ete pant ; 8 Gaeta analy ri ete reat a Noles Ani aRRaL at fai eH eset tty ry bet anny ath irate tn i a : ; Ba Hate oot 7 ena a Tt avi r ee aan ‘i bi rt wg ! ae tut ce ie a hae ese wer hey teh i ine tte i : inne as a pon a a ne Bt i 7 a ara Sa an A RY ta ae ee He cenit a ‘ a a bilo a . setesitt Hate a 7 ae y rah Ws ae ; ae Sant ae ge ete nit an i is oo pte i, ti Hae te trait i : ; ae tt ep f i antral PeSasansh Muah assachah ban eas uu gh guReA SADE EO AOC Se i an nee be ae : oi = a. tt sty i ty vist Aa eo a it pit a Sa a Garis ath Hat aa Ht 0 oe in : a | BEA aT at 3: i tt os ! y ao a es Hi a rat fete a a ae ae iu oo an see 2 _ i i ne ith kik _ hate | a ie rs Ba ie oe ue ee # a i i an ae - ae - ; och i ha a at vi] Baia ae - * sets oe Bath ae . - ie ait aut ie it dite ; fs ms oe 7 Hh i sf oo if oy ae tn Bue as ee an at it iit a ee Mieke ie ae tt a bah aaa ue airs ae casas se eis ot sata 2c Bae | _ a thy Si _ - | . ce tie iy . is 32 oat °x stets® orate! nee ry aa egtams® Sey 7 oy. i ae 3 $ oe a i ees ee ae . : ie ti es fi es Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 97 KE PRESENTED BY Samuel Agnew, Esq. 1860 a? 2 aye Spy = e TIJIO BG sre yes Hawthorne, George Stuart. The Doctrine of the Trinity] a doctrine not of divine Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/doctrineoftrinit0Ohawt ~ THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, A DOCTRINE NOT OF DIVINE ORIGIN: AND THE DUTY. OF. CHRISTIAN MEN IN RELATION PHBE TO: BY GEORGE STUART’ HAWTHORNE, M.D., LIVERPOOL. “Ye worship ye know not what—God is a Spirit.”— Christ to the Woman oy Samaria.—JOuN iv. 22, 24. ‘‘ A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.”—Christ to his Disciples.—LuUKE xxiv. 39. LONDON: HK. T. WHITFIELD, 2, ESSEX-STREET, STRAND. ——= MDCCCLI. _ LONDON: «PRINTED BY W. MARTIN, NORFOLK-STREET, . STRAND.: ape 6 ke re tee PRINCETON x REC, NOV 1800 | THEOLOGICAL LS ey SEMIN ES oe Wourer TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. My Lorp, In presuming to dedicate to you the following pages —and that too without permission—I am influenced by many considerations ; not one of which, however, is at variance with the highest respect for your Grace’s person and character, whether as a Christian man, or as an Archbishop. Ney: I have that much respect for what I have written, however feebly my design has therein been executed, that I would not preface my pages with a de- dication to your Grace, did I not feel, that your Grace is, by universal consent, acknowledged to be a prelate of pre-eminent Catholicity of spirit, and a man in whom all the virtues of the Christian shine with a lustre, that is not always to be met with, amongst those holding the A il DEDICATION. high office at present sustamed by your Grace—an office which is, certainly, ennobled and made unwont- edly illustrious, by the virtues of its present possessor. One object I have in view, in dedicating my work to your Grace, is, that I may, if possible, provoke your Grace to read it. You will pardon the expression. I shall feel happy, if I shall secure your Grace’s perusal of it, even on such terms: because, from your Grace’s character as a man who fears God and has a reverence for his word, I feel an assurance that your Grace shall not read it in vain. Another object I have in view, in dedicating my work to your Grace, is, that the public may therein have an assurance, that there is nothing contained in it, which may not, with propriety, be addressed to the most de- vout of Christians. I trust my own position in society will be a sufficient guarantee, that I would not presume to address to your Grace, anything that was not, most appropriately, to be commended to the consideration of the most faithful of Christian men. In fact, my work is addressed, I might almost say exclusively, to those who entertain a high reverence for the oracles of Heaven—to those who, more than others, DEDICATION. ll fear God, and tremble at his word. ‘To them is my appeal, more especially, made: because, I believe that with them rests the colour and complexion of our des- tiny, as a Christian nation. Unless they shall raise up a standard, against that flood of infidelity and anti- Christian superstition, which threatens to sweep all that is sacred from the land, no others will. It is they who have to vindicate the cause of Christianity against the scoffer and the infidel: and there never was a time, in the history of the Church, when their best services were more urgently needed. If we look abroad over the religious world, we cannot fail to behold much that is suggestive of grave and serious reflection. Your Grace cannot contemplate the present internal condition of your own Church, without feeling that confusion is becoming worse confounded, and that it will require almost superhuman tact and skill, to elaborate order, out of the chaos of contending interests and passions, which are convulsing your Church from the centre to the circumference, and from the cir- cumference back to the centre. Nevertheless, my Lord, I see prognostications of good in all this. The Great Disposer of events is purifying AX lV DEDICATION. your Church as by fire: he is agitating it, as the heated furnace, of the artificer, agitates the liquid ore; that the scum, and the dross, may be thrown to the surface, and be cast off, so that the purer metal may remain, uncon- taminated by the presence of the baser sort. What is wanted, my Lord, is a thorough evangelization of your Church, that is, that an unmixed evangelical spirit may pervade it; and then, and not till then, it shall be as a fit instrument, ready and prepared for the Master's use—then, let me observe with all humility, shall its members be prepared, to come to the conside- ration of those things which I have written ; and, then, shall their meditation on them not be unfruitful. I look forward, with glad anticipation, to the time, when the talent and learning, which are diffused in such abundance throughout your Church, shall put on their strength, and shall go forth to achieve their greatest triumphs, in redeeming the Christian religion from the abuses of false doctrine and superstition, and in bringing it back to its primitive purity and truthfulness. My Lord, in the course of the following pages, I speak freely of what I consider to be the essential evils of a Church-and-State establishment. I speak DEDICATION. V against the principle of such an establishment, and not against men. Should, however, my language, in any instance, assume the appearance of being in any measure personal, it is where I allude to those, who are better Churchmen than Christians—a distinction which, I am persuaded, your Lordship can very forcibly appreciate. But the chief object of my work is to show that the primitive doctrines of Christianity have been, altogether, superseded, by doctrines which know no inspiration from the spirit of truth—doctrines which are, at best, but of men: and to show, also, that, because of these things, the progress of the gospel is at a stand. God is, even now, saying to us, “ In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” My Lord, our ‘Trinitarian doctrines are doctrines of men, ‘They are held in open defiance of him, who proclaimed to the eel amidst lightnings and thun- ders and an earthquake, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your God is one Jehovah;”’ and who has amidst the same manifestation of his terrors commanded us, not to worship “the likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath.”—These v1 DEDICATION. things he spake for all time, but these things we have disregarded. We have turned away our ears from the truth, and have been turned unto fables. We have refused to tremble at the word of him who hath said, “To whom will ye liken me, and what likeness will ye compare unto me?’ And God cannot, and will not, bless us a Christian people, until we have put aside our rebellion, and until we have cast all our un- faithfulness, and our superstition, to the moles and to the bats, and until we have come, with the obedience of children, and learned of Jesus the way of truth more perfectly. My Lord, there must be a total renovation of Chris- tianity, or it will be crushed before the advancing strides of infidelity. There is a cry abroad, that all creeds must be abolished! Let us take care, that Christianity shall not be abolished, at the same time. The creeds of men must, indeed, be abolished, but the Creed of Heaven must take their place! The people of God must fight the battle of Revelation, and contest the field with the infidel and the profane, and they shall triumph. Yes: they shall triumph! I have no apprehensions DEDICATION. Vil for the result: but they must have the omnipotent Jehovah on their side. They must forsake their idola- trous creeds, and traditions of men, and wrestle with God for his blessing; and they shall be blessed. God waits to be gracious to them, and his purposes are in abeyance till they do this. Christ is already buckling on his armour for the conflict; he is about to triumph over all his enemies, and the kingdoms of the powers of darkness are about to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. The word of God forbids us to fear, that the cause of Christianity shall not, eventually, triumph. One jot or one tittle, of all that was promised of the evangelization of the world, shall not pass away, until all shall have been fulfilled. I trust, after your Grace has perused the following pages, you will be able to look, with a prophet’s eye, to the future; and will be able to prognosticate those changes, which must take place in the religious world, before the long-looked-for triumph of the gospel shall spread from sea to sea, and from shore to shore. I trust, also, that your Grace may crown a life of honour and usefulness, by leading the vanguard of God’s people from out the spiritual Egypt in which they have so long Vill DEDICATION. dwelt, unto the mountain of the Lord where they shall worship God more perfectly ; and where they shall have, for ever, turned their backs upon those superstitions which have grieved God’s spirit, and have deprived them of his blessing. I do not look forward to your Grace’s doing this on the instant, but I trust these feeble pages may be blessed of God, to awaken in your Grace those reflec- tions, that will eventuate, in such action as shall make your Grace the honoured instrument of carrying out the purposes of the God of heaven: and his purposes are ripening! I believe your Grace would not, even now, be alone. No: I believe there would be a noble army of devoted men to rally round the standard of truth. ‘Thousands there are, full of apostolic zeal and devoted- ness, who are only waiting to see the way of God more perfectly, to go forth to spend and be spent in vindi- cating the cause of truth, Already, they see men as trees walking: and they shall soon see clearly. There is, at least, one man, with whose name your Grace is familiar, of whom I shall say no less than this. He is to me as a beacon from heaven, beckoning me forward, and giving me an assurance that God DEDICATION. iX has ready prepared and waiting, a bright array of Christian faithfulness to marshal itself on the side of truth—giving me an assurance that God is, even now, preparmg the way, for bringing forth the faithfulness and pious zeal of his people, like noontide of the day. My Lord, I greatly rejoice in the truly evangelical spirit which so largely pervades all our churches, of all denominations, and which is to be found both amongst our clergy and laity. It is to this I look with hope. It is this spirit which, when “the wood, the hay, and the stubble,” of human creeds and confessions of faith, shall have been burnt up, shall lead the way, to the wHoLE evangelization, of the wHoLE world. My Lord, I said that I addressed myself, almost exclusively, to those, who, more than others, fear God and tremble at his word: but your grace will applaud me, when I say, that although my address is almost, yet it is not altogether, exclusively to them. I seek to commend the truth to all, even to him who is so un- happy as to be an infidel; and I do this the more earnestly and affectionately, because I feel, that our unfaithfulness, to the sacred oracles entrusted to us, has contributed much, if not mainly, to make the infidel X DEDICATION. what he is. Yes: the infidel demands our liveliest sympathies. By our having taught our fear towards God, by the commandments of men rather than by the oracles of heaven, by the burlesque upon common sense, and common truth, which our creeds and confessions of faith have presented to him, we have done much to make the infidel what he is: and in common faithfulness to him, we are bound to apportion to him a large measure of our solicitude. With how much appearance of truth, my Lord, has it been averred by the infidel, that Christianity is in its twilight! I look upon this, however, under present existing things, as a compliment to Christianity, rather than as a sarcasm upon it. God forbid that the dim, misty, light which now envelops christendom were the brightest light that heaven could shed upon it. If it were so, then the glory of Christianity would be dim indeed !—But it is not so— There shall a brightness, above the brightness of the sun, beam round Christi- anity yet !—Christianity is, indeed, in its twilight, but it is its morning twilight! The horison is but streaked with the hight of the coming day : and the full blaze of glory is yet to be revealed. DEDICATION, XI Well may the infidel say in his heart that Christianity is in its twilight! Well may we think so, now, more than ever. Well may he, my Lord, when he contem- plates the phenomena presented by your own church— and you may rest assured he has been contemplating them.—Well may he, when he does so, say that Christi- anity is in its twilight. But let Christian men awake, let them rouse and bestir themselves, let them shake off that lethargy with which a blind and unthinking super- stition has benumbed their spiritual perceptions, let them gird their los with truth, let them up and quit themselves like sons of God, and then shall the splen- dour of their triumphs be as the splendour of the meridian sun. Then shall they go forth conquering and to conquer, then shall they wave the standard of the gospel, in triumph, over the broad continents of Heathendom, and they shall take up the Isles as a very little thing.—Then shall the Sun of Righteousness spread himself abroad over the nations, “ with healing ? in his wings:” and then “their sun shall no more go down, neither shall the moon withdraw herself, for the Lord shall be their everlasting light, and the days of their mourning shall be ended.” Xl DEDICATION. My Lord, I feel that I have trespassed too far upon your Grace’s attention, in this preliminary matter. In . the introduction to my work, you will find a succinct account of what I proposed to myself to do, and what I have been able but very feebly to execute. But I rest confident that my labour shall not be, altogether, in vain. I have, mdeed, been able to do little more than simply enunciate truth; but, while lamenting my own lack of ability to do justice to the subject, I am com- forted by the reflection, that Truth is great in itself, and shall ultimately prevail. And I am encouraged to hope, that some other and more able hand—would that it might be that of your Grace—may take up the question where I have been obliged so feebly to leave it. I have the honour to be, My Lord, With most profound personal respect, Your Lordship’s Most obedient and most humble servant, THE AUTHOR. June 8, 1851. INTRODUCTION. To assert that the—by so many—so implicitly believed, and so much revered—doctrine of the Trinity—is a doc- trie not of divine origin, may—by the many—be charged as impious!—and there may be millions (!)—who, startled by the wild yell—“ Heresy !”—shall be uprisen to stand in arms against—they know not what—against !—the very enunciation of such an assertion. But let not him who reads this book be blindly led by the cry of a multi- tude—let him “pause and ponder, and ponder and pause,” upon the things which shall be written therem—and if, as he progresses through its pages, there should fall from his eyes “as it had been scales,’ and he should feel himself brought from darkness unto light; let him, at least, not shut his eyes against that light. To change the current of popular opinion has always, in any case, proved itself to be a difficult task ; but to divert that B yy INTRODUCTION. current of opinion from any course into which it may have set, touching matters which have become identified with religious faith, is, especially, a work of more than ordinary difficulty. “They have taken away my gods,’ said Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law; “and what will become of us 2” “Thus Paul,’ said the silversmiths of Ephesus, “hath per- suaded and turned away much people, saying, they be no gods which are made with men’s hands”? Such has been the language of superstition, in all ages of the world——would that it may not be so now! The present age is, humanly speaking, an enlightened age —the most enlightened, confessedly, in the world’s history ; but the wisdom of this world may be foolishness with God. It will not profit men, though they have all knowledge, and understand all mysteries, if they have not that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation. How many are wise unto everything, but unto the kingdom of heaven! They ean rea- son—logically—and_ powerfully—upon all subjects of human erudition; but they will not be constrained thus to reason, upon the most important of all subjects—the subject of re- ligion, In their researches into moral and physical science, they bring the lamp of reason to minister its truth-revealing light ; but, when matters of religious faith form the subject of inquiry, that lamp is laid aside—as if reason and religion were incompatible! They refuse to apply the noblest talent with which God has gifted them—the talent of reason—to the very purpose, to which, of all others, it should be its INTRODUCTION. 8 highest boast to be applicd; viz., to the acquiring a perfect understanding and knowledge of God, by the rational study of that revelation of himself which he has specially addressed to their reason; and to which important and unalienable duty he has mvoked them; saying, “Lnr wim tHatr GLORIETH GLORY IN THIS, THAT HE UNDERSTANDETH AND KNOWETH ME.”-——What account shall such men render of this greatest of all talents entrusted to them—even though they should possess it only to an unit degree ? Do not Trinitarians—for of them I now more especially speak-—do they not—I ask with all charitableness—allow dogmas on matters of religious faith to be forced upon them, which they would reject instantaneously, and with indigna- tion, if proffered on any other subject? Whence does this anomaly, relatively to divine things, arise? It does not arise from any innate principle in the mind itself. It does not arisec—in all cases at least—from a willingness on the part of Trinitarians to attach less importance to eternal than to tem- poral things. No: there is much that is devout amongst Trinitarians—--No: this unfortunate perversity of judgment; on the part of Trinitarians, owes its existence to other causes ; and, amongst the rest, to an eminently perverse training of their muids begun in infancy, and sedulously followed out in after years. They are taught, from their very infancy, to admit—as they would an axiom—a religious creed in whose mysterioushess—“‘all comprehension wanders lost”’—a creed which—at its outset—violates the first principles of common B 2 4, INTRODUCTION. sense and common truth—and sets all reason at defiance. They are taught, from their very infancy, that not to be- lieve that—-which is unbelievable—nay, for-a-moment-to- call-it-in-question—is impiety! No wonder that their faith in the incomprehensibilities of their creed is so implicit! No wonder that their reason is under a cloud, or trampled into the dust, when they approach the study of the book of reve- lation, touching the foundation of their faith! How great is their infatuation! What could have preserved them from a Hindoo Shaster, or a Mohammedan Koran, if fate had thrown such creeds in their way ? But, besides the violent—indeed I might almost say innate -—prejudices which he has to encounter, who would address himself to the Trinitarian touching the impiety of his faith, there are other obstacles to free inquiry, by which the Trini- tarian doctrine is beset, to the removal of which, he who would seek, effectually, to emancipate Trinitarians from the thraldom in which their spirits are held, must at the very outset of his labours direct his attention. The chief of these obstacles are those which are presented—by the carefully nurtured fallacy respecting the antiquity of the Trinitarian doctrine—and by the corruptions which were engrafted on the scriptures of the New Testament, during the early con- flicts of Christianity with Paganism. ‘To the removal of these obstacles in the way of the Trinitarian coming to a knowledge of the truth I shall first address myself; and, having thus prepared him for testing the truth of his idolized and idol- INTRODUCTION. 5 izing doctrine on its own merits, I shall lay before him a free and righteous exposure of its unscripturality; and dispel, I trust—and that for ever—the darkness and delusion in which, by that insidious mystery, the Christian world has so long been enveloped. The work shall consist of five chapters— IN THE FIRST CHAPTER—I shall show that the doctrine of the Trinity has not been, “from the beginning,” as is, un- veritably, alleged of it. I shall trace—historically—the progress of the doctrine from the very small beginnings with which it took its rise, till, after the lapse of many centuries, it attained its final com- pleteness ;—-I shall show that the doctrime was utterly un- known in the early ages of Christianity ; that it 1s not to be met with—even in name—before the second century of the Christian era, and that then it presented scarcely a single lincament of that which it afterwards became; so much so, that—even so late as the time of the celebrated Council of Nice—it did not exist in a form that would be at all recognized as orthodox—in the present day ;—I shall trace the gradual development of the doctrine through a succession of ages, till it finally reached that full and finished completeness with which it has been handed down to our time—which was not, in fact, until the beginning of THE NINTH CENTURY OF THE CurisTIAN ERA;—lI shall show that the doctrine is purely of Pagan extraction, and was foisted upon the sublime and sim- ple doctrines of our holy religion, by men whose Christianity 6 INTRODUCTION. was httle more than Paganism disguised: and I shall show that, so far as the character of the men and the times which have handed down the doctrine to us is concerned, it is ut- terly unworthy of that reverential regard in which it is held by so many in the present day. In THE SECOND cHAPTER—I shall show that the scriptures of the New Testament do not exist in their original integrity ; but have been corrupted by additions and interpolations—I shall show that those alleged passages of holy writ, under cover of which the Trinitarian, in the last resort, takes shelter, are cunningly devised fables and lying wonders, fabricated by men whose minds were yet deeply tinctured with Paganism, and engrafted by them on the Scriptures, in order to favour the introduction of their Pagan doctrines into the Christian church. Let not the reader, however, be startled, when I thus im- pugn the authenticity of some portions of the New Testament Scriptures, as we have them. The writer of this will yield to none in the deepest reverence for the sacred writings. In them he recognises a never-failing fountain of living waters. There may be a few scattered weeds floating over the surface, which have heen thrown in by the hands of irreverent and unwise men; but the waters hencath are pure—and clear as crystal— and life-giving. In THE THIRD CHAPTER—L shall expose the unscripturality of the doctrine of the Trinity, and show that Christ and his apostles, and the prophets of old, knew nothing of such a doc- INTRODUCTION. v4 trine; and never taught any thing but what was most di- rectly —and most emphatically—opposed to such a doctrine. And I shall combat those inferential or economical arguments, so to speak, by which the doctrine in the last resort 1s sought to be sustained. I shall also advert to some of the gross and dangerous crrors which the master-crror—Trinitarianism—has introduced into the doctrines of Christianity. I shall show how the beautiful simplicity, and converting influence, of the gospel of Christ has been marred, and destroyed, by articles of faith, which do dishonour to—the Father of our spirits—and are a let, and a hindrance, in the way of mankind being, more universally, brought to turn from the error of their ways to embrace—the truth as it is in Jesus. IN THE FOURTH CHAPTER—I shall show that—Trinity— is, “THE MARK OF THE BEAST AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME.” The beast referred to, being the first beast brought before us, in the prophetic allegory of the thirteenth chapter of the book of Revelation ; which beast, I shall show, symbol- izes the Papal power; that is, that system of imperial- ecclesiastical power which is established in MopERN Rome. T shall have occasion to refer, also, to the-second-beast brought before us in the same chapter of Revelation, which is said—“ to cause all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark, cither in their right hands or in their foreheads, and to permit none to buy or sell, save they who so have received the mark of the beast, or the number of 8 INTRODUCTION. his name.” JT shall show that this beast represents the im- perial-ecclesiastical powers, or in other words, the Church-and- State powers—that rose out of the Reformation—which have caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to recerve—the mark of the Trinity—cither in their foreheads, to believe it; or in their right hands, to make a hypocritical profession of it—and will allow none to buy, or sell, or get gain amongst them, save they who have so received—the mark of the Trinity—either in their foreheads, or in their right hands. In the course of the enquiry, I shall have occasion to show that Papan Rome is but Pacan Rome blasphematized. I shall show that the papal power is intrinsically a power of the God of this world—an infinitely worse, however, than a mere political power, inasmuch as it is written all over with the names of blasphemy. I shall show that all Church-and-State establishments partake, essentially, of the same character, which is to be found in them all, more or less, according to circumstances. I shall show that all our Church-and-State establishments—wwhether Protestant or Papal—which, be it observed, are all—Trinitarian—I shall show that they are all part and parcel of the great Gentile apostacy—that they are, all, part and parcel of that Apostate Church of the apoca- lypse, whose name was “ Mysrery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth.” IN THE FIFTH AND CONCLUDING CHAPTER—I shall, in the first place, bricfly review the leading points of my argument, INTRODUCTION. 9 after which I shall enforce the duty and necessity of a delibe- rate investigation, of what I have written, being made by all who seek to stand approved of God—as were the Bereans of old. I shall point out the important bearing of the question, on the interests of Christianity. I shall show that—-because of Trinitarianism—the evangelization of the world tarries. I shall show that Christian men are cutting and wounding them- selves, and consuming themselves with zeal, for the conversion of a world lying in wickedness; but that, because of the Trinitarian and other idolatries of the land, there is no fruit of their work. The heavens are as brass over them; there 1s neither rain nor dew from heaven descending upon their labour, any more than there was in the days of the three years and a half of drought, in the time of the Prophet Elijah, when the idolatries of Baal were in the ascendant in the land of Israel. I shall show, moreover, that we have no reason to hope that there shall be either rain or dew from heaven, till our Trinitarian idolatry be abolished, any more than there was neither rain nor dew in the land of Israel, till the idolatries of Baal were abolished. I shall show that—the conversion of the Jews—tarries the because of Trinitarianism. I shall show, also, that kingdom of Christ—tarrics because of Trinitarianism. Finally—I shall show that these are eventful times in which we live; that the signs of the times indicate that the ereat Apostacy—Babylon the Great—is coming into re- membrance before God—and that the time may not he far 10 INTRODUCTION. distant when the nations—“ shall hate her, and make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire!”—And I shall appeal to the people of God to come out of her—and be no more found within her—lest they be partakers of her sins, and reccive of her plagues. Throughout the work, I shall address myself to the sober understandings of men, and base my arguments, solely, upon facts and Scripture. And-as the incredulous Thomas, when our Lord Jesus Christ would prove to him his resurrection, was desired to put forth his finger and feel the prints of the nails—yea, even to thrust his hand into his side, that he might believe—so : let the Trinitarian be invoked to put forth his reason, and feel and probe after the truth—and be not faithless but believing. And may God inspire me with his Holy Spirit, and with such measure of grace as will raise me to the height of this great argument, and give me a mouth and wisdom which no adversary of the truth shall be able to painsay or resist, chs OP rH = — 4. ¥ iN O} ” i V ah . I N © Wve e| am f Bl ~ ae : : o> | REG, NOV MeyoLe THEOLOGICKL EZ ~~ c = * CHAPTER I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY TRACED, HISTORICALLY, FROM ITS EARLIEST ORIGIN, AND VERY FEEBLE BEGINNING, IN THE SECOND CENTURY OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA, TILL IT ATTAINED ITS FULL AND FINAL _ COMPLETENESS, IN THE YEAR eee UY, “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Deities.’—1 Tim., 1v., 1. Tney who imagine that the doctrine of the Trinity had any existence—in apostolic times-—labour under a very great, and very grievous, delusion. ‘That doctrme had no existence—in the days of the apostles. We find no trace of it—even in embryo—till the second century of the Christian era. Its germ may be said to have been planted about the middle of that century—but its growth was slow indeed—and it was not till after the lapse of many centuries that it reached that fully- matured state i which it has been preserved and handed 12 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY down tous, It was not, in fact—till the beginning of the ninth century—that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its finished completeness; although, by the middle of the sixth century, it had acquired all its substantial fulness of outline and detail, The importance of having a knowledge of these facts, if they he facts, will not be questioned. I now proceed to show that they are unquestionable facts; however astounding the announcement may be to some—I shall point out the first origin of the doctrine of the Trinity; and trace historically its gradual development through successive centuries, from the very small beginnings with which it took its rise, till, by slow degrees, it reached that consummated completeness which it has maintained to the present time. My historical statements are taken from Mosheim, who is held to be the most impartial of Church historians—at all events they who call themselves orthodox have no reason to complain of him—and where those statements, are especially important, I shall give them in his own words, marking them with inverted commas. Although the mystery of miquity had begun to work even in the days of the apostles, we learn from our historian, who gives the statement upon the authority of Clemens, the Alex- andrian, who lived in the second century, that “the church enjoyed a perfect tranquillity, and was undisturbed by any dissensions or sects of any kind, till after the rise of the Gnostic sect,” which is placed by Clemens in the reign of Adrian, who died a.p. 138. Mosheim offers a sug- gestion that this sect may have had an existence in the pre- ceding century, but admits it was not conspicuous till the time specified by Clemens. The testimony of Clemens, how- UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. Lbs, ever, on this pomt must be held to be conclusive; he wrote of events having close relation to the time in which he himself lived, and he therefore has a right to be considered a compe- tent authority. Under the general appellation, “ Gnostics,’’ were compre- hended “ all those, who in the first ages of Christianity, corrupted the doctrine of the gospel by a profane mixture of the Oriental philosophy with its divine truths.” This Oriental philosophy was not very deeply tinctured with that wisdom which is from above. Those of its tenets which it most con- cerns our present inquiry to notice, were—that the Supreme Being was—“a pure and radiant light,” and that there existed with him a number of celestial beings, whom he had formed from himself, and who were called “ Alons,” or “ eternal natures”—that one of these “ celestial natures,” or ‘“ Aons,” descending from the mansions of light, fashioned this world, and ereated man and inferior animals upon it, and imparted to it a certain portion of light, and of a matter celestial and divine. What I wish to be noticed here, is the doctrine—that a number of Divine Beings, called “ Alfons,” existed with the Supreme Being in the realms of light; and that one of these “ Mons” created this world. How many of these “ ons” there were was a controverted point. We are informed, of the sages of this Oriental philosophy— that “they expected the arrival of an extraordinary messenger of the Most High upon earth, a messenger invested with a divine authority, endowed with the most eminent sanctity and wisdom, and peculiarly appointed to enlighten, with a know- ledge of the Supreme Being, the darkened minds of miserable mortals, and to deliver them from the chains of the tyrants and usurpers of this world.” ‘ When, therefore,” adds our 14. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY historian, “ some of these philosophers perceived that Christ and his followers wrought miracles of the most amazing kind, and also of the most salutary nature to mankind, they were easily induced to believe that he was the great messenger cx- pected from above. And, this supposition once admitted, they interpreted, or rather corrupted, all the precepts and doctrines of Christ and his apostles in such a manner as to reconcile them with their own pernicious tenets.” The importance of this historical record to our present in- quiry cannot be exaggerated. Too much heed cannot be given to the facts of which it informs us. The Oriental sages expected the arrival upon earth of an ex- traordinary messenger of the Most High, and when they heard of the amazing and salutary miracles which Christ had wrought, they were easily induced to conclude that he was that expected messenger. AND THIS SUPPOSITION ONCE ADMITTED, THEY IN- TERPRETED, OR RATHER CORRUPTED, ALL THE PRECEPTS AND DOCTRINES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO RECONCILE THEM WITH THEIR OWN PERNICIOUS TENETS! ! Here—I affirm, the doctrine of the Trinity is to be traced to its source. It is to this decision of these Heathen philoso- phers, respecting the arrival of their expected messenger, that I trace the origin of the opinion that Christ was a person who came down from Heaven. And it was from this offspring of Oriental philosophy, crossed and re-crossed, through a long succession of years, with freshly imported Pagan stock, that that—hybridous nondescript—the doctrine of the Trinity— eventually sprung. It is to such source, and to a no higher one, that the doctrine of the Trinity must trace its origin. Heathen wisdom—was its progenitor, and—Pagan idolatry— engendered its characteristic features. I assert, and the his- UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 15 tory of the church will sustain me in so doing, that the doe- tre, of Christ’s being a person who had come down from Heaven, was not heard of till these Gnostics became professed converts to Christianity, and began “ to interpret, or rather corrupt, all the precepts and doctrines of Christ and his Apostles in such a manner as to reconcile them with their own pernicious tenets.” There were two grand divisions of the Gnostic sect, differ- ing somewhat from cach other in doctrine, onc bemg in Asia and the other in Egypt: and I shall notice the opinions of a few of the leaders of each, confining myself, for the sake of brevity, to their doctrines respecting Christ. I would, in the first place, observe, that it is no less instructive, than painful, to mark the first fruits of the “ mes- senger expectancy” —the first fruits, in the Christian dispen- sation, of setting up the traditions of men as a standard whereby to interpret Scripture, and to which Scripture must bow—the first fruits of confounding the wisdom of this world with the wisdom which is of God. It is painful to trace those ominous speculations respecting the character and office of Christ, which eventuated in his being set up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, and which led to the virtual dethronement of the God of Heaven, and to the utter perversion of his revelation of that redemption which he had, by himself, and of himself alone, provided for man— Saturninus, of Antioch, taught—that “God sent from Heaven into our globe a restorer of order, whose name was Christ, and that this Divine conqueror came clothed with a corporeal appearance only, not with a real body.” Credo and Marcion, who flourished at Rome, taught— that “the supreme God sent to the Jews a being most like to 16 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY himself, even his son Jesus Christ, clothed with a certam shadowy resemblance of a body, that he might be visible to mortal eyes.” All the Gnostic Doctors, of the Asiatic branch, held opi- nions nearly allied to the foregoing. They universally held —that Christ was a being sent down from heaven; and they denied the reality of his body, assigning to him merely a celestial and aérial one. The doctrine of the Egyptian Gnostics was somewhat dif- ferent. Those philosophic Christians blended the tenet—that Christ was one of the “ AZons” sent down from heaven —with the scriptural fact—that he was a man; and the offspring of their speculations was the following paradoxical, or somewhat more than paradoxical, doctrine; to which I solicit particular attention ; as, in tracing the rise and progress of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is to be considered as furnishing matter of much importance.—They taught that in Jesus Christ there were two natures, the “Aton,” or divine nature, and the human nature: that the “ Aion,’ or divine nature, entered into the man Jesus, when he was baptized by John in the river Jordan, and departed from him when he was seized by the Jews. This crude speculation of these demi-Christians became afterwards, when a little improved upon, a standard doctrine of the church; although, in this primitive and unsophisticated age of Christianity, it was reckoned—the grossest heresy ! The doctrine of Basilides, one of the leaders of this division of the Gnostics, was—that “the supreme God sent from heaven his. son, “ Nus,” or Christ, the chief of the Aions, that, joined in a substantial union with the man Jesus, he might restore the knowledge of the supreme God.” Cerinthus, taught—that “ Christ—was one of the ever kana OO UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. aa and glorious Atons—that he chose Jor his habitation the person of Jesus—a inan of the most illustrious sanctity and justice— the son of Joseph and Mary—and, descending in the form of a dove, entered into him while he was receiving the baptism of John ; that, when Jesus was taken captive, Christ ascended up on high, so that—the man Jesus—alone—was subjected to the pains of an ignominious death.’ Valentine—whose sect took its rise at Rome, and spread with an amazing rapidity through Asia, Africa, and Europe— improved upon the scheme of his predecessors. He held-— “that not only Christ, and the Holy Ghost, were ‘Hons, but that Jesus, also, was an ‘Alon; that Christ appeared upon earth composed of an animal and spiritual substance, and clothed, moreover, with an aerial body ; that this Redeemer, in descend- ing upon carth, passed through the womb of Mary, as the pure water flows through the untainted conduit; that Jesus, one of the supreme Afons, was substantially united to him when he was baptized by John in the river Jordan; and that, before Christ was crucified, not only Jesus the son of God, but also the rational soul of Christ ascended up on high, so that only the animal soul and the ethereal body suffered crucifixion.” It must be confessed that we are here fast approaching to “the mysterious.’ We have here a foretaste of that mys- terlousness which figures so largely in the subsequent career of erroneous doctrine. But I would observe that the reve- rential precaution of Valentine—to have not only Jesus the son of God, but also the rational soul of Christ, removed from his ethereal body, before he gave him up to crucifixion—has been sadly departed from by subsequent architects of Christian doctrine. The Gnostic Christians of these days, absurd though the dogmas were, had not yet become familiar with the C 165 {HE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY more impious speculations, which acquired such unholy ascendancy im succeeding ages. It deserves here to be—most particularly—noticed, that Mosheim mentions a sect of the second century, called “ Na- zarcnes”—who adhered to the Mosaic ritual, and set Christ and Moses on an cqual footing, and who, nevertheless, were not stigmatized, or looked upon, as being heretics !! This fact, un- deniably, proves that such a doctrine as the doctrine of the Trinity, which, some hundred and fifty years afterwards, was the subject of somuch debate, had, at this period, no existence. The “Nazarenes”—who held that Christ was a prophet such as Moses was, which was a doctrine at utter variance with the loctrine of the Trinity—were not accused of heresy | but the Gnostics—who made even a slight approach to the dogmas of Trt- nitarianism—were at once and loudly stigmatized as heretics! !” These facts speak volumes!—The only thing which distin- euished the “Nazarenes” from the great body of Christians seems to have been that they adhered to the Jewish ritual ! We are now arrived at an important period in the history of Trinitarianism :—chat period when the question of the exts- tence of a “Trinity” seems to have been—first-—mooted in the Christian church! Previously to this time (the latter end of the second century), the very word “ Trinity” sccms to have been unknown amongst Christians: at least there is no historical record to lead us to suppose that, up to this time, the existence of a Trinity was ever thought of by professors of Christianity. Although, however, as yet, no traces of a Trinity were to be discovered amongst Christians, it was not so amongst the heathen nations round about them. They had lords many, and gods many, and amongst the rest they had—Trinities, and the time was now come-when one of these Trinities, namely —— ee UNDER THE LIGHT OF HIStory. 19 the Trinity of Plato, should be engrafted, pro forma, on the Christian religion. It was the Trmuity of Plato’s philoso- phical system, which was the original, after which were fashioned the first rude casts of a Trinity for the Christian: and rude and imperfect those first attempts in this line were, if we compare them with the more claborate and finished works of succeeding ages. The engrafting of the doctrine of a Trinity upon the doc- trines of Christianity was the work of Pagan philosophers, who sought to bring about a coalition between Christianity and Platonism, the then most favourite system of philosophy : a project in which they unhappily, too well, succeeded. We learn that “towards the close of the second century, a new sect of philosophers of a sudden spread with amazing rapidity throughout the greatest part of the Roman empire ; swallowed up almost all the other sects, and was extremely detrimental to the cause of Christianity.” This class of phi- losophers were called “ New Platonics ;? and their object was to bring about a coalition between ail philosophical and reli- gious systems, more especially between Platonism and Chris- tianity.—“ They looked upon the philosophy of Plato as superior to that of all other sages, and considered his opinions, COn= cerning God and things invisible, as conformable to the genius and spirit of the Christian doctrine.’? The founder of this sect was Ammonius Saccas, who taught with the highest ap- plause in the Alexandrian school, about the conclusion of this century. “ His projects,” we are told, “were bold and sin- gular. He taught a doctrine which he looked upon as proper to unite all sects, whether philosophical or religious, the Christian not excepted, in the most pericct harmony. He. maintained that the great principles of all philosophy and c 2 20 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY religious truth were to be found equally in all sects, that they differed from each other only in their method of ex- pressing them, and in some opinions of little or no importance; and that, by a proper interpretation of their respective senti- ments, they might be easily united into one body.” This arduous design, which Ammonius had formed, of bringing about a coalition of all the various philosophical sects and all the different systems of religion that prevailed m the world, required, as we are further informed, many difficult and disagreeable things in order to its execution.— Every particular sect and religion must have several of its doctrines curtailed or distorted before it could enter into the general mass. The tenets of the philosophers, the superstitions of the heathen priests, the solemn doctrines of Christianity, were all to suffer in this cause; and forced allegories were to be em- ployed, in removing the difficulties with which it was attended. How this vast project was effected by Ammontius, the writings of his disciples and followers, that yet remain, abundantly testify.’ How ominously those words fall upon the ear— The solemn doctrines of Christianity were all to suffer in the cause !” Ah! how the most solemn doctrine of all, that doctrine which most distinguished the religion of Christ from all other reli- gions—the doctrine of the unity of God !—now rt SUFFERED ! In a note by the translator of Mosheim, it is observed that “the coalition between Platonism and Christianity, in the second and third centuries, is a fact too fully proved to be yendered dubious by mere affirmation.” This new species of philosophy, we are informed, was adopted by Origen, among many others ; and was extremely prejudicial to the cause of the gospel, and to the beautiful UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 21 simplicity of its celestial doctrines. “ For hence it was, that Christian doctors began to introduce their subtle and obscure erudition into the religion of Jesus, to involve in the darkness of a vain philosophy some of the principal truths of Chris- tianity, that had been revealed with the utmost plainness, and were indeed obvious to the meanest capacity ; and to add to the divine precepts of our Lord many of their own which had no sort of foundation in any part of the sacred writings.” “Tt would be endless,’ adds Mosheim, “to enumerate all the pernicious consequences, that may be justly attributed to this new philosophy, or rather this monstrous attempt to reconcile falsehood with truth, and light with darkness.” One of the most pernicious of these pernicious consequences, although it is not by Mosheim placed in that category, I affirm to have been, the introduction into the Christian church of speculations respecting a Trinity. But, although our his- torian does not in words say thus much, he nevertheless expressly informs us—“ that the controversies relating to the divine Trinity took their rise, after the introduction of this Grecian philosophy into the Christian church’?—that is, after this coalition between Platonism and Christianity. What a significant fact is this! of what importance to our present inquiry! We are thus informed—that there were no contro- versies respecting the Trinity, until the Christian doctors of the new Platonic school, in the latter end of the second century, began to introduce their subtle and obscure erudition into the religion of Jesus, and to involve, in the darkness of a vain phi- losophy, some of the principal truths of Christianity! Let this fact be—stereotyped—in the recollection of the reader.—And_ how is this to be accounted for? Why, by the simplest of all reasons. Such a thing asa Trinity was never previously, heard 22 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY of in the Christian church! The new Platonics, however, in their zeal to show the perfect compatibility between Plato- nism and Christianity, were not slow to devise a counterpart, —in the Christian system—for the Platonic Trinity. The im- provements on the Gnostic system, introduced by Valentine, rendered this an easy task. His “ Aonification” of Christ and the Holy Ghost left the materials for the construction of a Trinity, ready furnished to their hands ; and they, at once, alighted on the “ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” as the com- ponents of their new Trinitarian device, which was to show, —par excellence—the compatibility of Platonism with Chris- tianity ! I might just observe, in passing, that im the, “ In the begin- ning was the word,” of the first chapter of John’s gospel, as it is handed down to us, we haye most unmistakeably the “ Aoyoc,”’ the word, of Plato—the “ Aoyoc” of Plato, repre- senting, according to his philosophy, a being who was “God and man.” In no other part of scripture do we find this appellation, “ Aoyos,” applied in this distinctive manner to Christ; and no unbiassed mind, which 1s informed of this coalition which took place between Platonism and Chris- tianity, can reasonably doubt, that, in the first chapter of John’s gospel we have an attempt to show that the “ Aoyog” of Plato’s philosophy, his being who was “ God and man,” had found a representative in Christ; and that, thus far at least, the two systems—that of Plato and the Christian system— were compatible—and, thus far, contamed the same principles of truth; having only differed in their method of expressing them! We have, also, in this same chapter, as I may further observe, “the pure and radiant light,” of the oriental philo- sophy. UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. ZO The first scheme of the doctrine of the Trinity, which we have recorded in history, is that of-—Praxeas—in the end of the second century. His views on the subject, however, were very crude, indeed, compared with the elaborate, and intricately delicate exposition of the doctrine, which succeeding ages brought forth—compared, for instance, with the exposition of that doctrine, given in what is called—©The Athanasian Creed.” However, for a first attempt, it was not amiss. His doctrine may be safely stated as being, “ that there was no distinction, whatever, between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—the three terms constituting simply a triple delineation of the same being.’ 'This was, mm principle, a—fac-simile— of Plato’s Trmity. Indeed, as was to be expected, we find that all the early schemes of the Trinity were formed after the model of the Platonic Trinity. It must not be supposed, however, that the different Trini- tarian schemes of the new Platonics (for there were several of them, varying a little from each other), were based upon any rational scheme of interpreting the Scriptures. This was not even pretended. We are informed that—“ The methods of interpreting the Scriptures, adopted by the philosophising Christians of this age, were such as to open a secure retreat for all sorts of errors, that a wild and irregular imagination could bring forth.” Their “ coalition scheme” was incompatible with the literal interpretation of the sacred writings ; and hence, in their interpretation of them, “ they had recourse to the fecun- dity of a lively imagination—and maintained that the Holy Scriptures were to be interpreted, in the same allegorical man- ner in which the Platonists explained the history of the gods.” That such an erroneous method of interpreting Scripture should lead the way to all sorts of erroneous doctrine is not 24 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY to be wondered at. It is not to be wondered at, that specu- lations respecting “ The Trinity” grew apace ; and, assuredly, the first promulgators of Trinitarian doctrine—in the Chris- tian Church—must, in their interpretation of Scripture, have had much need of-—“ the fecundity of a lively imagination,” —to aid them in conjuring up scriptural proofs in support of that un-Christian novelty! I have, already, observed that the speculations of this age respecting the Trimity were strictly —Platonic—in their character. The early Trinities were almost—/fac-similes—of the Platonic Trinity. So closely, in fact, was this model adhered to that we do not find, among the Trinitarian expositions of this century, many of the lineaments of the modern doctrme. Witness: the doctrine of Origen, who was a very renowned Father of the Church. He taught that the Trinity existed on this wise—‘ That the Son was in God that which reason is in man, and that the Holy Ghost was nothing more than the divine energy, or active force.” This was the doctrine, on the subject of the Trinity, which was, most universally, entertained, during the third century and part of the succeeding one. How unlike the Trinitarian doctrine of modern times! How, very far, short does it come of the fulness and completeness, and, I must add, “ mys- teriousness,’” of the modern doctrine! What a “heretic” Origen would be esteemed, if he existed in the present day; and yet—strange anomaly !—he is looked up to as one of the to-be-revered Fathers of the Church! Before passing on to trace the further development of Tri- nitarianism in the fourth century, it may not be unprofitable to pause, and take a retrospect of the more important facts which have already come under our review. We have seen, that the first decided departure from the UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 25 purity and simplicity of primitive doctrine was made by the Gnostics—who taught that Christ was a being who came down from Heaven, where he had previously existed as the first and noblest of those “ Afons’? which, they alleged, existed there with the Supreme Being ; that he was substantially united to the man Jesus when he was baptized in the Jordan, and that, thus, Jesus Christ was a compound of two persons, of the man Jesus, and of Christ the “ Aton.’ Such was the sum, and substance, of the ‘‘ Gnostic” doctrine respecting Christ, which was so widely diffused throughout the Christian Church in the second century. The doctrine of the Gnostics, we found, was to a great ex- tent, though by no means entirely, superseded by that of the New Platonics: whose grand .object was to effect a coalition between the “Grecian philosophy,” more especially the Pla- tonic system, and Christianity; in which object, they, unhappily, succeeded too well. The result was, that there was engrafted on the doctrines of Christianity a vast amount of delusive subtilties and Pagan absurdities, the most fatally pernicious of which was the dogma, that the Supreme Being was not— one’—but—“a Trinity.’ To this source, we traced the origin of speculations respecting a Trinity, in the Christian Church. We found, however, that the pro-movers of the Trinitarian scheme made but feeble advances towards that perfection to which the Trinitarian doctrine has since been brought. Nevertheless, to them attaches the ignominy of having originated the speculations on the subject—they laid the foundation, on which succeeding ages have piled such a cumbrous superstructure. In passing to the fourth century, we find a fresh contro- versy springing up in the Church, and that was respecting the rao] oD 3 to) 26 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY doctrine of three distinct persons in the Godhead. This con- troversy is represented by one historian as bemg—“a new contention.” That I may not be charged with misrepresentation, I shall quote, from our historian, at some length, on this subject: “ A new contention,” he says, “ arose in Egypt in the year A.D. 317, upon a subject of high importance, and with consequences of a very pernicious nature. The subject of this fatal contro- versy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Yaristian world, was the doctrine of three persons in the God- head; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries, had happily, escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and had, been left undefined, (!) and undetermined, (1) by any parti- cular set of ideas. Nothing was dictated to the faith of the Christian in this matter, nor were there any modes of expression prescribed as requisite to be used in speaking of this mystery. Fence tt happened that the Christian doctors entertained dif- ferent sentiments upon this subject, without giving the least of- fence; (!) and discoursed, variously, concerning the distine- iions between ‘ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? each one follow- ing his respective opinion with the greatest liberty.” “Tn Egypt and the adjacent countries, the greatest part embraced, in this as well as in other matters, the opinion of Origen; who held that the Son was in God that which reason is in nan, and the Holy Ghost was nothing more than the divine energy, or active force,’ Our historian, we observe, calls this contention, about the persons of the Trimity— a new contention.” Nothing had | heretofore, been dictated to the faith of Christians respecting the existence of three persons in the Godhead! nor had there been any modes of expression prescribed, as requisite to be UNDER TUE LIGHT OF HISTORY. Q7 used in speaking of them! And why? Because, in fact—the doctrine was altogether new—it was “a mystery,’ of which no one had ever previously heard anything. We find, that up to this time the popular Trinitarian doctrine was that promul- gated by Origen, which, we have seen, had scarcely a single feature of the modern doctrine: and which recognized, virtually, but one person in the Divine Beg. This new contention progressed apace, and did, indeed, give rise to deplorable dissensions throughout the Christian world. The patrons of error, unhappily, too, acquired in this century a new and formidable means of enforcing their new doctrine. They, now, wedded the Church to the State, and the first off- “ that it is lawful to punish with civil penalties, and corporeal torture, spring of the unhallowed union was the maxim those who maintain errors in religion, and adhere to them, after proper admonition.” It was difficult for the cause of truth to maintain itself, single-handed, against adversaries backed by such powers ! There is a melancholy account given by our historian, of the state of practical religion in this age—an age, in which the doctrine of the Trinity made rapid strides to maturity. This was the age of the Council of Nice-—the famous decree of which, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, is looked upon with so much superstitious veneration. But I must observe that, by those who do so, it does not seem to be known, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as established by the Council of Nice, differed, most materially, from that doctrine, as it became afterwards developed and improved upon, and as it has been handed down to us. This, however, was the age of the Council of Nice, and of Athanasius, and of other great and venerable 28 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY names; and, as it unfortunately happens, that men are less governed by reason, in their decisions upon religious contro- versies, than by authorities ; and, as they prefer in most cases the decisions of fallible mortals to the unerring dictates of the divine word, it will not be unprofitable to glean from our his- torian, a few particulars of the state of religion in this age, in which the unsanctified doctrine of the Trinity reared itself so proudly—in order that they who read may be, the better, able to judge of the degree of veneration, in which the doctrinal bequests of this age ought to be held. The extracts I make are rather more lengthened than I would have desired, and may, perhaps, be rather tedious to the hurried reader, but they will not be considered unpro- fitable by those who take an interest in the subject ; they are given, in the precise words of Mosheim, and they all refer to the fourth century, and are as follows: “ Almost all the philosophers of this age were of that sect, | which we have, already, distinguished by the title of the Modern Platonics. It is not, therefore, surprising, that we find the principles of Platonism in all the writings of the Christians. The additions made by the emperors and others, to the wealth, honours, and advantages of the clergy, were followed with a proportionable augmentation of vices and luxury, particularly among those of that sacred order who lived in great and opulent cities; and that many such ad- ditions were made to that order, after the time of Constantine, is a matter that admits of no dispute. The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each other in the most scandalous manner, concerning the extent of their jurisdiction; (!) while, on the other hand, they trampled on the rights of UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 29 the people, (!) violated the privileges of the inferior minis- ters, (!) and imitated, in their conduct and in their manner of living, the arrogance, voluptuousness and luxury of magis- trates and princes.”—One almost imagines, when he reads this, that he is perusing “The Life and Times of Harry, Lord Bishop of Excter ;” but no: we are reading of the fourth cen- tury, during the infancy of—-“ the church by law established.” How truly has it been said— « Ah, Constantine, of how much all was cause, Not thy conversion, but those rich domains That the first wealthy pope recewed of thee !” But to return to our author—“ Those vain fictions which an attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and to popular opinions, had engaged the greatest part of the Christian doctors to adopt, before the time of Constantine, were now confirmed, enlarged, and embellished, in various ways. From hence arose that extravagant veneration for departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire, destined to purity separate souls that now prevailed; and of which the public marks were, every where, to be seen. Hence, also, the celi- bacy of the priests, the worship of images and relics, which, in process of time, almost utterly destroyed the Christian religion ; or, at least, eclipsed its lustre, and corrupted its very essence, in the most deplorable manner.” « An enormous train of different superstitions were gradu- ally substituted, in the place of true religion and genuine piety. This odious revolution was owing to a variety of causes. A ridiculous precipitation in receiving new opinions, a preposte- rous desire of imitating the Pagan rites, and of blending them 30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY with the Christian worship, and that idle propensity which the generality of mankind have towards a gaudy and ostentatious religion, all contributed to establish the reign of superstition on the ruins of Christianity.” “The public processions and supplications, by which the Pagans endeavoured to appease their gods, were now adopted into the Christian worship, and celebrated with great pomp and magnificence in several places. The virtues that had formerly been ascribed to the heathen temples, to their lus- trations, to the statues of their gods and heroes, were now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated by certain forms of prayer, and to the images of holy men. And the same privileges that the former enjoyed, under the dark- ness of Paganism, were conferred upon the latter, under the light of the gospel; or rather, under that cloud of superstition that was obscuring its glory. It is true that, as yet, images were not very common, nor were there any statucs at all. dut it is, at the same time, as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant and monstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modelled, by degrees, according to the religious services that were paid to the gods before the coming of Christ.” “'This, indeed, among other unhappy effects, opened a wide door to the endless frauds of those impostors, who were so far destitute of all principle, as to enrich themselves by the ignorance and errors of their people. Rumours were artfully spread about of prodigies, and miracles to be scen in certain places (a trick often practised by the Heathen Priests), and the design of these reports was to draw the populace, in mul- titudes, to these places, and to impose upon their credulity. These stratagems were generally successful, for the ignorance and slowness of apprehension of the people, to whom every UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. of thing that is new and singular appears miraculous, rendered them, easily, the dupes of this abominable artifice. Nor was this all; certain tombs were falsely given out for the sepul- chres of saints and confessors, the list of the saints was aug- mented with fictitious names, and even robbers were converted into martyrs. Some buried the bones of dead men in certain retired places, and then affirmed that they were divinely admonished, by a dream, that the body of some friend of God lay there. Many, especially of the monks, travelled through the different provinces; and not only sold, with the most frontless impudence, their fictitious relics, but also deceived the eyes of the multitude with ludicrous combats, with evil spirits or genii. A whole volume would be requisite to con- tain an enumeration of the various frauds which artful knaves practised, with success, to delude the ignorant, when true re- ligion was almost entirely superseded by horrid superstition.” “Many of the learned in this century undertook transla- tions of the Holy Scriptures, but few succeeded in this arduous enterprise. The number of imterpreters was very considerable, but few have discovered a just discernment, or a sound taste, in their laborious exposition of the sacred writ- ings. A very few followed the natural signification of the words: the rest, after the example of Origen, were laborious in the search of far-fetched interpretations ; and perverted the expressions of Scripture, which they had half understood, by applying them, or rather straining them, to matters with which they had no connexion.” “The doctrines of Christianity had not a better fate, than the sacred Scriptures from whence they are drawn. Origen was the great model, whom the most eminent of the Chris- tian doctors followed, in their explications of the truths of a2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY the gospel ; which were, of consequence, explained according to the rules of the Platonic philosophy. (!) Gregory Nazianzen among the Grecks, and Augustine among the Latins, were both zealous Platonics, and holding, for certain, all the tenets of that philosopher, which were not totally repugnant to the truths of Christianity, they laid them down as fundamental principles, and drew from them a great variety of subtle con- clusions which neither Christ nor Plato ever thought of.” (!) “The controversial writings, that were levelled against those who were considered heretics, were entirely destitute of that ancient simplicity, which is the natural and the beautiful garb of truth. That simplicity was now succeeded by logical subtleties, acute sophisms, sharp invectives, and other disin- genuous acts, more worthy of the patrons of error than of the defenders of the wisdom that is from above.” “New methods of disputing were, also, added, to those that were practised in former times; for the truth of doctrines was now proved by the number of martyrs that had professed them, by miracles, by the confession of demons, even of persons pos- sessed with evil spirits.(!) The smallest degree of discernment will persuade any one how ambiguous this method of reason- ing was; how dangerous to the truth, by furnishing in- numerable occasions for the exercise of fraud and imposture. And, I fear, that the greatest part of those who used such arguments, however illustrious and respectable they may have been, will be found, on examination, chargeable with the dan- gerous and criminal design of imposing upon their brethren.” “Ambrose, in his disputes with the Arians, produced men possessed with devils, who, upon the approach of the relics of Gervasias and Protasius, were obliged to acknowledge with loud cries, that the doctrine of the Council of Nice concerning UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 35 the three persons of the Godhead was true, and that of the Arians not only false, but also of the most dangerous conse- quence.—This testimony of the Prince of Darkness was re- garded, by Ambrose, as an unexceptionable argument in favour of his hypothesis—The Arians, on the other hand, held this prodigy in the utmost derision, and maintained that Ambrose had suborned these infernal witnesses by a weighty bribe ; and, I make no doubt, but many will be more disposed to believe the Arians than to credit Ambrose; though he be enrolled in the order of the saints, and they stigmatized in the list of heretics.” Such is part, at least, of what Mosheim tells us of this ominous period of the church’s history. Are we not prepared to expect that the doctrine of the Trimity, or any other idolatrous error, should have found many champions, in such an age—an age in which all true religion seems to have been supplanted by the grossest depravity and superstition? The sublime simplicity and purity of the gospel of Christ, had no charms for men who saw so much more to accord with their own vain imaginings in the philosophy of Plato, and so much more to pander to their vanity, in the ostentatious and pon- derous worship of the heathen temples. Their appetite for lords many, and gods many, could not be appeased by the worship of the one only living and true God. No: even a Trinity would be better than that ; and they could make up what even such a restricted worship would lack of being sufficiently heathenish, by a supple- mentary worship of saints and martyrs! What could he expected of men of whom we read such things as are detailed by Mosheim, in those passages which we have just read ‘ D 34 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY What could be expected of such abandoned and profligate times ? Under such an accumulation of circumstances, all inimical and foes to truth, we need not wonder if the cause of error progressed apace. We need not wonder if the cause of truth eventually sunk, beneath the ills that were piled upon it. When the advocates of error, by the prostitution of all that was sacred, possessed themselves of the sword of the civil power, and, what was not less potent, of the emoluments of the state, they acquired an instrumentality for securing the stability of their system of error which proved itself to be ivincible. The maturation of the doctrine of the Trinity proceeded by sure degrees, and before the end of the century it had attained almost its full development in outline. The Platonic and original views of the Trinity were now first de- parted from, as has been already intimated. This would seem to have been brought about by the cloquent argumentation of Arius, who rejected the Platonic Trinitarianism of his day, aud maintained that Christ was a distinct person from the Father, and that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God the Father had created out of nothing, the instru- ment by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe. At the Council of Nice, which was summoned by the Emperor Constantine, in order to put a stop to the troubles and commotions with which the agitation of these new docs trines was convulsing the empire, the doctrine of Arius was condemned ; and it was decreed, as against Arius, that Christ was of the same eminence and dignity, and consubstantial, or of the same essence, with the Father. UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 30 We do not find, however, that there was anything im the decrees of the Council of Nice, respecting the distinct and separate personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as that doctrine is understood at the present day. On the con- trary, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was the chief opponent of Arius, adopted Origen’s method of explaming the doctrine of the Three Persons.. And this method was, as we have seen, very different from the modern method of ex- pounding that mystery. Origen and Alexander held—*“ Tar THE Son was IN GoD THAT WHICH REASON IS IN MAN, AND THAT THE Hoty GHosT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN THE DIVINE ENERGY, OR ACTIVE FORCE.” It was, as I have stated, the rejection of the “ Platonic Tri- nitarianism” of his day by Arius, and his assertion that Christ was a being of a totally distinct person and nature from the Father, that, ultimately, brought about that complete de- parture from the origmal views of the Trimity, which the doctrine of three distinct and separate persons involves ; and which doctrine was not fully established till a considerably later period of the Christian era, as we shall presently see. Had the learned bishops, who carried the day at the Council of Nice, been subjected to such a cross-examination, on the incomprehensibilities of the doctrine of the Trinity, as some of our modern doctors, with the Athanasian Creed in their hands, could so well have given them, they would have cut a very poor figure in the way of giving satisfactory replies. Poor Athanasius himself would have been as much bewildered, and as much at fault, as any of them! After what I have stated, it is scarcely necessary to observe that the creed, commonly called “The Athanasian,’ must haye originated at a period much subsequent to the time of 9 te 36 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY Athanasius. That bishop figured at the Council of Nice; and, as we have seen, the doctrine of the Trinity at that time had made but little approach to the full and massive completeness it presents in the creed which bears his name. So strenuously did some of the more acute Nicene doctors labour to prove the complete consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, that they were led, nearly altogether, to deny his humanity; and in this they are not to be charged with inconsistency. Doubtless they were the most consistent men of the Nicene party; if, indeed, consistency may, with pro- priety, be said to dwell with those who, professing to be Chris- tians, set most wilfully at nought the most emphatic teachings of Christ and, his apostles, and, also, of all the holy prophets that have been since the world began. We find, however, that the Nicene doctrine had a very slender hold upon the convictions of its first advocates; for it and the Arian hypothesis preponderated, according as the emperor for the time being favoured the one side or the other. The learned doctors of the church establishment, with the most yielding pliancy, became converted from Arianism to Nicenism, and from Nicenism to Arianism, according as the nod of the reigning emperor dictated. Constantine, who for political reasons had convened the Council of Nice, fayoured at furst the party who were therein in the ascendant. He banished Arius, and compelled his followers to give their con- sent to the Nicene confession. He very presently, however, became fully persuaded that the condemnation of Arius was owing, rather to the malice of his enemies than to their zeal for truth; and in consequence he recalled Arius. Arius, however, did not long survive his restoration to the favour of his sovereign; he fell a victim to the resentment of his UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 37 enemies, and was destroyed by poison, or some such violent means. Glorious champions of “the truth as it is in Jesus” the murderers of Arius undoubtedly were! The Nicene and Arian parties had alternate triumphs, until, finally, “ Theodo- sius raised the secular arm against the Arians with a terrible degree of violence ; drove them from their churches ; enacted laws, whose severity exposed them to the greatest calamities, and rendered, throughout his dominions, the decrees of the Council of Nice triumphant over all opposition.” This same Theodosius assembled a Council at Constanti- nople, in which the Nicene doctrine was improved upon and enlarged. The Nicene decree had fixed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and of his complete consubstantiality with the Father; but as yet there was nothing enacted, by the proper authorities, respecting the “ distinct deification”’ of the Holy Ghost. There was a good deal of wild and vague spe- culation afloat upon the subject, but no definitive legislation had taken place; no “ bill of deification’” had received the sanction of the then “ lords spiritual!’ The Trinitarian doctors, however, as their views of theology became more ex- panded, thought it proper, as there had—most inconsiderately, one would say—been no revelation to the purpose, that the faithful should have some basis, firm and sure, on which to rest their faith in a matter of so great importance; and accordingly, at the Council of Constantinople—to use the words of Mosheim:—“ They gave the finishing stroke to what the Council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full and determinate manner, the doctrine of three persons in one God, which is as yet received among the generality of Christians.” Although, however, at the above Council, the date of which was a. p. 381, the doctrine of three persons in one God 38 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY was fixed in a full and determinate manner; yet the doctrine of the Trinity, in all its bearmgs, was by no means yet com- plete. Like every new invention, it left in its first enuncia- tion, abundant room for profuse speculation respecting matters of detail. When the more thoughtful part of men brought their thoughts to flow, in the channel which the decree of the Council of Constantinople had marked out for them, they found so much to oppose their free progress ; they found in the newly-propounded scheme so much that was glaringly absurd; they found in it so many assumptions that were utterly irreconcileable with cach other, that it re- quired many deceitful explanations to be offered before they could be constrained, tacitly, to submit to the gross delusion that was put upon their faith. For instance, “that Christ was, at the same time, both God and man,” was a quantum of absurdity, not casily swallowed; - and many were the artifices put in requisition to render it eulpablé. Much attention was, in the fifth century, given to this object. There was a great deal, and a great diversity, of theorizing concerning the manner and effect of the union of the two natures in Christ. Christian doctors expressed them- selves differently concerning this mystery. “Some,” (and the more candid of them) “used such forms of expression as seemed to widen the difference between the Son of God, and the son of man; and thus to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons.” Others, made a compound of “ the Son of God” with the “ son of man,’ and viewed the nature of Christ as composed of his divinity and humanity, blended into one. The followers of the former were taught to distin- guish, carefully, between the actions of the Son of God, and those of the son of man. I ea UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 39 Out of such speculations a contingent question of some difficulty arose, which may be noticed in passing; and this was, “whether the Virgin Mary was to be called The Mother of Christ, or The Mother of God’ Those who maintained the doctrine of the two persons in Christ were of opinion that the holy Virgin was not to be called “ The Mother of God,” but “The Mother of Christ ;” since the Deity can neither be born nor dic; and, of consequence, the son of man alone could derive his birth from an earthly parent. Those, on the other hand, who held the doctrine of one person in Christ, main- tained that the son of Mary was God incarnate; and, that therefore, it was blasphemy, and derogating from the ma- jesty of Christ, to refuse to call Mary “'The Mother of God.” The Virgin Mary was, therefore, to be called “ The Mother of God ;” a truly flattering and honourable title, which she enjoys to this day. Let the reader, however, not mis- understand the scope of this appellation—She is not the Mother of “ God the Father ;’ nor the Mother of “ God the Holy Ghost ! but the Mother of “ God the Son!” ony ! Why should Mary not be worshipped? Will God the Son smile upon those who refuse to bow the knee to his Mother? However “ God the Father,” and “ God the Holy Ghost,” may look with indifference upon this lack of service, shall “ God the Son” not be moved to indignation? Shall he not say, “ Away with that man from my presence who would approach me with a sycophantic obeisance, and would refuse to do honour to her who gave me birth !” | The Roman Catholic is not at fault here. He is consistent with himself; and I have just heard our Imperial Parliament ying with shouts of fiery indignation, because “the Virgin Mary’s milk” was rather irreverently spoken of. Our Roman AO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY Catholic legislators were consumed with wrath, because “ the Holy Mother of God” was irreverently alluded to—because the man who dared to take her name into his lips did not do so with reverential bow and pious gesticulation! Men, who, perchance, can hear the name of the God of Heaven blas- phemed every hour of their lives without the contortion of a muscle ! I tremble to write in this way, but the idolatrous infatuation against which I address myself is so monstrous, so insulting to the Majesty of Heaven, that I cannot control that indigna- tion which God stirs within my breast. I speak not more strongly than did Elijah to the Priests of Baal. But to proceed.—The controversy, respecting the doctrine of the two persons in Christ, was carried on with great animosity on both sides, and with reciprocal excommunications; and, as there was no indication of its being brought to an amicable issue, the reigning emperor summoned a council at Ephesus, A.D. 431, im which the doctrine of two persons was condemned, and a new doctrine was established, namely, “ that Christ was one divine person, in whom two natures were most closely and intimately united, but without being mixed or confounded toge- ther.’ The controversy, however, did not terminate here. On the contrary, at a second council held at Ephesus, about eighteen years afterwards, the doctrine of the two natures was condemned, and a new and directly opposite doctrine, viz., “that in Christ there was but one nature, that of the incarnate word,” was established upon the authority of an cecumenical council of the Church. We read of this council, “ that matters were carried on in it with the same want of equity and decency that had disho- noured the former Ephesian council, and that it was called, UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 41 by the Greeks, a band or assembly of robbers, to signify that everything was carried in it by fraud or violence.’ “ And many councils,” adds our historian, “ both in this, and the following ages, are equally entitled to the same dishonourable appellation.” A few years after this second council of Ephesus, a council was held at Chalcedon, a.p. 451, in which the doctrine of “ one incarnate nature” was, in its turn, condemned, and the doctrine of the first council of Ephesus re-established. These hasty decisions and reversions, however, did not restore peace to the Church, which had been greatly agitated by the con- troversies on the subject. Hither doctrine was opposed with the utmost vehemence, and “ hence arose deplorable discords and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried to the most incredible lengths.” Another important tenet of 'Trinitarianism took its rise im connection with the foregoing speculations, and became a point of much controversy. This controverted question was, “ whether it could be said with propriety that one of the Trinity suffered on the cross?” Successive Roman Pontiffs pronounced different opinions on this subject, until, finally, the affirmative of the question was decided by a general council held at Constantinople, a.p. 553. At the same council, also, the doctrine of two natures and one person in Christ was af- firmed, “ which had the effect,” says our historian, “ of bring- ing both unintelligible disputes to a conclusion, and restoring peace to the Church.” But not even yet was the doctrine of the Trmity complete, although it must be confessed very little now remained to be done to make it very complete. What was yet to be done, however, and what had heretofore escaped the notice of the 4.2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY dialecticians, was to settle the genealogy of the Holy Ghost— rather too much of a thing, certainly, to be overlooked! But, as the subtilty of human wisdom had already done so much to make a good and complete thing of the doctrine, we must look indulgently on this oversight! It did not arise from any lack of will to do anything that could be done for “the third person of the Trinity!” No; but the whole scheme was so new that we need not be surprised if, in making out the de- tails, something was overlooked: when there is no revela- tion to be a guide in such matters, complete success, all at once, is not to be hoped for. It was yet to be determined “ whether the Holy Ghost owed his existence to the Father alone, or to the Father and Son together,” and this became a subject of bitter controversy in the eighth century. The Latin Church affirmed that the Holy Ghost proceeded from “ both the Father and the Son; while the Greeks, on the con- trary, asserted that he proceeded from “ the Father alone The Greeks alleged that the creed of the council of Constanti- nople, as far as it went, favoured their view of the case; and they charged the Latins with having interpolated that creed, m order to make it favour their side of the question. The precise time at which this controversy originated is somewhat doubtful ; but it is certain that it was agitated at the Council of Gentilli, near Paris, a.p. 767. It does not secm, however, to have been decided at this time, for we find it continued in the following century. The Latins were ac- cused of having foisted the word “ filioque’” (i. e., “ and from the Son’’) into that part of the creed of Constantinople which referred to the Holy Ghost. The matter was debated in due form at a council held at Aix-la-Chapelle, a.p. 809, and also at Rome, in the same year, in the presence of the Sovereign UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 43 Pontiff, Leo III. “ Leo adopted the doctrine which repre- sented the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son, but he condemned the addition which had been made to the Symbol (7. ¢., the creed), and declared it as his opinion that the word ‘ filioque, or ‘from the Son,’ as it was a elaring interpolation, might be omitted in reading the Symbol, and at length struck out of it entirely, not everywhere at once, but in such a prudent manner as to prevent disturbance. His successors were of the same opinion; the word, however, being once admitted, not only kept its place in opposition to the Roman Pontiff, but was by degrees added to the Symbol in all the Latin Churches.” The Trinitarian doctrine had now received the finishing stroke! The wisdom of man had exhausted itself, and the labours of six centuries were brought to a close! There was nothing new added after this to the fundamentals of the doctrine. It had now become complete im all its parts —as complete as the combined wisdom of the “ Platonists and dialecticians’” who reared it could make it. It had been steadily growing under their hands for a period of six hundred years, and it was high time that its growth should cease. All that was now wanted was to provide for its permanence and stability. Thus it was that in the beginning of the ninth century, the doctrine of the Trinity—for the first time—stood before the world, sustained in all its details by the force of cecumenical authority. It had now—and not till now—acquired all its ful- ness and completeness. The force of laws and the authority of councils were summoned to prevent the progress of further inquiry respecting its merits, nay to extirpate inquiry. The cause of those who opposed the doctrines of the Trinitarians 44, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY declined apace, and never afterwards recovered any considera- ble degree of stability ; and the doctrine of the Trinity, as then established, has, in all its unholy proportions, been handed down to our times, a standing libel upon the truth of God’s revelation of himself, and a living monument to the truth of the prediction, “ that in the latter times men should depart from the faith.” I have, thus, given a candid and impartial review of the history of the rise and progress of Trinitarianism in the Christian Church. I have exaggerated no facts. I have dis- torted no facts. I have magnified no facts—by this I mean that I have not so dwelt, and enlarged, upon the facts which have come under owr review, as I might with great cogency, and at much length, have done. I have given plain historical truths, as they are furnished to us by an author, who is proverbial for his integrity as an historian, and who was hinself professedly a Trinitarian ; and I cannot close this part of my work without avowimg my _ inexpressible surprise, that men, having access to such _ historical records, should, yet, be so infatuated, as to persevere in their adherence to a system of faith which these medals of history so infallibly demonstrate—Nort TO HAVE BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING! UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 45 ADDENDUM, Although, however, there was nothing added to the doctrine of the Trinity, subsequently to the period to which we have traced it, there was, occasionally, afterwards, a little dash of controversy on some point connected with it, one or two in- stances of which it will not be uninteresting to notice, al- though to do so will, in some measure, be going beyond the scope of our proposed inquiry. To notice them, however, will serve to show the profane absurdities to which the master profanity, the doctrine of the Trinity itself, naturally leads. It will show what are the legitimate consequences of believing in a doctrine which is at once so profane and so absurd, that they who surrender their judgments and their common sense to it, are prepared to speculate, at large, upon any subject, however monstrously absurd, or however blasphemous, it may be. Tn the ninth century, a controversy began in Germany, and made its way into France, concerning the manner in which Christ was born of the Virgin. “ Certain Germans maintained that Jesus proceeded from his mother’s womb, in a manner quite different from those general and uniform laws of nature, that regulate the birth of the human species; which opinion Was no sooner known in France, than it was warmly opposed by the famous Ratramn, who wrote a book expressly to prove that Christ entered into the world in the very same way with other mortals, and that his Virgin mother bore him as other women bring forth their offspring. Pascasius Radbert, who was constantly employed either in inventing or patronising the most extravagant fancies, adopted the opinion of the AG THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY German doctors, and composed an claborate treatise to prove that Christ was born without his mother’s womb being opened, in the same manner as he came into the chamber when his disciples were assembled, after his resurrection, though the door was shut. He also charged those who held the opinion of Ratramm, with denying the virginity of Mary.” Another controversy, of a very subtile and difficult nature, arose in France about the year 1089, and had for its principal author, Roscellinus, a Canon of Compeigne, and a profound dialectician. “This subtile doctor held that it was imconceiy- able, and impossible, that the Son of God should take on the human nature alone, 7. e., without the Father and the Holy Ghost becoming incarnate also, unless by the three persons in the Godhead were meant three distinct objects or natures, ex- isting separately, such as three angels or three spirits, though endowed with one will, and acting by one power.” When it was insinuated to Roscellinus, that this manner of reasoning led, directly, to Tritheism, or the doctrine of three Gods, he answered boldly that the existence of “three Gods” might be asserted with truth, were not the expression harsh and con- trary to the phraseology generally received. In the twelfth century, we find the following curious ques- tion occupying the attention of the learned doctors of the Church, viz., “Jn what sense it was, or might be affirmed, that an incarnate God was, at the same time, THE OVFERER AND THE OBLATION ?”’ This question, by the way, was started by an emperor, the Emperor Comnenus. The poor unsophisticated Emperor could not understand how, if there were only “onn” God, that one God could become incarnate, and in that incarnate state offer himself up as an oblation! 'To believe that he offered UNDER THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. AG himself up ¢o himself was rather unswallowable. To what, or to whom, then, could he offer himself? A nice question this, certainly, and one well fitted to puzzle an emperor more than any other man in the community. But, perhaps the emperor was not so unsophisticated as we have presumed to suppose: he may perchance have been the most acute man in his do- minions, for there is nothing in a man’s being an emperor to prevent him from being a man of acute parts. Perhaps the emperor wanted, by a “reductio ad absurdum,’”’ to demonstrate to the worthy doctors of the Church, the hollowness of their pretence, that their system of doctrine did not involve the behef in the existence of more Gods than one, and the wor- ship of more Gods than one. He wished perchance, in a polite way, to put to them the delicate question—“ whether they were not speaking lies in hypocrisy ?” We are not able to gather from our historian, how the learned and right worshipful Fathers of the Church wriggled out of the difficulty, in which the emperor’s simplicity, or sharpness ! had placed them. A. & 48 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER II. THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SHOWN NOT TO EXIST IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY: BUT TO HAVE BEEN DESPOILED OF THEIR TRUTHFULNESS BY CORRUPT ADDITIONS AND INTERPOLATIONS, INFLICTED ON THEM DURING THE EARLY CONFLICTS OF CHRISTIANITY WITH PAGANISM. « For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine?— And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.’—2 Tim. iv. 3-4. « And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three score days, clothed in sackcloth.’—Rev. xi. 8. Ix this chapter I shall show that the scriptures of the New Testament do not exist in their original integrity, but have had their truthfulness destroyed by corrupt interpolations and additions. This, I shall show, to the satisfaction of every one, who believes in the truth of divine revelation. NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 49 I shall introduce the subject, by showing that it has been matter of express revelation that the Scriptures should, thus, be despoiled of their integrity. I shall show, that it has been expressly revealed, that, in the days of the great Gentile apostacy, the sacred Scriptures should be robbed of their truthfulness, and be, in fact, rendered a dead letter. The apostacy had begun to put itself forth even in the days of the apostles: “ For the mystery of iniquity,” saith Paul to the Thessalonians, “doth already work, only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; even he, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying won- ders.” That which the apostle referred to when he thus said, “he who now letteth will let till he be taken out of the way,” was the Roman power, which, while it existed in its imperial state, was a hindrance to the development of the apostacy. But, when it was taken out of the way, the apostate church came forth with all power and signs and lying wonders, after the working of Satan, as I shall show more fully hereafter : and the period, which is in all places assigned to the duration of this apostacy, after its full development, is twelve hundred and sixty years, which period is referred to im Scripture, under the several designations of “a time, times, and half a time,’ “three days and an half,’ “forty and two months,” and “one thousand two hundred and three score days ;’’—all these periods, according to the well understood rules of pro< phetic interpretation, meaning twelve hundred and sixty years. Now, in the eleventh chapter of the book of Revelation, we have it revealed that, during such period, what are called E Ae) THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT “God’s two witnesses,” shall lie in the street of the great city, which, spiritually, is called “Sodom and Egypt,” having been made war against, and having been overcome, and slain, by “the beast which ascended out of the bottomless pit,’ which beast was the apostacy. I shall have little difficulty in show- ing that these “two witnesses” symbolize the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The description given of them, aud the powers ascribed to them, answer, with the utmost precision, to what may be predicated of the Scriptures. A mere glance at what is said of “the witnesses,” is sufficient to suggest to us that they are the Old and New Testament Scriptures ; and the more closely we examine the subject, the more fully are we confirmed in that opinion. It will be desirable to transcribe what is written of these witnesses, as this will enable the reader more easily to follow our observations.— “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and the angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not ; for it 1s given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three score days clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devourcth their enemies, and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain hot in the days of their prophecy, and have power over waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. bl all plagues as often as they will. And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall over- come them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lic in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Keypt, where also ow: Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and shall make merry, and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them which saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven, saying unto them, ‘Come up hither.” And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the carthquake were slain of men seven thousand, and the remnant were affrighted and gave glory to the God of heayen.”—Rev. xi. 1-13. The witnesses are described as being “the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, standing before the God of the earth.” How symbolic this imagery is of the Seriptures! and how suggestive of the office they sustain! Olive trees furnish oil, which is the material of light—-the Scriptures are the store- houses of that divine truth, which is light itself. Candle- sticks are the publishers of light—the Scriptures reveal to the world that light which is sown for the righteous; they are, to those who are walking in darkness and in the shadow of death, as light to their feet, and a lamp unto their path. The eG} a es, 52 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Old and New Testament Scriptures, as burning and shining lights, stand before the God of the earth, and radiate divine light across the path of the repentant sinner; guiding his steps into the way of truth, and into the way of peace; and when he walks “through the dark valley of the shadow of death,” he fears no evil, for these ministers of heaven burn brightly, and more brightly still, until they have lighted him to those abodes of bliss “ where peace and joy for ever dwell.” He takes no “leap in the dark,” whose transition from time to eternity is thus illumined ! “ Fire proceedeth out of the mouths of the witnesses, and devoureth their enemies; and, if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.”’—This enigmatical language is perfectly in keeping with our interpretation, and, that inter- pretation being taken as a guide, such language is perfectly, and casily, intelligible. He who will hurt the Scriptures, who will in any wise do violence to them, who will set at nought or supersede their authority, or will wrest them from their meaning, will do so to his own destruction. The Scriptures themselves pronounce his doom. He who takes not pleasure in the truths they record, “shall be given up to > he who adds to them, strong delusion to believe a lie Y “shall have added to him all the plagues that are written therein :” he who takes from them, “shall have taken from him all the blessings they record, and shall have his name blotted out of the book of life.” “The witnesses have power to shut heaven, that it rai not in the days of their prophecy.”—By this is meant that, in the days of their prophecy, there should be no such copious descent of the influences of God’s spirit; no such overs whelming manifestations of the divine presence, as were NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 53 promised to the true Church. How truly characteristic of this latter age! Where, let me ask with all charity and all humility, have there been any signal manifestations of the workings of God’s mighty power amongst our Churches ? Have missionary efforts been as successful as the pious wishes of those who have directed them could have desired? Where have we, now, any instance of “three thousand” of the heathen being converted to God in one day? All our missionary labourers appear to have laboured in vain, and to have spent their strength for nought and in vain. There has been no fruit of their work. The power of these witnesses “to turn waters into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will,” is, strikingly, applicable to the Scriptures. The term “ waters,” in the Revelation, is used to signify, “Peoples and multi- tudes and nations and tongues.” Now, how notorious is it that all the persecutions on account of religion, which have deluged the earth with blood, have been perpetrated under the pretext that they were sanctioned by the authority of the Scriptures! “The waters,’ in this way, have, ever and oft, been “ turned into blood,” and the earth has been “smitten with all manner of plagues !”’ It was after:the witnesses had finished their testimony they were slain, and after they were slain they commenced their prophecy: though dead, they yet spake. The “three days and an half,’ or “the time times and an half,’ as the same period is elsewhere termed, during which the witnesses were to be slain, and the “one thousand two hundred and three- score days” of the apostacy, refer to the same period; as might be shown at length. During these three days and an half “the dead bodies of the witnesses were not put into graves.” 54, THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT No: although the apostacy has made war against the Scrip- tures, and has overcome them, and slain them, it nevertheless always appeals to them to justify its deeds of blood; and, in this way, the dead bodies of the witnesses are not permitted to be put into graves, It is unquestionable, that it was to the Seriptures the spirit of prophecy referred, in all that has been said of the two witnesses, It was the Scriptures that were to be slain by the apostacy, and were to lie’ shrouded in sackcloth for twelve hundred and sixty years, in the street of the great aty which spiritually is called Sodom and Keypt. I have, however, been much more brief on this poimt than T could have desired. I wish to keep my work within very moderate limits; and, as | have more important matters to- deal with, [ do not, now, delay upon this preliminary topic, Tt will be of more practical use that I proceed at once to show how this slaying of the Seripturces has been effected. And whetlicr or not the reader agree with me in my inter- pretation of the prophetic language of the cleyenth chapter of Revelation, I shall at least prove this to his satisfaction, that the Scriptures have, in fact, been so slain and shrouded in sackcloth, as was therein prefigured in referenee to “ God’s two witnesses,” whatever those two witnesses‘ may be pre- sumed to have been. How, then, has this slaying of the Scriptures been effected ? In the first place, it has been effected, by their authority being, totally, set at nought and superseded by creeds and confessions ; and by the assertion of the alleged right of the church to dictate, independently of the authority of Scripture, what is binding on the conscience in matters of faith ; and by the fact that, to a very great extent, the use of the Scriptures NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 55 is forbidden to those to whom especially they were addressed. And in the second place, the slaying of the Scriptures has been effected by their having been despoiled of their integrity and truthfulness by means of corrupt interpolations and additions. By such means the Scriptures have been rendered a dead letter; as far as their power, unequivocally, to in- fluence faith or practice is concerned, Yes: the man of sin, the son of perdition, the beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit, the beast that rose from out the infidel peoples, and nations, and tongues, with which the devil, by the mstrumentality of Constantine, inundated the Church (but in this I am anticipating what I shall dwell upon more at large hereafter)—this man of sin set himself up above all that was called God, or that was worshipped; he arrogated to himself an authority that was superior to all laws human and divine: the voice of his church became para- mount, to the utter extinction of the voice of Scripture; the Scriptures ceased to be appealed to as the voice of God; and the decrees of councils, and the commands of popes, became the sole rules of faith and practice. By such means have the Seriptures been made a dead letter. But not alone, by being thus set at nought and despised, have the Scriptures had war made against them, and been slam by the man of sin. More than all this, they have been fatally wounded by additions and interpolations: and to show that such has been the case, is the subject we now more immediately sct before us. When I speak thus of interpolations and additions, I refer to the “New Testament” Scriptures. Those of the Old Testa- ment have not passed through the same vicissitudes as have those ofthe New. In the fate of the one, however, that of the 56 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT other is necessarily involved. The Old and New Testaments must stand or fall together. It is the same life which ani- mates both. | I am well aware, when I thus assert of the received New Testament Scriptures, that they do not exist in their in- tegrity, that they are not every line, every syllable, inspired ! —Iam well aware, when I do so, that I am treading on what is reckoned to be forbidden ground. Tet not, however, the advocate of the plenary inspiration of the received version of | New Testament Scripture assail me with calumny or invec- tive: I shall ask the assent of men to nothing which I do not prove. Iam free to observe, however, that when I impugn the integrity of our New Testament Scriptures, if I am not treading on “forbidden,” I am treading on “holy” ground. I shall therefore, not move one step further, in my present inquiry, than I am indubitably authorized to do by God’s own authority. I shall not put forth a single statement cal- culated to weaken the faith of even the weakest, in any portion of those Scriptures now under review, where I have not the authority of well, and immoveably, established Scrip- ture for so doing. In order, however, to elucidate my subject, I shall hold myself at complete liberty to throw upon it the borrowed light of history. Indeed, next to an ac- quaintance with Scripture itself, I would desire nothing more to ensure a ready admission of my arguments than that all who read them were well versed in the early history of the Church. Were they thus informed they would wonder, not so much that the Scriptures of the New Testament are in some parts corrupted, as that they retain so much of their original purity as they do. In considering the subject before us, aright, it is essential load NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. O7 to be borne in mind that the New Testament Scriptures were, in the early ages of their existence, circulated amongst the churches, in the form of detached manuscripts and portions of manuscripts. In some places one or more gospels might be found; in others only a portion of a gospel, or selections from one or more of the gospels: one epistle would be found here, another there. At what time the gospels and epistles were collected out of these scattered portions, and put together into one volume, or by whom this was done, is absolutely unknown. It is not even alleged that the canon of New Testament Scripture was, definitely, fixed and settled, before the time of the Roman Pontiff Gelasius, a.p. 494; but that it was done even thus early is, as we shall presently see, little more than conjecture. Now, through what new scenes and changes the sacred manuscripts may have passed during the lengthened period preceding that event, even granting that it took place thus early—a period characterized, as we have in part seen, by the most extravagant errors in doctrine, and by the grossest superstition and idolatry—it is utterly beyond our reach fully to determine. The New Testament Scriptures, therefore, come to us utterly unauthenticated, in a critical pomt of view, by any other evidence than what they themselves internally furnish. So much obscurity hangs over their history, that it is by no means certain that the gospels have been written by the evangelists whose names they bear; and a like uncertainty attaches to some of the epistles. We learn, from Mosheim, that, at a very early period of the Christian era, “ Several histories of Christ’s life, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed, by persons whose intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest super- 3 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Or stition and ignorance.’ We further learn, that “ ¢he contro- versialists of the early ages of the church made no scruple of corrupting, in the most perfidious manner, the writings of the evangelists and apostles, by curtailing and adding, in order to remove what was unfavourable, or to produce something con- Jormable, to their several schemes”? And some of these schemes, as I have shown in the preceding chapter, were sufficiently visionary. We learn, also, that “many audacious impostors even published their own writings, under the name of Christ and his apostles: that thus, in deliberations of councils, and in the course of controversy, they might have authorities to oppose to authorities in defence of their respective opinions.” In the fifth century the whole Church was so overwhelmed by such “ infamous cheats and spurious productions,” that Pope Gelasius is said “ to have called a council of bishops of the Latin Church, in which, after a strict cxamination of those writings which appeared under great and venerable names, the famous decree passed that deprived so many apocryphal books of their borrowed authority.” Mosheim says, “ That something of this kind really happened, it would be perhaps an instance of temerity to deny, but many learned men assert that the decree attributed to Gelasius labours under the same inconvenience with the books which it condemns, and was by no means the production of that Pontiff, but of some deceiver who usurped clandestinely his name and authority.” We are thus instructed in a most painful fact, that the purity and completeness of the canon of New Testament Scripture is avouched to us, even at the best, on no better authority than the opinion of a Pope and his bishops; and that opinion bears its date from a period of the NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 59 Church’s history when, we are told, “corrupt darkness had eclipsed the lustre of primitive Christianity, and true religion was superseded by horrid superstition and idolatry.’ Even taking the most favourable supposition, that the revision of the sacred writings was made by this Pope and his bishops, it happens unfortunately for the cause of truth that he and they were ill qualified for separating that whick was spurious from that which was truly divine. ‘They were wedded to idolatrous opinions, which blinded their minds to the truth ; and it is very greatly to be feared that some of the writings which they rejected from their canon may have been truly apostolic and divine. Be that, however, as it may, IT am prepared to prove that they have retaimed in their revised version some passages which should have followed the fate “of > of which it those infamous cheats and spurious productions’ seems they had so many to condemn. But let me not fail to observe that although we have not the New ‘Testament Seriptures as they came from the hands of the apostles, yet, blessed be God! they still retam abundantly enough, when studied aright, to make us wise unto salvation. It would be out of keeping with the limits of my work that I should go over the whole text of the New ‘Testament, and point out the various places wherein it seems to have suffered at the hands of men. I may well say “various” places, when it is a fact that biblical critics have furnished us with upwards of “30,000” various readings in the text of the New Testament Scriptures alone! that is, that they inform us that the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures, which they have discovered and analysed, differ from each other in above “30,000” various instances, the most ancient of those manu- scripts having a date not earlier than “the fifth century”—if, 60 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT indeed, it be thus early. I shall confine myself toa few of the more important passages, and leave the further following out of the subject to a future opportunity. The first portions of “alleged” Holy Writ, upon which I shall animadvert, are those m the first chapters of Matthew and Luke, which profess to record the miraculous conception of Christ. It may be observed, of the whole of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, that their authenticity, in a eritical point of view, has -been gravely questioned by men who have been influenced simply by a desire to know the truth. They have been of opinion that their genuineness is not sustained by such authority as would render their re- ception imperative upon Christians. Now if these chapters, as a whole, are thus questionable, in a critical point of view, and if it can be further shown that some of the statements they contain are at direct variance with, and subversive of, the uniform testimony of Scripture clsewhere recorded, it must be admitted that the genuineness of those portions of them, at least, will become more than questionable. I, by no means, wish to counsel the rejection of the whole of these chapters. I am perfectly willing to receive any portions of them which bear any imtrinsic evidence of their genuineness. For the present, I confine my attention to those parts of them which profess to record the miraculous conception of Christ.— The authenticity of these passages I at once impugn. I charge them with being part and parcel of ‘“ those pious frauds, and fabulous wonders,” which ecclesiastical history has just informed us “ were so extensively composed con- cerning Christ, at a very early period of the Christian era.’ They approach, too much, to changing the glory of the in- NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 61 corruptible God into an image made lke to corruptible man; and, surely, they are inexcusable, who, with bibles in their hands, give heed to such devismgs. Pagan Mythology abounded with such fables, and Pagan Mythology, alone, furnished the model for such profane wonders. What a handle have these spurious records afforded for the profane ribaldry of the infidel in all ages! Their nature is such that I would tremble to enter into a minute exposure of their absurdity and blasphemy. Leaving that aside, I shall, at once, proceed to show their absolute and complete incompa- tibility with Scriptural truth. Are these records true?—Then, not one of the promises made by God unto the Fathers respecting “ The Messiah” has yet been fulfilled! Are they true ?—Christ was not, and could not have been, the promised Messiah. The promise concern- ing the Messiah given to Moses, and by him to the children of Israel, was “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.” Ave these records true ?—Christ was not “ of their brethren.’ The promise made to Abraham was, “ In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Are these records true ?-—— Christ was not “the seed of Abraham.” The promise to David was, “that, of the fruit of his loms, would God set upon his throne.” Are these records true? —Christ was not “of the fruit of David’s loins.” In short, if these records are true, not one of the promises concerning the Messiah could have been fulfilled, in the person of Christ : and Christ could not have been the promised Messiah. We are thus reduced to this dilemma—r£1THER THESE RE- CORDS, ARE NOT TRUE, OR CHRIST WAS NOT THE PROMISED MesstAH! For, if these records be true, it is not possible that 6:2 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT any of the promises respecting the Messiah could have been fulfilled in the person of Christ; and he, therefore, was not, and could not have been, the promised Messiah. And, on the other hand, it is equally clear that if Christ was the promised Messiah, in whose person all the promises made unto the fathers were fulfilled, it follows, of an incontrovertible ne- cessity, that these records are not true; and cannot be, true. The question has been resolved for us by God himself. He himself has relieved ais from the dilemma which the presence of these spurious records on the page of Scripture had placed us ; for, by many infallible proofs, he has shown that Christ was, in deed and in truth, the promised Messiah —this he has shown, not only by the many mighty signs and wonders which he wrought by Him in the midst of the people, but, over and above all, by his having raised him from the dead. , By the witness bearing, therefore, of God himself these re- cords are not true. They are mere profanitics! The truth of God, that it may not stand impeached, demands the instan- taneous, and unqualified, rejection of the whole imposture. It is a quaint saying—-that “one falschood ” requires another” to sustain it. The truth of this aphorism is strikingly exemplified in the case of the mendacious records before us. After the detail, given in Matthew, of the circumstances of the profane wonder there recorded, it is stated, by way of furnishing a corroboration of “the fable,” “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall brig forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which, being interpreted, is ‘God with NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 63 7” Now, unfortunately for that in support of which this us. is adduced, this language of the prophet was not spoken of Christ at all, but of a totally different person, and, when attention is drawn to this fact, it should be sufficient to open the eyes of all who are not wilfully in error, to the fraud which the whole fabrication has put upon their faith. Woe to the man who hardeneth his neck, and who setteth him- self against conviction ! The prophet, whose authority has been impressed into the service of the framers of this “pious fraud and fabulous wonder,” is Isaiah; and the passage, they press into their service, is taken from the book of his prophecies—Ch. vii. 14, Ishall quote it, together with the two verses which follow—“ Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold raz Virern shall conceive and bear a son, and tnov —QO, Virein—shalt call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For, before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.’—Before proceeding further, it would be desirable that the reader should peruse the chapter from which T have taken this quotation, and also the following chapter, as far as the ninth verse. He will there perceive that “this sign” was given to Ahaz, King of Judah, on the occasion of a confederacy being entered into against him by Syria and Ephraim; and God—in order to quiet the fears of Ahaz, and those of the people—promised to him, by Isaiah— that within three score and five years Kphraim should be broken that it should not be a people.” (Isaiah vi. 8); and when Ahaz had hesitated to tempt the Lord, by asking of him a sign of the fulfilment of the pro- 64: THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT mise, the Lord, of himself, gave him the above sign. Now that which was prefigured by the sign must, of necessity, have been accomplished, before the expiration of “ sixty-five years” from the time when it was given—else it could not have been a sign of an event which was to happen—within those ‘sixty-five years’! This is to be particularly noted. This virgin must have conceived this son, whom she—her- self—was to call Immanuel, and must have brought him forth, within “ sixty-five years” after the promise was given to Ahaz. To the history, then, of those “sixty-five years,” we must look, for an interpretation of the figurative lan- guage of the prediction. The first question to be determined is—Who is “ The Virgin” spoken of? Let no one say it was the Virgin Mary! He who holds such an opinion has not drunk very deeply into ? referred to, is—“* The the spirit of prophecy. “TH Virein,’ virgin daughter of Zion”—she, who is the subject of so many prophetic themes. She had long continued barren, bringing forth no fruit unto God. God now promised that, within ’ she should, at length, conceive and these “ sixty-five years’ bring forth a son, who should realize his presence in the midst of Judah. ‘The next question is—Who was the son whom she brought forth, in whose person the promise of God’s presence was realized ?—who was the Immanuel? I answer, most un- hesitatingly, it was Hezekiah !—and the bringing forth of “the son of the prophecy,” took place when Hezekiah began to reign. The language of the prophecy was— Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of beth ler kings.” NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 65 Within the period, therefore, after Hezekiah began to reign, which would be sufficient, for a child, “ to Jearn to refuse the evil and choose the good” we must look for the fulfilment of the prediction, respecting the land which was abhorred, which land was the land of Ephraim, the capital of which was Samaria; and the two kings referred to, were the king of Samaria and the king of Syria, who had become con- federate against Judah. Now, we find, that—in the sixth year—of the reign of Hezekiah, Samaria was taken by the king of Assyria, and her king and people were carried away into Assyrian captivity (2 Kings xvii. 10). Previously to this, Syria, also, had been taken, and her king slain, by the King of Assyria (2 Kings xvi. 9). So that the land of Ephraim, the abhorred land, was, thus, forsaken of both her kings, and Ephraim was broken that it was not a people, before Hezekiah, the son whom “the Virgin daughter of Zion” had brought forth, had reigned—six years—that 1s, before the expiration of the time which sufficeth for a child to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good. No prophecy was ever more literally fulfilled, than was this one in the person of Hezekiah. IT have thus shown, that that, which, in the first chapter of Matthew, is alleged to have been spoken, by the prophet, of “Christ,” was not spoken of him at all, but of Hezekiah the righteous king of Judah; and I have also shown, that those alleged miraculous doings, to sustain which this misapplica- tion of Scripture was had recourse to, must, so far as Christ was concerned, have been purely fictitious. Was I, or was I not, therefore, justified in impugning the authenticity of alleged portions of holy writ, which bore—upon the face of them—such palpable and unmistakeable, evidence of ims . GO THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT posture: and which bore such internal evidence, that they never flowed from the inspiration of that spirit, which delights not in profanities, and which dictates no falsehoods ?—Let those who fear the Lord and tremble at his word answer. I shall now call attention to a passage in the second chapter of Matthew, which, althongh it is of mimor im- portance, is, nevertheless, worthy of being noticed. It is m the fifteenth verse of that chapter, and is as follows —“ That it might be fulfited which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.’ This passage, also, is not authentic. No such language was ever spoken of the Lord Jesus Christ by the prophet. The quo- tation is from Hosea; and a reference to the context from which it is taken, and a moment’s reflection thereon, is sufficient to show that reference is not made to Christ at all. The son, whom God is there said to have called out of Egypt, was “the people of Israel,’ whom God delivered from Egyptian bondage, by the hand of his servant Moses. Should any hesitate to admit this, let me refer him to the following passage in Exodus, which will settle all doubting upon the subject. “ And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. And I say unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me; and, if thou refuse to let him yo, I will slay thi son, even thy first born’?—Exod. iv. 22, 23. Another passage, similar to the above, which stands selfs condemned, as being not authentic, is the following, which is to be found in the 17th and 18th verses of the same second chapter of Matthew. ‘ Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, in Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY, 67 mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted because they were not.’ The prophet Jeremy, in this language, did not refer to the alleged slaughter of the children by Herod, neither was it the Evangelist Matthew who made such an application of it. Whatever Matthew wrote was dictated by the holy spirit, and the holy spirit never contradicts itself. The weeping’, referred to by Jeremiah, was the weeping of Rachel, the virgin daughter of Zion, for the loss of her children of the house of Jacob, who were dispersed among all nations, and scattered abroad over the whole earth, “a hissnmg and a by-word.” The context shows this most plainly ; and the Lord by the prophet comforts Rachel in these words—“ Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy, and there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border’—Jer. xxxi. 16-17. Who will say that this language was spoken of, or con- cerning, the alleged slaughter of the children of Bethlehem? What, now, becomes of the argument which secks to main- tain the plenary imspiration of the received version of the New Testament—that is, the full inspiration of every syl- lable! every letter! of it? The detection, of the above misapplications of prophetic authorities, excites a strong suspicion, that the whole story, in connection with which they are adduced, is a fabrication. T must confess, it seems very much akin to the “ miraculous legends” which we have learned were so current in the early ages of the Christian cra. There is such a straining Fr 2 68 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT after the supernatural, in the whole narrative, that it be- speaks man’s feeble and shallow wisdom. Why, even the coming of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth is made to be the result of miraculous guidance! It is made to appear that Joseph had proposed to go into Judea, but was, by a dream, warned off to Nazareth. And, forsooth, all this coercion of Joseph’s plans was put in force, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken (of Christ) by the prophets— “ He shall be called a Nazarene? Now, I am unable to find where it was said of Christ, “ He shall be called a Nazarene.” I find some instances in the Prophets of per- sons being called “ Nazarites,’ but no where, of Christ, that he should be called such: and, besides, being a “ Nazarite,”’ and a “ Nazarene,’ are two very different things. Nazareth was Joseph’s native city, in which he dwelt, before going up to Jerusalem, on the occasion when Christ was born; and, even supposing that God had considered it necessary, in order that the child Jesus should be clear of the confines of Bethlehem, to command Joseph and Mary, with their infant of a few days, to undertake the fatigu- ing journey into Egypt, is it not naturally to be supposed, that, when Joseph was permitted to return, he would, of himself, go direct to his home, and his kindred, in Naza- reth, from whom he had been so long unexpectedly absent; without the necessity of being constrained to do so by the miraculous intervention of God? Such, however, is the way in which man moves to perform his wonders! I would further observe upon this same chapter, that there is no mention made, in any other of the gospels, of the coming of these Magi, or “wise men from the East,” to Jerusalem, enquiring for the King of the Jews: nor of a NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY, 69 the slaughter of the children by Herod: nor of the coming of Joseph and Mary with their infant into Egypt. On the contrary, Luke informs us, that, immediately after the days of Mary’s purification, according to the law of Moses, were ended, she and Joseph returned into Galilee into their own city Nazareth. The writer of the second chapter of Matthew, evidently, was not aware that Nazareth was the city of Joseph: he was not aware that Joseph and Mary returned thither, within comparatively a few days after the birth of the child Jesus. A knowledge of such facts would, probably, have put a check upon his imagination, when it was running unreined between the far Hast, the bloody streets of Bethlehem, and Egypt. History furnishes no record of this alleged slaughter of Bethlehem’s children. Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived a few years after the time of Herod, and who has given a most minute rehearsal of Herod’s cruelties, makes no mention of it whatever. The whole story bears absurdity on its front. The means alleged were not such as would have been likely, with any certainty, to accomplish the end intended ; nor was the scheme such an one as would have been put in practice. In whatever point of view we contemplate the contents of this second chapter of Matthew, they stand before us in “a questionable shape.” Even had the Magi—the heathen philosophers of the Kast—received an intimation from heaven by the appearance of a miraculous star, accompanied, in some way, with a miraculous interpretation of its meaning, which, to say the least of it, is a very large supposition, they must have set out very promptly, in order to have reached Bethlehem before Joseph and Mary had taken their de- 70 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT parture. 'They—the Magi—the ministers of a Pagan reli- gion—must have had a very ready faith, in taking up the intimation of the star; but they must, also, have had a very barren faith. These Pagan philosophers, favoured of heaven thus highly, made a very unprofitable use of God’s special favour to them! We do not learn that they were zealous to impart their miraculously-acquired knowledge to others ! We do not find them making any, even the most trivial, figure in the evangelization of their countrymen! No: if we take our information from the writer of this chapter, no other good seems to have resulted from their long journey from the Kast, but the bringing about of the slaughter of the innocents of Bethlehem ! The whole story seems too absurd to be dwelt upon. It undoubtedly owes its origin to the Magi, who, in the second century, became professors of Christiamty. With them, no doubt, originated these fabulous wonders. They were anxious to secure some reputation for their order, and they palmed these fictions upon their followers, as authentic records of Scripture: but, from their ignorance of Jewish and Christian history, their effort at Scripture-making proved abortive. The next passage to which I shall direct attention is, Matthew xvii. 10-18. It is there stated that the disciples asked Jesus, “Why say the Scribes that Elias must jirst come ?”’—To which Jesus is made to reply, “ Elias, truly, shall first come, and restore ail things; but, I say unto you, that Klas is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.’—“Turn,” we are told, “THE DISCIPLES UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SPAKE UNTO THEM OF JOHN THE Baptist,” —————— Oe ee ee NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 71 I wish to contrast this with John i. 19-21. It is there stated, “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask John, Who art thou? and he confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, | am xor.’—Here is a most palpable contradiction of what is stated in the foregoing passage of Matthew. How will the advocates of the plenary inspiration, of the present version of the New Testament Scriptures, reconcile or account for this ’ They must surely admit, that cither one or other of these passages must be spurious: they cannot both be authentic, being the very reverse of cach other. his little “oversight!” on the part of the interpolators, speaks volumes, It enables him, who honestly desires to know the truth, to set down, at their proper value, those isolated portions of the sacred text, which contradict the whole tenor of the whole volume of revelation, elsewhere. I would now invite particular attention to a very important passage of alleged holy writ. It is John xx, 22-23. “ And when he had said this he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained.”—This is, with many, a very favourite portion of Scripture, and it may seem to savour of unkindness to them to say one word against it: but the truth must be told, even at the risk of giving pain. However convenient this passage may be, to be urged by right reverend fathers m God, as a precedent, for their assumption of power to bestow like gifts of the Holy Ghost, upon those on whom they “)veathe” in the ceremony of ordination, it is, no less, not of divine origin on that account. Its claim to be authentic 72 THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ean, in no wise, be sustained. It is at direct variance with the express teaching of Christ recorded elsewhere; and stands contradicted by a record of facts, of a date subsequent to its alleged period. The assertion, that, on the occasion alluded to, Jesus Christ breathed upon his disciples, and conferred on them the Holy Ghost, is to be scouted, by the veriest beginner in the study of New Testament scripture. It is sufficient, for such an one, to call to mind that the Holy Ghost was not given, until many days after Christ’s ascension into heaven, Christ never promised to his disciples that they should re- ceive the Holy Ghost, until after his ascension. “'THEn”’—he said, he would pray the Father, and he would send them the Comforter. The last words of Christ to his disciples, before his final blessing, as they are recorded Luke xxiy. 49, were : “ Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with the Spirit from on high’ In the first chapter of the book of Acts, also, we read that Christ commanded his apostles “ not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father”—“ For John,” said he, “ truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost Nov MANY DAYS uENCE.” “ Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you--AND WHEN HE HAD SPOKEN THESE THINGS, WHILE THEY BEHELD, HE WAS TAKEN UP, AND A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.” It was never promised that the Holy Ghost should be given, before Christ had gone into heaven. Christ, ex- pressly, says “Jt is expedient for you that I go away, for— ir 1 Go Nov away—the Comforter will not come unto you.” In fact, the gift of the Holy Ghost was not conferred on any —_ a? NOT IN THEIR ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. 73 —save on Jesus Christ himself—til fifty days after Christ’s ascension into heaven, when, on the day of Pentecost, amidst the most sublime manifestations of the divine pre- sence, the apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost as with fire; and became endued with the promised power from on high. Peter thus announces the fulfilment of Christ’s promise, to those whom the fame of the event had brought together, “ This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses, Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear” — Tt gives the fullest, and plainest, state- « Trinity Sunday.’ ment of what Trinitarianism really is. It is the creed, also, . of the Church of Rome, and of the mass of Christendom. The ereed adopted by the Westminster divines 1s not so 86 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED enlarged in point of detail ; but the two creeds “ are the same in substance, equal in power and in glory.” Tue ATHANASIAN CREED IS AS FOLLOWS: “ Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is neces- sary that he hold the Catholic faith--which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. —— “ And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.—For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost.—But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the glory cqual, the majesty co-cternal.—Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.—The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.—The Father in- comprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible—The Fathcr cternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost ctcernal.—And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal.—As, also, there are not three incomprchensibles, or three uncreated, but one un- created and one. incomprchensible.—So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty ; and yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.— So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.—And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.—So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord.—And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.—For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every one by himself to be God and Lord: so we are forbidden by the Catholic BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 87 religion to say there be three Gods, or three Lords.—The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.—The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but be- gotten.—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 other, none is greater or less than another, but the whole three persons are co- eternal together 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 —Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.—For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.—God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and man of the substance of his mother born in the world, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh consisting : equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.—Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ.—One, not by con- version of the Godhead into flesh, but taking of the man- hood into God; one, altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.—For as the reasonable flesh and soul is one man, so God and man 1s one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead.—He ascended into Heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Alnighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick 88 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED and the dead.—This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.—Glory be unto the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.” SucH is Trinirartanism !—With what truthfulness is it said that the doctrine of the Trinity is “ a mystery !”—With perfect honesty, I am persuaded, does the Trinitarian speak, when he says, of his creed, that it is “ beyond his compre- hension !?—To me no wonder! How many incomprehensible things does it contain! Shall I delay to point out, in detail, all the incomprehensi- bilities of this creed?—Shall I dwell upon its self- contradictions, and its absurdities? Every rational mind discovers, at a glance, that every succeeding sentence vies with its preceding one, in being more incomprehensible! more self-contradictory ! and more absurd! It tells us there are “ three Gods”—“ three Lords’”—and “three Almighties” -—no little “ beyond the comprehension,” certainly, of him who has studied the Scriptures! It tells us there are “ three eternal and uncreated persons”’—yet, the second “ was be- gotten by the first,’ and the third “proceeded from both !” But, more incomprehensible still, it telis us that the whole three—“ he that begat”——“ he that was begotten?—and “ he that proceeded from both”—arw at one !—How incompre- hensible—But, further still!—One of these incomprehen- sibles surpasses his fellows, in incomprehensibility, to a degree utterly beyond all comprehension! He is “ both God and man!’ —PrERFECT Gop AND PERFECT MAN! [Low incomprehen- sibly, incomprehensible! !—Language utterly fails me, ade- quately, to tell, how far this is beyond all comprehension, human or divine! And this is the faith which, “ except — — TT. BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 89 every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt, he shall perish everlastingly!’ Ah! without doubt, the tender mercies of this creed are, indeed, VERY CRUELTIES! I have said that this creed sets forth three Gods—Who shall say, that I do Trinitarians wrong when I thus charge them with believing in the existence of three, separate, and distinct, Gods ?—Do they not, by their own creed, stand self- eondemned? “ The Christian verity,’ they say, “ compels us to acknowledge—THAT EACH IS OF HIMSELF GOD AND Lorp’’—that is, that the Father is—or HIMsELF—God and Lord; that the Son is—or HnimseLr--God and Lord; and that the Holy Ghost is—or HimseLtr—God and Lord—and “ nacn” of these three, it further says, is—“ Aumicuty.” [ do Trinitarians no wrong when I record against them that they believe in the existence of three distinct, and indepen- dent, Gods. Any attempt, on their part, to refuse the issue thereon, is, as I shall, presently, more fully demonstrate, but a base subterfuge, and a skulking from the truth. Not all the sophistry that was ever conceived, or penned, or uttered, can effectually enable them to retreat from this position. The hypocritically inserted clause, in which is paraded the truth, “ that we are forbidden to say there are three Gods,” does not help them—it does not redeem the idolatry of the foregoing parts of the creed; but, on the contrary, stands, rather, as a lasting monument to their condemnation. It proves that they sin against the clearest hight! I speak, the more expressly, on this point, because Trini- tarians have always, in this controversy, been in the practice of playing at “ fast and loose’—what they say this moment, they virtually unsay the next. This, of itself, speaks volumes to their condemnation. They have been in the habit of 90 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED framing their arguments, after the fashion of the “ oracular divinations” of the heathen. ‘These, always, had a saving clause in them, and when the event did not accord with the ostensible import of the oracle, it was easy for the priest, or priestess, as the case might be, by pleading specially upon the saving clause, to make a parade of argument, before their dupes, to show that their divination, when properly understood, had, in fact, corresponded with the event. Just so with Trmitarians : when the advocates of truth annihilate their doctrine of ‘ three Gods,” they, with unblushing effron- tery, turn round and say, that, although they are three in per- sonality! and in their individual attributes! and in the separate, and distinct, offices they severally sustain! yet they are in reality only “ one :” because they are “ of the same sub- stance, and are equal in power, and in glory.”—/Vhat lies spoken in hypocrisy! As well might they argue that three sovercigns are one, because they are “ of the same substance, equal in power and in glory.’—Yet Pl wager a ducat—aye, ten thousand ducats!—that not one of these casuists will argue in this way, when the question assumes this matter of fact form. And shall we be so impious, as to use a mode of arguinentation, as against the majesty of God, which we would not use, as against ourselves, even in the meanest matters? But, not only, does the Trinitarian set up three objects of worship, “ cach being, in himself, God and Lord ;” but—- with a still more reckless spirit of idolatry, and in still further violation of God’s will—he assigns to the person of one of these, namely to “ God the Son’”’—a veritable human body. God the Son, he says, is “perfect God, and perfect {7 man !”’—“ God of the substance of his Father, and man of ee a BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 9] the substance of his mother, of a reasonable soul and human flesh consisting :’ and as such he is to be worshipped ! ! Tn vain! has Jehovah said, “Thou shalt not make unto thee the likeness of any thing, that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is m the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them.”’—In vain! has his holy prophet of old said, “ To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Is. xl. 18)—The Trinitarian creed sets up an object of worship, made “ in the likeness of men,” and com- mands all men, on pain of damnation, to fall down and wor- ship it! Are these things so? ‘They cannot be denied: and if they are so, where, I would ask, is the mind which yet retains within it any reverence for God’s word, that does not shudder at the contemplation of such wanton, and reckless violation of his most solemn commands? Let those, who blindly follow the bidding of this idolatrous creed, be ad- monished, to pause, and consider whether they are not following in the wake of those of whom the apostle Paul said, “ When they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing them- selves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an image, made hike to cor- ruptible man” (Rom. 1. 21-28). Let us, however, proceed furthcr to apply to this creed the “Ithuriel” test of scripture. ——* Kor no falsehood can endure Touch of celestial temper, but returns, Of force, to its own likeness.” 92 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED To the law and to the testimony let it be brought. If it be not found therein, it is because there is no truth in it. The Scriptures, are the only standard of appeal in a controversy between religious truth and error. If the doc- trine, contained in the Trinitarian’s creed, be found in the pages of holy writ, or can be sustained by the authority of holy writ, then is it a scriptural and good doctrine; and to be given heed to by all good men: but, if it be not found inculeated in, or sustained by, scripture, then it is an unholy doctrine, not of God, but of men—or worse—and to be rejected of all who fear God and tremble at his word. The Trinitarian doctrine is this—that we are to worship a “ Godhead,’ consisting of three persons, taking care not to confound those persons, for there is “ one person” of the Father—“ another person” of the Son—and “ another person” of the Holy Ghost—each heing, by himself, God and Lord !— the whole three, however, being equal in power and in glory, equally incomprehensible !—equally almighty !—equally un- created and eternal !-—the only essential difference between them being, that to the person of the second, namely to “ God the Son,” belongs a human body, of reasonable soul and human flesh consistng! And this heterogeneous com- bination, of persons and things, we are commanded to wor- ship, on pain of eternal damnation ! Now, do we find any thing of all this in the Scriptures ? No: not a syllable of it. Not the most remote allusion to such a system of faith: but, on the contrary, we find that such doctrine is the farthest possible from the mind of the spirit. We find every thing to teach us that such a mode of faith is blasphemous and idolatrous; and in the highest degree derogatory to the majesty of God: BY THE “ TTHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE, 93 ihe God of the Scriptures is “one Jehovah.” He who revealed himself to Israel, amidst the thunders of Mount Sinai, is “one Jehovah.” He, who spake unto our fathers by the prophets throughout all time, is “ one Jehovah’ —He, alone, is God and Lord—He, alone, is Almighty—He, alone, is uncreated and eternal !—— | To Israel, he hath said, “ Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, your God, is one Jehovah. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Deut. vi. 4, and Exod. xx. 2, 3.)—By the prophets, he said, “See now that I, even I, am he; and there is no god with me.” (Deut. xxx. 39.) “Is there a god besides me? Yeathere is no god, I knownot any.” (Is. xliv. 8.) “Iam Jehovah, and there is none else.” (Is. xlv.5.) “ Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Is. xliu. 10). This same Jehovah, who hath thus so solemnly, and em- phatically, declared—* that there is no God with him’”— “ that there is no God besides himself??—“ that there is no God else than himself: even he himself knows not any’”— “ that before him there was no God formed, neither shall there be after him’—that same Jehovah has spoken unto us in these last days by his Son, not less emphatically, and not less to the sameeffect. This was that “ faithful and true witness,’ whom God had promised to the Jews, by the mouth of Moses, saying, “I will raise up unto them a prophet, from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them, all that I shall command him: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he OA: THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED shall speak, in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deut. xviti. 18; Acts iti. 22.) The witness-bearing of this faith- ful and true witness was this, “The words which ye hear are not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. He gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. —Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.” | And the words which he spake were these—“ The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. There is no other commandment greater than this.” (Mark xu. 29-31): and these—“ Father, it is life eternal to know thee, the only true God” (John xvii. 8): and these—“ God is a Spirit’’—[one Spirit—not a group of Spirits—not three Spirits]—“ and they who wor- ship him must worship him in spirit and in truth: for such ‘the Father’ secketh to worship him.” (John iv. 23, 24): and these—“‘ He is my Father and your Father; he is my God and your God.” (John xx. 17.) Could there be any thing more emphatic than this ?— Could there be any thing more—Anti-trinitarian—than this? Is there any mention-—here—of a glorious and ever blessed Trinity, consisting of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? Is there any thing said—here—of three .co-equals, and three co-eternals? Is there any, even the most remote allusion to such vain imaginations? No.— How does the Trinitarian account with himself for this ? Supposing, for a moment, that God had—shall I utter the blasphemy ? but how otherwise can I speak of it ?—that God had kept back from his chesen people the Jews, so much BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 95 that was cssential to the true and spiritual knowledge of himself, as the Trinitarian creed would allege—would it not have been, only in consonance with his justice, when he sent by Jesus Christ to command all men to worship him “in spirit and in truth,” and to denounce condemnation against those who should not so worship him “in spirit and in truth’—would it not, I ask, have been, but in keep'ng with God’s justice, that he should have given by Jesus Christ, an exposition of this new, and so totally at variance with the former, development of himself, as clear, and as easily to be understood, and as impossible to be misunder- stood, as that which he had previously given forth from Mount Sinai? And, had Christ been charged with the deliverance of such a revelation, would not the beginning and ending of his addresses to the Jews have been directed, to correct the ignorance in which they had so long, un- wittingly, lam respecting the constitution, of the being, of the God whom they worshipped? and would not the whole fervour of his soul have infused itself, into his adjurations to them, to shake off the prejudices of their early education, and divest themselves, and that speedily, of those imperfect views of their Jehovah which they had obtained from Moses ? —Would he not have sought radically to root out from their minds, all the impressions respecting “ the unity of God” they had previously cherished? and, having thus prepared their minds, to receive without gainsaying what he had in charge for them, would he not have taken the earliest opportu- nity of delivering to them, this new revelation respecting all the “ incomprehensibilities” of the “ Holy, Blessed, and Glorious Trinity?” Would he not have discoursed to them of “ God the Father,’ and “ God the Son” (that bemg 96 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED himself), and “ God the Holy Ghost ;” each being, by himself, God and Lord! cach being incomprehensible ! each being almighty ! cach being un-create! and each being eternal ! and would he not have waxed eloquent, in expatiating upon the peculiar claims to their veneration and regard which he himself, especially, possessed, inasmuch as he had conde- scended, to become “bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh ;’? which neither “God the Father,’ nor ‘ God the Holy Ghost,” had done? Would he not——? But why dwell upon the blasphemous absurdity! The justice of God requires nothing “to be supposed,” in order to its vindication: and his truth forbade that anything should remain to be revealed, which would contradict and set at nought what had already been revealed.—“ Whatsoever God doeth, he doeth it for ever: nothing can add to it, nor take from it? (Eccles. iit. 14)—When Christ came to preach, to the universal world, the glad tidings of salvation, he had it in charge to reiterate, “the first and vreatest commandment,’—“ Hear, O Isracl; Jehovah your God is one Jehovah.’ He had it in charge to say, « Father, it is life eternal to know thee, the only living and true God.’ He had it in charge to say, that “ God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship lim in spirit and in truth ; for such, ‘ rHE Farner’ seeketh to wor- ship him.” He had it m charge to say, “ I ascend unto My Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God.” Let us, however, go further, and examine the testimony of the apostles concerning Him, who is the subject of “ the first and greatest commandment.” The apostle Paul says, “To us there is but ong God, THE Farner, of whom are all things and we in him” (1 Cor, PS ee BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 97 vii. 6). There is onE God and FatuHEr or aut, who is above all, and through all” (Ephesians iv. 6). “For there is oNE God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. u. 5). Ifad Paul, the apostle, been a Trinitarian, he would not have said to the Corinthian Church “ To us there is but. one God the Father.’—No: he would not, thus briefly, have ex- pounded the mysteries of the “ Catholic faith!’ He would have said, to us there is “A Holy, Blessed, and Glorious Trinity,’ consisting of “ God the Father,” “ God the Son,” and * God the Holy Ghost,” “cach bemg, by himself, God and Lord,’ &c., &c., &c. How very inconsistent, also, with the “ Catholic faith,” does he not appear, when he calls the Father of Glory, “the Gop anno Farner of our Lord Jesus Christ!” For, to a non-clerical person, like me, it seems a very absurd supposition, that one God could be, the God, of another God. ‘These, however, are scarcely the most heretical features in the apostle’s theology. There is worse still! He says, “ There is but one God, and one mediator > without, between God and men—tTHE MAN CHRIstT JESUS; be it observed, taking special care to add, emphatically, that he was, nevertheless, “ perrect cop,’ as well as, “ PERFECT MAN !”? J am ready to exclaim in the Trinitarian’s own vo- cabulary — What a “ God-denying and soul-destroying heretic” the apostle Paul must have been ! ! I have, thus, given the united testimony of the old and new Testaments, to the great cardinal truth of Scripture, that there is but “one God,” even, “tHE Gop AND FaTHER OF OUR Lorp Jusus Curist ;” aiid this testimony is so explicit, and so multiplied, as to leave the Trinitarian without excuse. The whole burden of divine revelation, in the old Testa< H 98 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED nent, was to teach the world this “ first and greatest” of all truths, that “ Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,’—BEFORE whom, there was no God formed, neither shall there be after him—sestprEs whom, there is no God—witn whom, there is no God: EVEN HE HIMSELF KNows Not Any! !—And the whole burden of the New Testament revelation by Jesus Christ, “The faithful and true witness,’ and by all his apostles, was to reiterate, to establish, and confirm to the world, this great, cardinal, statute-truth of Heaven.—They who have ears to hear, let them hear. I said, I did the Trinitarian no wrong, when I asserted that his creed, in open and violent contradiction to this em- phatic, and universal, testimony of Scripture, sets forth the existence of three separate, and distinct, and independent, Gods. To sustain this assertion, I now proceed to show, that the Trinitarian in his acts of worship—in his prayers— thinks of three Gods, and worships three. And havig done so, I shall further proceed to compare the Trinitarian’s prayers with those of the Prophets of old, those of Christ, and those of the apostles, to show that there is not the most remote point of analogy, or resemblance, between them. In order to have before us a well authenticated form of Trinitarian prayer, one against which no orthodox exceptions ean be taken, I shall transcribe a few passages, from what may, par excellence, be termed the Trinitarian’s model prayer. I allude to the Litany. These will, also, serve very well to elicit the contrast between Trinitarian and Scriptural prayer—and what a contrast! The passages [ transcribe are the following-— “ O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us mis serable sinners.—O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, ee eS ee eS ee eee BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 99 have mercy upon us miserable sinners.—-O God tie Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners—O holy blessed and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God, have mercy upon us miserable sinners.—Spare us good Lord.—Spare thy people, whom thou hast redeemed, with thy most precious blood; and be not angry with us for ever.—By the mystery of thy holy incarnation, by thy holy na- tivity and circumcision, by thy baptism, fasting, and temptation, good Lord deliver us.—By thine agony and bloody sweat, by thy cross and passion, by thy precious death and burial, by thy glorious resurrection and as- cension, and by the coming of the Holy Ghost, good Lord deliver us.—We sinners beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.—O Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us. O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.—Christ have mercy upon us.—O Christ hear us.—Lord have mercy upon us.—Christ have mercy upon us.—Lord have mercy upon us.—Christ have mercy upon us.—Lord have mercy upon us.—From our enemies defend us, O Christ.—Pitifully behold the sors rows of our hearts.—Mercifully forgive the sins of thy people—O Son of David, have mercy upon us.—Both now, and ever, vouchsafe to hear us, O Christ.—Graciously hear us, O Christ.—Graciously hear us, O Lord Christ.—O Lord, let thy mercy be showed upon us; as we do put our trust in thee.—Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.”’— _Wuat Lins DO THEY NOT SPEAK IN HYPOCRISY WHO As- SERT THAT TRINITARIANISM DOES NOT INVOLVE, A BELIEF H 2 100 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED IN THE EXISTENCE OF THREE GODS, AND THE WORSHIP OF THREE Gops! In the foregoing prayers, there is not only a thinking of “ three Gods,” but an acknowledging and a wor- shipping of “ three Gods,” with a witness!—It will be ob- served, however, that to “ God the Father,’ and to “ God the Holy Ghost,” there is, in this Litany, very little ascrip- tion of prayer or praise; they are merely appealed to once or twice—the Holy Ghost, in fact, only once—as if the object were just to pay them a compliment, in passing, so that their jealousy might not be excited, while the prayer proceeds, addressed, exclusively, to “ God the Son.” Avowedly, a Trinitarian is the most inconsistent of creatures rational! Let a man once become a Trinitarian, and then— farewell consistency! He will consist with nothing, in heaven or in earth. Grant to him every absurd admission his creed requires ; admit the existence of his “Three Divine Persons !” each being, by himself, God and Lord! Admit that they are equal in power and in glory; and imagine that, even then, you will be able to hold him to consistency, and in the very first sally of his devotional genius, he will show you, what a fool you were to imagine, that, with him, you could accomplish any such rational achievement. He tells us, in his creed, that the three persons of his Trinity are “ equal” in power and in glory ; but, when he comes to address them in prayer, he, with an inconsistency to which none but him- self could be equal, ascribes all the power and all the glory, or nearly all the power and all the glory, to one of them, in whom he seems to place his entire confidence! His trust is placed in Christ, and the glory of his redemption is as- cribed to Christ, and to Christ is supplication made for all the special blessings he seeks: BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 101 In the Litany, Curist is appealed to “ not to take ven- eeance of our sins; to spare us from his wrath and eternal damnation; to deliver us, from all blindness of heart and hypocrisy, from all deadly sin, from lightning and tempest, from plague, pestilence, and famine, from battle and murder, and from sudden death, from all sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion, from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism, from hardness of heart, AND FROM CONTEMPT OF HIS WORD AND COMMANDMENT.”’—-W ould that the Trinitarian were to “think” upon this last petition as he offers it up: would that he were to reflect upon it! Were he to do so, he would not, long, be a Trinitarian. Christ is then, as we have just seen, solemnly invoked “ by the mystery of his holy incarnation, by his holy nativity and circumcision, by his baptism, fasting, and temptation, by his agony and bloody sweat, by his cross and passion, by his precious death and burial, by his glorious resurrection and ascension, and by the coming of the Holy Ghost!” to hear the foregoing petitions. And to his exclusive care and keep- ing are then, solemnly, handed over, Our Most Gracious Sovereign, all the royal family, all bishops, priests, and deacons, all the lords of the council, all the nobility, all the magistrates, all our people, and, finally, all nations !— Verily ! these Trinitarians seem to have removed themselves, and all the world, completely from under the sovereignty of «The God and Father of all :’ they seem to have put them- selves under another protectorate, which pleases them better, and in which they can have more confidence.—* The good old sovereignty,” however, forme! Let my trust be, for ever, in Jehovah of Hosts, in whom alone is everlasting strength ; and who has, with a voice that shall echo throughout eternity, 102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED proclaimed to me, and to all the world—THAT HE WILL NoT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER: no; not even to him, whom he ealls “his well-beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased.” —To him he says, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”,—But ! still—even to him —specially addressed to him—huis language, is “1am JEno- VAH, THAT IS MY NAME, AND MY GLORY WILL I NoT GIVE TO ANOTHER.’ Witness, the following,—‘ Behold, my ser- vant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul de- lighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. ‘Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out: he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein; I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. [I am tue Lorp (JEHOVAN); THAT IS MY NAME, AND MY GLORY witt I Nor GIvE TO AaNoTHER.”——TIsaiah xhi. 1, 5, 6, 8. While each of the other persons of the Trinity is, in the Litany, scarcely appealed to at all, Christ is specially en- treated no fewer than about fifty times; and that, too, with an inane prolixity of epithet, which is most distasteful to a devout mind, Did such prayers ever enter into the ears of “The God of Sabaoth?’? Is not such idolatrous mummery only an abomination in the sight of heaven—though the com- pliment “Good Lord” is repeated ad nauseam? Was there ever response, or manifestation, of any kind, in answer to these prayers, more than there was to the prayers which were offered to the idol god Baal? How does the spirit of pro- ee BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 103 phecy, speaking in the person of Christ, answer these questions? “Their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor will I take their names into my lips, that hasten after another than thee, O Jehovah.—Tuovu art my Lorp.’’-—Ps. xvi. 2-4. Christ said to his apostles, “When ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.’—In this model, and so pre-eminently orthodox, prayer, under our review, there are scarcely fewer than half a hundred “ vain repetitions ;” amply sufficient, one should think, to satisfy any “penchant” for vain repetitions, however ultra-heathenish it might be. Com- ment on such a prayer, even apart from its idolatrousness, would be quite superfluous ! How does the Litany accord with the prayers we find im the Old and New Testaments? Did any of the prophets, or fathers of old, when they prayed, say, “O God the father of heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners; O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy upon us miserable sinners; O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the father and the son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners”? Did they, ever, pray, “ O holy blessed and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God, have mercy upon us miserable sinners”? No: were we to particularize the prayers of all the prophets from Moses to Malachi, they would be repeated illustrations of the same truth, namely, that Jehovah, the God and father of all, is the only object of worship. David prayed to the “ong Jehovah,’ whom he thus ad- dresses : “ Wherefore thou art great, O Jehovah God, for there is none like thee; neither is there any God besides thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears :” and, to this Jehovah, the temple, which his son Solomon 104 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED built, was dedicated. Apropos of the Temple !—Had Solo- mon believed in the existence of a Trinity, there could, surely, have been no more suitable, or befitting, occasion to acknowledge the several, and individual, existence of the three persons of that Trinity, than when he was dedicating to them a house in which they were to record their names! Was the Temple, however, dedicated to a “ Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity ?”—Need I reply, with an indignant no! But, when we come to compare the prayers in the Litany with the prayers of Christ and his apostles, the contrast is still more striking, and more cogently to the purpose of our argument.—Christ said to his disciples, “ When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, &c., for thine is the king- dom, and thine is the power, and the glory.’ What an extraordinary example of modesty have we here, in Christ, that he did not add, “O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, graciously hear us, and let thy mercy be showed upon us, for we do put our trust in thee!”? However he might be excused, on the score of modesty, with regard to himself, what apology can be offered for his having omitted to add, “O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners ?””—more especially, as this was a form of prayer, which was to be “a model” for all time to come. How much more, “ secundum artem,” and with how much more pious repleteness, would the Trinitarian have drawn it up ! ‘Trimitarians, when closely pressed by the truth, have some- times alleged, that Christ was anxious to conceal from the world the fact that he was “a divine being,” even no less than the second person of the blessed Trinity !—Now, with refer- a oe BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 105 ence to this, either absurd or infamous, supposition, I would, with confidence, ask, whether the most promising way for Christ, to have secured the success of the cheat, would not have been that he, im all his appeals to heaven, should have addressed himself to the whole three persons of the Trinity, as if they were, all three, there: never letting it out to his disciples that one of them was, in propria persond, encascd within the few pounds of flesh and bones which stood in the midst? Should he not have invoked “'The holy blessed and glorious Trinity?” and should he not have waxed peculiarly emphatic when adding, “ O God the Son, Redecmer of the world, have mercy upon us miserable sinners’ ?—Had he had the slightest pretensions to the wisdom which lurks beneath a Trimitarian wig, he would have done so. But no!—lIt is idle to waste words upon such surmises, as those I have referred to.—CuristT HAD NOTHING TO concEAL! “The Father,’ whom he addressed, was Gop alone. The truth was simple and easily enunciated, “ Father, it is life eternal to know thee, the only true God;” and when Christ prayed “Our Father, which art in heaven,” he prayed without any mental reservation: he prayed in spirit and “in truth.” I would invite the careful attention of Trinitarians to the following passages of Scripture.—“ And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying—O my FATHER, IF IT BE POSSIBLE LET THIS CUP PASS FROM MBE, NEVERTHELESS NOT AS I WILL BUT AS THOU WILT.” “ And he went again the second time, and prayed, saying—O my FATHER, IF THIS CUP MAY NOT PASS AWAY FROM ME, EXCEPT I DRINK IT, THY WILL BE DONE.” (Matt. xxvi. 39, 42.)—Here are prayers of Christ, which should sct the doctrine of the Trinity at rest for ever. The idea of one God praying to 106 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED another God for mercy, that other God being “ his equal in power and in glory,” is so absurd and blasphemous, that nothing, short of the grossest infatuation and delusion, could entertain it for a moment. There is scarcely any thing, however, too absurd or too extravagant for a Trinitarian to say, or suppose, when he is called upon to fence round, and to defend, the idolatrous doctrine of the Trmity; to the blasphemous absurdities of which he has surrendered his judgment. He has so many absurd positions to maintain, that he becomes familiar with absurdity ; and is ever ready to take any amount of it under his guardianship. When the above, and similar passages of scripture, are pressed upon him, he says, “Oh, Christ spake this only in his human nature !’? When Christ said, “my Father is greater than I,” “Oh!” says the Trinitarian, “he meant that only in his human nature !”—“he is ‘inferior? to the Father, as touching his manhood,” says the creed, “but ‘egual’ to him, as touching his Godhead.’ When Christ spake of some things which “he did not know, as they had been reserved by his Father, in his own power,” “Oh!” says the Trinitarian, “he only meant that he did not know them in his human nature: but, in his divine nature, he knew them perfectly !’—thus, directly, charging Christ with the grossest duplicity and falsehood! O, ye slow of heart to believe all that Christ hath spoken ! What can be thought of the following, “ extravaganza,” in the way of allegation, put forward to enable the parties to shirk an extinguishing argument?—It being plain and palpable, that neither in the prayers of the patriarchs and prophets of old, nor in those which Christ himself addressed to heaven, nor in the form of prayer he prescribed to his BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 107 disciples, is to be found one expression, which, even by the most inventive and robust imagination, could be tortured or twisted, so as to bear the feeblest semblance of a precedent for a prayer to a Trinity, or which could, by any amount of ingenuity, be construed so as to afford a presumption, of, even the most equivocal, recognition of a Trinity—it has been alleged, “that the different persons of the Trinity were not made known to men, till they became successively revealed :” and that therefore a Trinity of persons was not known, or believed in by any body, till after the resurrection of Christ, and after the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; and that, consequently, the absence of any allusion to the existence of a Trinity, in the prayers of Christ, and those who went before him, goes for nothing !! Yes! so blinded in their minds have Trinitarians become, that they will adopt any supposition, however absurd,—they will, in short, believe, or profess to believe, any thing, rather than be foreed into an admission of the truth; because, to admit the truth would be to give up their idolized creed— to give up those long, and blindly, cherished doctrines which are seducing them away, and drawing them away, after false modes of worship. How naturally prone the heart of man is to idolatry! The gods many, and the lords many, of the heathen, tell us of this. The “Golden Calf,’ even of that highly favoured people the Jews, tells us of this. Could I have fervent charity towards Trinitarians, and not adjure them to reflect, whether they may not be sitting in the chair of those of whom the apostle Paul spake, when he said, ‘ Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of perrres: speaking hes in hypocrisy | 108 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED having thei conscience seared with a hot iron!’—1l Tim. iv. 1, 2.—The word which I have, here, translated ‘ deities’ is, in our English translation, mcorrectly translated “ devils.” The word in the original Greek means “ deities,” or objects of veneration and worship, as I have rendered it—. But, allowing the Trinitarian the full benefit of his “ seared-conscience”’ supposition—that Christ, while in the world, had been keeping his disciples in the dark, and that it was only after his resurrection from the dead, they had discovered that in him they had had a God, incognito, amongst them; and, further, that, it was, only, after the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they had found that a third God, called “The Holy Ghost,’ had made his “débui”?, amongst them; neither of which Gods had ever before been heard of, since the foundation of the world— even allowing the Trinitarian the full benefit of this, to say the least of it—very large—supposition; we may observe that we should, under such circumstances, most certainly, have expected to receive very early intimation of all this from the apostles: we should have expected to find them taking the very earliest opportunity, of offering their public homage to the several persons of this newly-discovered “ Holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity’—-We should have expected, also, that their forms of prayer would, very speedily, have acquired the orthodox mould, and would, soon, have been found, in this respect, not one whit behind even our Litany itsel{—we should have expected, too, that they would not have failed to leave on record, a very explicit and well- drawn-out exposition, of all these wondrous things which had so unexpectedly come to light: something that would have been a “ proto-type,’ however unworthy, of “The Se ee ee ae — ee ee ee BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 109 Athanasian Creed,” that was to be. We should, most certainly, have expected that at least Paul, the intellectual Paul—that man of subtile and philosophic mind—that man of watchful solicitude for the interests of the truth—we should have expected that he, at least, would have addressed himself to this, it may have been difficult, but all-important, task—. But, no!: we find nothing of all this. The apostles, filled as they were with the Holy Spirit, never spake of any God but “one,” “the God and Father of all.” They never prayed to any God but “ one,” “the God and Father of the holy child Jesus.” They never penned an exposition of the mysteries, and blasphemies, and nonsense, of “the Athanasian Creed.” —How will Trinitarians account for this? What is the next “supposition” they will make to help them over this diffi- culty ?—it will require an “ incomprehensibly”? large one to be of much service to them ! But let us dwell, for a little, upon the question, as to whom the apostles exclusively addressed themselves in prayer. One of their first public prayers, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is recorded in the fourth chapter of the “Acts of the Apostles.” Let us note it carefully. It is as follows :—“ And, when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord thou art God, who hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who, by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the 110 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED Gentiles, and the people of Isracl, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And now Lord, behold their threat- enings, and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word; by stretching forth thy hand to heal, and that signs, and wonders, may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” —Acts iv. 24-80. 3 Is there no mention of a Trinity here? In this public prayer, offered up, so recently after the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit, is there no mention made of the Trinity ?—not even an allusion to it? How unac- countable !— According to the Trinitarian supposition, the apostles had very recently discovered, in the resurrection of Christ, that he who had gone out and in amongst them was no less than “ the co-equal and co-eternal” of that God whom they had formerly worshipped; and, further, that, im- mediately succeeding that event, they had found that a third divinity, “ co-equal and co-eternal” with the other two had alighted in their midst, on a mission of love and mercy, and had filled their hearts with his divine presence !—Should — we not, therefore, have expected that, under such felicitous circumstances, the apostles would have taken this earliest, and very fitting, opportunity, to testify their ready admission of these successive claims upon thei divine fealty; and would have signalized the occasion, by a public, and em- phatic, and explicit, declaration of the wondrous, and, to the Jews, perchance, incredible, things which had just come to light? ‘This, however, they did not do. These recreant apostles, the predecessors of our worthy Episcopal staff, so recently commissioned to go out and preach the gospel to every creature, and to call upon all to worship the “ Holy, BY THE “ ITMURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. HES blessed, and glorious Trinity,”’—consisting of three persons, each by himself bemg God and Lord, the glory being equal and the majesty co-eternal, and to proclaim that all who would not think of the three, and worship the three, should, without doubt, perish everlastingly !—these miscreant apostles im- piously refuse to recognise, or admit, the claim of more than one of these personages to divine honours !~-Should not our worthy archbishops and bishops, immediately, meet in solemn conclave, and repudiate, for ever, any connection with such reprobates! and blot out, for ever, the names of the twelve apostles from their calendar of saints; and refuse, for all time coming, to acknowledge their having any claim to the distinguished honour of being their predecessors? I do not see how any consistent Trinitarian could say that this ought not to be done. Might it not, I ask, be fairly presumed that these apostles were justly chargeable with, at least, “the sin against the Holy Ghost,’ m not having mentioned even him, in their prayer? Might not the holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, very justly, have said that these apostles were “a stiff-necked and rebellious race,’ who would still persist in addressing themselves to only one of their number; while the existence of “the whole three” had been revealed to them by such strong and full evidence? and might they not, very justly, have abandoned them for ever?’—Were the Trinitarian sup- position true, the apostles must have been so abandoned of heaven. Was this, however, the case? No: on the con- trary, we find that when they had prayed, as above recorded, “the place was shaken where they were assembled together ; and they were all filled with the holy spirit, and spake the word of God with boldness’—Acis iv. 81. That God, to 112 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED whom they prayed—the God and Father of the holy child Jesus —recognised in them, those who worshipped him “in spirit and in truth.” He heard their prayers, and answered them. I have said enough, conclusively to settle the quesion, for ever, as to the being whom the apostles and disciples worshipped; and to whom, when they prayed, they ex- clusively addressed themselves. The God whom the apostles worshipped, and to whom they prayed, was “ the God and Father” of “the holy child Jesus.’ They did not pray to the holy child Jesus himself, “the second person of the Trinity;” nor did they pray to the Holy Ghost, “the third person of the Trinity.’—They did not discover after the resurrection of Christ, that he had been a God, mncognito, going out and in amongst them, and eating aud drinking with them; nor did they discover that a third God, in the shape of the holy spirit, had made his appear- ance amongst them on the day of Pentecost. No: they knew of no God but “ one,” and that one was “the God and Father of all.” Although, however, the apostles did not recognise, in the holy child Jesus, a hitherto unknown deity, they recognised in him what was, to them, equally consolatory and equally cheering, namely, “the long promised Messiah.” And al- though they did not recognise in the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the appearance of a third deity amongst them; they recognised, in that divine mani- festation, what was to them equally satisfactory, namely, no less than the Holy Spirit of “Jehovah,” the God in whom they and their fathers had trusted. IT have said that, although the apostles did not recognise, in the holy child Jesus, a hitherto unknown deity, they BY THE “ITHUREEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 113 recognised in him the long promised Messiah. Yes: Jesus was the Messiah promised unto their fathers. The question has been often put to me, “ Well, if Christ was not God, what then was he?” To this I answer—He was “The Messiah”—the Messiah promised unto the fathers—and he was neither more nor less than this. All things which Moses, in the law, and, which the prophets did write of the Messiah were fulfilled in the holy child Jesus, to the letter; but in him, who is the second person of the Trinity, not a single one of those promises could, by any possibility, have been fulfilled. -—-No: NoT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM! I have already alluded to this subject; but, as it is a matter of much importance, I shall now dwell upon it more at length. I shall refer to the more important and leading predictions, respecting the Messiah; and show that they have been fulfilled, to the very letter, in Jesus Christ, as he is set forth in the Scriptures; but that they could not have been fulfilled in the Jesus Christ, set forth in the creed of the Trinitarian. While I do this, I shall be, at the same time, showing what the scriptural doctrine concerning Christ really is; a subject, upon which there is so much melancholy and fatal misconception—to use the mildest term within my reach—as the irreligious absurdities of the Trinitarian system, too abundantly, testify. The promises respecting the Messiah, to which I shall chiefly confine my attention, are those which were given to Moses—and Abraham—and David. I. THE PROMISE GIVEN TO Mosks, AND BY HIM TO ISRAEL, WAS IN THESE worpDs, “THE LorD THY GoD WILL RAISE UP UNTO THEE A PROPHET FROM THE MIDST OF THEE, OF I 114. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED THY BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO ME, UNTO HIM YE SHALL HEARKEN.” (Deut. xvii. 15). He, who was here promised, was to be “ A Prophet;”’ he was to be raised up unto the Jews from their midst— “one of their brethren;” and he was to be “like unto Moses.” All these things found a literal fulfilment in the person of Christ: as I shall fully show.— Curist was A Propust: nay, more, he was, emphatically, “THE PROPHET.” Christ called himself a prophet. He said to those who wished him to depart out of Jerusalem, lest Herod should kill him, “ Go ye and tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures, to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless, I must walk to-day and to-morrow, and the day following, for it cannot be that ‘A PROPHEY perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke xiii. 82, 38). The people when they saw his miracles said, “ Of a truth, this is ‘THE PRopHET’ which should come into the world” (John vi. 14). As the two disciples journeyed to Emmaus, their language was of the things which had come to pass in Jerusalem, “ concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a man who was ‘A PROPHET,’ mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke xxiv. 18, 19), CHRIST WAS RAISED UP TO THE JEWS FROM THEIR MIDST ; HE WAS ONE OF THEIR BRETHREN.—Christ was raised up from the midst of the people; he was one of themselves. We read of him, in the Gospel of Luke, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the 3 BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 115 mouth of his holy prophets which have been since the world began” (Luke i, 68-70),—He was one of their brethren: he was a Jew, and belonged to the tribe of Judah. “ It is evident,” says the apostle Paul, “that our Lord sprang out of Judah” (Heb. vii. 14): and he further says, “ Remem- ber that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel” (2 Tim. ii. 8): and fur- ther, “ Of this man’s seed (David’s) hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus” (Acts xi. 23). Nothing could be more explicit. Christ was a brother of the house of Isracl, raised up from the midst of the people—He was a man! Yes: Christ was a Man.— After having proved that Christ was one of the brethren of the Jews, of the seed of David, it may seem superfluous to assert, that he was a man! ‘True, such an assertion, under such circum- stances, would, at first sight, seem to be superfluous; and ought to seem so; and ought to be so. But, when it is borne in mind, that the whole Trinitarian world deny that Christ was “a man,” notwithstanding that it is thus ex- pressly set forth in the Scriptures, it may not seem to be unnecessary that I should put the assertion forward thus categorically. "Tis true I find in the Athanasian creed the words “ Per- fect man,” but, I must say, they are only part and parcel of those things which the apostle Paul termed “lies spoken in hypocrisy.”—Yes: I must say it, the Trinitarian, when he asserts that the doctrine, “ that Christ was a_per- fect man,” is part of his creed, is but “speaking lies in hypocrisy.” I must say it. I am reluctant to say it-—I speak as aman! But I must say it. God would not hold 2 ay 116 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED me guiltless, were I not to say it. There must be no mincing of words, when we denounce that which does such magnificent violence to the truth of God, as do the tenets of Trinitarianism. The language, even of the meek and lowly Jesus, when he enforced the oracles of God, was, “ O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” And it is the duty of every Christian to emulate his faithfulness, however feebly. Christ was a man: and as this is a point of much im- portance, I shall dwell upon it at some length.—I shall, in the first place, observe that no other than a man could have been the promised Messiah. He only could have been approved as the Messiah, who was “one of the brethren of the house of Israel,” “ one of the seed of Abraham ;” who was “sprung from David’s loins,” and who, therefore, was aman. ‘There was no other Messiah, than a man, promised. The universal language respecting the Messiah is similar to the following, “ Behold—rus man—whose name is the Branch, and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord.” (Zech. vi. 12). “Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment, and—a man—shall be as an hiding-place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land” (Is. xxxu.1, 2). ‘In those days, and at that time, I will cause the Branch of righteous- ness to grow up unto David; he shall execute judgment in righteousness in the land. For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want—a Man—to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel” (Jer. xxxiti. 15,17). “And there shall come forth—a Rop OUT OF THE STEM oF JESSE—and a branch shall grow out of his roots” (Is. x1. 1). ‘ And, in that day, — — a, BY THE “‘ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. PA there shall be—a root or Jesse—which shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seck, and his rest shall be glorious” (Is. xi. 10).—In all these passages we are taught that the Messiah was to be a man, and nothing else than a man, Christ called himself—a Man.—He said to the Jews “Ye seek to kill me, a man, who has told you the truth” (John viii. 40). He called himself, also, ¢he Son of Man (Matt, xxiv. 80). The spirit of prophecy, speaking in the person of Christ, says, “Thou, Jehovah, art he that took me out of the womb; thou didst make me to hope, when I was on my mother’s breast. I was cast upon thee from the womb, thou art my God, even from my mother’s belly” (Ps. xxii. 9, 10). And again, “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up” (Ps. xxvu. 10). —In both of these passages Christ speaks as a man: and the passages in the Psalms are numerous, in which the spirit of prophecy, speaking in the person of Christ, speaks, as a man, and asaman only, would speak. And it was to passages, such as those I have quoted from the Psalms and elsewhere, that Christ referred, when he spake of all those things being fulfilled which were written, “in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms” concerning himself (Luke xxiv. 44).—-Had Christ not been a man, he could not have proved out of the Scriptures, “beginning from Moses and all the prophets,” that he was the Messiah ; as he often did. The Apostles called Christ a Man —Peter, on the day of Pentecost, filled with the Holy Spit, standing up with the eleven, said, “ Ye men of Israel, hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth, aman approved of God among you, by 118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know, him ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” (Acts ll. 22, 23.) Had Jesus of Nazareth becn—a God-~-would not Peter have availed himself of the fact, for the purpose of aggravating the guilt of the Jews? We have already scen that, after much bitter controversy, it was decided by the Trinitarians in the middle of the sixth century, that one of the Trinity had suffered on the cross. Had Peter, therefore, been a Trinitarian, he would, most certainly, have accused the Jews of the crime of having slain their God. But Peter was not a Trinitarian; and, with all reverence be it spoken, “Jesus of Nazareth” was not a God in his day; and Peter just called him what he was, and what God ordained he should be, and what God foretold he should be; namely, a man. Paul spake of him as follows: “God 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” (Acts xvii. 31); and again, “Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Rom. v.15); and again, “ For since by man came death, by man came also, the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Cor. xv. 21) ; and yet again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”—1 Tim. ii. 5. Stephen called him, “the Son of man.”— Being full of the Holy Ghost, he looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold I see heaven opened, and the BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 119 Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.”——Acts vii. 55-56. This multiplicity of proofs is amply sufficient to set the question at rest. But still further, Philip calls hin, “ the son of Joseph’? (John 1. 45), And Luke unquestionably calls him the same—Luke ii. 23. As being allied to this part of our subject, I would direct attention to the genealogy of Christ given by Luke, as recorded in our received version of the New Testament. He is made to say, “ Now Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” &c., &c., the lineage being traced, step by step, up to David—thence to Abraham—thence to Adam —and thence to God (Luke in. 23-38). I would invite attention to this little parenthesis “as was supposed,’ and ask whence came it? Has it not been placed here, by those, of whom we have heretofore learned that “they corrupted and interpolated the Scriptures in the most perfidious manner, in order to produce something conformable to, or remove what was contrary to, their several tenets ?”’—Or, I would be even willing to grant, that it may have been un- intentionally introduced into the text. I shall explain what I mean by this. The errors in the text of the ancient manuscripts have been divided, by biblical critics, into two classes—intentional, and unintentional. The intentional errors are those caused by the wilful altering of passages, in order to support favourite doctrines, and also those caused, by additions from liturgies being introduced into the text. The unintentional errors are, in the first place, those which are merely mechanical, i.e. errors in the writing — secondly, errors of sight—thirdly, errors of 120 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED memory—fourthly, errors of reference—and lastly, those errors caused by glosses, found in the margin, being intro- duced into the text, by subsequent transcribers. In all these various ways, errors, intentional or unintentional, have crept into the text. This parenthesis may have, originally, been a gloss, or annotation, on the margin of an ancient manuscript, which may have found its way into the body of the text; or it may have been a purely intentional addition. The latter supposition, indeed, is the more pro- bable one ; although in charity, I would have been willing, if possible, to have indulged the former. Be this, however, as it may, there can be no doubt that this paren- thesis owes its existence, on the page of scripture, to one or other of these causes. Parentheses are, generally, or at least often, found to be things out of joint with the context; but this is the most “ out-of-joint” parenthesis, I have, in all my reading, ever met with. The ostensible object of Luke was, to give the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth; in order, no doubt, to show that his lineage agreed with all which the prophets, since the world began, had written of the line of descent, through which the Messiah should come. It had been foretold that the Messiah should be of the seed of Abraham, and should be sprung from David’s loims; and the object of Luke, here, was, unquestionably, to show that Jesus was thus de- scended. But if this, “as was supposed,” is to remain unmolested, all that he has written on the subject goes for nothing. If the most important link, in this genealogical chain extending from Christ to Adam, namely, that which connects all with Christ, is to be severed by this “as was supposed,” the whole of Luke’s great research, in adding CS a BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. Lea link to link to this ascending chain, till it reached unto heaven itself, is to no purpose, so far as Christ is concerned. There can be no question it was Christ’s genealogy that Luke meant to give. There could have been no earthly reason, for tracing with such minuteness, and so much at length, the genealogy of Joseph, if it were not meant. to connect Joseph with Jesus. If Luke had meant to teach, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he would have con- structed his language in a very different manner. He would not have left that very important fact, to be explained by two words thrown in, awkwardly and carelessly, as a paren- thesis, into a sentence whose construction was such, as to carry the mind of the reader in a totally different channel from that indicated by such parenthetic words. He would, unquestionably, have told us in express terms that he did not mean—by any manner of means—to connect Christ, with this long line of descent traced all the way from Adam, and even from God himself. Had Luke been a Trinitarian, he would have taken care to tell us, that Christ was far beyond the reach of earthly lineages; that he had nothing to do with Adam, or with Abraham, or with David, or with Joseph! He would have given us, most expressly, to under- stand that the lineage he placed before us, although it began with speaking of Christ, had no relation to him whatever: no, not the most remote. He would have explained, that it was simply the lineage of Joseph he had been at such pains to give us—a lineage with which, let it not fail to be observed, we, as Christians, would have no more concern, than we should have with the lineage of Pontius Pilate, if, through it, were not to be traced the lineage of “Jesus of Nazareth.” 122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED When it is borne in mind that the promised Messiah was to be “a man,” was to be “ of the seed of Abraham,” raised up in the midst of the Jews, from among their brethren, that he was to be “sprung from David’s loins”’—he, who has no other desire than to know the truth, will feel no difficulty in understanding, what was the object of Luke, in storing his page with the gencalogy before us; nor will such an * one feel much at a loss, to trace the source of this, “as was supposed,” which has found its way, into the most important part of this claborate genealogy. If any one could, for a moment, hesitate to pronounce this to be a spurious paren- thesis, the following passage, to which I have already alluded, should at once remove all doubt upon the matter. —“Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, we have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1. 45). The whole question, in fact, of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, turns upon that little parenthesis “as was supposed.’ If it is to remain, Christ’s claims to the Messiah- ship are blotted out for ever. If it is to remain, Philip was mistaken in supposing that he had found “him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write.” Who shall hesitate to believe, that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, he “of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write’? Who shall hesitate to believe, the testimony which God himself hath borne to his Messiahship, by having declared with a voice from heaven “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,’ and by having raised him up from the dead? and who, therefore, will hesitate to reject this “as was supposed,’ asa wicked forgery, the effect of which goes, inevitably, to conyict either God himself, or OO << BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 1233 his apostles, of falsehood ; and to vitiate, in fact, the whole volume of revelation. No man, in his right mind, will hesitate to say when such a matter comes before him for judgment, “ Let God be true, but every man a liar,” The genealogy, which Luke has given, was, undoubtedly, the genealogy of that prophet whom God promised, by Moses, to raise up unto the house of Israel, from the midst of them, of their brethren. It was the gencalogy of him, who was “the rod out of the stem of Jesse’—of “the man whose name was the Branch”’—of him, whom Peter, with the eleven, called“ a man approved of God”’—of him, whom the apostle Paul called “the man Christ Jesus”—of him, who called himself “a man.” JESUS CHRIST, THEREFORE, WAS A MAN; Mosms, AND THE PROPHETS, AND THE APOSTLES, AND CHRIST HIMSELF, BEING WITNESSES ! But he was “a perfect man.’ The apostle Paul calls him “a perfect man:” he exhorts us to grow up unto him in all things, “till we all come, in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure, of the statute, of the fulness of Christ”?— Hphes. iv. 14. The measure of the statute of the fulness of Christ, therefore, is that of a perfect man. This was the highest degree, to which Christ had attained in the days of the apostles. Let not, however, this honour be lightly esteemed. To be “a perfect man,” is to be of a very exalted degree indeed. When God first created man, he made him “in his own image”—mark the words—in his own image! Man. took rank, next to God himself. He was not only the noblest 124 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED of God’s creatures, but he was the very image of Jehovah himself: he was “the image of the invisible God.” What an exalted existence was his!—out of God there was no higher. Angels and arch-angels were subject to him, and were his ministering spirits. When God created him he pronounced him “very good.” Man was “ perfect,” im all his attributes—AIl his faculties intellectual and moral were “ yerfect””—and his exercise of them was also “ perfect.” Hitherto, man was “very good’’-—he knew nothing but what was “very good”—and God gave him headship and dominion over every thing which he had created and made; whether things in heaven, or things in earth, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; over every thing which he had created and made, he gave him the dominion. God made him, lord over all. He gave him the whole, as an inheritance, no conditions being exacted, but simply those of fealty to himself, and the ob- servance of one prescribed act of obedience, to serve as a perpetually recurring remembrance, that he held all his wide domain, and enjoyed all his privileges, under the great Sovereign of the universe. God required from him no other service, than to keep, ‘this one this easy charge.” That one that easy charge, however, was broken. The prince of darkness succeeded, in seducing Adam from his allegiauce to God. “Our grand-parent, favoured of heaven thus highly, fell off from his Creator and transgressed his will,’ and by that one transgression lost his high estate. By one act of disobedience sin entered into the world —it entered into Adam! and, by sin, his nature became vitiated, and lost its “divine image ;” for nothing that is ‘ divine” can dwell with sin. By one transgression, Adam fell from BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 125 his high estate, and, with him, fell his empire—with him fell, all his exaltation and dignity, and wide dominion, and —ah: the dread change!—he became a subject of the empire of Satan! He became the slave of sin and Satan, led captive by the devil at his will. How fallen !—how changed !—from him who, in the happy state of bliss in Eden, was, “for one restraint, lord of the world besides’—Alas ! how changed !—We could form no more idea of the glory and exaltation, of that high estate, to which Adam was created, and from which he by transgression fell, by viewing the race of man in their present condition, than we could form a just conception of the glory and surpassing mag- nificence of Solomon’s temple, from viewing a rotten fragment which might be dug up out of its ruins. In Christ, however, has been re-created, re-produced, and re-established, all that was lost in the fall of our first parent; and, in him, all the regained dignities of man’s first estate consist, or stand together. In him, God has made all things new. He is “the second Adam.” He is “the beginning” of the new creation of God, in whose person the divine image has been restored, in all its fulness, to man; and of his fulness shall all who believe be made partakers, and to the measure of the stature of his fulness we are exhorted to grow, as I have already shown. We are heirs of his fulness, and joint heirs with him, in all these restored dignities and attributes of man. The measure of the stature of his fulness was, as we have seen, “the measure of the stature of the fulness of a perfect man.” But the second Adam is still more perfect than was the first. He has been made more perfect, through sufferings (Heb. nu. 10). He has been called, also, to a more glorious inheritance. 126 THE DOCTRINE O# THE TRINITY, TOUCHED He is first, amongst the first. He is a prince, amongst the sons of God—the Captain of their salvation, in leading them from the kingdom of Satan unto God; and, in the office he thus sustains, he has been made “like unto Moses,” Curist WAS LIKE UNTO Mosrs—like him, in kind, but im- measurably higher im degree—As Moses was “a leader and commander unto the people,” so has been Christ. “ Behold,’ saith Jehovah, concerning him, “TI have given him for a wit- ness to the people, a leader and commander to the people” (Is. lv. 4). The redemption of the people of Israel from gyptian bondage, by the hand of Moses, was typical of that greater redemption, which has been wrought out for man through Jesus Christ. As God gave Moses, to be a leader and commander to the people, and as he put his spirit within him aud clothed him with his mighty power, to bring the children of Israel up from out of the hands of their oppressors in Egypt, so has he given Christ to be a leader and commander, and has put his spirit within him, and endued him with his mighty power, that he might be, a mightier captain still, in leading a ransomed world from darkness unto light, and in translating them from the bondage of sin and Satan, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. How truthfully !—how completely !—has everything, that was recorded by Moses of the promised prophet, been ful- filled in Jesus Christ! With how much demonstrative force, must he have been able to show, that all things that were written “ by Moses, in the law,” concerning the Messiah, had been fulfilled in his person ! IJ. THE PROMISE CONCERNING THE MuESSIAH MADE TO ABRAHAM Was—“ THAT IN HIS SEED SHOULD ALL THE FA- MILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.” BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 127 Christ was this promised seed of Abraham. The gospel which was preached unto Abraham, saying, “ In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ was fulfilled in Christ: as Paul in- forms us in his epistle to the Galatians.—To Abraham and his seed, were the promises made. He (God) saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. ii. 16)—And the promise that in Christ should all the families of the earth be blessed was fulfilled in this, that God made him the instrument of carrying out his purpose of redemption for man. When Adam sinned, “the sentence of death’ was re- corded against him. God had said unto him, “In the day thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt surely die.” The devil said unto him, ‘‘ Thou shalt not surely dic.’ He believed the lie of the devil rather than the truth of God; and the majesty of God, and the truth of God, demanded that Adam should suffer the penalty of his disobedience,— He must become subject unto death. God, however, mingled mercy with judgment. He did not leave man to despair. He promised him deliverance from eternal death, and remission from his sin—in such a way, however, and by such means, as seemed good unto his infinite wisdom. He promised to man, remission of sins, and remission from eternal death; but he taught man, at the same time, that, “ without the shedding of blood,” there should be no remission of either. This seemed good to the infinite wisdom of God, and our feeble and shallow wisdom can but feebly realize, the fitness and justice of such a mode, on the part of the Infinite Jehovah, of dealing with his creatures. Doubtless one great object of God, in so ordaining, was to impress man with a 128 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED deep sense of the excccding sinfulness of sin; and of the ho- liness and purity of God himself. “ He could not dwell with sin, neither look upon it, but with abhorrence.”’— But, further, there is in the breast of every man, who has a con- sciousness of sin, a consciousness, also, of the necessity of making a sacrifice for sin. This is an mnate principle, in the human breast; it is found in universal man, in all quarters of the globe, and in all time. It is as universal, as the principle of religion itself, which is as innate in the breast of man, as are the natural affections; and, like them, can only be effaced by the long continued practice of iniquity ; but whether either can be wholly, and for ever, eradicated from the human breast is questionable. It was, doubtless, also, to meet the requirements of this innate principle, which he had implanted in the breasts of his creatures, that God thus instructed the children of men, under the sacrificial dispensation ; pointing them forward to that great sacrifice for sin, which, once for all, in the latter days, should be offered up for the whole sin, of the whole world. He not only, however, taught man, that, without the shedding of blood, there should be no remission, but he also taught him, that that blood, which should be shed for sin, must be pure and untainted. This he taught im the whole sacrificial dispensation. That which was to be ac- ceptable, as a sin offering, must be “ without blemish and without spot,’”? and, in the whole details of this dispensation, that which was pre-eminently shown forth, was the purity and holiness of God, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the spotless purity of the sacrifice, that should atone for sin. The sacrifices, however, in this dispensation were, but as So ee = BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 129 heralds or forerunners, of tiat more glorious sacrifice, which was to be offered in the end of the world. Yor, it did not seem good, to the infinite wisdom of God, that man should be taught, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Even the requirement of such a sacrifice would, indeed, have been well fitted to impress upon the mind of man the evil of sin: but this was impressed upon him, in a far higher degree, when God ordained, that man himself should be the sacrifice for sin. Nothing, it scemed to the divine mind, could impress man more forcibly, and effectually, with the exceeding fearfulness of the contamination of sin, than the fact, that nothing, short of man’s blood, could wash it away. Eyen had God proposed to man that he himself would come down upon earth, and go through the ceremony of offermg himself up, as a quwasi-sacrifice, it would have failed to come home to man’s self, so forcibly, and with such exquisite self-appliance, as the fact that man himself must die. Man would have known, full well, that the Great Author of the universe—the infinite Jehovah—could neither suffer pain of death, nor privation of life; and that intelli- gence which that same Jehovah, the author of his being, had implanted 1 him, would have told him that such an offermg up of himself, on the part of God, would have been but a mere empty ceremonial.— But man knew that man could suffer ; he knew that man could feel the bitterness of death ; he knew that all that a man had would he give for his life; and he knew that greater love could not be shown, than that a man should lay down his life for his friends. Man could appreciate the sacrifice made by “a man,’ who would bow his head unto the death; and he, who knew what was in man, K 138 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED ordained, for this very reason, that ‘A/an,” in his own person, should be the sacrifice. The sentence of the law was, ‘“ the soul that sinneth it shall die’ It was not a God that had sinned, nor bulls, nor goats, nor heifers. It was man that had sinned, and it was man’s life that was forfeited: and man’s conscience told him, that it was the offermg up of man’s life, and of man’s alone, that weuld meet the sentence of the law.—-Ifit was not a man’s life that was offered on Calvary, and man’s life alone, the law was not either “ mag- nified or made honourable,’ it was only evaded by a mere ruse de guerre. If a man’s life were not offered, there is nothing to satisfy man’s conscience that the sentence of the lay has been executed; and that the sentence of death against man has been blotted out. Man must be the sacrifice for Man.—But God had shown, that the sacrifice, to be offered for sin, must be a pure and spotless sacrifice. ‘The man, therefore, who should shed his blood, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be pure and spotless. This being the case, what was man to do? He of himself could not provide such a sacrifice. All men had sinned; there was none righteous: no, not one. Herein, then, was the mercy, and goodness, and love, of God, manifested, that he himself provided the sacrifice. Ue himself provided “a perfect sacrifice’—“ a lamb without blemish and with- out spot’”’—which should take away the sins of the world. This—“ lamb without blemish and without spot’?—was Christ. “ Behold,” said John the Baptist, “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sims of the world!’ Christ Jesus was a perfect sacrifice, fitted and prepared of God for the purpose fo# which he had raised him up. Christ was pure and spotless; he did no sin, neither was BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR? OF SCRIPTURE. 131 guile found in his lips. He was “ tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” His obedience to God’s law was perfect; and it was this obedience, which gave efficacy to his offering, and rendered it acceptable and well pleasing unto God. He was obedient in life; he was ‘obedient also in death. He had not forfeited that life which God had given him, by transgression, as Adam had; yet he freely surrendercd it in obedience to the commandment and will of his heavenly Father. It was the will of his heavenly Father, that he should taste of death for every man; that he should die, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God; and Christ’s meat and drink, was to do the will of his Father, and perfect that which he had given him to do. Through the grace of the Eternal Spirit, he offered himself up without spot, unto God; and, thereby, became the author of eternal salvation to all who should come unto God by him. “As by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners ; so, by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous” (Rom. vy. 19). For Christ’s sake, God hath for- given us all trespasses, and hath blotted out, for ever, the sentence of death which was recorded against us; and the handwriting of ordinances which was contrary to us, he hath taken out of the way, nailing it to Christ’s cross. “ Christ is—‘ made of God’—unto us, wisdom, and sanctifi« cation, and redemption” (1 Cor. i. 30). He is “ our righteousness,” but he is made such of God himself, “Their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Is. hv. 17). As Hezekiah was the “ Immanuel” (God is with us), to the House of Judah: so is Christ, to the people of God, the “ Jehovah—tsidkenu”? (“The Lord our rightecous- ness.’’)——-“ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will eg 4 ‘) x 132 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, ‘ The Lord our righteousness.’ ” [i. e., “ The Lord is our righteous- ness,” or “ Our righteousness is of the Lord” ] (Jer. xxim. 5, 6). They, who stand condemned at the day of judgment, shall be condemned not because they have not fulfilled the letter of the law, for that was once for all fulfilled in Christ, and, by his sacrifice for sin, the sentence of death was blotted out for ever, and the handwriting of ordinances was taken out of the way ; the law having been simply their schoolmaster, to bring them unto Christ—but they shall be condemned because they have done despite unto “the spirit of grace,” and have counted the blood of the Covenant, whereby they were sanctified, an unholy thing, and refused the offer of eternal life, which had been, freely, made to them in the gospel, on the very easy terms, that they should turn away from their wickedness, and walk in Christ’s steps, as he had set them an example: looking unto God, who had promised to sustain them, and to make his grace sufficient for them, and to per- fect his strength in their weakness. That joy, which was set before Christ, and encouraged him to endure the cross, and despise the shame, had no joys for them. They loved the things of this world, rather than the things of the world which was to come; they would rather continue im their sin, than press forward to the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.—Wherefore God shall be clear when he judgeth them, and justified when he condemns. None, however, who are reconciled to God, and come unto him through Christ Jesus, shall in any wise be cast out ; ee BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 188 whether Jew or gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free ; and, in this, is fulfilled the promise made to Abraham—that in his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed. I have been able only to glance at this magnificent subject, a subject which is unhappily so little understood : a subject which was the theme of prophecy and praise, from the foundation of the world; but which in these days has been, in a great measure, blotted out from the view of the world, by the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Trinitarian scheme of redemption. I trust to have an opportunity of entering, more at large, into the subject, at some future time. III. Lastry, tHE PROMISE To DAVID WAS, THAT, OF THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, WOULD GoD RAISE UP A PRINCE, TO SIT ON HIS THRONE FOR EVER. Christ was this Prince of the house of Judah, sprung from the loins of David, to whom God shall give the throne of his father David, and whom he shall establish thereon for ever. This is fully set forth in the second chapter of Acts. Christ, however, has not yet received his promised kingdom. He said his kingdom was not of this world. His kingdom was, then, to come: and not even yet has it come. But God hath raised him up from the dead, and hath crowned him with glory and honour, and hath set him at his own right hand, in the heavenly places: henceforth waiting till his enemies be made his footstool. And when the fulness of time, the time of the restoration of all things, shall have come, then shall ap- pear the sign of the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory, to take possession of his kingdom; AND HE SHALL REIGN UPON THE EARTH !—Then shall he re- ceive the throne of his father David, and then shall the God of the whole earth set up that kingdom, which shall never be 134: THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED destroyed—(see Daniel ii. 44), Although, however, Christ has not yet entered on his kingdom, he is already a conqueror.— He hath triumphed! He hath triumphed over death, and over hell! He hath led captivity captive, and hath received eifts for men; and all they, who are faithful unto the end, shall swell his triumphal tram, when he comes to enter upon his kingdom, and they shall reign with him for ever, and ever. As surely as Christ hath triumphed over death and over hell, so surely will God bring, with him, all who sleep in Jesus. They shall be raised from the dead, and shall be changed into the same divine image, which is in Christ himself: and, in the new Jerusalem, they shall dwell with Christ, and with God, for ever and ever ! In that new Jerusalem—‘“ There shall be no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God shall lighten it, and the Lamb shall be the ‘ Lamp’ thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no mght there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it, any thmg that defileth, or worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a he” (Rey. xxi. 23-27, and xxi, 15).—SvucH SHALL BE THE CITY OF CHrist’s KINGDOM! Thus is it shown how the things written, “in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms,” concerning the Messiah, were fulfilled, in him who is the Jesus Christ set forth in the Scriptures: whom we have seen to be a very ¥ a TE «oe BY THE “ ITHURIEL SPEAR” OF SCRIPTURE. 185 different person, indeed, from the Jesus Christ set forth in the doctrine of Trinitarians. In the Jesus Christ, by them set forth, no part, of what was thus written of the Messiah could, by any possibility, have been fulfilled. The Messiah, promised, was to be “a Man’’—this, the Jesus Christ of the Trinitarian doctrine was not. The second person of the Trinity, ‘ God the Son,” was not “a man.’’—The Trinitarian has boldness, and profanity, enough to say he was both God and man. He alleges he was perfect God and perfect man, yet he was neither one nor other; but a hash up of both, a mongrel nondescript being, not known in the Scriptures, or elsewhere: in whom, the distinctive attributes, of God and man, were confounded to- gether and lost. The Messiah, promised, was to he “of the seed of Abra- ham :’ he was, moreover, to be “the chosen seed of Abraham,’ in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.—The second person of the Trinity was not of the seed of Abraham, at all, and, therefore, a fortiori, could not have been “the chosen seed.’ The Messiah promised was to be “a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” was to be “sprung from Davyid’s loins’ —a prince of the house of Judah, to whom should be given the throne of his father David, on which he should reign for ever.—The second person of the Trinity was neither “a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” nor was he “ sprung from David’s loins;” and therefore, however princely he might be, he could not have been the prince of the house of Judah, who was the subject of the promise.—The second person of the ‘Trinity was not the “ Lion of the tribe of Judah.” For all the foregoing reasons, it is to be concluded that 136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED the Jesus Christ of the Athanasian creed, the second person of the Trinity, however exalted a personage he may be, has no relation, whatever, to, or connection with, the promised Messiah of the Scriptures. Having thus shown that Jesus Christ was the long promised Messiah, and nothing more, and nothing less, I now proceed to show, that the Holy Spirit, shed abroad on the day of Pente- cost, was no other than the spirit of God the Father himself. In fact, this truth is so obvious, that it seems almost a waste of words to dwell upon it. Would any one, for a moment, suppose that “the spirit of a man” meant any thing apart from the man himself; or that “the spirit of the devil” meant anything else than the devil himself? Neither would any one have supposed, that “the spirit of God”—the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture—was any other than, or any thing apart from, God himself; had he not been taught so, by a false creed. When the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, Peter, standing up with the eleven, said: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass, in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh.’ Mark the words— “of my spirit”?—that is, of God’s own spirit. Paul instructs us, very expressly, on this point, in the Epistle to the Corinthians. He teaches us, in express words, that the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, poured out upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, bears the same relation to God, that the spirit of a man bears to the man himself. He says, “Kye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us, by his spirit, for the spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep “—— a. ee mre eh ee BY THE “ITHURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 187 things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the ‘spirit of man’ which isn him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but ‘¢he sporat of God’? Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; which things, also, we speak ; not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth”’ (1 Cor, ii. 9-13).—Here he reasons, ex- pressly, that “ the Holy Spirit,’ which the apostles had re- ceived, alone, knew the things which were of God, even as “ the spirit of man,’ alone, knew the things which were of man: showing that he did not look upon the Holy Spirit as anything existing apart from, or independently of, God, or as a distinct person from him, any more than he considered his own spirit to be something apart from, and independent of, himself, or a distinct person from himself. He teaches us, thus expressly, that “the Holy Spirit” is God’s spirit, even as “the human spirit,” is man’s spirit. Christ, himself, taught the apostles, that the Holy Spirit, whom they were to expect, should be the spirit of their father. When discoursing to them of the things which should come to pass, after his departure from amongst them, he said, “ When they deliver you up take no thought, how or what he shall speak ; for it is not ye that speak, but ‘ the spirit of your father? which speaketh in you.”—(Matthew x. 19, 20). Paul, everywhere, uses the terms “ God,” and “the Holy Spirit,” synonymously. He says, in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews, “God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, &c.;”’ and, elsewere, he says, “ Well spake” the Holy Ghost “by Esaias the prophet,” &c., showing that 1358 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED he looked upon the terms, God, and the Holy Ghost, as synonymous, People are, in some measure, prevented from being self- persuaded of this fact, in consequence of the “ Ghostly”? translation which is given of the word “ spirit.’ The ap- pellation should be “the Holy Spirit,” and not “the Holy Ghost.’ What the object of the translators, who were Trinitarians, was, in making choice of the term, “ Ghost,’’ it is not easy to conjecture. Would that I could arcuse ‘Trinitarians, to use that judg- ment, which God has given them, in thinking for themselves; and that I might provoke them to jealousy: so that they might be led to search the Scriptures, diligently, to try whether the things which they have been taught by their evceds and confessions are of God, or of men, or worse. The apostles never heard anything, never knew anything, of the doctrine of the Trinity, with its multifarious objects of worship. They prayed to the father of the holy child Jesus, and to him alone. They recognised no other God. There was no other God, besides him, of whom they had “ever heard with their cars.” Of the deep and incomprehensible mysteries of the Athanasian Creed they knew nothing—in short, they were not Trinitarians. The apostles Trinitarians ! No; not even he, who was summoned to the apostleship, by the voice of Christ himself from heaven, not even he was a Trimitarian: to God the father, the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to him alone, did he pray. “ For this cause,” says he, “I bow my knees, unto the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and in earth is named; that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with BY THE “ITMURIEL SPEAR’ OF SCRIPTURE. 139 might in the inner man, that Christ may dwell im your hearts by faith’ (Eph. ni. 14-16). He prayed also, as follows, for others, that they might have faith given them to glorify the same being: “ Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus, that ye may with one mind, and one mouth, glorify God, cven the father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (Rom. xy. 5, 6). In vain, do we search the Scriptures for any “ exemplars” of such prayers as those of the Litany. In vain, do we search the Scriptures for any direct, or implied, authorities, to sustain the absurdities of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is only a doctrine of creeds. It is a blasphemous and idolatrous doctrine. It is not a doctrine of the Bible; and were it not for our creeds, and confessions, and litanies, such a doctrine would neither be thought of, nor known, in these days of Bible reading. I NOW PROCEED TO ADDRESS MYSELF TO A CLASS OF ARGU- MENTS WHICH [ HAVE TERMED SUPRA-SCRIPTURAL, OR INFE- RENTIAL, OR ECONOMICAL, TO WHICH RECOURSE IS HAD, IN THE LAST RESORT, BY THE ADVOCATES oF TRINITARIANISM. It is not professed, that these arguments derive their weight from didactic, and express, authority of Scripture. No: they go beyond Scripture. They are deductions from purely economical considerations; that is, from consider- ations, which owe their complexion and theu value, to the Trinitarian’s views of what would be consistent, with what he considers has been the divine economy, in the conduct of matters and things pertaining to this world. They con- stitute a species of reasoning from foregone conclusions. 140 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, TOUCHED And to reason thus is, at best, not a very satisfactory way of settling a disputed question. Thus, the Trinitarian, assuming the absolute truth of all that his Trinitarian scheme teaches him, argues with him- self, that Christ must have been God, from the miracles which he wrought; that he must be God from the offices he sustains, or is to sustain, as mediator and judge; that he must have been God, from the work which the Trini- tarian scheme assigns to him, namely, his having created all things; and, lastly, and not least, that he must be God, because the scheme of redemption would be, utterly, in- consistent on any other supposition. These arguments I shall take up in their order— I. With REGARD TO THE MIRACLES WHICH CuHrist WROUGHT— “Christ raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been in the grave four days’—This was certainly a stupendous miracle, and had he raised Lazarus from the dead by his own power, it might have proved something for the Trini- tarian: but, unluckily for his argument, he did not do so. The only part of the work, which he performed, was merely to call Lazarus forth. Lazarus was raised from the dead, by that same power by which Christ was afterwards, himself, raised from the dead; namely, by the power of God the Father of all. Christ has left the Trinitarian without excuse on this point. In order to glorify his Father, as well as to finish the work he had given him to do, he put it beyond all possibility of doubt, to whom the glory of raising Lazarus was due. When Jesus came to the grave, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “ Father, I thank thee and those thunders have made the stoutest the Vatican ;’ hearts to quail. — And «ll the world wondered after the beast.”’— Well ‘ ’ AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 189 might the world wonder at the towering pretensions of this new Roman power; coming forth in the spirit of Satan, with all boastings of power, and with all signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness ; dispensing indulgences, and forgiving the most flagrant crimes, and ab- solving men from all obligations, and from all allegiance, which they owed not merely to their temporal rulers, but even to the God of Heaven himself. —‘ And they worshipped the dragon, who gave power unto the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast, and who 1s able to make war with him ?”——How literally has all this been fulfilled !— Has not the beast at all times been worshipped by the world, and who is lke him with the world, and who is able to make war with him? Has he not been the terror of the whole world, down to the present time ?—Witness the com- motion, and consternation, just produced amongst our- selves, by a movement from Rome, which, even feebly, menaced the approach of his dark and __ bloodstained dominion ! —“ And power was given unto him to continue [#. e. to make war] forty and two months”—the same period of time, be it observed, which, in all the various parts of Scripture prophecy, is assigned to the duration of the Apostasy. —“And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven”—Rome never raises her voice, but in blasphemy against God. She blasphemes his name, by professing to issue her infamous decrees in his name. She blasphemes his tabernacle, by styling her “ Pantheons’ the temples of the living God, whereas they are but the synagogues of 190 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, Satan! and she blasphemes those who dwell in heaven, by her presumptuous claim to have the apostles, as the pre- decessors of her ministers. But, perhaps, in nothing, does she more impiously open her mouth in blasphemy, against God, than in the suppression of the authority of God’s revelation; and in setting up her own authority in its stead. By her impious hand, God’s two witnesses, the Scriptures of the old and new Testaments, have been slain. They have been made dead within her dark dominion, as regards any power to influence faith or practice ; and have been superseded by the more potent litere scripte, and oral authority, of the church. — And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.”—Ah! what a fearful commentary on this prediction would be furnished, by a detailed history of those unparalleled enormities, which have been perpe- trated by this modern Rome!—those enormities, in which she has so far outstripped her predecessors, the Neros and Domitians of old. What an appalling array would they present, could they be catalogued in detail !—the known and the unknown !!—-those deeds of blood!—those triumphs of torture! —those impious carnivals of crime !— Bear witness! ye slaughtered saints, whom not even the wilder- ness could protect !—Ye martyrs of our God, whose bones lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold !—Bear witness! ye inquisitorial cruelties which never saw the light !—Bear witness! ye “Te Deums”? which have been chanted, in ehastly mockery, to the God of heaven, over the immola- tions of a St. Bartholomew!!—-In the orgies of hell, there never was enacted, a crime of horror, or a deed of shame, which has not found a rival, in the atrocities of the papacy. AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 191 But let us pass from this painful theme, and direct our attention to the second beast brought before us in this chapter of Reyelation—-This beast came up out of the carth, and is described as having had “two horns like a lamb ;” but, nevertheless, “it spake as a dragon.”—It rose out of the earth. It was more limited as it were in the source whence it sprung, than the former beast, which rose out of the sea. Now, while protestant commentators have been, one and all, very forward to hold the opinion, that the former beast was the papacy, I am scarcely aware, that any of them has ever condescended to enlighten the world, as to what this second beast symbolizes or pourtrays. That reason, which has been exercised so powerfully, and profitably, upon the first beast, seems to fail them altogether when they come to consider what the second beast may be. Has it been that their reason has altogether forsaken them when upon this inquiry? Or has it been that the words which it has spoken to them have not been agreeable, that they have, generally, remained silent on this point? Be this as it may, I shall endeavour to open up the mystery. This beast “came up out of the earth’—it came from a source more limited in its extent, than did the former. The former beast rose out of the sea—out of that sea of infidel peoples with which the church was inundated by Constantine. In other words, it rose out of the universal Church. This latter beast rose out of the Reformation Church. We read of him that, “he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein, to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed.”’=+At the time of the Reformation 192 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, the devil had so surcharged the papal iniquity that it ex- ploded, shaking the power of Rome to its foundation. Had the spirit of inquiry, which was then let loose, not been speedily checked, by the secular arm and influence having been employed, even by the reformers themselves, to repress the onward spirit of inquiry and to compel conformity, as far as was then practicable, the power of papal Rome would long since have been driven to the winds. It is melancholy, however, to reflect, how soon the spirit that ruled in Rome set to work on the materials which had been scattered by the explosion at the Reformation; and how soon it succeeded in constructing a protestant church- and-state power, which was an exact counterpart of the imperial-ecclesiastical power of Rome herself. The stability of Rome had been much endangered by the first outburst of the Reformation; but the Reformation Church, instead of continuing antagonistic to it, became in reality its chief prop and support. ‘This Reformation church-and-state power assumed all the pretensions to infallibility, claimed by Rome herself; and, as it became securely fixed in its seat, it, with all the assumption and arrogance of Rome, said to the Reformation, “ hitherto shalt thou come, and no further: here shall thy proud progress be stayed.’ And, in order to secure the stand of the Reformation at that poimt, it fenced the guoad-hoc Reformation Church, round and round, with liturgies, creeds, and confessions of faith; and was not one whit behind Rome herself, in hurling eternal damnation against all who should venture to carry the Reformation further. It was in this way that the deadly wound, which we read had been received by the first beast, was healed. The deadly wound, AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 193 which the papal power received by the holy zeal which was evoked at the time of the Reformation, was healed by those, who themselves were nominally reformers; but in whom, in reality, was to be found the same Dragon spirit that ruled in Rome. ‘They differed from Rome only in name. The second beast “had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.”—These two horns symbolized Episco- palianism and Presbyterianism, the only two forms in which the Reformation church has become prostituted to the state. But, although it had two horns like a lamb, it spake as a dragon—“and caused the earth and them that dwelt therein to worship the first beast, and to make an image to the beast; and it caused that the image should both speak and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed ;’—The Reformation church, at its uprising, bore a most lamb-like aspect ; but when it, in its turn, became a blaspheming church-and-state power — lo! attonitus aurium!—it, also, spake like the dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast before it!—It was the dragon still; lording it in the protestant church, as he had done in the papal church. When the reformed church sold its birthright, in order to possess itself of the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, did it not miraculously soon forget all its fair professions, and did it not soon do homage to the first beast, by enacting, itself, many of those very acts of blasphemy and wickedness for which it had, at first, so loudly censured Rome? Did it not soon cause to be made for itself a church-and-state establishment, which was the exact counterpart, the very image, of the church-and-state O 194 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, establishment at Rome?—Aye: a protestant church-and- state establishment and a Roman church-and-state estab- lishment are the very images of each other. And did it not soon give life to the image of the beast, and did it not cause the image to speak, and to proclaim, in a voice of thunder, that all who would not worship it should be put to death, if not always in the flesh, at least by the process of eternal damnation; and has it not put forth all, the power of the first beast, the same power of the state, to compel all, of every creed and colour, pagan, Jew, and infidel, to contribute to the hoard of its unrighteous mammon ? When the protestant Reformation church was established in England, to its infamy be it told, it became, itself, a persecutor. It soon caused the image of the beast, which it had set up, to speak; and—ah! this delicate question, shall I put it?—did not its “Supreme Head,” “ Defender of the Faith,’ and so forth, cause some of those who would not worship this image of the beast to be killed? Is there not too much truth in the recrimination of those who assert that the protestant church-and-state establish- ment has been a persecutor, and blasphemer, as well as Rome? Is there not too much truth in the charge of the dissenter, who says that there was as much popery in the church-and-state establishment of Henry VIII., or Elizabeth, as there was in that of Rome itself ? What was Henry VIII. but another Pope—a new edition of a bad book, and without improvements? Yes: Henry the Highth was anything but an improvement upon the Pope. I would rather fave had the Pope than Henry, Defender of the Faith though he was!—Ask me no ques- AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 195 tions, either, about Good Queen Bess: the less there’s said about her the better—Shades! of the Nonconformists !— Ye martyrs for a less crime than heresy !—what have ye to say of her? But, to come nearer ourselves, can it be doubted that the high churchism which now rears itsclf so arrogantly would, ifit had the power, soon put an extinguisher upon every form and species of nonconformity ?—and with as much ready zeal, too, as would Rome herself, if she had the power. But blessed be God, we have our Queen, and our free consti- tution, which, although it is trammelled with a church- and-state establishment, yet retains within it enough to protect us, not only from the open and avowed violence of rampant Rome without, but also from the more insidious, but not less intolerant, foes in our midst. Aye: talk not to me of the days of Good Queen Bess, Pd rather live in the days of Good Queen Victoria—in which my “rights of conscience” are not only respected, but guarded with a jealous care; in which I enjoy perfect freedom; in which the Sovereign herself is the first to tell me that my rights of conscience shall be scrupulously, and religiously, preserved and maintained.—Blessed be God for those virtues which have made her, who sits upon the throne of these realms, illustrious, and have enshrined her in the hearts and affections of a devoted people: for they give me an assurance that our free constitution shall outlive. the convulsion, and wreck, and ruin, of those of less favoured dynasties than ours.—They bid me hope, that, here, there shall ever be a Palladium for all of liberty that is true, and genuine, and worth possessing.—Ah! that much- desecrated name of Liberty !—They bid me hope, that here ¢ o 2 196 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, there shall ever be a safe retreat from the dark tyranny of Rome, where not only we ourselves, but all her per- secuted sons, shall be safe, and where we may ever worship God, according to the dictates of those consciences which vibrate to the touch of Omnipotence, but will not give forth their harmonies to a less skilful hand.—Here we shall be free from Rome without, and Rome within—from Rome in scarlet stockings, and Rome in classic gown—both equally to be dreaded. Yes: both equally to be dreaded !—What toleration could be hoped for from those who put infidelity and dissent in the same category ?-—and what high churchman is there who would assign to dissent a better place? High-churchman! do I say? I need make no invidious distinctions. I have heard low-churchmen, aye, the very lowest of them, speak of infidelity and dissent in the same terms. What man 1s there among them who would not annihilate all dissent, and all dissenters, by a “coup de main” if he had the power? With what passionate vehemence have I heard one of their number exclaim, “Cast out the bondwoman and her children,” referring to a few devout dissenters, who had dared to intrude their pious labours into the neglected domain of one of the protegés of the church-and-state establishment; one of the mild, and gentle, worshippers of the lamb-like, dragon-voiced, beast before us. I am sorry I can make no exception in favour of the other horn of this protestant beast, namely the presbyterian state-church establishment. The presbyterian church-and- state establishment has been no less forward to hurl eternal damnation against all who would not worship the image of the beast, and take his mark or number in their fore- AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME, 197 heads, or right hands; and has equally refused to permit any to traffic m her craft, but those who submit to be thus qualified; and has, equally, in times gone by, persecuted dissenters of every denomination; as far as the state would go with her. One of the standard articles of the presby- terian church’s faith not only recognises the right of the civil magistrate to take cognizance of religious error, but inculcates and urges on the civil magistrate the duty of punishing, by the sword of the civil power, all those whom she may be pleased to call “heretics.” The civil magistrate who would approve himself a faithful son of the presby- terian church, is bound, should occasion require, to use his every effort to extirpate from the land all kinds of heresies, and all kinds of heretics, by the same bloody means which papal Rome, and pagan Rome, before him, have so often put in requisition for a similar purpose. The spirit of the dragon, that old serpent the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world, was in the second beast, and in both his horns, no less than in the first. This is no mere fanciful picture, as far as the presby- terian church is concerned. I am not yet an old man, and I have, in my day, witnessed much of the malignant per- secuting spirit of the presbyterian church: and to such an extent as to lead me to fear, that, had that church had the power, they would with great good-will have filled up the full measure of the limits prescribed to the persecution of heretics, by the standard article of their faith, to which T have already alluded. But the state was more righteous than they, and withheld the sword of the civil power. It is only a few days since the grave closed over the earthly remains of a man, whose life and character adorned the 198 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, Christian name. Were that holy man to rise, in judgment, he could tell a tale of the persecutions of the established church of Scotland, which would not be very flattering to that horn of the lamb-lke (!) protestant beast. It would show that, notwithstanding its lamb-hke aspect, when it opened its mouth it spake as a dragon. When the pious and fervid eloquence, of that holy man of God, began to thin the pews of the established churches of Edinburgh, the ministers of that establishment, jealous for the supre- macy of their church, and less jealous for the souls of men, began to pour forth such inflaming denunciations against him, and all who attended his preaching, that some mali- cious persons were excited to fire off pistols in the galleries of his large church, which he had erected at his own ex- pense, in order to deter and intimidate the multitudes who flocked to his ministry. On one occasion, when he took down a number of his congregation to baptize them in the waters of Leith, an infuriated and ruthless mob, thus insti- gated, attacked them; and he and they made a very narrow escape with their lives: and I was informed, by an eye- witness, that there were more than one of the established clergy amongst the mob. On another occasion, when he went to preach in a neglected district of the Highlands, where the established church of Scotland had left the people to perish for lack of knowledge, he was, at the instance of a clergyman of the church of Scotland, arrested by the civil: authorities; and would have been thrust into a loathsome prison had not the high-sheriff of the county, knowing his high station and his worth, taken him to his own house, and given security for his safe keeping till the following morning, It is clearly evident, that, had the civil authori- AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 199 ties fulfilled the wishes of this son of the establishment, they would have made short work of this devoted servant of the hving God. But the days when such an atrocity could have been safely perpetrated, blessed be God, had then, happily for mankind, passed away from the soil of Britain. This same worthy scion of the establishment refused to baptize the child of a lady, who was a member of his own church, because she had permitted the gentleman, to whom I have referred, to stand on a chair at the end of her house, on the occasion when he was arrested for the crime of preaching the gospel to the poor! The lady herself told me the fact a few vears ago. Talk of the reception which the presbyterian missionaries haye reecived, at the hands of the priests and Roman Catho- hes of the South and West of Ireland !—From all I have yet heard it has fallen infinitely short of what the gentleman, to whom I have alluded, suffered from the clergy and laity of the same presbyterian church, as estabhshed in Scotland, I believe the members of that church are now, one and ail, ashamed of their eonduct towards that great and good man ; and are all anxious to do homage to his memory. But does this not strike the reader as being very hke the conduct of the Roman Catholics, who now worship the finger of Galileo, although the life of Galileo was made miserable by the persecutions of the church of Rome, and although the hand from which that finger was severed, was, with dif- ficulty, saved from the tortures of the imquisition? Has not the presbyterian established church of Scotland, equally with the church of England, clutched the same loaves and fishes, which had been so long munched by the monks and friars of papal Rome? And does she not, 200 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, equally with her sister horn, compel all of every creed and colour—Pagan, Jew, and Infidel—to contribute to the hoard of her unrighteous mammon? If Iam not very far mistaken, there is at this moment a man suffering imprisonment im Edinburgh for clerical dues. Whether, or not, it may in the end benefit the soul of the prisoner, must be a grave question for the clergy of that church by law established. Be this as it may, it is, at all events, not long since the voice of such a prisoner, was heard from within the precincts of a prison in Edinburgh—even in the metropolis of holy and en- lightened Scotland ! Has not the genuine dragon spirit of the presbyterian church-and-state establishment been most disgustingly ex- hibited. to the world, m the no less than abominable persecu- tions which were set on foot agamst the Free church of Scotland? I shall not call those persecutions anti-Christian. The sacred name of Christian should not be desecrated and polluted, by bemg mixed up with such frothings from the bottomless pit! All church-and-state establishments, however protestant or however papal, are exactly similar in character. The same means of advancing their worldly interests, would be had recourse to by all; so far as the state, or public opinion, would leave them in their power. There is no exception, to this. There is no church-and-state establishment from which the voice of the dragon does not resound. Every such establish- ment is but a counterpart of modern Rome, and must trace its origi to the same source. I put the question to every candid mind, whether the ruling and governing principle in all such powers is not worldly aggrandizement. They re- spect or recognise no interests, but those which pertain to AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 201 the things of this world: and the struggle with them is to possess themselves of the things which are of the world—to possess themselves of those things which minister to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.—I would scarcely hesitate to appeal to the men themselves, who belong to such establishments, whether this is not a fair yepresentation of them. | The connection between church and state, whether it exist at Rome, or in England, is a blasphemous and unholy connection. It is essentially of the devil, and can never be productive of aught but what is evil—both to the church, and to the state. “The powers that be’ are ordained of God, and are to be held in reverence by all good men. But their duty extends merely to the things of the state. All church-and-state establishments, all the world over, whether papal or protestant, are constituent parts of Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations. —Babylon was “The Mother’ of harlots: she had many daughters—Her name was “mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations.’ — All these established churches have trafficked in her “ mystery?—in her mysterious doctrme of the Trmity—they have all committed harlotry with the kings of the earth—they have all partaken of her abominations. But to proceed— This second beast “ caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”— We now approach the question—What is the mark of the beast, and the number of his name ?—My answer is that 202 TRINITY THE MARK OF TITE BEAST, this mark and number is Trinity. “ Here is wisdom,” saith the evangelist, “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for his number is of man’”—and his number is—y & ¢’-—(chi, xi, stau)-—three Greek letters, which, when they are used as numerals, are represented in our notation by the figures—666—(the six hundred three score and six, of our English version, is not a proper translation). Now, the solution of the question, respecting what is represented by the above three Greek characters, is put forth as a subject on which they who have understanding are to exercise it—it is propounded as an enigma. If these three Greek characters were designed simply to express the number “666,” and nothing more, there would not be much ingenuity required to extract from them their mean- ing. Itis plain that the Spirit of prophecy, which was in these three characters, signified something more than a mere number. They were designed to be suggestive of something apart from their mere numerical value. There was some- thing to be taken from them in the way of suggestion--—- ‘““666.”-——How suggestive these numbers are of a Trinity! They are all six of the one and half a dozen of the other, as people say. Threc—“ 6’s”—three numbers nominally of the same amount, and although as they stand, in the number “666,” they are not exactly equal in power and in glory, yet they do not in reality differ, m this respect, much more widely than the usual expositions of the Trinitarian doctrine make the three persons of the Trinity to differ from each other. The Father exists before all; he begets the Son; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both. Ifthe Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, taken sgly, are equal—each to each— AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 203 when they are combined into one Trinity, the Father is cer- tainly entitled to be considered more venerable than the Son, inasmuch as he existed before him and begat him; and the Father and the Son are both entitled to more glory than the Holy Ghost, as they existed before him, and caused him to proceed from them. Admitting, however, that it may be objected to these -ob- servations, that they are not applicable to the three Greck characters of the orginal text, inasmuch as the first of those characters, namely “,’,” even if it stood alone, would mean “600,” and the second one “&” in like manner would mean “60,” and the third “¢” would mean “6,7 yet, even thus, the numbers are strikingly suggestive, “600, 60, 6.’—The second could he very easily derived from the first, and the third with, as much ease from both: just cut off what a school-boy would call all the nothings, and you have them all equal! Or it may with great cogency he suggested, that the Spirit of prophecy designed, by the employment of these three Greek characters, to furnish a symbol simply of three in- dividual things—that it designed them simply to suggest the idea of the number three—counting thus, one, two, three—rather than that it intended that they should be interpreted as having their ordinary value as numerals, in the making out, or counting, of which there would not have been the least scope for the exercise of wisdom. This view of the case is favoured by the fact, that the writer never in any other place makes use of mere numeral letters to express numbers. He always, elsewhere, writes his numbers in full verbal notation. Thus, instead of writing “666,” we would write “six hundred sixty and 204: TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, six.” Ihave already said that the translation of the three characters before us is not correctly given in our English version.—The numeral letters “x & ¢”’ should be rendered “ 666,” and not “six hundred three score and six.” Had the evangelist meant so to express himself, he would in- stead of using the letters “y & ¢” have written “ éFaxo'ovor éSyxovra &.? In the very next verse, when he describes the numbers on Mount Zion, he does not write that they were “ 144,000 ;” but “an hundred forty and four thousand.” He does not, in this immediately succeeding instance, use numeral letters thus ‘“p,6/,? but writes in full “éxatov recoepaxovraréacapec xiAladec.”” These con- siderations strongly favour the belief that the spirit of prophecy meant to prefigure, by these three Greek cha- racters, just three individual things. In fact, to him, who has closely studied the Scriptures, and has been made wise to the fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of idolatry, leading men away from the worship of the one only true God to the worship of three Gods, or three divine persons—if we must clothe our expressions with hypocrisy— to such an one the design of the puzzle at once suggests itself: and whether he takes the latter view, we have considered, of the three enigmatical characters which are the subject of the puzzle, or the former view of them, he finds them, in either case, eminently suggestive of a Trinity. There is no lack of argument, however, by which to sus- tain the position I have taken with regard to the mark of the beast and his number.—As I have just observed, he that has been instructed by a careful and dispassionate study of the Scriptures, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a_blas- AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME. 205 phemous and idolatrous doctrine, shall have no lack of wisdom and understanding, at once to recognise the mark of the beast, and to count the number of his name. Whatever it be which constitutes this mark and number, it is something which is held in common by papal Rome, and the church-and-state establishments of the Reforma- tion.—Now, is there any thing, I would ask, so prominently held in common by these churches as the doctrine of the Trinity? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity, pre-eminently, the most fundamental doctrine which is common to all these churches? A more striking fact, however, is, that, although this mark belonged to the first beast, it would seem that he had not given himself much concern respecting it—it was not he who was most solicitous about enforcing its reception. —He does not seem to have troubled himself about securing its general adoption. It is the second beast which makes all the bluster about it, and causes all to receive it in their foreheads, or in their right hands. Now, with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, has it not been strikingly the case, that although it is to papal Rome we owe the doctrine, and although, had it not been for her, we should have known nothing at all about it, yet she makes very little to do about it; but it has been the Reformation churches which have paraded it before the world, and brought it so prominently into view and trafficked with it? How much has been made of this doctrine by all these churches! ‘In their controversies, how ostentatiously do they hold it up to the gaze of their adherents, and vaunt over it, as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity ! Papal Rome, however, gives herself very little concern about the matter. She is not very solicitous about what 206 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, niceties of doctrine you may, or may not, as an individual, ° hold, if you profess to bow implicitly to the authority of the church, The doctrine of the Trinity, or any other doctrine; which does not immediately affect the worldly wealth or power of the church, gives her preciously little concern ! They who expect to find papal Rome contending for any thing, that has no other claim to her consideration, than that it pertains to the faith once delivered to the Saints, will find themselves greatly at fault. Being, essentially, a worldly power, she cares, first and before all, for her worldly interests, and for the preservation of her dark dominion over the con- sciences of men—she seeks that they shall be her willing, her abject, slaves—she cares for her power over the nations, and for her wealth, and, so long as all these are safe, she’ will not trouble you about the doctrine of the Trinity, or aught else that pertains to doctrinal matters. But the Reformation establishments have made a great “Shibboleth” of the Trinity; and no man can buy or sell, or get gain amongst them, who has not taken this mark in his forehead, that is, into his sexsorium to believe in it, or, if that be too much for him, who has not, at least, taken it in his right hand to traffic with it, by making a hypocritical profession of it. Even in this land of liberty, for hundreds of years, nO man was permitted to buy or sell, even with the state, who would not take what was termed “the Sacra. mental Test,” by which he had to subseribe to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not much over twenty years since this sacramental test was abolished; and it would not yet have been abolished, had it not been that there was a public opimion to aid the state, in shaking off the encroach- ments of a grasping, aud selfish, and apostate church. oO oJ) b] AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME, 207 The ministers of the papacy, too, are much more candid, when speaking of the doctrine of the Trinity, than are their brethren of the reformed churches. They at once acknow- ledge that no such doctrine is had from the Scriptures, and in their controversies with protestants they boastfully ask them, “ Where did you get the doctrine of the Trinity from, but from. our church ?” They boast, and with truth, that protestants are their debtors for thus much at least of their theology. It is not long since a Roman Catholic controver- sialist openly defied his opponent, to prove that he had got the doctrine of the Trinity from any other source than the church of Rome; and Rome makes a boast of this undeni- able fact, to prove a virtual recognition, on the part of protestants, of her right to dictate what is new, and ewira- scriptural, in matters of faith. But, although this doctrine thus clearly belonged originally to Rome, it has been the especial work of the established churches of the Reformation to parade it to view, and to compel men, publicly, to register their faith in it, or at least to give their assent toit. They permit no man to buy or sell within their borders, who will not take the mark cither in his right hand or in his forehead. This doctrine is the all in all with them: it is, to use their own language— “Tue Centrat Sun”’—of their theology. Are not these facts in perfect harmony with the alle- gation, that “the mark and number” which the second beast compelled all to reccive, was “ Trinity”? Do they not, in fact, all but demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trimity was, in truth, that which was prefigured by this mark of the beast, and this number of his name? If any- thing be wanting completely to satisfy us that such is the 208 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, interpretation of “ the mark,” it is furnished to us, by the following, no less than demonstrative, fact, The prophetic writer, having brought out before us the worshippers of the beast, and having specially directed our attention to “ the mark” on their foreheads, proceeds, im- mediately, to contrast them with another host of worshippers, having a totally different mark on their foreheads. In the very next verse, the first verse of the immediately succeeding chapter, he says, “ And I looked, and lo! a lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with him an hundred and forty and four thousand, having ‘ his father’s name’ written on their fore- heads.” Here, the followers of the lamb, having “ his father’s name” written on their foreheads, are confronted and contrasted with those who have “ the mark of the beast” on their foreheads. Now, from the pointedly antithetic way in which the evangelist puts the case, it is most logically to be inferred that the two forehead-inscriptions were not the same; and it may, also, at the same time, be most logically inferred that the inscriptions have an analogy, more or less, to each other; else they would not have been made the subject of the writer’s antithesis. Whatever is to be predicated of “ his father’s name,” on the foreheads of those who stood with the lamb on Mount Zion, may, in some analogous degree, be predicated of “ the mark” on the foreheads of the followers of the beast. Now, “ his father’s name,’ emblazoned on the foreheads of the followers of the lamb, was the name of the object of their worship—the lamb himself would lead their devotions, saying, “ Father, it is life eternal to know thee, the only true God.”—It may, therefore, with the most logical truth and accuracy, be pre- dicated of “ the mark,’ emblazoned on the foreheads of the AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME, 209 followers of the beast, that it was the name of their object of worship. Now; the name of their object of worship is ‘Trinity; they themselves being witnesses: therefore “The mark? is “ Trinity”’—The mark emblazoned on the foreheads of the followers of the beast is Trinity —there is no possibility of escape from this con- clusion. But, while I have thus shown, by evidence so clear and indisputable, that Trinity is the mark of the beast, and while I have directed attention to the judgment of God set forth against those who worship the beast and receive his mark, either in their right hands or in their foreheads, let it not, for a mement, be supposed, that I hold the opinion that all who are professedly Trinitarians are the subjects of that judgment. Far indeed be such impious uncharitableness from me! No: in Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, that great city which hath filled the whole earth with her abominations, God’s people are lying hid.—Known unto God are all their ways: he sees the evil influences by which they are surrounded: he knows the opposing powers which stand in the way of their attaiming unto a purer faith : he sees their works of faith and labours of love: and for the sake of him whose word they have obeyed in turning from the wickedness of their ways unto God, he will in no wise east them out. ‘THEIR CREEDS AND THEIR CONFESSIONS SHALL BE BURNT UP; BUT THEY THEMSELVES SHALL ESCAPE, YET SO AS BY FIRE. Still, although God is long suffering and of very tender mercy towards them, he, nevertheless, calls upon them to come out of that Babylon in which they dwell, His language to them is, “ Come out of her my p 210 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye re- eeive not of her plagues” (Rev. xvii. 4). But there are those who worship the beast, and his mark, who shall not escape the judgment of God—those who have their eyes opened to the fact, that there is no authority in the word of God for the worship of more gods than one, or more divine persons than one; and still more, those who boast of this fact, with a view to convince those, who receive the doctrine, of the right of their church to dictate what is binding on the conscience, independently of the word of God, nay in open contravention of the word of God, in order that they may thus secure a tacit acquiescence in the other iniquitous tenets and practices of their system—those who prostitute the services of the house of God to the service of Satan—those who make the temple of God a den of thieves —those who with pains and penalties compel all men to con- tribute to the hoard of their unrighteous mammon—those who, for gold, pander to the worst passions of human nature —those who scnd men by thousands down to perdition with a lie in their right hand—those who gloat over the hellish orgies of the inquisition and embrue their hands in the best blood of God’s saints—I dare not say of these that they shall escape the righteous judgments of God. Generation of worse than vipers that they are, how shall they escape the damnation of hell ! And is it not from men, such as these, we have received the doctrine of the Trinity ?—and do they not boast, as I have already observed, that their church is the author of it ? —and do they not boast, that there is no foundation for the doctrme in the word of God?—and do they AND THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME, pae! not triumph over its reception by the world as an acknowledgment of the right of their church, to go beyond the word of God in dictating matters of faith ? Ah! it behoves every man who is a Christian, with fear and trembling to touch, taste, or handle, anything that has come into his hands from such a source. There is pollution in the very touch. Have not too many of those who have em- braced this Papal doctrine gone far, protestants though they were, in the wake of their Papal predecessors? Yes: they have made to themselves, an image of Papal Rome, and have used compulsion to secure the worship of that image. —They, too, have compelled all men, by pains and penalties, to contribute to the hoard of their unrighteous mammon.— They, too, have had their inquisition of blood.—The cove- nanting fathers of Scotland shall rise up in judgment against the butcheries of a “ Claverhouse.” The saint of hoary head, and the infant at its mother’s breast, appealed, in vain, to that ruthless monster, for mercy. The interests of a dragon-voiced Church required their blood, and it must be shed! And to Trinitarian prelates the sacrifice had a sweet smell ! Shall these men escape the righteous judgments of God? Orthodox though they were, shall they not drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation? Shall they not be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb ?—* Come out from amongst them,” saith God, to all that fear him, “and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.”— Let those who have, heretofore, carried emblazoned on p 2 id 212 TRINITY THE MARK OF THE BEAST, ETC. their foreheads, tHe MARK of this Babylon of abomina- tions, come out of her, and be no more found within her; for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God shall, speedily, remember her iniquities, to reward her according to her works. ‘ Her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.” CHAPTER V, CONCLUSION, “ Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive nat of her plagues.”—Rey. xviii. 4, Upon the subjects, of which I have treated in the fore- going pages, volumes upon volumes might be written. I have been obliged, in almost numberless cases, to content myself with a very brief, if not a mere passing, notice, of topics, the following out of which would have afforded much additional illustration to my argument. ‘The argument against the doctrine of the Trinity is so cumulative, that it might be enlarged upon, with advantage, to any extent. I rest satisfied, however, that I have said enough to furnish a complete, and convincing, demonstration of all that I pro- posed to prove. Had time and space permitted me to have enlarged upon the subject, I might have furnished a de- monstration of the truths which, in my introduction, I enunciated, which might have been more copicus, and more Q14 CONCLUSION. full, than that which I have given; but I could not haye furnished one more logically perfect. JI have taken care not to propose to prove anything, for which I was not pre- pared to furnish proofs, at once, the most satisfactory and complete—proofs that must commend themselves to all those who have wisdom, and who exercise it. Yes: the wise shall understand, of my doctrine, whether it be of God; but fools shall not understand. Who are the wise? Who are these, of whom I say that they shall have that wisdom which shall enable them to understand of my doctrine, whether it be of God? TI an- swer—They are the righteous—They, alone, have that wisdom which cometh from the Father of our spirits, and that alone is perfect wisdlom—“ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from evil, that is wn- derstanding.”—He, only, hath true wisdom whose every imagination of his heart is chastened by the fear of God, whose whole mind and will are in subjection to the mind and will of God, which mind and will of God, so far as our present walk and converse with him are concerned, are unmistakably made known to us in the pages of Reve- lation ; and however men may differ upon purely doctrinal matters, there can be but one opinion upon the character of that personal holiness which is enjoined in the pages of Reve- lation, and without which, we are told, no man can see the Lord. He, who follows on to know the Lord, so far as his mind and will are thus made known—He, who surrenders his whole moral being to the moral government of God, shall have that wisdom which is more precious than rubies; and shall be led into all truth. And let no man presume to condemn the things which IT have written, who is not EEE ee Ne ee CONCLUSION. 215 prepared to put to himself the question, “ Am I thus made wise ?”?—“ Have I thus provided for myself that wisdom which cometh from above?” Let all hear, let all attend to, my warning voice: but let none presume to condemn, but those who feel themselves qualified of heaven to exercise a wise judgment: and, further, let no man rest satisfied with a condemnation, by others, of what I have written, no matter by whom it may be made, until he hath thus, for himself, fitted himself to judge for himself. A beautiful illustration of the fact “ that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” is furnished by the re- velations of a modern science, which is, at once, the most interesting and wonderful, to the investigation of which the industry of man has ever been called forth—I mean the science of “ Electro-Biology”’-—-and I hope it will not be deemed an unpardonable digression, if I pause to show how this illustration holds. How interesting are the phenomena of that science! How wonderful they are! How mysterious! When we contemplate them we may well exclaim, “ What a miracle to man is man!” The person, who wishes to have the phe- nomena of the science developed in his own person, places himsclf, unreservedly, in the hands of the operator. He gives implicit obedience to his instructions. He, without hypocrisy, and he must do it without hypocrisy—He, with his whole mind and will, does that which he is by the operator commanded, to do: and—presently—he is com- pletely under the operator’s control. He thinks, and speaks, and acts, as the operator wills that he shall think and speak, and act. His every faculty is completely under the operator’s control; and he has new feelings, new tastes, 216 CONCLUSION. new desires; and is, in fact, for the time being, a new man ; and can be impressed with an intensity of emotion, of which, in his natural state, he was not susceptible. The body be- comes, as it were, spiritualized ; and, in the gesticulation of the emotions of the mind, there is a startling truthfulness, which in the natural state of the faculties is rarely, if ever, realized. The whole man, body and spirit, is completely under the control of him, into whose hands he has for the time being surrendered himself. How beautifully illustrative is this of the operation of the Spirit of God, in the heart of the man who seeks to be brought from darkness unto light !—Such an one puts him- self, unreservedly, in God’s hands; he yields himself up implicitly to his will; he places his whole being under his moral guidance and government: whatsoever he knows to be duty that he, at once, does: and—presently—he is a new creature, old things have passed away, and all things have become new. He has new feelings, new tastes, new desires ; his whole being has undergone a renovation ; and he now, indeed, feels a brightness above the brightness of the sun illumining his mind; and imparting, withal, a sensation of peace and joy to which he was, heretofore, a stranger. Such a man is led by the spirit of Ged—such a man shall be led into all truth—such a man shall have that wisdom which is from above—and such a man shall know of my doctrine whether it be of God.—And to the decision of such men I cheerfully leave the question. And, blessed be God, notwithstanding all our Gentile unfaithfulness, there are multitudes of such men. These, as I have said, shall know of my doctrine, whether it be of God. Before I proceed to close these pages, I would ask the CONCLUSION, O17 reader to look back with me over the ground, through which we have passed. I would wish his eye to thread the way by which we have come hither; and I would wish him to note some of the more important things which, as we passed along, were brought under our observation. At our very outset, we saw that the doctrine of the Trinity had not been from the beginning. We saw that it had no existence in apostolic times. We traced the doctrine, from its earliest origin in the second century, down to its final consummation in the year, A.p. 809. We saw that the first signal departure from the faith was made by the Gnostics, who taught that the man Christ Jesus had had one of the supreme AZons united to him, at the time of his baptism by John, in the river Jordan. We found, however, that the Gnostics did not go beyond this in the devising of a Trinity. We saw that the first speculations respecting a ‘Trinity, by name, were introduced into the Christian church by the Platonic philosophers, who, in the second and third centuries, sought to effect, and did effect, a coalition between Platonism and Christianity. We were shown how extremely prejudicial to the cause of the gospel, and to the beautiful simplicity of its celestial doctrines, this coalition was; how the solemn doctrines of Christianity were made to suffer, and how forced allegories were em- ployed in removing the difficulties with which the bringing about of the coalition was attended. We saw how Platonic doctors, by mtroducing their subtile and obscure erudition into the religion of Jesus, began to involve in the darkness of a vain philosophy some of the principal truths of Chris- tianity, that had been revealed with the utmost plainness : and that the pernicious consequences which resulted from 218 CONCLUSION. this attempt to reconcile Christianity with Paganism were, to use the expression of our historian, “ endless ;” and_pre- eminent amongst them all, we found, were the specu- lations respecting the Trinity. Our historian informed us, that the controversies relating to the divine Trinity took their rise after the introduction of the Grecian, or Platonic philosophy, into the Christian church. In accordance with this, we saw that it was the Trinity of Plato which furnished the original after which the first rude sketches of the doctrine of the Trinity were drawn; the first draughts of the doctrine being strictly Pla- tonic in their character, and presenting but a very faint and indistinct resemblance to the more finished works upon the same subject, which came afterwards under our obser- vation ; each of which seemed to improve upon the im- provements of its predecessors, until human skill could go no farther. We saw how the doctrine of the Trinity grew under the hands of Trinitarian doctors, through successive ages of the church; from the very crude doctrine of Origen, in the begining of the third century, until it attained unto completeness and finish in the beginning of the ninth century. We saw, that, at the time of the celebrated Council of Nice, it was still in a very un-orthodox state of immaturity: and that, although the doctrine had attained all its substantial fulness in the middle of the sixth century, to wit at the time of the fifth general council of the church, that which was held at Constantinople a.p. 558, yet it was not till a. p. 809 that it became finished and perfect. We saw, moreover, that in the ages, during which the doctrine was making its most rapid strides to maturity, the lustre of primitive Christianity was totally eclipsed ; CONCLUSION. 219 all true religion being supplanted by the grossest depravity and idolatry, and the virtuous few bemg overwhelmed by the superior number of the wicked and licentious. Hven the bishops themselves were monuments of vice. Mere idolatry was nothing to them: they achieved more impious triumphs still. But their idolatry was sufficiently appalling, too. The religion they inculcated, and practised, differed very little from that of the Greeks and Romans. ‘These godly bishops imagined that the pagans would receive Christianity with more facility, when they saw the worship paid to Christ and his martyrs, which they had formerly paid to their idol deities; and they gave them plenty of objects of worship. A mere Trinity was a trifle to them! They gave them things to worship without end.—We had it im- pressed upon us how closely it behoved Christians to scrutinize any new and previously unknown doctrines handed down to them from such a source. In fact, it may be observed that it would require a volume to show, how utterly unworthy the originators of the doctrine of the Trinity were, of that veneration m which they are now held. Upon the clearest historical grownds, it was demon- strated to us that the doctrine of the Trmity was not a doctrine of primitive Christianity. Further, we found that the Scriptures of the New Testament do not exist in their original integrity ; but have been despoiled of their truthfulness by interpolations and additions: and this, I feel satisfied, was shown to the satisfaction of every one who believes in the truth of divine revelation. We were shown that the corruption of the Scriptures has been matter of express revelation, that it 220 CONCLUSION. has been expressly revealed, that one great achievement of the apostasy should be the overcoming and slaying of God’s two witnesses, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and the enshrouding of them in sackcloth. We saw how this had been effected. We had pointed out to us how the authority of scripture has been superseded, | and set at nought, and rendered a dead letter. We were instructed how Christians shall prepare the Scriptures for the re-entrance of the spirit of life from God into them; and how it is their duty to go before the spirit of prophecy, and lead the way to that glorious consummation. In this stage of our inquiry, we had attained unto more elevated ground. We had, now, demonstrated to us the utter unscripturality of the doctrme of the Trinity. We were shown that it is totally without foundation in the word of God. We were shown that the Jehovah of the Bible is “one Jehovah.” We were shown that, in place of this one Jehovah, an apostate church has set up three distinct and independent objects of worship, distinct in their personality, distinct in their attributes, and distinct in the offices they, severally, sustain: and that further, with a still more reckless spirit of idolatry, and in still further wantonness of rebellion against God, it has assigned to the person of one of these, namely, to “God the Son,” a veritable human body, and in that likeness of men it worships him. How shall IT adequately characterize these things! In vain was it that God clothed his commandments with thunder! In vain did his lightnings thicken round Mount Sinai when “Thou shalt not worship the likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth CONCLUSION. pA) beneath,” came forth from the throne of the Invisible, with a voice that shook earth to its centre! The terrors of Jehovah have had no terrors for an apostate church! The bolts of heaven are its toys; it plays with them as a child plays with its bells! How infinite is its infatuation ! How incomprehensible are its perverse ways! It professes to believe in a divine revelation, yet tramples on that reve- lation as athing of nought. The most sacred—the most solemn—the most terror-laden—injunctions of God it treats as, “a tale told by an idiot, a thing full of sound and fury signifymg nothing!’ How such blasphemous daring against high heaven makes the blood to thrill! Without remorse, without terror, it sets up three gods, to worship them; although the dread and infinite Jehovah hath sworn—with an oath—THAT THERE Is No Gop BESIDES HIMSELF—THAT THERE IS NO GoD WITH HIM: HE KNOWS NOT ANY—THAT BEFORE HIM THERE Was No Gop FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER HIM. But, to proceed, we were shown that the universal testi- mony of scripture is against the doctrine of the Trinity, whether that testimony be direct or implied—whether it come from the law and the prophets, under the old dispen- sation, or from Christ and his apostles, under the new. We were shown that none of the prophets of old knew anything of the doctrine of the Trinity, that none of them ever prayed to a Trinity. We were shown, moreover, that the temple was not dedicated to a Trinity: and we saw that it could not, for a moment, be supposed, that, had Solomon known anything of the existence of a Trinity, he would not have dedicated to such ‘Trinity the house m which God’s name was to be recorded, distinctly and seve- Sete CONCLUSION. rally, naming the different persons of that Trinity; and taking care to put none afore, or after, the other im the glory. We felt, indeed, that it would be more than child- ishness to entertain such a supposition for a moment. We were shown that Christ knew nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity. We were shown that Christ never spake ofa Trinity, never taught of a Trinity. We were shown that he never taught the Jews, that there was any other object of worship, than the undivided and uncompounded Jehovah, whom tliew fathers had worshipped. Above all, we saw that he never taught them that he himself was a god, but on the contrary, ever and again, cautioned them against falling into such an idolatrous error. We were shown that he, ever, took special care to apprize them, that he did all his mighty works, not by his own power, but by the mighty power of God—that he, ever, took special care to inform them that he, of his own self, could do nothing. We were shown that he was, ever, first to ascribe to God his Father all and undivided glory—that his lan- guage ever was, Hather it is life eternal to know thee, the only true God, and that it was to that only true God, and to him alone, he taught his disciples to pray. “One is ? said he, ‘* who is in heaven ;” “I ascend unto your Father,’ my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God.” We were shown, further, that the apostles knew nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity. We saw that their doctrine was, “'l'o us there is but one God the Father.’ We were shown that they never prayed to a Trinity, but that they prayed to the Father of the holy child Jesus, and to him alone. I, just now, call to mind a prayer prescribed by 'Trini- —s i td @2 CONCLUSION. 20 tarian bishops, to be used at sea, to which I shall pause for a moment to refer. It is as follows, “God the lather, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us ; save us now and evermore.” I have searched the Bible through and through, from Genesis to Revelation, to find a precedent for this prayer, but I have searched in vain. I have met with nothing that makes even the most distant approach to it. | The apostle Paul was repeatedly at sea in a storm—thrice was he shipwrecked—a night and a day was he in the deep, and if these three gods had existed in his day, was it not a great pity that he did not avail himself of this comprehensive little prayer, in which the three gods are each, so distinctly, and severally, invoked ?—and with equal honours, too, be it observed, the object of which was, no doubt, to secure a helping hand from cach, special care being taken that the jealousy of none of them should be excited—ivas it not a very great pity that the apostle did not, on some of those occasions of storm and shipwreck, leave this comprehensive little prayer upon record, for a pattern and example, in all time to come, when a storm should arise at sea? How can he justify his negligence in having overlooked this?—Let not the apostle, however, be too hastily condemned. He ad his reasons !—The poor apostle, like David, had no other God but one, that ever he had heard of with his ears, to whom he could pray, namely, Christ’s Father and his Father, Christ’s God and his God. It was, therefore, impossible for him to leave on record such an “exemplar” prayer as that I have adduced. The jealous impartiality of this prayer—the scrupulous care 224, CONCLUSION. which is taken in it, to guard against appearing to pay more respect to any one member of the Trinity than another— brings, still further, to my recollection, the pious misgivings once expressed to me by a venerable old clergyman, who said 1t would relieve his mind from a “ grievous load,” if he could be convinced there was not a Trinity ; “as,” said he, “when praying, I labour under the greatest embarrassment, lest I should pay more respect to one person of the Trinity than another, and thereby excite the jealousy of any of them; which,” said he, “I always feel would be a very dangerous thing !”” But to return from this digression—We saw that the apostles knew nothing of such personages as the second and third persons of the Trinity. We were shown what the scriptural doctrine of Christ and the Holy Spirit really was ; as held by the apostles. We were shown that Christ was the promised Messiah: that in him were fulfilled all those things which were written, by Moses in the law, and by the pro- phets, and in the Psalms, concerning the Messiah: and we had, furthermore, pointed out to us that, in him who is the second person of the Trinity, not a single one of the things thus written could, by any jossibility, have been fulfilled. We were shown that Christ was “the chosen seed of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” that he was “the Lamb of God, without spot and without blemish, which should take away the sins of the world.’ We were shown that it was man that had sinned, and that man was the suitable, and the only, sacrifice for sin. We were shown that Jesus Christ—the Lamb of God—the perfect man—is the ordinance of God for salvation, unto the ends of the carth,.——And who is he, let me ask, who will dare to challenge CONCLUSION. 995 the appropriateness of God’s own chosen “Paschal Lamb,’ or say unto God, “ what dost thou?” Further, we were shown what the scriptural doctrine of the Holy Ghost, or more correctly speaking, the Holy Spirit, is, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jchovah himself, and nothing more or less. We were shown that the Holy Spirit bears the same relation to God, that the spirit of a man bears to a man himself—i. e., that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit even as the human spirit is man’s spirit. We saw that the Holy Spirit was the spirit which dwelt in Christ; and that God will give it, also, in a degree, to all his people in this world, as an earnest of their inheritance of the pur- chased possession, which they shall enjoy in their glorified bodies, in which God shall dwell for evermore, as in temples sanctified and made mect for his use and habitation. We furthermore glanced at the more important of what were termed the inferential, or economical, arguments, by which the doctrine of the Trinity is sought to be sustained. These were those arguments which wete drawn indirectly, or inferentially, from various sources, to which recourse was had, to sustain the doctrine in the total absence of all direct scripture authority to establish it, there being a total want of scripture authority setting forth and expounding, in ex- press terms, the deep and manifold mysteries of the Trini- tarian doctrine. We were disposed, a short time since, to blame the apostle Paul for not having left us such a comprehensive little prayer to be used at sea, as the more watchful and provident care of our Trinitarian bishops has supplied : but much more may we blame (as I have heretofore hinted) not only Paul, but also all the apostles, and even Christ Q 226 CONCLUSION. himself, for not having left us a neat exposition of the doc- trine of the Trinity! It was really too bad that the church was obliged to wade, in ignorance of the sublimated mysteries of that doctrine, through a period of no less than eight hundred years, before it was able fully to supply that which this most culpable oversight (to say the least of it), on the part of Christ and the apostles, had left wanting— an oversight which was indeed doubly culpable, secing that the doctrine which it overlooked was one so essential to salvation. For we read.of it in the Athanasian Creed that whosoever will be saved must hold it, before all things, and if he do not believe it faithfully, and keep it whole and undefiled, he without doubt shall perish everlastingly ! —I am again compelled to exclaim, what a most culpable, and inexcusable, oversight on the part of Christ and his apostles ! We saw that the inferential arguments to which our attention was directed were based upon unsound premises —premises which we saw were radically rotten, and could sustain nothing; much less a thing of such ponderous magnitude as the doctrine of the Trinity. We glanced also at the Trinitarian’s scheme of redemp- tion, on which he builds so much of his faith. We saw that that scheme was not only unscriptural, but was, also, pre-eminently God-dishonouring. We saw that it dis- honoured God by representing him not as the sinner’s friend, but as his avenging enemy !—by representing him not as loving the world, but as having the sword of divine wrath uplifted to destroy the world! It represented Christ as the real sinner’s friend—as rushing to his aid and reseus ing him from “ God’s revenging wrath” --to use the ipsissima CONCLUSION, 297 verba of the Westminster confession. It exhorted the sinner to flee to Christ and to trust in Christ, although Christ him- self taught all to flee to God, and trust in God. It said to the smner, “If Christ be for you, who can be against you ?” whereas the apostle’s doctrine was, “If God be for you, who ean be against you?” It taught the sinner to look to Christ for all things, whereas the apostle’s doctrine was “that we should look to God for all things.” “Ile that spared net his own Son,” said Paul, “but delivered him up to the death for us all, how shall he not, with him, also, freely give us all things??? | We had our attention, also, directed to the doctrine of “ Particular Redemption.” We glanced at the fatal ten- dency of that doctrine, and saw its uncharitableness, and its unscripturality. We were shown, that its natural ten- dency was to prevent men from coming unto God that they might have life—that its natural tendency was to neutralize the word of reconciliation, which God had committed to Christ and his apostles—that its tendency was, in fact, to render abortive the whole purpose, for which Christ lived and died, and for which he rose from the dead. In the next stage of our progress we had demonstrated to us, that “Trinity is the mark of the beast and the num- ber of his name.’’—the beast, referred to, being shown to represent the papal power—that imperial-ccclesiastical or church-and-state power established in Rome—and we were shown that this “mark of the beast’? was adopted by a certain other beast, which caused all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive it either in their right hands, or in their foreheads: which other beast was shown to re- present the church-and-state establishments which rose out Q2 228 CONCLUSION. of the Reformation. We had pointed out to us that “Trinity” was the distinguishing mark of all these powers —i. e., of the papal power, and the church-and-state powers of the Reformation, and that the latter especially made a ereat “shibboleth” of it. We were shown that all these powers were powers of the kingdom of this world—powers in which the dragon, the god of this world, held the reins of government. We were shown that these several establish- ments, together, made up and constituted the Great Gentile Apostasy: that they were all constituent parts of Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and abominations. We were shown that the Reformation church-and-state establish- ments were not, in reality, injurious to the interests of papal Rome; but, on the contrary, tended, rather, to se- cure her stability, and to perpetuate her dark dominion over the minds of men. We might pause, here, to illustrate this still further.— Should the Roman Catholic become dissatisfied with the idolatry, and tyranny, of his church, whither shall he fly? He can discern scarcely a shadow of difference be- tween his own church and the protestant establishments. If there be a shadow of difference, it consists, mainly, im a few contemptible sophisms about transubstantiation, and consubstantiation, and such hke; and the poor Roman Catholic knows as little about the difference between tran- substantiation and consubstantiation, as any body else does. He knows this, however, that the dragon spirit and power is as rampant in the protestant establishments, however it may be disguised, as it is in his own. He, also, knows that they have clutched the hoard of the unrighteous mammon, which belonged, orignally, to his own church; and he has CONCLUSION, 229 found out, by bitter experience, that if he has got any property, they will take it from him to pay their “ clerical dues ;? and, if he has no property, they will for the same purpose, and under the same pious pretext, cast his body to languish and sicken in prison—to pay themselves, for- sooth, for taking care of his soul! He finds also that the protestant establishments can hurl eternal damnation in defence of their outworks, with as liberal a hand as his own has done. In fact, when he comes to examine them closely, he finds it difficult to discover any substantial difference between the protestant established churches and his own, notwithstanding all the lamb-like exterior they have assumed. He is therefore constrained, rather than content, to abide in his own church. He sees little inducement to lead him to sacrifice friendships and aname, by throwing off the oppression of his own task- masters, under which he groans, but from which he sees no way of escape, that is pregnant with much hope of im- proving the circumstances of his case. We saw, in fact, that all church-and-state establishments, however protestant or however papal, were but counterparts of each other: that the same spirit ruled in all—that the same base means of advancing their interests were had re- course to by all, when necessity required, or opportunity served—that all, alike, had forsaken the things which per- tained to the kingdom of heaven, that they might glut themselves with the things which were of the world—that all, alike, had betrayed and sold their master for so many pieces of silver—that all, alike, were the subjects of God’s denunciation and wrath ! 230 CONCLUSION. Such is a brief review of the more prominent points of my several arguments. I feel, however, that, in what I have written, I have but opened up the Trinitarian question.—I feel that it would require the labour of a life to do justice to the evidences against the doctrine of the Trimity, which sprmg up from every quarter, before and around him who enters, with his eyes open, upon the investigation of the subject. From whatever point of view we contemplate the doc- trine, it stands, unmitigatedly, condemned— Do we throw the lght of history upon it ?—How its baseless pretensions to antiquity are exposed ! Do we throw the lhght of Scripture upon it ?—How its idolatry, and blasphemy—how its deep, and dark, anti- Christianity are exposed ! It sets at nought the first and greatest commandment of God.—It sets at nought the second greatest commandment of God, namely, “ Thou shalt not worship the likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath.”’—It sets at nought all the denunciations of God, against those who worship any other than himself.—It sets at nought all that Jehovah hath written, in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Christ.—It sets at nought Christ himself.—It makes him a har—It makes him an impostor—It makes his life but a player’s part—It makes his death a magnificent cheat— it makes his resurrection but a stage spectacle—It unfrocks the apostles—It robs the ordimances of religion of their essentials.—It reduces baptism to an empty nothine—lIt makes the Lord’s Supper a witless feast—It blots out the atonement — It blots out the gospel— It blots out the | : | CONCLUSION. 231 Bible—Yes: is the doctrine of the Trinity the doctrine of Heaven ?—then my Bible, over whose pages I have pored vith such transports of delight—then my much loved my much cherished Bible is no longer “ THE” Bible—is no longer “ The Book” of the God of Heaven! Have I, in all that I have done, been merely beating the air? Will Trinitarians still hug to them their favourite creeds and confessions, and endeavour to soothe their startled consciences by raising the cry of heresy?—or will they come, even at the eleventh hour, and open their eyes to those truths which I have brought before them? How often have I heard protestant Trinitarians call upon Roman Catholics, to exercise the reason and common sense which the God of Heaven had given them, and for the right ex- ercise of which he would hold them accountable, in judging of the blasphemous idolatries, and impositions, of papal Rome! I do hope, and trust, and pray, that protestant Trinitarians may now, themselves, exercise these heavenly eifts, which, if exercised, will open their eyes to the fatal extent, to which they themselves are partakers of Rome’s idolatries and blasphemies. I have discharged my duty both to them, and to Roman Catholics. I am, henceforth, clear in this matter. I have relieved my own soul, from the weighty responsibility, under which God had placed me. In the intervals of toil, in an arduous profession, I have laboured to place before Trinitarians, such arguments and facts, against the great apostate doctrine of the Trinity, as should bring conviction to the mind of every man, who is not pre-determined to be an infidel. Will Trinitarians hear, or will they ferbear?—The great original Trinitarians, the Roman Catholics, and the modern 232 CONCLUSION, Trinitarians, amongst protestants—I appeal to both-—will they hear, or will they forbear? About that which is their duty, there can be no question. Their duty is to follow the example of the Bereans of old, and search the Scrip- tures, to see whether the things which I have written are so. Do they fear God and tremble at his word ?—they must feel this to be their duty. Let them do this, and they shall not be far from the kingdom of Heayen. But, let them shut their cars to the truth, let them harden themselves against conviction, let them be stiffnecked and rebellious, and they shall be !......1 shudder to pronounce their fate. No!—there is no man whose mind is not diabolized, who will not hasten to the oracles of God and ask—are these things so? ‘There is no man who is not prepared, in his heart, to curse God and die, who will not prostrate himself before high heaven, and, in an agony, ask whether he has been an idolater ? Let the Roman Catholic come, let the protestant come, aye! let the infidel come, and ask, are these things so ? Let their sleep go from them, till they have come.—Let not all the powers -of hell restrain them, till they have come.— Let them cling to the chariot wheels of Jehovah; and ask him, has he, indeed, spoken the truth ? How God encourages them to come! How the holy apostles, and prophets, encourage them to come! How Christ, himself, encourages them to come!—How Satan encourages them to stay away! How an apostate church encourages them to stay away! Ilow she threatens then— how she curses them—how she tortures them-—how she slays them—how she burns their bibles—to make them stay away !—But, let them up, and quit themselves ike men !-~ CONCLUSION. pate quit themselves like Christians !-—-quit themselves like sons of God! Let them up! and, if she still resist, let them eat her flesh and burn her with fire! They have themselves to save—they have God to glorify -~-they have Christ’s honour to vindicate--they have to clear him, from the crime of being a liar--they have to free him, from the charge of being an impostor--they have to magnify the bitter agony of his death, and sanctify his bloody sweat—and they have to call a perishing world from death unto life, by the electric mtelligence of his resur- rection They have to restore their exaltation to the apostles.—They have to baptize the world with life from the dead.—They have to bring all the ends of the earth, to the marriage supper of the lamb.—They have to blot out the sentence of death against a world.—They have to pro- claim the gospel to the four winds of heaven, and to all over whom they shall blow.—They have to upraise the bible from the dust of death—And they have to go forth, in the spirit and power of lijah, to sweep idolatry, and blas- phemy, from the land. Let them up!—The purposes of God are m abeyance till they do this.— The evangelization of the world tarries till they do this— the conversion of the Jews tarries till they do this—the coming of Christ’s kingdom tarries till they do this— The evangelization of the world tarries. The gospel of God is not preached. The Trinitarian creed, and the Trinitarian scheme of redemption, are, both, dishonouring to God; and God will never bless that which is dishonouring to himself, however zealously it may be put forth. ‘There is much of Christian zeal, blessed be God, in the community ; hut, because of these things, it is unhappily exerted in vain, 234 CONCLUSION. Christian men are making noble exertions for the conversion of the heathen, at home and abroad; they are making great sacrifices, they are lavishing their money and their means on the work; they are fasting and praying; they are, as it were, cutting and wounding themselves—but, there is no. response from heaven, there is little fruit of their work. The three years and a half of drought, in the days of Elijah, were expressly typical of our present period. ‘Those three years and a half were exactly typical, of the period of the Gentile apostasy. The apostasy was to continue twelve hundred and sixty years. Three and a half Jewish years. make up, exactly, twelve hundred and sixty days; and taking the prophetic rule of interpretation, a day for a year, we have an exact type, as to time, of the period of the apostasy. During those three years and a half of drought, there was neither dew, nor rain, over the whole land of Isracl. The heavens were as brass, and there was sore dearth and famine in the land. Even so, is it now, with Christendom. The heavens are as brass over it, and have been so—There has been neither the rain, nor the dew, of God’s spirit shed abroad upon it.— Missionary efforts have been comparatively fruitless—Meun with apostolic spirits, have laboured in vain, and spent their strength for nought— There has been no fruit of their work. There has been a sore dearth of holiness, and fervent piety towards God, and there has been a sore famine of the word of God. Instead thereof, we have been fed upon blasphemous missals, and idolatrous creeds, and God-dishonourmg confessions. But, further, the dew and the rain did not come on the land of Israel, till the people slew the priests of Baal, and destroyed his idols out of the land; and, then, God sent CONCLUSION. 235 them rain in rich abundance, and fruitful seasons. Even so shall it be now. The heavens shall continue as brass over Christendom, there shall be neither the dew, nor the rain, of God’s spirit, shed abroad upon it; till the people abolish idolatry out of the land; till idolatrous creeds and confes- sions, and idolatrous missals and liturgies, be slain and destroyed. I shall not say till idolatrous priests be slain and destroyed! No: God forbid that that should ever happen. Nay, I hope, and flatter myself, that the priests themselves shall be in the first rank, with their people, m bringing together all the idolatrous abominations of the land, and offermg them up as a “ holocaust” to the long outraged, and insulted, majesty of heaven. But further still, although the people of Israel were, at this time, nominally, worshippers of Baal, yet God had “seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal.”—JIn like manner, there are those now, who are nomi- nally Trinitarians, but who in the eye of the omniscient Jehovah, who knoweth the hearts of all men, are those, whom he shall reckon to be his, in the day m which he makes up his jewels. There are multitudes, who remain, nominally, attached to Trinitarianism, because they really don’t know what Trinitarianism is. The hes, which their ereeds speak in hypocrisy, have deccived them. But I must say—I dare not keep it back—I must say, that they, whose business it is to expound those creeds to the people, should look well to themselves, and see, whether they are guiltless. They, more than all others, are bound to be up and doing, and asking themselves, are these thing so ? But there is one thing, more than all which tarries till Trinitarianism be abolished, and that is the conversion 236 CONCLUSION. of the Jews. Not until this is done shall the Jews be brought in. Ah! what those outcast people have endured at the hands of the apostasy! Well may they sigh for the time when God shall reward her, even as she rewarded them. ‘The Christian world being brought to its right mind, upon the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity, is the first thing that will lead to the conversion of the Jews. The Jews are to this day God’s witnesses to the “unity” of Jehovah; and God longs to be gracious to them. When the Gentiles shall be clothed, and in their right mind, learning at the feet of Jesus, then shall they bring with them their brethren of the Jews, to be taught the way of God more perfectly: and then shall the Jews believe them, when they say, “Come with us, and we will do you good.” In that day the Jews shall be a willing people! But it is in vain, that any attempt is made to convert the Jew to Christianity, so long as you ask him to worship a Trinity. The whole genius of his religion is so opposed to idolatry, and he has taken such a firm grasp of that first, and greatest, of all truths—the unity of God—that he could sooner part with his identity, than become a Christian on such terms. ‘The Jew shall rise in the judg- ment against an apostate Christianity, and shall condemn it ! Tn all his wanderings—in all his sufferings—in all the relentless persecutions to which he has been subjected by the mmisters and abettors of an apostate Christianity— he has still kept himself from idols. It is in vain, to attempt to prove to the Jew, that any of the promises of God were fulfilled in “the second person of the Trinity.’’ The Jew has studied his Bible, too well, to be deceived. He knows, full well, that not one of the promises of God es - eChUhC ee gre CONCLUSION. 937 respecting the Messiah, could have been fulfilled in the person of “God the Son;” and he reverences his Bible, too highly, to yicld to the seductions of the apostasy, even when pressed upon him by the lamb-like, and gospel- speaking, means of fire and sword. Let Trinitarians, even now, at the eleventh hour, forsake their idolatries; let them, even now, approach the Jew with clean hands, and let them bring forth their idolatrous creeds, and slay them before him; and they shall find that the bringing in of the Jews shall be, to themselves, as life from the dead: for the Jews are yet beloved for the Fathers’ sakes. The coming of Christ’s kingdom tarrics, because of Tri- nitarianism. Christ’s kingdom tarries till the Jews be brought in, till the Jews shall be prepared to look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn; and I have shown that the conversion of the Jews tarries, because of Trini- tarianism. Christ’s kingdom tarries till the heathen be brought in—he shall have the heathen for an heritage— and I have shown how the evangelization of the heathen tarrics, because of Trinitarianism. Christ’s kingdom tarries, till God’s two witnesses (the Scriptures), shall be caught up to God and to his throne; and this event, I have heretofore shown, tarries because of Trinitarianism. Moreover, let me here observe that the doctrine of the Trinity is altogether incompatible with the doctrine that Christ shall return to reign on the earth. The two doc- trines I know are, -professedly, held by some. Yes: the doctrine of Christ’s millennial reign in Jerusalem has been ably, and eloquently, advocated by many great men: It is held by great men in our own day: “THE GooD TIME 238 CONCLUSION: THATS COMING” is, by them, looked forward to with joyous anticipations; but I am utterly at a loss, to understand, how they can, at the same time, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. When Christ, in his own person, with his own human body, sits on the throne of Jerusalem, what will then, have become of the doctrine of the Trinity ?—It shall have vanished like the early cloud or the morning dew. We are more easily and quickly instructed by the eye, than by any of the other senses, and we will need, but to look upon our Great King in Jerusalem, to lament over the sad fact that the world was, for so long a period, in ignorance of his real character and true glory. Christ, in Jerusalem, shall dispel the Trinitarian delusion, if any shall then remain, as light dispels the darkness. The sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven shall dispel the delusion; and men will wonder at their former in- fatuation! When Christ sits upon his throne in Jerusalem, and the twelve apostles sit with him, on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Isracl, what will become of Trinitarianism ? There is one of the commandments of God—if not the greatest not the least—which I would invoke Trinitarians to bind over the mark of the apostasy, which they have so long borne upon their foreheads; and which I would invoke them to think of, “when they sit by the fire and walk by the way, lying down and rising up,” and it is this— “Thou shalt not worship the likeness of anything in the heaven above or in the earth bencath.” Let them think of this—God’s solemn commandment—the solemn command- ment of that God “which changeth not.” Let them think of this, and then lcok on Christ sitting with his apestles on CONCLUSION. 239 his throne; and Ict them, then, ask themselves what be- comes of their Trinitarianism? Need I say more? If more be necessary—IJ need not say more.—He THaT WILL NEITHER BELIEVE GoD, NOR MEN, IS BEYOND THE REACH OF CONVICTION ! Finally, let me address a few brief words to Trinitarians, upon the signs of the present times; and let me once for all invoke them to come out of that great Babylon, the embiem of whose apostasy they have, so long, borne upon their foreheads. The present is an eventful period of the church’s history— an eventful period of the world’s history. The signs of the times indicate that momentous changes are approaching. Every new event goes to indicate, that the days of the great Gentile apostasy are drawing toa close. Babylon the Great is coming into remembrance before God—she is now being lifted up, on high, to the gaze of the nations, “ that as a great millstone she may be cast down for ever.” Men are anxiously lookimmg for some new thing; and the hearts of the timid are failmg them for fear. Who that casts an intelligent eye, over the scenes which have been enacted on the Continent of Europe, during the last few years, and contemplates very recent events nearer home, does not feel that we are, but at the begining of the end? Into what bold relief has the apostate church of late years been brought! How she has been, upon the continent, marked out as the subject of the people’s wrath! It would require the eloquence of a Gavazzi to do justice to this theme. How the apostasy has been rendered more to be abhorred amongst ourselves !—first of all by the Puseyite movement in England,—then by the exposure of the 24.0 CONCLUSION. genuine dragon character of the principles of the presby- terian established church in Scotland, which was evoked by the Free Church movement; and still more recently by the late act of papal aggression, as it has been called— Aggression, forsooth! upon the church of England !—It is rather amusing, yea it is very rich, to hear the church of England complaining of the movement of the Pope, when, even in its worst shape, it does not approach to being one- tenth as bad, as what she herself is, every day, enacting against those who dissent from her, in her own land. She tramples riotously upon the religious liberties of her own fellow subjects, and inflicts a standing injustice upon them, compared with which the aggression of the Pope is the merest bagatelle. The papal affair, however, served to bring, into more prominent relief, what is the real, intrinsic, character of a church-and-state establishment. While Rome was pouring her missionary priests into our midst, and was proselytizing the good protestants of our land—while her proselytizing work was being carried even into our Universities, and she was drawing away many of our right-trusty watchmen upon the walls of Zion, into the multiplied idolatries and super- stitions of Romanism—our good mother-church was quite unmoved—she slumbered in peace—the literal fact being, indeed, that she had very little, if anything, of which to complain. But, the moment papal Rome made a movement that threatened to invade the worldly interests of our good mother-church — the moment anything was done that threatened, eventually, to disturb her in the quiet pos- session and enjoyment of the good things of this world, for which she had sold herself to Satan—the moment the CONCLUSION. 241 stability of her bishopricks, and her arch-bishopricks, was menaced—then the dear old lady was wide-awake !—then what a hubbub!— But I must drop this subject: it is drawing me away from my argument. What I have said, however, tends to show that with a church-and-state estab- lishment the “cure” of the things of this world, is more jealously watched after, than the “ cure” of souls. What I was, before this digression, going to observe, was this—that the events of recent years have brought the apostasy into more open antagonism with the public mind, i. e., with the will of the people. On the continent the popular mind has, invariably, been against the tyrannical and illiberal spirit of the apostasy. The crowds of Italian refugees who fill our streets attest this fact. The philippics of Gavazzi bear witness to it. Amongst ourselves, the voice of the people has, always, been against the Puseyite movement. The mind of the people was with the Free church party in Scotland, and against the establishment. And there was no man whose feelings were not diabolized, by the dragon spirit of the apostasy, who was not nause- ated, by the persecutions carried out against the devoted followers of the Free church party, at the instance of the establishment. How blasphemous it is, in such an establish- ment, to call itself a church of the living God! Did it breathe the spirit of the living God on the occasions to which I have referred ?—Outraged Scotland thunders in my ears: No.—It was the spirit of the dragon, the spirit of that old serpent the devil and satan! The prominent manner, in which God has thus been bringing the apostasy into antagonism with the general mind of the nations, serves to teach me, that the time is R 242 CONCLUSION. at hand, when “great Babylon shall come into remembrance before God, to be rewarded according to her works’—that the time is at hand, when that which is foretold, in the latter part of the seventeenth chapter of the book of Revela- tion, shall be fulfilled. At the fifteenth verse of that chapter, we read, “the waters where the whore [the apos- tate church] sitteth are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues; and the ten horns, which thou sawest upon the beast [the horns are the powers of the nations], these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.’—I BeLieve THE TIME IS NOT FAR DISTANT WHEN ALL THIS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED. What then is the duty of Trinitarians in this crisis? Their duty is to save themselves—to save themselves, by fleemg out of this Babylon. God, from heaven, is sounding in their ears, “Come out of her that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues.” It is the duty of Trinitarians to come out of her, and cast her idolatries to the moles and to the bats. It is their duty— it is their life !—to rid themselves of every thing that pertains to her: and, first and before all, to wash them- selves clear, once and for ever, of her idolatrous mark and number. Let them do this, and hasten the evangelization of the heathen.—Let them do this, and hasten the conversion of the Jew.—Let them do this, and hasten the coming of Christ’s kingdom.—Let them do this, and save themselves.— Let them flee from this mighty Babylon, and tarry not, neither look back.— For her plagues shall come in one day, death and mourning, and famine, and she shall be utterly CONCLUSION. 243 burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.’”—“ And the kings of the earth shall stand afar off, for fear of her torment. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her, saying, Alas, Alas! that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and SCARLET, and was decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls; for in one hour, so great riches is come to nought.”—Then shall come forth a voice from the throne of the eternal, saying, “ Rejoice over her thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her”—for—“ In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that [for conscience sake] were slain upon the earth.” These are the things which my conscience dictated to me I ought to say to the Trinitarian world—May God give them grace to pause and ponder on what I have written. THE END. ERRATA. Page 8, 6th line from foot, for ‘‘ apostacy,” read ‘‘ apostasy.” Page 59, 3rd line from foot, for ‘ analysed,” read “* analyzed.” Page 105, 9th line from top, for ‘‘ the midst,” read “ their midst.” — Page 123, 8th and 10th lines from foot, for “ statute” read “ stature.” heological 1 1012 010 2 0179 eT 7 ‘a wi a i, y ta ; ae nt ) pe : Bf rT egy ce al ee i r. ; a ) Pe oat) a ij ny. CAD 4 bad ol ") ¥! ; ray ; ; Gil LAW : fl er) a a 7 ; ) t Vay. | fa ted pt ky ANT Ne eiien ie if Mv aac |e EN pen j ‘ Ht ponte AY Dir fae Ue beara air? SC ee ih is ey evan AeA 7 RA: CRA ee ete ial at Be a ‘ I 0 Vy Ay yi H 6 1 ree RET | » de “wy A ep ; fi r _ ma WALEWs 740 Die 1 » i it, j } i 4 Py. Lab caee, aa Wy Wt Ns Poa Py vy ‘" va ud 5 mr : ; i , rat ihe Vee rye) hiv’ NLL yA Rae i cv ; Oy, i% te i, Vii het ; Re Bas te *) 5 : ui ' { ' rarer - My i cee he s tw he ‘ ‘ ‘ > i fh es, ‘ i ‘e F i 1 oe a rir ay yy ey =) AA y f i Pa q \, y ' mt Paes EAA y Fi Chee ‘ Nive aes a bl ahoutr ak, Fs ; . : vio Kh? ‘ is Ve ih, ha Ny: tye iG yah ne oes ; ae oe ie aa aman sas . ae ce ‘ eet enatis ae a i wh ah alntiegh “aie oe an ovine tatiti seh oat i . Ait i vie ieee i ee i a it Wats: it st uaa ae ra | te sare spies cies od arr Sart axaies tts. Foe as ee ae a Ted eho bah Weta) et Hea ent fa ins ae “their's Fr iets ie SRNRRRT oo Hi sent t oe is ih as ids Aeon a or srlht etal a Hn 1 S we cass es = case a oAS ri ey S . ane ¢ tye sat ae cay seh: if 7 ite ne ist Seite i hy ae ay mit ae aes - ee _ Raa Dn mm ae 2 i ieinir ees wiaiit fi bY oS foe a ae i Nee Eat fe ieiel thei eh PE ‘rie Spiele have ats 0 ines fe 7 ue ndhis i tt it : ee Ae a aap ee oa 3 int eee ele aay & =—s 7 + dp tsteereees aoe Se eee = a ey i i oe ane: iy i sa Ht mai Hae 8 ai ie we Pathe ti tyne el rahe (ite ies ars