of Christ. We have a minute account of their preaching in the Acts of the Apostles. It is to be supposed, that in promulgating the christian religion among the heathen nations, the apostles preached all its important doctrines. Yet he will read in vain, who shall expect to find any thing relating to a trinity in a single discourse of theirs, which has been recorded. They preached, that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, and that God had raised him from the dead; but they never spoke of his being the "very and eternal God." They never intimated, that God exists in a threefold nature, or in any other nature than that of the one true God.

I will give two or three examples, which will show their manner of preaching in respect to the character of Christ. In Peter's sermon immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day of pentecost, he thus addresses the audience; "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approv ed of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." Acts ii. 22. Would Would any one infer from these words, that the apostle meant the people to consider Jesus the same as God, or equal to him? He not only makes him a distinct being, but declares that he performed miracles by the aid of God. The whole discourse of Peter is of the same import. He concludes by saying, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." v. 36. According to the trinitarian scheme, Jesus, who was made Lord and Christ, was himself the same being by whom he was

made Lord and Christ. If Christ were actually the Supreme Being, it is very strange, that in this discourse, the whole object of which was to explain his character, Peter should constantly represent him not only as distinct from the Father, but as subordinate to him. All he says of the Holy Spirit in this discourse is, that it had been shed forth, and those who should be baptized "in the name of Christ," should "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I presume no language could be more unlike the articles of the church, than that which is used in this place by the apostle. He does not call the Holy Spirit God, but a gift; and Jesus he calls a "man approved of God."

Another striking example is found in Paul's discourse to the Athenians. "As I passed by and be held your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, to the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts xvii. 23. The first thing to be observed here, is, that the apostle was about to teach the Athenians the character of the true God. If he had supposed God to exist in three persons, he could not but make so remarkable a trait a very prominent part of his explanation. But how does he proceed? "God, that made the world, and all things therein, seeing that HE is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands." v. 24. He goes on in the same kind of language through the whole discourse, uniformly speaking of God as one being, and never intimating that he exists in more than one person. After thus explaining to the Athenians the nature of the true God, he speaks of Christ at the conclusion,

as follows. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent; because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man, whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." v. 31. Could it enter the minds of the Athenians, that the God, whom the apostle had just mentioned as having made the world, was actually the "man" by whom he would judge the world, and whom he had raised from the dead? They must have believed this, if they supposed from the apostle's account, that Jesus was one of three persons, which constituted the Deity. We may observe in addition, that in giving this character of the true God, the apostle says nothing of the Holy Spirit. But if the Deity consists of three distinct persons, of which the Spirit is one, is it credible, that he would have passed over this remarkable fact in silence?

I need not insist on this argument, drawn from the preaching of the apostles. Any one has only to read the book of Acts, with a particular view to the topics on which they dwelt, to be convinced, that they adhered most strictly to the precept of St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." They never speak of a God in "three persons," nor use any language, which conveys ideas approaching to such a character of the Deity; and yet St. Paul does not hesitate to say to the Ephesians, "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts xx. 27. If the apostles could declare the whole counsel of God without once alluding

to a trinity, why should we think it important at this time to ingraft this doctrine into our faith, and make it a part of the christian religion?

5. It is well ascertained from the best testimony, which can be derived from history, that the great mass of christians for the two first centuries were unitarian. This fact is generally admitted by all parties, so far as it regards the Nazarenes, or Jewish christians, and a portion also of the Gentile christians. Although there is no direct authority in the written word of God for the doctrine of the trinity, especially in the form in which it is received by the episcopal church, yet if this doctrine could not be distinctly traced to some later source, your argument of tradition might perhaps be thought to apply here, and we should be required to believe in the trinity, for the same reason that we are required to believe in the divine origin of episcopacy, and the traditional ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal and Catholic churches, because we cannot go back to "any one period in which it could probably have originated." But fortunately we have not this difficulty to encounter in the present instance. Few things in history are better settled, than the origin of the trinity. The close analogy between this doctrine and the philosophical speculations of Plato, leaves no room for mistake. Many of the first converts to christianity were Platonists, and they spared no pains in tracing out resemblances between the new religion, which they had embraced, and the philosophy to which they had become so strongly wedded while heathens.

Plato had some obscure notions of three distinct principles in nature. These principles were, first,

a Supreme Being, or chief Cause; secondly, a divine mind; thirdly, the soul of the universe. When the Platonists became christians, finding some general analogy between this part of their philosophy, and the accounts given in the New Testament of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they gradually interwove with these many of the peculiar properties of the three Platonic principles, and by this unnatural combination, the doctrine of the trinity assumed by degrees the shape in which it has appeared in later times. It does not come within my purpose to enter into the particulars of this history. It has often been done by able hands; and the result has been such as to convince any one, who will examine their inquiries with patience and impartiality, that the origin of the trinity can be traced to the Platonic philosophy, with as much precision, as any fact of those times, either political, civil, or ecclesiastical, can be established by the authority of history.*

The principal points of controversy at first, had regard to the nature of Christ. It has already been seen, that the Holy Spirit was not elevated to the rank of a person in the trinity, till near the close of

*The account which Le Clerc gives of the three Platonic principles is as follows.

Plato autem dixit primum esse το ον, αιτιον άπαντων, Ens, Causam omnium rerum; secundum vero λoyov, Rationem et Rectorem præsentium et futurorum; tertium denique Vuxn xocμov, Animam, sive Spiritum mundi. Secundum quidem Principium a primo genitum, seu factum; tertium vero a secundo adfirmat. Ars Critica, P. ii. § 1. c. 15.

He observes further, that Parmenides was the first, who started the notion of three principles. Primus omnium tria principia constituit Parmenides. Ibid.