found in these resorts, not to believe, that they would regard with pain, and scrupulously refuse the sanction of their example to what ever should appear to them inconsistent with the obligations of the day.

But we have remarked, that in our confidence of the general order and sobriety of the community, there is danger lest we insensibly admit abuses, which to a reflecting stranger would at once be glaring and offensive. And we feel it our duty here to refer to an abuse, which to our deep regret is still permitted among us, of the publication of a Newspaper on Sunday mornings. We had trusted, after the attention, which had been excited to the subject, that the reflexion and religious spirit of the community would have discouraged what we think can be regarded by every good citizen in no other light than as a gross violation of the sacredness of this day. With the question of private interest we can have no concern. It is totally

sunk in the consideration of the injurious tnfluence 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 Griesbach, 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 inmense 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.