IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ,.V 
 
 >-%■, 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 LilM 125 
 itt Ui 122 
 
 IM 
 
 L25 H U 116 
 
 ^ ^^ 
 
 ^V*^ 
 
 '^♦y '/ 
 
 K^;^!!"^; 
 
 iS 
 
 Carptxattan 
 
 a3 \IMBT MAt: STMIT 
 (7t«)tn>4Mt 
 

 
 f 
 
 <i^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/iCIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 t • 
 
 Canadian Inttituta for HIatorical MicrorapriKluctlona / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona Matoriquaa 
 
 V 
 
 "o^ 
 
Tachnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notat tachniquaa at bibllographiquaa 
 
 T 
 t( 
 
 Tha Inatituta htm attamptad to obtain tlia baat 
 original copy avaiiabia for filming Faaturaa of thia 
 copy which may ba l>ibliographically uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha 
 raproduction, or which may ajgniflcantiy changa 
 tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. 
 
 Q 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 Colourad covara/ 
 Couvartura da couiaur 
 
 I I Covara damagad/ 
 
 Couvartura andommagAa 
 
 Covara rastorad and/or laminatad/ 
 Couvartura raataurte at/ou palliculte 
 
 Covar titia miaaing/ 
 
 La titra da couvartura manqua 
 
 Colourad mapa/ 
 
 Cartaa gtegraphiquaa an couiaur 
 
 Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ 
 Encra da couiaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) 
 
 I I Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa 9n couiaur 
 
 Bound with othar matarial/ 
 RaiiA avac d'autraa documanta 
 
 Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or diatortion 
 along intarior margin/ 
 
 Lareliura aarrte paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la 
 diatortion la long da la marga intiriaura 
 
 Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may 
 appaar within tlia taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa 
 hava baan omittad from filming/ 
 II aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutAaa 
 lora d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta, 
 maia, loraqua cala Atait poaaibJa, caa pagaa n'ont 
 paa At* f limAaa. 
 
 Additional commanta:/ 
 Commantairoa aupplAmantairaa: 
 
 L'Inatitut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira 
 qu'il lui a *t* poaaibia da aa procurar. Laa dAtaila 
 da cat axamplaira qui aont paut^Atra uniquaa du 
 point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifiar 
 una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una 
 modification dana la mithoda normala da f ilmaga 
 aont indiquAa d-daaaoua. 
 
 |~n Colourad pagaa/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pagaa da couiaur 
 
 Pagaa damagad/ 
 Pagaa andommag*aa 
 
 Pag«a raatorad and/oi 
 
 Pagaa raatauriaa at/ou paiiiculAaa 
 
 Pagaa diacolourad, atainad or foxa< 
 Pagaa d*color*aa, tachatiaa ou piquAaa 
 
 Pagaa datacliad/ 
 Pagaa d4taclt*aa 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Trsnaparanca 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualit* InAigala da I'impraaafon 
 
 Includaa aupplamantary matarii 
 Comprand du material aupplAmantaira 
 
 I — I Pagaa damagad/ 
 
 I — I Pag«a raatorad and/or laminatad/ 
 
 rri Pagaa diacolourad, atainad or foxad/ 
 
 |~~| Pagaa datacliad/ 
 
 rjl Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print variaa/ 
 
 I I Includaa aupplamantary matarial/ 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 O 
 
 b< 
 tl 
 ai 
 ol 
 fii 
 ai 
 
 01 
 
 Tl 
 all 
 Tl 
 w 
 
 M 
 di 
 an 
 ba 
 ri| 
 rai 
 m( 
 
 Only adition avaiiabia/ 
 Saula MItion diaponibia 
 
 Pagab wholly or partially obacurad by arrata 
 alipa, tiaauaa, ate., hava l>aan rafilmad to 
 anaura tha baat poaaibia imaga/ 
 Laa pagaa totalamant ou partiallamant 
 obacurciaa par un fauillat d^rata. una palura, 
 ate., ont MA filmAaa A nouvaau da fa9on A 
 obtanir la maillaura imaga poaaibia. 
 
 Thia itam ia filmad at tha raduetton ratio chackad balow/ 
 
 Ca doeumant aat f llmA au taux da rAductton indiouA ci-daaaoua. 
 
 10X 
 
 14X 
 
 18X 
 
 22X 
 
 2BX 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 12X 
 
 1«X 
 
 20X 
 
 a«x^ 
 
 32X 
 
TtM oopy fllniad hw has bMn raproduocd thanks 
 to th* gMiarotity of: 
 
 Library of tha Public 
 Arohivaa of Canada 
 
 l.'axamplaira f]lm4 f ut raproduit grica i la 
 gAnAroaitA da: 
 
 La bibiiothiqua d«i.. Archivas 
 pubiiquaa du Canada 
 
 Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality 
 poMlbIa eonaidarina tha condition and laglbility 
 of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract spaciflcatlona. 
 
 Laa imagaa suhrantaa ont 4tA raproduitat avac la 
 plua grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at 
 da la nattat* da I'axamplalra fiimA. at an 
 conformity avac laa conditions du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara filmad 
 baginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha laat paga with a printad or llluatratad Impras- 
 sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All 
 othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha 
 first paga with a printad or llluatratad impraa- 
 sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad 
 or illustratad imprassion. 
 
 Laa axamplairas origiriaux dont la couvartura •n 
 papiar ast ImprimAa sont filmAs an comman9ant 
 par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit psr la 
 darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'imprassion ou d'lllustrstion, soit par la sscond 
 plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas 
 orlginaux sont filmis an comman9ant par la 
 pramMra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'imprassion ou d'illustratloi at an tarminant par 
 la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla 
 amprainta. 
 
 Tha laat racordad frama or^ aach microfleha 
 shaH contain tha symbol — ^- (mianlng "CON- 
 TINUED"), or tha aymbol y (moaning "END"), 
 whichavar appliaa. 
 
 Un das symbolas suivants appaiattra sur Is 
 darniira imaga da chaqua microfiche, salon la 
 cas: la symbola — ► signifia "A SUIVRZ ". la 
 symbols ▼ signifia "FIN". 
 
 Maps, platas, charts, ate, may ba filmad at 
 diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba 
 antiraly included in ona axposura ara flimad 
 baginning in tha uppar laft hand corner, laft to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa 
 required. The following diagrama illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Las cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peu/ent Atre 
 fiimia A dee taux da rMuction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filmA A partir 
 da I'angle supArieur gauche, do gauche A droite, 
 ef de haut an bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'imagas nAceeeaire. Lee diagrammea auivants 
 iilustrant la mAthoda. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
1 
 
 € 
 
 
 < 
 
 % 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■i^. 
 
 % 
 
""W^ 
 
THK PHILOSOPHIC ORIGIN 
 
 AM» 
 
 HISTORIC PROGRESS 
 
 OF THK 
 
 ■m^^ JDcictvine of the ?l^rinitij : 
 
 
 ^'^ i\ 
 
 '.'\ ' 
 
 \r\ ^^{h^^ 
 
 ^^^^W* ^^www ^PNPV ^PHP ^CTR^ ^B^P' ^W^'^W 
 
 Delivered in the Unitarian Church Montreal, on Sunday JBreuing 
 -- January 26th, 1B51. 
 
 ■• ' .i' i <-! 
 
 ...•t;-!! 
 
 U 
 
 J' 
 
 i".!- i--" . 
 
 '.4j4 - 'J" Tf -t. 
 
 BY JOHN CORONER 
 
 
 ?!>• > 
 
 .•.liA\':,:.rs yu; 
 
 .' .vn.*; ,>; 
 
 m 
 
 If>T3Si^nassQacBc£I IJb^ H^C&C^^^CSSSllo 
 
 I I 
 
 -*• 
 
 MONTREAL: 
 
 PRINTED nV JOHN C. BECKET, NO. *22, GREAT ST. JAMES STREET. 
 
 1861. 
 
The following Lecture vvas^ prepared in ihe usual course of pul- 
 pil duty, and without any view to publication, at a juncture when 
 I thought some such Discourse was demanded. A written com- 
 munication, signed by many friends, was presented to me next 
 day, expressing an "earnest desire that I would allow it to 
 be printed for gratuitous distribution." I scarcely felt at li- 
 berty to decline such a request, and so the manuscript goes 
 to the printer. My friends, in their request, profess to be 
 influenced by a desire to serve the cause of Truth and Re- 
 ligion ; and I, myself, am conscious of no other motive in 
 giving it to the public. Whatever may be wrong in it, I am will, 
 ing should perish. And as (or the Truth it may contain, the God 
 of all Truth will take care of that. To God's Providence, then, I 
 commit it without fear, and to all who love Truth, better than 
 sect or party, I commend it with becoming humility. 
 
 J.O. 
 
 i:^i--:Ui\ 
 
 t .- . 
 
 p,.i, 
 
 '^i- 
 
THE 
 
 PHILOSOPHIO ORIGIN & HISTORIC PROGRESS 
 
 or THE 
 
 OOCTBIHE OF THE TRINITT. 
 
 Mat. XIII. 37 — " Didst thou not sow good seed in thy field ? frum whence 
 
 then hath it taroa t" 
 
 We were engaged on last Sunday evening in considering the ques- 
 tion, publicly put to us, « Who is Christ ?" To this we gave the 
 Apostolic answer, contenting ourselves to rest ia humble laith that 
 " Christ is the Son of God," without attempting any psychological 
 dissection of his interior nature, or metaphysical analysis of his person 
 — without attempting to be wise above what is written, but receiving 
 gratefully the plain staten ents of Holy Writ concerning him as the 
 Son, Messiah, or Messenger, sent by the Father to instruct, elevate, 
 and redeem humanity. We have no hesitation in discarding any 
 human theories concerning his person, oi nature, which go to contra- 
 dict or confuse what he himself has plainly said, and what the sacred 
 writers have plainly written on that topic. It is no recommendation 
 to me that any human theories concerning religion are very accurate 
 and precise in their statements ; for this accuracy and precision may 
 only make their contradiction more obvious. By attempting a greater 
 degree of precision than the Holy Scriptures on the high concerns of 
 God and Christ, human theories and creeds, as I conceive, have been 
 marring matters, rather than mending them. Rv doing so, they have 
 rent the Church, which should have been one body, ever bound to- 
 gether by the binding power of love. But many will not be satisfied 
 without precise definitions. The statements of the Scriptures are 
 regarded as not sufficiently exact : hence creeds and confessions have 
 been drawn up as tests of orthodoxy. To say that you believe the 
 words of the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, as these are recorded in the 
 pages of the New Testament, is far from being sufficient in the esti- 
 mation of many persons. They will probably call yon an infidel, 
 unless you consent to receive their human interpretations of those 
 words ; thus putting their human interpretations on a level with the 
 actual teaching of the blessed Christ himself. They construct a sys- 
 tem out of their human reason interpreting the iScripture, and if you he- 
 sitate to accept this system, or venture to assail it, they forthwith raise 
 the cry that you are invading the mysteries of religion by your reason, 
 when the simple truth is, that you are only exercising your under- 
 standing to keep cleat of their errors. It is only human reason dis- 
 puting the conclusions of human reason. Thus — a certain theory of 
 the widhead has become prevalent and popular. By this theory the 
 
Siiprpme Beini^ is reproscntetl as exislin!» in ihri'e lli^^illct and co-(-qii«i 
 persons. We take the liberty to niiCNtion its soundness and deny it^ 
 iiuth. What is the consequence t It is turtbwith said that the Uni- 
 tarians are unduly elevating human reason — that we are vain of 
 heart, and pmud of understandin^r. But what is the actual state of 
 the case ? Obviously this : the Trinitarian has cnnstruried his theory 
 of the Trinity by reasoning from the Scriptures, and the Unitarian only 
 disputes that reasoning, and declines to accept its conclusions. The 
 Unitatian still abides by the Scriptures. He holds the Bible in his 
 hand, and says to the Trinitarian, « point out to me where vour doc- 
 trine of three persons in the Godhead is stated there, and I will re- 
 ceive it. You sav thi're are three persons in the Godhead — you say 
 that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, equal in power 
 and glory. Now, only show me such statements in the Bible, and I 
 ^/ill receive them without farther questioning." But the Trinitarian 
 cannot do so. He has to resort to a process of comparison and reason- 
 ing to construe/ his doctrine. His comparisons we deem insufficient, 
 and his reasoning unsatisfactory, and so we decline to accept his con- 
 clusicns, and still demand a scripture statement of the doctrine. He 
 will probably present us with the Apostolic benediction, « The grace 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of 
 the Holy Spirit, be with you all," (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) But here we 
 find no statement of three persons in one God. VVe find simply a 
 ])ious parting wish uttered by the Apostle at the close of his epistle, 
 to t!ie effect that the grace or favor of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 God's love, and the blessed influences of God's Spirit should abide with 
 the Corinthians, to whom he wrote." Or "he Trinitarian may pre- 
 sent us with our Lord's commission to the Apostles, -^Goye and teach 
 (make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matt, xxviil. 19). 
 But this is also defective for the purpos.* alleged. There is no state- 
 ment of three persons in one God here. The command is to baptize 
 into the name of, or into the profession ot faith in, the Father, the , 
 •Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the agencies and instrumentalities en- 
 ^^ged in the origination, promulgation, and coniirmation of the gospel 
 —into the belief of the Father as the great Originator of the scheme 
 of Christian salvation ; of the Son, as the Messenger sent by the 
 Father to announce it to the world ; of the Holy Spirit, by whose active '* 
 influence it was confirmed in the beginning by miracles and siirns, and 
 through which it is still confirmed in the hearts of the humble and 
 the faithful.f Or possibly we may still be presented with the text of 
 
 * The force of the Trinitarian argument from 2 Cor. xiii. 14 , i> suppoied to lie 
 in the Tact of the collocation ofterm^ ; but the ground iieeina to ine extremaly fee- 
 hic. For iHdependently of the fact thiit the tiecond or middle term is '■ Ood," diii> 
 liiicniHlicd rrniii Clirist, and which, ofitMeir, issulTlcicnt to invalidate the argument 
 — in.lepr.ndenily of this fuel, I say, we And such collocation in uaa^e with Paul. Hia 
 1st Kp. to the Corinlhiana cloaea with this pious parlinj^ wish: — "The grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ be with you ; my liwe be with you all, &c." 
 
 t He 
 ciiiion 
 
 With r»;spett t«i the former, we siiy that collocation of lerma is no proof of equality 
 III the pi:ri>on!4 denoted by the terma. We rend in 1 Chron. xxix. 90, that nil the 
 ciingrej;ation " tvorshipped the Lord and thu King." H<Me is a collocation of 
 it:rmx, bv which Jtliiiviih itnd the King arc formally connected aw objects of wor- 
 hliip, Bui thin docs !u)t prove ihc Kiiij: co-tiiiial with Johoviih. NiT iirc wn bound 
 
 LflU (fCBUa V/IIIIW UC ,,1111 JUU , '»y .I'l/C UH V,|.1I J^FU «!■, «W^a ^ 
 
 ure, niKO, the force of the Trinitarian argument is auiiposed to lie in the collo- .-, 
 1 of terms, in conjunction with the fact that it occurs in a lormulu of baptism. " ' 
 
i ill 
 
 i !'l 
 
 51 
 
 4 
 
 the three hearerily wititeiitieii, viiice I observe i( i.s yet pennittpd to 
 stand as) a leading proof text in the Westmiiistur Coni'ession and 
 Catechism. " For there are three that bpar record in heaven, tbo 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; dud these three are one^" 
 (1 John V. 7.) Here it may be thought the desired statement U 
 made. Here the three alleged persons of the Trinity are named to- 
 gether and called «one." And thi« is the only place where such a 
 statement is made within the covers of the Bible. But this text re- 
 quires no remark from us. For 1 hope I need scarcely remind you 
 that it is not a jrenuine passat;e of ijcripturei It is an arknowledged 
 interpolation.' . ,., , ,..,r" , 
 
 The Trinitarian, then, caniiot .Uate his doctrine in Scripture lan- 
 guage. To u-^e the words uf a Trinitarian theologian, it is *< a doc- 
 trine of inference," i. e., a doctrine said to be drawn from the 
 Scriptures by a proresH ot inferential reasoiiint;. This is the most 
 wbicii the Protestant Trinitarian theologian can claim for it. But 
 this, again, is denied by the great majority even of those who accept 
 the doctrine, and by the overwhelming majority of the Christian 
 world. For the Roman Catholics are in the habit of denying that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity can be proved from Scripture without the aid 
 of tradition. *< My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of 
 the Church," «!ays the Roman Catholic controversialist, « no other 
 authority is sufficient." t And the majority of Prote«tant8 in France 
 and Germany reject the Trinity of the Athanasian Creed, or West- 
 minster Confession : I may say, indeed, that they reject a Trinity of 
 persons under any form of statement. In the United States of 
 America there are probably three thousand congregations of Christians 
 under various names, who reject the Triune theory of the Godhead, 
 and adhere to the strict Unity of the Deity. Now, when all this is 
 
 to inrer that baptism, into a ){iven name, impliea the Suprem* Deity of th« person 
 indicated by the name. The Jewixh people '* were all baptized unto Mnae$." 
 (1 Cor. X, 2.)— It ia only by a carerul utudy and comparivon nl the itenernl language 
 of Scripture, that we can avoid prevailing mivtakeii, and arrive at a truthful inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 * I have been Inl'ormed that in the delivery of this discourHc, aome of my Trinita- 
 rian hearers did not consider my remarks concerninjf 1 John, v. 7, sutHelently ex- 
 plicit. I certainly did not dwell upon this uxt, which I thought every intelligent 
 christian knew to be a forgery. I could not suppose that those who were habitual 
 attendants on the ministrations of the christian pulpits around us, should still re- 
 main in ignorance of a fact of such marksd importance in the criticism of thb 
 christian Scriptures. Sir Isaac Xewton has written a history ofthis *' Corruption 
 of Scripture, >' to which I would willingly direct the attestion of mv leaders. But 
 as Newton was an Unitarian, it may be considered more desirable, for present pur- 
 poses, to produce the testimony of Trinitarians. So long a^o, then, as 1809, the 
 Bclectic Review pronounced 1 John, v. T., a "gross interpolation. " Dr. Pye 
 Smith, in his Scripture Testimony, styles this verse " spurious," and says, with 
 reference to aome who would assert its genuinenei!«, that *' the attempt to set aside 
 th« decision of impartial and honest criticism ia painfully discreditable." Bishop 
 Lowth says, " I believ« there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant 
 with sacred critiMsm, and having the use of his understanding, who would be will- 
 ing to contend for the genuineness of the verse 1 John, v. 7." And Dr. Adam 
 Clarke, in his commentary, closes a lengthened dissertation on this verse in these 
 words—" In short, it stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of 
 a revelation professing to have come from Ood." Similar testimonies might b«« 
 multiplied. 
 
 t Discussion between the Rev. Mr. Hughes and the Rov, Mr. Stoncy, at Castle 
 bur, Ireland, in 1837, , 
 
6 
 
 eoDiidered, it will be seen that the Trinit«rien8 who auert that the 
 doctrine ean be proTed by a proeeia of inferential reasoning from the 
 Seripturee, form but a imall minority. But we do not notice thii fact 
 aa any arsament againat the truth of their ayitem. It ii not denied 
 that tbt Unit uians are in the minority in the Chriitian world, and the 
 Trinitariani in the great majority. But it ii a circumstance well wor- 
 thy of note by the candid enquirer, that by far the greater number of 
 that Trinitarian majority do not rest (heir doctrine on scriptural 
 grounds i so that the case stands thus— the overwhelming majority uf 
 the Christian world deny' thnt the doctrine of (he Trinity rnn l>e legi- 
 timately drawn from (he Scriptures by any process of inlerentirtl 
 reuoning. V/hile there is no Trinitarian whatever, of any class, who 
 
 pretends, or can 
 Scriptures. 
 
 pretend, that his doctrine is expressly stated in thtt 
 
 Now I put the question in all earnestness (o every serious and can- 
 did mind— I would ask. Is it likely tliat in a volume of wri(ings con- 
 taining no fewer (han 66 different (readsesor booas, as (he Bible does 
 —I would ask, Is it likely th:t in such an extensive volume, avowedly 
 written to instruct mankmd in religion, there should he no statement 
 of God's existence in three persons, if (ha( doc(rine really formed any 
 
 CLft of the faith of (he wri(ers? Surely if the sacred writers had in- 
 nded to teach the doc(rine of three persons in one God, (hey would 
 btTO wri(ten it somewhere in (heir 66 books. Well might the emi- 
 nently pious Dr. Isaac Wat(8 say in his " Solemn Address to God," 
 « Haidat (hou told me plainly in any single text that the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Tiirit are three real persons in (hy divine na(ure, I had never 
 •ufTered mysf>lf to be bewildered by so many doubts." It was the ob> 
 vioua deficiency of such a 8(a(emen( which led Dr. Watts, in his later 
 years, to set aside the doctrine of a (ri-personal Deit' . Now, suppose 
 a nanbcr of '< or(hodox " (heoloitians of (he presen( day were requested 
 to issue 66 treatises setdnfl; l'or(li and illustraring (he his(ory and (he 
 doctrines of religion, would they omit (o make express statement of 
 the Trinity ? Would they leave any room for (heir readers (o doubt 
 their belief in it ? The answer is obvious. They would state it over 
 and over again. They consider i( a fundamental doc(rine, and it would 
 be their duty (o do so. How, (hen. can we account lor (he omission 
 of aaeh express 8(a(emen( by (he wrUers of (he sacred Scrip(ures ? 
 Only in one way. They were unacquain(ed wi(h (he doc(riRe of a 
 Trinity, or if (hey knew it, (hey did not consider it a true doctrine of 
 leligion. 
 
 The holy prophe(s and aposdes sowed ** good seed " — they gave 
 sound religious teaching. Whence, then, came the « tares" — the 
 strange and mistaken doc(rines which have sprung up and spread so 
 extensively in (he field of ChrisdanKy ? We are now considering the 
 doctrine of the Godhead. Inconsiderate polemics sometimes taunt 
 Unitarians for being in the small minority, and point triumphantly to 
 the vast multitude of Trini(arian believers— (he reputedly or(hodox 
 of Chris(endom. The enquiry, (hen, is fitting; Whence came a 
 Trinity of persons in (he Dei(y 7 How came it (o a((ain its. present 
 poeition in the world ? And to give an answer to (hese quesdons will 
 be the aim of the following discourse. 
 
who 
 
 The doetrin« of the Trinity, we 8Mr|inrung,not from the aUteinents 
 of the oracleii of Oodi but from the renned ipecuiationa of human pbilo- 
 lophy. I respectfully ask your attention while I offer my reasons for 
 saying so. The subject is one of Yast importance ; at least it 
 seems so to me, and 1 hope it seems so to vou. I have nothing to 
 gain by bearing testimony against a ponular doctrine. If I con- 
 sulted my own ease merely, I should remain silent on the subject. If 
 I were content to go with the multitude it miRht accord better with 
 my temporal interest and convenience. But Truth is of more conse- 
 quence to me than the favor of the multitude. And I cannot remain 
 indifferent to it, but munt afflrm it openly, be the resul what it may. 
 If I be not true to my inwaid conviction, woe be unto me, for God 
 never permits himself to be mocked with impunity. The present ap- 
 probation of a few men and women would be but a paltry item to place 
 against the future sorrow and shame of a violated and wronged con- 
 science. The inward emptiness and weakness which come from falsity 
 or indifference, form but a sorry substitute for th^ 'ulness and force 
 which come from simple fidelity to inward conviction, and whi.:h are 
 the certain recompense of a soul true to itself and to Goi. 
 
 I speak, then, because I must speak, and dare not be silent under 
 the circumstances. But while I speak, let me remind you that you 
 must use your own judgments in f ormmg your own opinions. All I have 
 a right to uk is a candid and attentive hearing. And I am willing to 
 hope that I shall have this from the audience which I now see before 
 me. Let us remember that God is ever present with us, and let us 
 ever seek the aid of his good Spirit which is able to guide us into all 
 Truth. 
 
 About 360 years before the Chistian era, flourished Plato, the 
 celebrated Athenian Sage. That great man wae superior to the po- 
 pular idolatry of his country and time. He held the doctrine of a 
 supreme First Cause, unseen, and ever active — the fountain of all 
 goodness, wisdom and life. He had many and ardent disciples, men 
 who admired their great master-mind, followed him through the 
 academic shades of Athens while living, and carefully studied his 
 writings when dead. He formed a school of philosophy by " hich his 
 name was perpetuated from generation to generation. H.h disciples 
 were proud of their master, and took their name from him. They were 
 called Platonists. It is not requisite here to speak of their doctrines 
 generally. In this discussion we are concerned with only one of those 
 doctrines. The Divinity of the Platonists was Triad, or Trinity of 
 hypostases or persons. Their first was To Agathon — the Supreme 
 Ciood, their second was called Logos or tfoui — Nlind or Intellect ; their 
 third was called Psyche— Soui. To give you an idea of this Platonic 
 doctrine of a Trinity in the divine nature 1 shall quote from Cud- 
 wortb's ** Intellectual System." The second hypostasis or person of the 
 Platonic Trinity was said to have been generated from the first. 
 «But that the second hypostasis or person [in the Platonic Trinity] 
 viz., Mind or Inttilect, though said to have been generated, or to have 
 proceeded by way of emanation from the first called To Agathon^ the 
 Good ; was, notwithstanding, unquestionably acknowledged to have 
 been eternal, or without beginning, might he proved " says Dr. Cud- 
 
PPM! 
 
 ■HfWIP 
 
 IPMP 
 
 :o. «^ by mdity express leslimouies of lh« most genuine Platunists." 
 tnen the learned author nf the «IntelIeCiUalSi 
 
 s« . 
 
 worto. 
 
 And then the learned author nf the "IntelleCiUal System" cites Ploti- 
 nus, a Platonic writer to this effect. « Let all temporal generation here 
 be quite banished from our thoughts, whilst we treat of things eternal, 
 or such as always are ; we attributing generation to them only in re- 
 spect of causality and order, but not of tivie. And though Plotinud," 
 continues Cudworth " there speaks particularly of the second hyposta- 
 sis or iVous, yet does he afterwards extend the same also to the tbiid 
 hypostasis of that Trinity, called Psyche or the mundane Soul."* 
 
 Again, we read <' that though the genuine Plato\ii8ts or Pythagoreans 
 supposed none of their three archlcal hypostases to be indeed zrtaturea, 
 but all of them eternaly necessarily existent^ and universal or infinite, 
 and consequently craatorsof the whole world ; yet did they neverthe 
 less, assert an essential dependence of the second hypostasis upon the 
 first, as also the third both upon the first and second, together with 
 a gradual subordination in tDem."t 
 
 Farther, we are informed, « that though these philosophers sometimes 
 called their three Divine hypostases not only Treia Physeis^ three 
 natures, and three principles, and three causes, and three opificers ; 
 but also three Gods ; and a first, and second, and third God ; yet did 
 they often for all that, suppose all these to be One Theion, one Divi- 
 
 ty''. « Thus when God is often spoken of in Plato singularly, 
 
 the word is not always to be understood of the first hypostasis only, or 
 To Agathon, but many times plainly of the proton, and deuteron, and 
 triton, the first, and second, and third, all together, or that whole Di- 
 vinity which consisteth or is made up of these three hypostases."): 
 « The Platonists, therefore, " continues Dr. Cudworth in another place, 
 " first of all suppose such a close and near conjunction betwixt the 
 three hypostases of their Irinity as is nowhere else to be found in the 
 whole world." To show this, be cites a passage from Plotinus, the 
 Platonic philosopher already named. " The Platonists further declare," 
 says this very learned author, ** that these hypostases of their Trinity 
 are absolutely indivisible, and inseparable, as is the splendor indivi- 
 sibly conjoined with the light or sun : which similitude Athanasius 
 often makes use of to the same purpose. These Platonists seem likewise 
 to attribute to their three divine hypostases just such a «,ircumce8sion 
 or mutual in-being as Christians do. For as their second and ihird 
 hypostases must needs be in the first, they being therein virtually 
 contained ; so must the firsi likewise be in the second and third, they 
 being, as it were, but two other editions thereof, or itself gradually 
 displayed and expaniled. But to speak particularly, the first must 
 needs be in the second, the Agathon in the Nous, and so both of them 
 really one and the same God/*^ 
 
 The citations just made will, I hope, convey to your minds a tole- 
 rably distinct impression of the Platonic doctrine of the Deity. You 
 will perceive the conception of the Platcnic philosophers was that of 
 a Trmity of hypostases^ or pfrsons, subsisting in the Supreme Being — 
 
 * Cudworth*! Intellectual Syatem of tl.;; Vb.vene n. 513. 
 t Ibid, p. 680, tibid, p, 088. $ Ibid, p. 690. 
 
 a iiifvv 
 
>J 
 
 the second hniag generated from the (iist ; himI the thiid heni^' csierc 
 tially dependent both on the /SrW and ter.ond^ while v't it is asserted 
 that all three are co-eHStntiiUf co-eternal, and one Vivinily. 
 
 Two facts are now before us, which I wish jou carefully to bear in 
 loiad : 
 
 1st. The doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead is not 
 plainly expressed in the SacreckScriptures. 
 
 2nd. Such a doctrine is plainly taught in the writings of the Plato- 
 nic philosophers. 
 
 It will be readily perceived that there is a marked difference be- 
 tween the manner in which the subject of God's existence is spolc^n of 
 by our Lord and bis Apostles, and that in which it is spoken of by the 
 disciples of the Athenian philosopher. 
 
 I ask your attention, now, to another fact of great importance. 
 There is to be found no recognition of the present doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity in the works of any of the Christian writers of the first three cen- 
 turies. Says a highly reputable living writer, — " I am prepared to state, 
 without fear of contradiction, that the doctrine of the equaUty of the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, cannot be found in any genuine ChrisHan 
 work of the three first centuries, and that there cannot be foutid, with 
 reference to the Divine nature, in any genuine Christian work of the 
 first two centuries any statement of doctrine equivalent, or approach- 
 ing to, or consistent with, the modern doctrine of the Trinity.'-* 
 
 Let me ofier a few very brief citations from the works of those 
 early Christian writers, in illustration of their opinions, and 1 will 
 leave you to form your own judgment as to whether they could hare 
 been believers in the co-equality of the alleged persons of the God- 
 head. 
 
 Clement ofRomCf A, J). 96, writes, << The'Apostles preached the 
 gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. 
 Christ, therefore was iefl( out by God, and the Apostles by Christ. 
 Both these events were ordered by the will of God."\ 
 
 Justin Martyr^ A. D. 140. " I will endeavor to show that he who 
 appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God in 
 Scripture, is different from the God who made all things, numeri- 
 cally different, but the same in will. For I say that he never made 
 anything but what that God who made all things, and above whom 
 there is no God willed that he should do and say."1: 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194. « There is One Vnbegotten 
 Almighty Father, and one first begotten, by whom all things were, 
 and without whom nothing was made. For one is truly God who 
 made the arche (beginning) of all things, meaning his first begotten 
 Son."§ 
 
 * A. P. Feabody. Lectures on Cliristian Doctrine, p. 41. 
 Clement's Ep. Sect. 43. I Dial, cum Tr 
 
 c c,.«.. t:i. ..: » at 
 
 § Strom, lib. vi. p. 6<4. 
 
 Tryph, p. 252. 
 

 10 
 
 TertvUwn, A. D. 200. This writer is the author of a work against 
 Praxeas who advocated the strictness of the Divine Unity, withmneh 
 success in Africa at the close of the second century. Therein be 
 writes :—** I do not altogether say there are Gods and Lords, but 1 
 follow the Apostle, so that if the Father and the Son are named toge- 
 ther. I cap. the Father God, and Jesus Chtiat Lord; though I can call 
 Christ God when speaking of himself alone."* And be explains this 
 expression by the illustration of a ray«coming from the Sun, which 
 may with propriety, he says, be called the Sun. 
 
 Origetif A. D, 230. Referring to those who were jealous for the 
 Divine Unity, this writer says: « We may by this means solve the 
 doubts which terrify many men, who pretend to great piety, and who 
 
 are afraid of making two Gods For we must tell them that he 
 
 who is God ofhimselff is thu 6rod, even as our Saviour alBrms in his 
 prayer to his Father y Mhat they may know TAee, the otdy True 
 Oodj' but that whosoever becomes divine by partaking of his divinity, 
 cannot be styled the GoJ, but a God, among whom especially is the 
 first bom of every creature." Also he says :— « The Saviour and the 
 Holy Spirit are more excelled by the Father, than he (Christ) and 
 the Holy Spirit excel other things, etc., and he (Christ) though excel- 
 ling such and such great things (viz. thrones, principalities, etc.,) in 
 essence and office, and power, and Godhead, is by no means to be 
 compared to the Father."t 
 
 JVova/tan, A.D. 251. « The rule of truth teaches us to believe, 
 after the Father, in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ ; our 
 God, yet the Son of Goo, of that God who is one and alone, the 
 Maker of all things.»t 
 
 Euaebiua of Casat^iOf A.D. 315. " The only begotten Son of God, 
 and first-born of every creature, teaches us to call his Father the 
 ONLY TROB GoD, and commands us to worship Him (the Father) 
 
 From the quotations just given, !l you may form your own opinion 
 
 as to whether those ancient fathers of the Church were believers in a 
 
 Trinity of co-equal persons in the Godhead. To me it seems evident 
 
 > they were not. This, then, is another particular, which I ask you to 
 
 bear in mind, in connexion with the other two, already niumed. 
 
 Now let me turn your attention to yet another circumstance in 
 history. "The arms of the Macedonians diffused over Asia and 
 Egypt, the language and learning of Greece ; and the theological 
 
 • Adv. Pras. Sect. 13. t Comment. Vol. ii, pp. 47—213. { Cap. ix, p. 39. 
 
 § Prsparatio, lib. vii,cap.l6. ;i 
 
 II (luolalion« to a similar elTect, Trom the niite-Nicen« fathers, might be multi- 
 plied. See Priestley's History of Opiniens; Dr. Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doc- 
 trine o( the Trinity; Forrest's Account of the Origin of Trinitarian Theolofjr ; 
 Peabody'a Lectures on Christian Doctrine ; Thorn's Lecture on the Trinity in 
 Liverpool Controversy, between three Unitarian Ministers, and thirteen Clergy- 
 men of the Church of England. It is to the Arst, third, and Afth, of the works Just 
 named, that I am indebted for the references appended to the citations from the 
 seven ancient Christian writers given above. 
 
11 
 
 system of Plato was taught with le^s reserve, and, |)erhaps, with some 
 improTements, in the celebrated school of Alexandria. A numerous 
 colony of Jews had been invited by favor of the Ptolomies, to settle 
 in their new capital. While the bulk of the nation practised the 
 lesal ceremonies, and pursued the lucrative occupations of commerce, 
 a few Hebrews of a more liberal spirit devoted their lives to religious 
 and philosophical contemplation. They cultivated with diligence, 
 and embraced with ardor the theological system of the Athenian 
 sage."* Here, then, we have a school of Platonic philosophy estab- 
 lished at Alexandria, I'n Egypt. Numbers of Jews m that place, who 
 devoted their lives to philosophical studies, admired lh« theological 
 system of Plato, and effected an union between it and the theology of 
 Moses. This was the first inroad on the pure monotheism of the 
 Bible. As Christianity was propa9;ated, it found its way likewise to 
 that noted seat of commerce and learning, Alexandria. Here the 
 simple doctrines of the Gospel came in contact with minds imbued 
 witP the metaphysical subtleties of the Platonic philosophy. Those 
 minds, vain of their subtle wisdom, and proud of their fashionable 
 doctrines, could not brook the idea of accepting in its simplicity, the 
 system of a Teacher who had been hunted down in his native country 
 and crucified like a common slave. As this had been « to the Jews 
 a stumbling-block," so it was «to the Greeks foolishness." The 
 plain doctrines of Christianity were too plain for men accustomed 
 to such refined speculations. They were led, therefore, to seek in 
 the Christian system ideas corresponding to those to which they bad 
 been accustomed in their popular and fashionable philosophy. In 
 such a state of mind, they would readily and eagerly seize on any 
 apparent approximation to their favorite notions, and in the employ- 
 ment of the term Logos by the Apostle John, in the introduction to his 
 Gospel, they discovered a point which they thought justified them in 
 blending the doctrines ot Platonism with those of Christianity. Logos 
 is a Greek term signifying sometimes " word," « doctrine," ** dis- 
 course," &c., and sometimes the <' reason," or rational faculty in 
 roan. This was one of the terms used by the Platonists to denote the 
 second hypostasis or person in their divinity. They, therefore, inter- 
 preted the Apostle John in this sense. They made the LogoSy or 'Word,' 
 a second hypostasis or person in the Deity, and thus laid the founda- 
 tion of the present Church doctrine of the Trinity. I do not say they 
 completed this doctrine, for it was a work of time to bring it to its 
 present state, as I shall presently show. Bnt f say that in this way 
 the Platonic philosophers who embraced the Christian religion laid 
 the basis of the present popular doctrine of a trinity of co-equal per- 
 sons in the Godhead. 
 
 Gibbon, in his peculiar style, says, that « the Athenian Sage had 
 marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the 
 Christian Revelation." But this sneer of the historian falls lightly on 
 me. It falls lightly on me, for I deny that the Trinity forms any part of 
 the Christian Revelation ; and I sorely regret that tiie popular fai^h 
 of the Christian Church should seem to give ground for such a sneer. 
 
 • Oibbon'a Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. iii, pp. 31S, 81i. 
 
T 
 
 12 
 
 h 
 
 !] f 
 
 i attach but inferior value to his opinions on points of religion, though, 
 like othe((i, I am willing to iearn froTi his page in matters of histori- 
 cal fact. He tells us, also, that « the same subtle and profound ques- 
 tions concerning the nature, the generation, the distinction, and the 
 equality of the three dirine persons of the mysterious Triad or Trinity 
 were agitated in the philosophical and in the Christian Schools of 
 Alexandria."* No less a champion of the Trinity than Bishop Horsley 
 himi)elf acknowledges that the Platonic converts to Christianity «< ap- 
 plied the principles of their old philosophy to the explication and 
 confirmation of the articles of their faith. They defended it by a^u- 
 ments drawn from Platonic principles, and even propounded it in Pla- 
 tonic language."^ And St. Augustine, in his Confessions, has stated 
 that he was in darkness about the matter, until he found the doctrine 
 concerning the Logos, or « Word," in a Latin translation of some 
 Platonic writings.^ Thus plainly admitting that it was the Platonic 
 philosophy whicn moulded this portion of his Christian faith. 
 
 But while the doctrine of the simple Unity of God was invaded and 
 obscured in one part of the world by the influence of Gentile philo- 
 siophy, it was steadily maintained in its purity in another. The Jews 
 of Palestine were not fiimiliarised with the Platonic Wiitings, as the 
 Jews and people of £gypt were. They knew nothing of a threefold 
 nature in God. Many of them received Jesus as the Messiah, or 
 Christ of God. Such, you know, was the declaration and doctrine of 
 Peter, one of the earliest of those Jewish converts to the Gospel. 
 But none of this class ever did accept the doctrine of the Supreme 
 Deity of the Son. On this account they came to be set down after- 
 wards among the heretics. Through the influences already referred 
 to, however, the doctrine of the Deity of the Logos, or ** Word," 
 came to be introduced among Christian believers generally, and pro- 
 pagated in the Church. At its introduction, its advocates did not aim 
 to establish an absolute equality, for some of the fathers who advocate 
 the doctrine, plainly intimate elsewhere in their writings, the aubor- , 
 dinaiion of the Son to the Father. How the attempt to introduce it 
 was met by the great holy of Christians, may be learned from a pas- 
 sage in the writings of Tertullian :— " The simple, the ignorant and 
 the un.earned, who are always the g'-eater part of the body of Chris- 
 tians, since the rule of faith [the Apostles' ereed probably] transfers 
 the worship of many Gods to the one true God, not understanding that 
 the unity of God is to be maintained but with the economy [distribu- 
 tion of persons], dread this economy ; imagining that this number and 
 disposition of a Trinity is tue division of the Unity. They, therefore, 
 will have it that we are worshippers of two, and even of three Crods, 
 but that they are the worshippers of one God only. * We,' say they, 
 
 " * Decline and Fal), Vol. iii, p. 319 
 
 t Charge iv. $ 2, spud Norton on tlie Trinity.— The BiAop elsewhere profaBsei 
 to rejoice in the similitude between the ChriBtian and the Platonic Trinity, and 
 thinks that " the advocates of the Catholic faith have been too apt to take alarm at 
 the charge of Flatonism." He thinks that in such similitude he discovers addi- 
 tional argument to confirm his own views. We leave him to his rejoicing. Per- 
 haps some will think that the learned Prelate made a virtue of necessity. 
 
 t Opp, 1, p. 123.— See aUo Translation of Augustine's Confessions. Boston: 
 1343. Book vii. ^ - ..«». :,.!tk.!),^ ..^^.-.i^- 
 
13 
 
 < hold Ihe monarchy,' [absolute Unity ). Even iho Lailns have li-arned to 
 bawl out for the monarchy, and the Greeks themselves will not under- 
 stand the economy."* 
 
 The repugnance of the generality of christians to this n<»w and 
 strange doctrine, may be farther learned]rrom Oiigen, who writes that 
 when it is necessary, the Gospel must be taught in a corporeal or lite- 
 ral way, « saying to the carnal, tha^ we know nothing but Jesua 
 Christ, and him crucified. Rut when persons are found confirmed in 
 the opirit, and in love with heavenly wisdom, [i. e., persons more re- 
 fined, and capable of understanding his spiritual philosophy], we must 
 impart to them the Xogos,"t that is the mysterious doctrine of hi* 
 divinity. 
 
 But the new opinion (involving a distribution of the Supreme Di- 
 vinity, similar to that of the Platonists,) gradually advanced in the 
 Christian world. Its advocates were earnest in their recommendation 
 of it. It is reasonable to suppose that Justin Martyr may be taken as the 
 representative of a class. That writer was a Platonic philosopher 
 as well as a Christian, and he writes tn another Platonic philosopher, 
 who •vas not a Christian, saying that Christ corresponds to the second 
 person of the Trinity, as Plato their master had taught them. The 
 doctrine carries some subtleties and nice distinctions along wifh it, 
 which circumstance would recommend it to a certain class of minds ; 
 while, at the same time, it has an air of mystery and marvel about 
 it which would recommend it to another class— to a class of ruder and 
 less cultivated cast, and naturally fond of the marvellous. It gra- 
 dually advanced, however, obscuring the simplicity of the Gospel; 
 and early in the fourth century, the indiscreet zeal of Alexander, bi- 
 shop of Alexandria, brought the matter to open and public controversy. 
 Alexandria, the great seat of the Platonic philosophy, was the birth- 
 place of the alleged Christian doctrine of a Trinity. Here it was ge- 
 nerated, and here it flourished, until it gathered strength and boldness 
 from the nnmber of its adherents. Alexander, the bishop, in nn as- 
 sembly of his clergy, alleged and asserted that the Son was consub- 
 stantial (humoousian) with the Father. Here he was promptly met 
 by Arius, one of his presbyters, who assailed the doctrine of his bi- 
 shop, and maintained the proper subordination of the Son. This was 
 the commencement of a controversy, the most important on the page 
 ofh; )ry— a controversy which shook the Church and the world. 
 The grand question at issue was the doctrine of the Godhead. Arius 
 (who was the leader of what may be called the Unitarian 
 party of the time,) maintaining the supremacy of the Father, and the 
 fl'jsolute Unity of the Supreme Being. Now Arius was no Platonist. 
 For saying this we have the authority of Dr. Cudworth. But Arius 
 was standing in opposition to his bishop. Powerful influences were 
 therefore, against him. Alexander assembled a council of his clergy' 
 Ht which he himself presided ; and he procured a sentence of excom- 
 
 
 * Adv. FraxeRm, cap. Hi. ap Triestley's History of Opinions, Lardner's Credi. 
 bility, and otlier writers. 
 
 t Comment, ii, p. 9. Hialory of Opinion*. Book iii, chap. .13. 
 
T 
 
 IP 
 
 14 
 
 I! 
 
 :| 
 
 ;'<. 
 
 muDication against his opponent. The result was, Ariiis and his ad- 
 herents were deposed from their offices in the Church. This was the 
 first stage of the great Arian controversy. > 
 
 This step of the Bishop quickened the zeal of the Arians. They 
 were not to be thus speedily extinguished. The discussion was car- 
 ried on with great vigor, and no little acrimony on both sides. So 
 violent did the dispute become, that appeal was made to the Emperor 
 Constantine. The Emperor was unwilling to interfere. He addressed 
 both parties in an epistle recommending peace and unity. But th« 
 adherents of the bishop urged his interference, and he yielded to their 
 request. As the most proper and rtTectual way of deciding the con- 
 troversy, he resolved to call a general Council of the Church, " and that" 
 says Waddington, " was, perhaps, the most critical moment In ec- 
 clesiastical history, in which Constantine determined to convoke the 
 Council of Nice." 
 
 Hear the same historian's account of that assembly : — « In the year 
 325, A. D.f about three hundred and eighteen Bishops assembled at 
 Nice, (Nicoea) in Bilhynia, for the purpose of composing the Arian 
 controversy. <Let us consider,' says Dr. Jortin, < by what various 
 motives these various men might be influenced ; by reverence to the 
 Emperor, or to his counsellors and favorites ; his slaves and eunuchs, 
 by fear of offending some great prelate, who had it in his power to 
 insult, vex and plague all the Bishops within and without bis juris- 
 diction, by the dread of passing for Heretics, and of being calumniated, 
 reviled, hated, anathematized, excommunicated, imprisoned, banish- 
 ed, fined, beggared, starved, if they refused to submit ; by compliance 
 with some active, leading and imperious spirits; by a deference to the 
 majority ; by a love of dictating and domineering, of applause and 
 respect ; by vanity and ambition ; by a total ignorance of the question 
 in debate, or a total indifference about it ; by private friendship, by 
 enmity and resentment, by old prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an 
 indolent disposition, by good nature, by the fatigue of attending, and 
 a desire to be at home, by the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred 
 of contention, &c., k-c." These considerations will enable us to form 
 an opinion of the value of any decision such an assemblage should ar- 
 rive at. « The Bishops began," continues Waddington, "by much 
 personal dissension, and presented to the Emperor a variety of writ- 
 ten accusations against each other. The Emperor burnt all their li- 
 bels, and exhorted them to peace and unity. They then proceeded 
 to examine the momentous question proposed lo them." And after 
 much acrimony and unintelligible argument, the decision went against 
 the Arian opinions, and by this Council was « established, respecting 
 the two first persons of the Trinity, the doctrine which the C irch 
 still professes in the Nicene Creed."* These considerations will far- 
 ther enable us to judge of the value to be attached to the Nicene 
 Creed. And to crown the whole, A 'ius was banished, his writings 
 committed to the flames, and sentence of death pronounced against any 
 
 * Waddington'B Church History , pp. , 9| , 92, 93. 
 
15 
 
 person in whose iiossessioa co|)ies of those writings should hereafter 
 
 oe found. . '\ . rr^w '■•,.:,, .tj - ^ > i '•■ , ' "'•' '■ 
 
 But it is difficult to crush opinion. A steady and perseveiing course 
 of heartless persecution may and will do it ; but sreat as was the dis- 
 aster of the decision of the Council of Nice, the Arians were far from 
 being subdued. Strong in the strength of what thtfy conceived to be 
 the truth, they continued to profess and promulgate their opinions, not 
 only throughout Asia, but in Alexandria itselh And such was t^ie 
 efleet of their efforts, that Constantine recalled Arius from banishment, 
 and subsequently received baptism from an Arian bishop. In the 
 meantime, however, Alexander died, and he was succeeded in the see 
 of Alexandria by the celebrated Athanasius. This man likewise suc- 
 ceeded to all his predecessor's enmity against Arius and his opinions. 
 He protested against the recal of that distinguished exile ; but in 
 vaiu. For now the imperial favor was setting toward the Arian 
 
 Karty. Athanasius himself, shortly afterwards shared the fate 
 e was so anxioua to perpetuate on his opponent. At a Council held 
 at Tyre, A. D., 335, he was condemned and banished. Soon after 
 the death of Constantine, he was restored. Constantine was succeeded 
 in the throne by his son Constanlius, a very zealous Arian. Athana- 
 sius was an ardent and constant assertor of his opinions. He was an 
 admirer of the Platonic doctrine of a Trinity, and in his discussions with 
 the Arians, be used to tell them to go to school to the Platonists.* In 
 A. D., 341, he was again banished by the Council of Antioch. Again 
 he was restored, and a third time be was banished. This exile lasted 
 six years, after which he was, for the third time, restored. It will be 
 objerved here, tbdt both parties partook fully of the persecuting spirit 
 of the age. The Athanasians, when they had the power persecuted 
 the Arians ; and the Arians, in their turn, persecuted the Athanasians. 
 At this period, during the reigns of Constantius and Valens, Arianism 
 waa in the ascendant for nearly half a century. But during the reign 
 of Theodosius, it was subdued and crushed. The means employed for 
 this purpose were of the most cruel and unjustifiable character. 
 
 Let me now direct your attention briefly to the progressive forma- 
 tion of the doctrine of the Trinity, until it arrived at its present form. 
 In doing so, 1 shall take the three Creeds of the Church of England 
 Prayer-book as historical documents, and by means of these point out 
 the gradual progress of the doctrine. Intervals of centuries elapsed 
 between the times of the composition of these creeds respectively, and 
 each creed as it stands shows the change of opinion which had taken 
 place in the meantime. By looking at these three creeds we can 
 perceive hew the advance was gradually made from the simple and 
 consistent teachings of the Scriptures to the complex and contradictory 
 doctrines of the present popular theology. 
 
 The first creed I shall cite is that commonly called the Apostles' 
 Creed. It is a Unitarian Creed, and was the only one known to the 
 Church during the first three hundred years. — « I believe in God, the 
 Fathbr Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth :— And in Jesus Christ 
 
 # III — . — — 
 
 * Cudworth, p. 633. 
 
 I r 
 
T 
 
 10 
 
 il'l 
 
 his ohlv Son our Lord, wlio wan conceived by the Holy GhoRt, born 
 of (he Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, 
 and huri«>d ; he descended into hell, the third day^hc rose again from 
 dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth.at the right hand of Goo, 
 the Father Almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the quick 
 and the dead. — I believe in the Holy Ghost ;4the holy Catnolic 
 Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the re- 
 surrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." ,,^ 
 
 This, I say, is a Unitarian Creed, and since it was the only creed 
 recognised and used by the Christians of the first ages, it showH un 
 eleari} that the faith of the primitive Church was U'nitarian. The 
 Church at the present day would not be oatiofied with such a creed. 
 And the reason is obvious. Their faith is widely different from that of 
 the early Christians. '^ 
 
 I shall next quote the Nicene Creed. It was drawn up, as we have 
 seen, at the Council of Nice in the fourth century. An important 
 modification had by this time taken place in the Christian faith, and 
 mode of expression, through the influence of the Platonic philoso- 
 phy. In this Creed we perceive a great departure from the sim- 
 ple Unitarianism of the primitive ages, yet it by no means unfolds 
 the perfect doctrine of a Trinity. This was to be the vrork of 
 subsequent times. It has been not inappropriately styled the 8emi- 
 trinitarian Creed. It is in truth only half Trinitarian in its doctrine 
 and character. Here it 1$:— «1 believe in One God the Fa- 
 ther Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visi- 
 ble and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, ]the only begotten 
 Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, 
 Light of Light, Verj' God of Vcy God, begotten, not made, being of 
 one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made: who 
 for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and wlis 
 incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, 
 and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was 
 buried, and the third day he rose again, accnrdirrg to the Scriptures, 
 and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, And 
 he ahall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: 
 whose kingdom shall have no end.— And I believe in the Holy Ghost, 
 [the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (and the 
 Son) who with the Father and the Son together is to bo, worshipped 
 and glorified, who spake by the prophets.] And I believe one Catho- 
 lic and Apostolic Church. I acknowled|i;e one baptism for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of 
 the world to come. Amen."* '^"^ 
 
 t<.^ 
 
 * The clause here encloaed within the outer brncketft, was not in the creed as it 
 came from the Council of Nice, but was added more than halfk century afterwards 
 by the CouHcil of Constantinople. This Council sat A.D. 381, and it was here, and 
 by this clause that the doctrine oflhe Trinity received what the learred Trinitarian 
 historian Moaheim hu called its " flnishing toucn." The clause " and the Bon '• 
 within the inner brackets was subsequently added in Spain, and lenerally aifopied 
 in the 9th century. Rtebbing, in hiit note on the Nicene Creed, endeavors to break 
 Che force ol the arjcumeni fromhiHiory ajtninnt the Trinity, by asserting that the doc- 
 trines weredcclnred RCcordinK to theordprof time in which they were denied. But 
 «iirh a mpiboi) nfpxplaininE owiiy the argument spppnrs to me very mmatlsfnctory. 
 
 it»t« 
 
17 
 
 ..,, 
 ■ ^ 
 
 Thin creed J I lav, is only half trinitarian io ite doctrine and charac- 
 ter. The Son m declared consubstantial with the Father. Deity is ascrib- 
 ed to him, but not in the same terms which are employed in the subse- 
 quent creed. Deity is ascribed to the Son, but it seems to be a c/ertv- 
 ed Deity rather than a Deity, absolute, independent, and co-equal. 
 He is styled. « God o/6od." But no Deity whatever was ascribed to 
 the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed as originally framed. This doc- 
 trine was the production of another Council held more than half a 
 century afterwards.* 
 
 The Third and last Creed I have to cite is that which is commonly 
 called the Creed of St. Athanasius. Its origin is involved in obscurity. 
 It is generally admitted that it is not the production of the man 
 whose name it bears. It is very commonly attributed to Vigilius 
 Tapaenais, who lived at the close of the fifth century. It was publish- 
 ed to the world with the name of Athanasius surreptitiously attached, 
 to secure it credit and currency. In it we perceive the doctrine of 
 the Trinity advanced to what may be regarded, 1 suppose, as its per- 
 fect stage. It contains probably the most hopeless catalogue of con- 
 tradictions that ever the ingenuity of man devised. I shall cite that 
 portion of it only which refers exclusively to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 For, Bi I have had occaiion to obierve eliewhere, it la admitteil that the evidence 
 for the diitinct per8on8lity,and divine co-equatity of the third person ia le«ii obviouit 
 and coBioua than that of the aecond peraon. Thia being the caie, the separate au- 
 preme Deity of the third ahould certainly have been called in queatian before that 
 of the aecond, and thua we ahould be led lo look for the formal aiaertion of the Deity 
 of the Holy apirit before the declaration of the Deity of the Hon. It will be *een, 
 bowovcr, that the :aae ia Just the re verae, which provea the unsotindiieas of th(^ 
 allegation referred to. 
 
 * We have before ua theMethodiat Quarterly Review for the current month, in 
 which there ia a lengthened article on the Incarnation. The Reviewer i» of opinion 
 that the lime has rome when this, and the cognate queationa, ahould be re-examin- 
 ed. " Nor do we fear " he aays '■ the irltimate result of this inveatigaiion, what- 
 ever may be its more immediate consequences. Essential truth can lo«e nothing; 
 by the dlacussion. A clearer apprehnnsion and a more precise stntement of cnr- 
 dinal principlea may poasibly be reached. And even if, in reaching iliem, we should 
 be compelled to surrender points we have been accustomed to regard ns fundumeu- 
 lal and essential, Chriatianitv loses nothing, and we are inllnitu gaiuera." Wi; 
 notice the Reviewer'a article here, more particularly on account of his reference to 
 the Nicene Creed. He says " the Inrmula of this Creed—* We believe in Oud >— 
 moat clearly haa exclusive reference to the Father, independent of, and placed 
 above, both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nothing is more clear than that Ihn 
 Nicene Fathera regarded autotheion [divine tn himself, not by derivation] and 
 •gdMwna [not generated, unpruduced] as pertaining exclusively^ to the Father ; hui 
 it ia equally evident that they regarded thia aa In no way conflicting with the divinity 
 of the Son." Of course not, weaay, becauae the divinity ol the Son which they 
 held waa, in aome aenae, a derived divinity, rather than inherent and independent. 
 This ia a point which ought always to be distinguished and borne in mind. How 
 great aoevcr may have been the departure, in the Nicene age, from the strict Unity 
 of the primitive times, and whatever may have been the character «f the Trinity 
 then arrived at, it seems clear, that they had not advanced to the doctrine of a 
 Trinity of persona absolutely cn-equal, such as was developed in subspquent tim'!s, 
 which ia now the prevalent faith of Christendom. "The Son," writes the Re- 
 viewer, "isaometimea called by them (feu/eraf Theoa [aecond God]. The unity 
 they were airenuous to maintain, seems to have been merely of counsel, will, 
 and work." " Again, the hovtotvuiot to Patri^ [one substance with the Father] 
 of the Nicene Creed, expreaaea no unity of the Father and Son beyond a homogene- 
 ouaneia of nature { and, consequently, the idea of numcrtcal (mmtsi is not neven. 
 eerily implied." In thia article we are also reminded of a fkct in history, th« 
 ptatement of which will not be wholly out of place here, viz.,— that it waa ai 
 Ike Council of Chalcadon in the flfkb century (403) that the doctrine of the *< two 
 natures " in Chnit waa authoritatively settled and pionouuced. 
 
 > ' I 
 
 I ; 
 
 ■ ,i 
 
18 
 
 « Whosoever will be saved, before all things it ia necessary thai he 
 hold the Catholic Faith ; which Faith except every one do keep whole 
 and undetiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the 
 Catholic Faiih is this : that we worship one God in Trinity, and Tri- 
 nity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the 
 substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Hon : 
 and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead ot the Father, of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one ; the glory equal, the majesty 
 co-eternal. Such as tne Father is, such is the Son, and such is th<* 
 Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and ihe Hoir 
 Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehen- 
 sible, and the Holy Gho»it incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the 
 Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three 
 eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehen- 
 •ibles, nor ibree uncreated ; but one uncreated and one incomprehen- 
 sible. So likewise (he Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty ; and 
 the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not t>«ree Almighties ; 
 but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God ; and the 
 Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods ; but one God. 
 So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost 
 Lord. And yet there are not three Lords ; but one Lord. For like 
 as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every 
 person by himself to be God and Lord: so we are forbidden by the 
 Catholic religion to say there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Fa- 
 ther is made of none ; neither created nor begotten. The Son is of 
 the Father alone ; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy 
 Ghost is of the Father and of the Son ; neither made, nor created, nor 
 begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers ; 
 one Son, not three Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 
 And in this Trinity none is afore or after the other ; none is greater or 
 less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal toge- 
 ther, and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid, the Unity in 
 Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore 
 that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity." 
 
 In this creed we have evidence of farther important modifications of 
 the opinion on the subject of the Godhead between the period of the 
 Council of Nice and the time of its promulgation — involving an inter- 
 val of probably two centuries. But though this Creed, asserting the 
 absolute co-eternity, and co-equality of the three persons of the Tri- 
 nity, was promulgated perhaps in the fifth or sixth century, it did not 
 meet with a general reception among Christians until probably the 
 ninth or tenth century. ''* It was never established, however, by 
 any general Council of the Church. We are told by the learned Cud- 
 worth that the doctrine of a " Trinity of persons, numerically the 
 same, or having one and the same existent essence," (which is the 
 present popular form of the doctrine) was not owned by any public au- 
 thority in the Christian Church until it was established by the Late- 
 ran Council.t The Council referred to here.was the fourth Lateran Coun- 
 cil which sat A.D. 1215. Thus it appears that it was as late as the 
 
 • Waddinglon p. 220. f Inlell. Sjit. p. COt. 
 
 of re 
 
lU 
 
 (hiiUeiitli century thai the present popular (Joctiuie ol the Tiinity was 
 publicly sealed, and authoritativf»ly consummated. And it is worthy 
 of remark, that it was the same Council which established the doctrine 
 of Transubstanliation. It was in the night of those ageo, then, which 
 Proleatants, at least, have been accustomed to style dark agex, that 
 those twin dogmas received authoritative seal and sanction from the 
 same ecclesiastical assembly. 
 
 " Good seed" — simple and sound doctrine— was sown by the Pro- 
 phets of old, by the Lord Jpsus Christ, and his Apostles ; but the 
 i( tares" of subtle and false doctrine gradually sprung up in the Church. 
 •< Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, is one Lord," was the annouuce- 
 meal of the divinely appointed Hebrew leader; Imt the subtle specu- 
 lations of men in time announced that God ww three a^ well as One. 
 The Lord Jesus Christ himself has plainly said, the Father is " {Ae 
 nrdy true Godj" and the Apostle Paul, after him, has declared, « to us 
 tlieie is hut one God, the Faiher ;" but, notwithstanding the precision 
 of these statements, men in their pride of opinion have constructed 
 authoritative creeds, in which two other persons are set forth as shar- 
 ing the Supreme Godhead, as well as the Father. We hold to the 
 positive statements of Moses, the Lord Jesus, and his Apostles, con- 
 cerning the fundamental point of all religion — the Godhead ; but 
 though we do so, we are stigmatised as negative religionists ; and this, 
 because we will not also accept the constructed statements of the 
 popular Creeds. Moses, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, we 
 say, sowed goo3 seed. Whence, then, came the tares ? From what 
 I nave just set forth, I think, you will be enabled to discern from 
 whence they came. I have given you a rapid sketch of the origin 
 and progress of the doctrine of the Trinity. I have made it as 
 full as I could consistently with the limits of a pulpit discourse. Let. 
 me here remind vou of the principal points set forth. The sacred 
 writings of the Bible are without anv statement of a Trinity of persons 
 in the Godhead. The writings of the Platonic philosophy do plainly 
 teach such a doctrine. The doctrine of the co-equality of the alleged 
 persons cannot be found in the genuine work of any Christian writer 
 of the first three centuries. Alexandria, in Egypt, was the noted 
 seat of the Platonic philosophy; and as the simple doctrines of the 
 Oospel advanced to that place, they were corrupted by the subtleties 
 of the Platonic system. Here sprung up that great controversy con- 
 cerning the Unity of God, and the supremacy of the Father, which 
 shook the Church and the world in the fourth century, in which, after 
 alternating defeat and victory, the power of the temporal prince sub- 
 dued the Unitarians. And lastly, we marked the important modifica- 
 tions of religious opinion which the world has undergone from the 
 Iirimitive ages until now, as evidenced by the three Creeds. By 
 ooking at the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, we have 
 seen how, through restless speculation, and metaphysical subtleties, 
 the world has been led by degrees from the simple Unitarian Christi- 
 anity of the early ages, to the present complicated system of prevalent 
 Trinitarian theology. 
 
 And now, you may be willing to enquire how Unitartanisn was so 
 complttely subdued, that we do not find it raising its head with any 
 
90 
 
 proper success attpr the fourth century ; nrtJ how it happens that even 
 now, three centuries after the Reformation, it in professed by but a 
 small minority of the Christian world ? I shall oDer a remark or two 
 to satisfy this enquiry, and then I shall have done. Unitarianism, wo 
 say, was the doctrine of the liist ages, and its widespread prevalenco 
 in the fourth century stands a prominent fact on the page of history. 
 Time has been when the Mtriig|u;le was — "The world against Atha- 
 nasius, and Athanasitis against the world" — when the opponenta of 
 the Arians were heard to cry, " They have the people, but we have 
 the faith" — when Athanasius himself had to write a treatise to prove 
 that numbers were not to be regarded as a tost of truth." But the 
 Arians were crushed; not, however, by fair persuasion and argument. 
 Shortly after the death ot Valens (an Arian l!<mperor),Theodosiu8 as- 
 cended the throne. This p'ince was a Trinitarian. He was likewise 
 a cruel persecutor, and particularly remarkable for the inflexible per- 
 severance with which he carried out his persecuting plant. He 
 "considered," savs Gibbon, "every heretic [i. c, every one who dif- 
 fered from himself] as a rebel against heaven and earth In 
 
 the space of fifteen years he promulgated at least fifteen severe edicts 
 .... more especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ; and to deprive them of every hope of escape, he sternly 
 enacted that if any laws or rescripts should uc alleged in their favor, 
 the judges should consider them as illegal productions either of fraud 
 or forgery ."t And Waddington says, " as he persevered inflexibly 
 . . . . nis severities were attended by general and lasting success, and 
 the doctrine of Ariu«, if not perfectly extirpated, withered from that 
 moment rapidly and irrecoverably.) The page of history, then, leaves 
 us at no loss respecting the foul and cruel means by which this form 
 of Unitarianism was crushed at the close of the fourth century.§ We 
 
 
 * CliillinRWorth, in reply tu liis opponcni'scliaige ngniniit rro(e«<lRnliRni, of want 
 of universnliijr, denifSB the " nbnolute univ«!iHulity and diflbsion" ol' Catholicitm, 
 Kiid invR, thut tboush the Ciitlinlicit thoiild ndw Ix-. lareur than any other aect of 
 Chrlstinniii it is " innit certain the timo h-% bvcn wtien they have not been ito; 
 when Ihn ' wliule world wondered that it wiin lirconiii Arian,' (Jerome) — when 
 AthanaHiiiB ' oppoacd the world, and the wiirid Alhanaaiua ' — when tb« Catholic 
 Liberiuit havint; the rontemptible paucity of h.M iidlierents, objected to him li a 
 note of errort anttwered i'or himscir. ' tiieru was n limi; when ihvre were but thren 
 nppoaeil the decree of the kins, and yet tbuKO three were in the right, and the rcat 
 iu the wrong,'— when the * proreavora oferror unrpaaaed the number ol'tho profei. 
 •ora or truth, in proportion a* the land* ortlie «ea do t?ie atars ol heaven,' (as Si. 
 Austin ncknowled^iea),— when VincentiUR conl'essea that ' the poiaon of the Arinne 
 had contaminated, not now some certain poition, but almoat the whole world,' — 
 when the author ofNazienzen'a life teMiilifit ' that the hurt'iiy o|' Ariua had potaea> 
 led in a manner, the whole extent of the world,'— whr.n Nnzicnzen found cauac to 
 rry out, ' where are they who reptonch ua with our poverty, who define the Church 
 by tiio multitude, and despite the little flnck 1 They have the people, hut we the 
 faith. ' And when Athanasius waa so overborne with shnals and fl'ioda ofAriana, 
 that be was enforced to write a treatise on purpose, against those * whojudgeof lb« 
 truth only by plurality of adherents.' "—Ac<igiun of Prolettanltf—Jlni. I0 vi. 
 rhap.f itcl, t'Z. 
 
 t Decline and Fall, vol. v., p. 31. 
 
 t History ofthe Church, p. 99. 
 
 6 By what means the opposition of AriuN liiinaflf, had been previously cut oflT, we 
 may also learn from thn following >i0i« in Mosboim's History. Alluding to tba 
 dismal death of Arlus, the writer says— " After having considered this roaiur with 
 the utmost care, it appears to me extremely probable, that this unhappy man waa 
 vtctitn to the resentment of bis enemies, and was destroyed by poiaon, or some 
 such violent method. A blind and fanatical zeal for certain aystemi offaith has, 
 in all sgcs, produced such horrible acts of cruelly and injustice." 
 
SI 
 
 or two 
 
 nil hdow whil followed. Agps of gpiii^ral ignorance and d^ tktiCN 
 came upon tlio world, and the litiman mind, when thouKhlfullj) exer- 
 ciaed at all, becama invoked in iciiolaalic diipulationi which ware cer- 
 tainly not favorable to the •implilicatlon of a religioui creed. Under 
 aueh cireumatances, Christianity, instead of being purified, had cor- 
 ruption after corruption heaped upon it, until the reality of the 
 relicion seemed almost lost; and, we may say, was almost lost, 
 amia the multitude of factitious appendages. And even when 
 the day of Reformation did come, the cruel spirit of the Tbeo- 
 doeian edicts was itill aliv«. Servetus, at Geneva, was burned 
 to a einder at a stake raised by the handM of the Reformers, because 
 he maintained, from Scripture, the simple Unity of God. The learned 
 and accomplished Socini were obliged to flee their native country for 
 the same cause, and take refuge in a foreign land. Thus it was that 
 Unitarianism was treated, even in a boasted age of advancing light 
 and freedom. And it may seem strange to some who hear me, when 
 I add that it was not, until about 35 years ago, that the penal statutea 
 against the profession of Unitarian opinions, were expunged from the 
 statute book of Britain. May we not see, in such circumstances, am- 
 ple reason wbv Unitarianism has not spread more widelv ? But this 
 IS not all. Even where oper. violence is not arrayed against it, or 
 legal enactments hanging over it, popular opinion is brought to bear 
 constantly and most unfairly against it. It is unjustly and ungene- 
 rouslv dealt with from the pulpit, from the platform, by the common 
 religious press, and in the private circle. People are cautioned 
 against it, and warned against it, in public and in private, as a seduc- 
 tive and awful her^'sy, until weak minds become alarmed, and ate 
 frightened from any approach to investigation. No yoke of priest- 
 craft was ever more disastrous to healthy freedom of thought, than 
 this yoke of popular opinion. Warnings are uttered against Unitarian- 
 ism as an awful herery, although we can state its every tenet in the 
 fairly quoted language of that Sacred Book, which all Protestants re- 
 cognize as the highest and only proper rule of faith, and this is more 
 than can be done tor the doctrines commonly called orthodox. Thus 
 has it become very generally misunderFioid, and very frequently mis- 
 represented : and the tendency of the more prevalent faith is to close 
 the avenues of the popular mind against every reasonable explanation 
 and argument, and in this way perpetuate the misapprehensions and 
 misrepresentations. Again, I ask, do we not sec, in such circum- 
 stances, ample reason whr Unitarian opinions have not spread more 
 widely? Simple Unitarianism is the latent faith of multitudes, who 
 almost fear to recognize it, though it exists in their minds. And 
 many, again, who do recognize it, are deterred from acting upon it, 
 through the subtle influence of that public opinion to which so large 
 a class of both young and old are content to live in bondage. They 
 permit their souls to be hemmed in by a spider's web, which one 
 manly word would break, if they bad only the courage and candor to 
 utter it. Many others, again, who, under different circumstances, 
 might be inquisitive in the matter, are not anxious to enquire when 
 the reffult might involve thein \u a belief which is not very popular. 
 The dightr work of the world, and the sacred cause of Truth must, of 
 course, M iiistained and promoted, by minds of a nobler order. 0, 
 
22 
 
 f . 
 
 
 tha* we may, indeed, belong to this nobler order of minds ! Let us 
 not boast that we do, lest we faH through our vain boasting. Let us 
 ever temper our Christian firmness with Christian humility; but if we 
 feel our faUh to be true, let us never shrinjc from iu avowal, whether 
 it be popular or unpopular. And, popular, or unpopular, we believe 
 that Unitarianism is true, and therefore we profess and maintain it. 
 We believe that we can prove i: true from reason and from Scripture. 
 And we can point to a period in history^ when the faith of the world 
 hung trembling in the balance — Unitarianism and Trinitarianism poised 
 against each other, and depending on the accident of the opinion and 
 temper of a temporal prince, to give either side the preponderance. 
 The effects of the persevering cruelty of Theodosr ..s, are every where 
 felt in the world at the present time, in the prevalence of Trinitarian- 
 ism. If any Arian Emperor had been guilty of such inflexible and in- 
 cessant persecution, against those who diffiered from him in opinion, 
 the result, we think, would ha^e been otherwise— a different form of 
 faith, we think, would, at this day, have been prevalent in the Christ- 
 ian world. 
 
 How long matters wil! remain as they ate, I pretend not even to 
 conjecture. If the spirit of enquiry were fully awakened, an impor- 
 tant step would be made towards the restoration of religion to its ori- 
 ginal simplicity. If men were fully persuaded to shake themselves 
 free from mental indolence— to lise superior to mental timidity — to 
 look the prevalent Creeds and forms of faith, fairly in tbe face, and 
 test their worthiness to be believed, a great point would be gained. 
 If men and women were adequately aroused to a sense of their re- 
 sponsibilities as rational beings, with a heavenly message before them, 
 to be read with their own eyes, and acted out in their own lives, a 
 commencement would ue made which would lead to a graifylng con- 
 summation. In closing, therefore, I would appeal to a!!-^to old and 
 yountr, and implore them to respect themselves — to respect the rea- 
 sonable nature which the Almighty has given them, and to respect 
 that Sacred Record which he has voucbsafei! for their guidance in 
 religion. I would appeal to all, and implore them carefully to exa- 
 mine whatever is propounded to them as aa article of faith. Remem- 
 ber the warning and injunction of the Apostle — << Beloved, believe not 
 every spirit ^ but try the spirits, whether they are of God." ** Yea," 
 I say with another Apostle—" Let Gad be true, Itut every man a liar." 
 Let the forms of the Creeds perish, and the simple doctrines of i^t 
 Divine Word prevail evermore. .t.j\,^ 
 
 it 
 
 '>"''!»- ■■»',-.:^'>!i. t! !■,'-,- . i,, 
 
 .V'<M :i\-^t{ «':•.■ 
 
 .s^%- fti'i'uvnt 'ynvM .ifi^Mtf 
 r'lV' Mir Ht ':: >t;i>;i*>i>ai ♦id lT»^i.4 = 
 

mm^nmmimimm 
 
 ■■nnnMi 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
'"wpp'W'p^i'ffPfffp^iWF 
 
 ^PPP^W"^^PWiP'«Pi"f!P!fi"^iP*iP' 
 
 
 *;. # y 
 
 ' '■< ~ I V 
 
 > • 
 
 • •> *; «. , „ " 
 
 .1 
 
WORKS BY UNITARIAN WRITERS, 
 
 AT THE BOOKSTORES OF 
 
 JOHN McCOY, Great Saint James Street, snd C. BRYSON, 
 No. 24, Saint Francois Xavier Street. 
 
 Char.ning's complete Works, 2 vols. 
 Channing's Memoir, 3 vols., (cheap edition) 
 
 " Sucli n mail ss Dr. Channing," snys the Methodist (iuari6rly Review. " mu-i 
 i.MVP stood inHiesticiilly in adv.mce of his age, whenever and wherever he had 
 uH.\ He livod accordin" to the sense of the present generation, nt hast, in tlie 
 ' P^t H^rof II. world, nfid yet he was far in front of it ; if it reaehes his rr.diani 
 position in two centuries, the signs of the times are certainly quite illusive." 
 
 Dewey's complete Works. 
 
 Wilson's Scripture Proofs and [llustrations of Unitarianism, Eng- 
 lish edition, in muslin. . » . .-.• 
 Wilson's Scripture Proofs, &c.— 1st part, Amencan edition, in 
 
 paper cover. /^. . .. -rw . • 
 
 Peabody's (A. P.) Lectures on Christian Doctrine. 
 J Scott Porter's Lectures on Unitarianism. 
 Bartol's Discourses on the Christian Spirit and Life. 
 Bulfinch's Communion Thoughts. 
 Furness' Domestic Worship. 
 Brooks' Family Prayers. 
 Peabody's (W. B. O.) Memoir and Sermons. 
 Ware oh the Christian Character. 
 Gifford's Remonstrance. 
 Worcester on the Atonement. 
 Livermore's Commentary on the Four Gospels. 
 
 ALSO, — 
 
 An assortment of the Tracts of the American Unitarian Association, 
 including, « John Milton's Last Thoughts on the Trinity," « Chan- 
 nino-'s Baltimore Sermon on the distinguishing opinions of Unitarians;" 
 &c.°&c. ; all calculated to illustrate the Doctrines and Spirit ot 
 Unitarian Christianity. 
 
 UNITARIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Public are hereby informed, that at a General Meeting of 
 the Unitarian Congregation, held on the 20th ultimo, it was re- 
 solved, that the PEWS in their Church be made FREE to the 
 I'ublic. All are invited to attend, who may feel desirous to do so. 
 
 February I, 185L 
 
in