FAMILIAR LECTURES, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, AND OTHER SUBJECTS, DELIVERED AT THE UNITARIAN CHAPEL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET, IPSWICH, / BY T. F/'^THOMAS. IPSWICH: PRINTED AND SOLD RY R. ROOT, AND MAY BE HAD OF MARDON, FAR- RINGDON street; SMALLFIELD, NEWGATE STREET, AND J. GREEN, NEWGATE STREET, LONDON ; LODER, WOODBRIDGE, AND OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 18:38. INTRODUCTION. It ought not to be withheld from the pubUc, that the following Lectures, which are published at the request not only of the author's much esteemed congregation, but also at that of many respectable friends, not members of the Unitarian society, were prepared in the ordinary course of his minis- try, and without 'the remotest view to their ap- pearing in print. The object in delivering these Lectures was, not to draw invidious comparisons between opposite religious opinions entertained in Christian truth, neither to undervalue the success of any portion of the Christian ministry of other denominations ; but owing to circumstances which had transpired in the society previous to his ap- pointment as its pastor, he felt it to be a duty he owed to himself, and to his Christian brethren, who lived in the same hope of the gospel, to exa- mine again with all care and attention, the Unita- rian grounds of Christian doctrines. Those who are acquainted with Unitarian writers, will find little that is new in the following Lectures, which contain only a plain statement of some of the evi- dences for the sole Deity of the Father, and right "\iews of his paternal government, by Jesus Christ, over the whole human race. To state these im- portant truths in so familiar a manner as to be level to the humblest capacity, has been the author's most anxious desire ; and so far as he is indebted to previous writers on the sub- jects of which these pages treat, so far is he anxi- ous to acknowledge his obligations; but he begs also to state, in extenuation of the errors and defects w^hich occur in the work, that the Lec- tures were composed on the urgency of the moment, and that he has not been enabled to bestow upon them that careful revision which he is satisfied they required. Controversy is to many pious Christians, dis- agreeable ; but its utility cannot be disputed, if, when conducted in the spirit of forbearance and love, it is found to promote the truth of Christi- anity, by unfolding its application to the circum- stances of our state and nature. With this \iew of the nature of controversy, the author sincerely trusts, that in his humble effort to uphold what appears to him to be the truth, that nothing will be found to have escaped him, even in expression, as intolerant, or calculated to give offence to any sincere friend of Christian truth, and free enquiry. To him, study and investigation appear to be the appointed means for acquiring knowledge in any vu department of the works of God, and that there is no other mode by which an acquaintance can be attained of God's holy word. The author is aware of the solemnity and im- portance of the subjects he has undertaken to dis- cuss ; and although his sentiments thereon may not be in unison with the general views of the en- quiring community — although much learning and piety may be arrayed against his positions, yet he still hopes that what he has advanced will be calmly and dispassionately weighed by the teach- ings of the law and the gospel, and be received, so far as their contents can be fully borne out and justified, by sacred counsel. The author seeks not to proselytize opinion, but the heart and the affections — to win souls to Christ by the exercise of unbiassed judgement, honest conviction, the spirit of truth, of filial obedience and love. He has no sectarian objects to serve, but the sacred cause of his ascended master ; the interests of Christian piety and prac- tical godliness, in life, conversation, and social compact ; and whilst he fervently prays for the blessing of God, upon this his humble effort to serve the cause of truth and righteousness, he also devoutly implores the Divine blessing upon all classes of his fellow Christians, engaged in pursuit of the same great end, IpsAvicH, 1838. C C) N T E N T S . Lecture I. Page. On the Trinity 1 Lecture II. On the Person of Christ . . . . . 1^ Lecture III. On Original Sin ....... 39 Lecture IV. On the Atonement ...... ol Lecture V. On Predestinatimi . . . . . . 74 Lecture VI. Satanic Injiuence ....... 92 Lecture VIL On the Eternity of Future Punishment . . 114 Lecture VIII. On the Mediatorial Office of Christ . . .136 Lecture IX. The Neiv Creation . . . . . .150 Lecture X. The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Fulfilment of Prophecy , . . , . . IGl Lecture XI. On Christian Redemption . . . . .172 Lecture Xll. The Nature and Tendency of the Christian Relif/ion . . . . . . . 1H(> LECTURE I. ON THE TRINITY. 1 Cor. via. 6. BUT TO us THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE IN HIM ; AND ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM. The great Apostle of the Gentiles exhorts Christians to ** prove all things," on which the illustrious Milton thus des- cants, Saint Paul judged that not only to tolerate, but to examine and prove all things, was no danger to our holding fast, that which is good. How shall we prove all things, which includes all opinions at least founded on Scripture, un- less we not only tolerate them, but patiently hear them and seriously read them? *' Religion is a reasonable service;" ** Come now let us ?-easo7i together saith the Lord;" is the very language in which the evangelical prophet admonished Israel. To those reasoning powers, with which we are endued, does the Almighty refer in Ezekiel 18c. 25v. " Hear now O house of Israel, is not my way equal ? are not your ways unequal ?" Our blessed Saviour himself, also appeals to the discrimination of his hearers; judge not ac- cording to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement "yea and why even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right" — nay as Christians we are commanded to exercise free enquiry in matters of religion ; " search the scriptures, for in them ye think that ye have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me," saith Jesus. The primitive Christians were required to give " a reason of their hope," which they did in a manner that honoured their religion, but in these 2 modem times, we are called upon to lay reason aside in the solemn concerns of the soul, with a view we presume to per- petuate a7iy doctrine of the human brain, however absurd. Not my fellow Christians to judge for ourselves, in matters of religion, is to deny our accountability to our Maker, since we can not be answerable for opinions not our own, and surely they who take from us this responsibility, will not engage to answer for us at the bar of God — or if they were rash enough to do this, we are not so weak as to trust them, because we are satisfied tliat every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. Kom. 14c. 12v. It is somewhat surprising, that in the present day there should be found any persons bold enough to affirm that Re- velation, supersedes the necessity of reason, "that we have nothing to do with the word of God, but to believe and obey it;" surely man without reason, cannot ascertain either the nature or the worth of religion, and it cannot be more absurd to prohibit the use of reason in matters of religion, than it would be to demand of us to shut our eyes to enjoy the light of day and the beauties of creation. Reason is a talent given to us by a merciful Parent, not to be thrown aside as useless, but to be exercised and improved. Away then with the folly of rejecting reason in matters of religion. To offer any argument, that reason should be so rejected, would be to reason against the use of reason. But it is affirmed, that the Scriptures contain doctrines which are above reason — to which we reply, that, that doctrine which is above reason, can form no part of divine Revalation, this word Revelation, applying to things which are made known, and may be comprehended. It is surely unnecessary to observe that there are many things, far above human comprehension ; but they relate not to those gracious terms of the Gospel, on the knowledge and reception of which depend our final happiness — whatever is necessary to salvation, is so plainly revealed, that the way-fairing man 3 may run and read it. Reason and Revelation being gifts of the same infinitely wise God, it is impossible they can clash with each other, — coming from the same eternal source of light, and sent, to promote man's moral perfection, his present and final happiness, each must be of equal value, in the sight of God, and in perfect accordance one with the other. Let us not be deterred from the free exercise of reason on religious subjects, for by this can we hope to carry forward the work of reformation, to remove error and superstition from the earth, and to send abroad the pure and holy light of the Gospel, into every benighted mind. Our present enquiry into the popular doctrine of the Trinity — to ascertain its reasonable and scriptural grounds, cannot be deemed either unimportant or impertinent by the lovers of truth. To compare the doctrines received by the majori- ty of Christians as true, with those which are taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, is surely the bounden duty of every well-wisher to the cause of rational religion. This is the object of our present enquiry into the following hypothesis. That there is but one God, consisting of three divine per- sons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, each having his own mind, consciousness, and will — each sustaining different offi- ces in the work of redemption, and that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that these three Gods with separate minds, consciousness, will, and offi- ces are but one only God. This is the Trinitarian view of the Deity. On the other hand the Unitarians maintain that God is strictly one being, one intelligent agent, that agent which created and continues to sustain all worlds. It is somewhat singular that both parties appeal tothe Old and New Testaments for support of their opposite sentiments. But the Unitarian appears to have a decided advantage over his religious opponents by being enabled to express his faith in the very language of Scripture, whilst the terms necessary to express the Trinitarian hypothesis, are not to be found in the 4 Bible. It is worthy of observation that the terms Trinity, Triune, Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity are.no where to be found in Scripture. The expressions, 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person, three persons and one God are not in the Scriptures, neither is the expression God the Son but always Son of God. Neither in the Scriptures are we able to find the phrase, God the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. Hence as Unitarians we consider the omission of Trinitarian phraseology in the Bible, affords a strong presumptive argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity itself, and if the Scriptures do not expressly state it, we ask, are Christians justified in making a doctrine of inference, the terms of Salvation ? If the sacred writings no where state this doctrine, it follows that it is unscriptural, and not divine. Is it reason- able and just to suppose that the Deity requires his children to regard and worship him as a Triune Deity, as three in one, and no where in his written word, teach the Doctrine? If the word of God no where points out to man a Trinity of per- sons in the godhead — if that word no v/here clearly and unre- servedly declares the Trinity of God's nature by Jesus Christ as distinctly as he has declared his self-existence and immor- tality by the word Jehovah, made known to the Israelites by ilfbses, are any personsjustified in maintaining the doctrine of the Trinity as a scriptural doctrine? Is it not also worthy of re- mark that every expression that can designate the oneness of God, the unity of the divine nature — is employed in Scripture while not one term can be found therein declaring: God's Trinity in unity or his unity in Trinity. But probably some may be willing to believe in the Trinity as a doctrine of de- duction, and we say as Unitarians, you have aright to do so, but do not condemn us to eternal woe, because we cannot de- duce the same doctrine from the scriptures? Before we as- sent to any doctrine as scriptural, we have a right to demand that that doctrine be clearly and distinctly stated in scrip- tural language. When the sacred Scriptures declare repeat- edly that God is one, which Trinitarians profess to hold as well as ourselves, we have a right to sec that they as re- 5 peatedly and clearly declare that he is also three, before we be- lieve it ; up such evidence of God's nature and essence has as yet been produced. But we will appeal to the sacred Scriptures, and let them decide between the Unitarian and Trinitarian professor. The passages usually adduced as the strongest proof of the Trinity, among which we cannot seri- ously admit the words of John, 1st epistle, 5c. 7v. "There are three" &c., because it is now admitted by competent judges of all religious parties, to form no part of sacred writ. Those who have made this confession, are amongst the most eminent divines who have ever adorned this or any other country, viz. Erasmus, Luther, Bentley, Sir 1. Newton, Waterland, Clarke, Jortin, Porson, Priestly, and many others. But ad- mitting the words of John to be true, they afford no argu- ment for the Trinity — where do we read in the passage about three persons and one God. It is said these three are one, which language is explained by the following verse, these three agree in one, i. e., united in their testimony; observe, testimony is the thing spoken of, and not the substance or essence of Deity. In a similar sense Jesus Christ prayed to the Father, that he and his Disciples might be one, even as he and the Father were one. — John 17c. 22 v. Again, " t and my Father are one," surely not one in essence, but of one mind, of one consent, mutually co-operating with each other for the salvation and final happiness of mankind, and in this sense alone could the Disciples and Christ be one. In the sense in which Paul meant when he said in 1 Cor. 3c. 8v. '* He him- self who planted and Apollos who watered were one." But the passage most commonly quoted to support the Trinity is the form of baptism. Matt. 28c. 19v., "Baptising them into the name of," &:c. Now I ask, can the popular notions of the Trinity be fairly deduced from this passage ! Does it assert that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three per- sons united in the Godhead ? No ! Does it say they are all equal ? No ! Does it affirm that each of these are to be wor- shipped in Unity ? No such thing ; then where is the doc- trine in question to be found here ? If the Son and Spirit being 6 united in the baptismal form with the Father, makes each God, as some assert, then the passage teaches that there are three Gods, but not a word is to be found therein about a Trinity in Unity or Unity in Trinity. If the passage proves no- thing for the Trinitarian, it is as favourable to the Unita- rian as to the Trinitarian. The next passage adduced as evidence of the doctrine in question, is that found in 2 Cor. 13c. 14v. ; The apostolic benediction " The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be," &c. Where in this language do we read of three persons and one God, of one in three and three in one? Besides, the passage does not at all accord with the mode in which Trinitarians express their doctrine. It does not speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but of Jesus Christ and God, and the Holy Spirit. It is the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. How different is this to the Trinitarian form of benediction, which reads, " the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be with you all." It appears evident from the manner in which the Apostle makes mention of the Holy Spirit in the benediction, that he did not believe it to be a person ; the communion of the Holy Spirit, implies the constant enjoyment of holy and pious thoughts and feelings, — therefore, so far from this text, affording an ar^ gument in favour of the personality, of the Holy Ghost, it militates directly against it, for it would be absolutely unintelligible to say that a person can be communicated, — Can a person be communicated ? — Can a person be divided ? — When a child is said to possess the spirit of its father, does the child become possessed of the father's person ? — Thus in three passages adduced as the strongest evidence of the Trinity, the doctrine is neither asserted nor taught, even by implication. In these three passages, altho they contain the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet we ask, do they assert that each is a separate deity, and yet all three make but one God? — It appears impossible, that any mind which had never been prejudiced in favour of creeds and catechisms, 7 could deduce either the Athanasian, Nicene, or Apostle's Creed, from the New Testament ; observe that I have not yet disposed of the baptismal form, not that it is essential to our argument, for were we obliged to confess that we could not understand its precise meaning, this would not in the least degree affect the doctrine of the Divine Unity. The passage cannot afford the smallest evidence in favour of Trinitarianism, for not a word does it say about three persons in one God, and this omission is quite enough to satisfy the Unitarians of the absence of the Trinity. Jesus tells his Dis- ciples to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, i. e. baptise converts into the profession of a religion that is based on the knowledge of one God — of the Son, as the person appointed by God, as the mediator between himself and his children, and of the Holy Ghost, i. e. the divine influence which was attended by miraculous gifts. In favour of this view of the Holy Ghost, the primitive converts, let it be remembered, were accustomed to receive miraculous powers at their Baptism, which gift was foretold by our Lord. '* He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of livingwaters. But this spake he (says the Evangelist,) of the spirit, which they that believe on him, should receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified" — John 7c. 38 r. And here we beg leave to refer to the Acts of the Apostles, as confirmatory of this view of the passage. By this reference we see at once, that the direction which our Lord gave respecting baptism, was not intended as a bap- tismal form, i. e. as a set of words to be employed when even baptism was performed, much less was it intended to convey a particular notion of the divine nature, into which converts were to be baptized : we infer this from the fact that the Apostles never used the words contained in the above direction ; when they baptized, we never find them baptizing into the Father, Son, Sfc., but always simply into the name of Jesus. Now had our Lord intended his direction respecting baptism, to convey peculiar notions of 8 the Deity — of his consisting of a union of three persons : for in- stance, had the Apostles viewed it, in this light, they cer- tainly would never have baptized one convert without using the very expressions of our Lord — they would not merely have baptized into the name of Jesus, as they did, but into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it may be asked, how was the Saviour's baptismal direction at all obeyed by the Apostles, if they only baptized in the name of Jesus ? how was it obeyed in the Spirit if it was not intended to be understood in the letter ? The answer is, that the Apostles did baptize according to our Lord's direc- tion, if it be understood as we have interpreted it. For when they baptized converts into the name of Jesus they also virtually baptized them into the knowledge of the one Godf from whom Jesus received his authority, and whose name he proclaimed — and converts were also baptized into the Holy Spirit^ when they received the miraculous effusion of the Spirit, which they usually did, after their baptism into the name of Jesus. Peter in his first discourse after the gift of tongues, says '* repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." — Acts 2c. 38v. Now, observe that the reception of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism into Jesus were separate things, and took place at different times. In Acts 8th, we read that when the people of Samaria believed Philip's preaching the things concern- ing the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women, and that then Peter and John were sent by the Apostles to these new converts, who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, " For as yet" says the histo- rian, " it was fallen upon none of them, only they were bap- tised in the name of Jesus ; then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit." — Verses 12 to 17. In Acts 19th we read that St. Paul found some disciples at Ephesus, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit, having Ijeen baptized in the baptism of Jolni, on which the Apostle 9 baptised them in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then laying his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." From this enqui- ry we learn, first that the baptism into the name of Jesus was usually attended with the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the converts, from which circumstance, we argue that this ef- fusion of the Holy Spirit was what our Lord alluded to in his injunction respecting baptism. '* Baptise them into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." And secondly, we argue, that as the baptism into Jesus, and the baptism into the Holy Spirit took place, the one after the other, that the Apos- tles were no Trinitarians, for had they been, they certainly would have baptised converts into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all at ojice, as Trinitarians now do, and not as in the instance of the Samaritans, have sent a Deacon to baptize into the name of Jesus, and then sent two of their own body afterwards to confer the baptism of the Spirit. And now whilst speaking of spirit, allow us to state what appears to Unitarians to be the scriptural view upon this subject. We do not consider the Holy Spirit as a person, as we think the language of Scripture, concerning it is quite opposed to such a notion. It is said to be poured out — shed — given without measure — men are baptized with it — filled with it — said to partake of it — now can these be affirmed of a person ? they accord only with the idea that the Holy Spirit is a di- vine influence, or feeling, or power. God surely does not become another person, when He gives his spirit to men, when he exercises an influence over their minds ; and observe God the Spirit does not occur in scripture, but the term Spirit of God often occurs, and used to signify God himself : for instance, — 1 Cor. 2c. llv., *' What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." Hence then as the spirit of man, is the man him- self ; so the Spirit of God, is God himself : and the baptis- mal form which Trinitarians consider affords so strong an ar- gument in favour of their hypothesis, is no evidence of the c 10 three persons in tVie Godhead. Tliere are other passages of scripture which are thought to afford evidence of the Trinity, which only require to be stated, to shew that they are no evi- dence of three persons alike equal and supreme, in the God- head. "God annointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power." ** Jesus received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost." God giveth not the spirit by measure wnto him, i. e. Jesus Christ. He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also' quicken your mortal bodies by the spirit that dwelleth in you. Now how can these as- sertions be reconciled with the doctrine that God who gave the spirit, is the being who received the spirit, and he who received it, is He that gave it ! ! Again, the Deity is never described in the sacred Scriptures as a Triune God, neither do we find in them any authority for w^orshipping one God in Trinity or the Trinity in Unity. Trinitarians tell us we must worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity. Where do we find this in Scripture ? what says the Saviour, whose direction in these matters ought surely to be followed ; '"^ when ye pray, say, our Father who is in Heaven" — Pray to thy Father who is in, &c. The true worshippers, shall &c., " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." ^Ye beg leave also to observe, on this part of our subject, that Jesus acknow- ledged but one object of supreme worship, and declares that object to be the Father. Now had the Saviour commanded us to pray to God — to ivorsliip God, the Trinitarian might have argued that the word God included the Father, Son, and Holy Sphdt, the three persons in the Godhead, and consequently the command to worship God implied the worship of the three persons in the Tri- nity. But our Saviour's language excludes any such sup- position, for he distinctly commands us to worship the Father, who,according to Trinitananism,is only one person of the Godhead. Therefore the Saviour did not teach his dis- ciples to worship the Father in the way in which he is wor- shipped by Trinitarians. The term Father implies seniority ; 11 which then we shoukl like lo be informed, is tlie Father in the Trinitarian's view of the Trinity, for it is composed of three Gods, each co-equal and co-eternal with the other? Neither the language nor the practice of our Lord affords any ground for Trinitarian worship. Now let us turn to the apostles to see if they countenance the Trinity. In the 4th Acts we read, they lift up their voice to God with one accord and said "Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that in them is." They then men- tion Jesus as God's holy child, or servant , yv\iOva. God had annointed, and they beseech God that signs and wonders may be done, in the name of his Holy child, or servant Jesus. Jlere is a prayer of the twelve apostles, but it does not contain an invocation to three Gods. St. Paul in his devotions countenances no Trinity, " I bow my knees saith he to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom." He commands the Ephesians to give thanks always for all things, unto God, even the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Paul's epistles contain several ascriptions of praise to God, and are always addressed to one person " God the Father.^' There are about twenty-eight ascriptions of praise to God in the N^ew Testament, but from none of them could an unprejudiced mind deduce the doctrine of the Trinity. To us it appears strange how a Trinitarian can worship one God, if he believes that in the unity of the Godhead, three distinct persons are to be worshipped. But we beseech of you to consider the offices assigned to the three persons of the Trinity. The Father is styled the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, the Holy Spirit the sanctifier — now a peculiar office being assigned to each person of the Godhead, and a peculiar favour as appertaining to each, when the Trinitarian asks for all these blessings at once. What lan- guage is necessary to be employed by the humble suppliant ? the following, *' O God the Father of Heaven have mercy 12 upon us miserable sinners" — "O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy," &c. — " O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy", &c. — And then, it does appear, as if they address a 4th person made up of the other three, and pray thus, *' O Holy blessed and glorious Trinity — three persons and one God, have mercy," &c. Now, where in the sacred Scriptures, are we directed to worship three or four such objects as the prayers in the litany, point out ? Again, the Trinity destroys the harmony which ought to exist between the Father and the Son. The Father, according to the Trinitarian scheme, sentences his creatures to everlasting perdition. The Son interferes, and stays his Father's purpose, by suifering in his own person, the wrath intended for man. By this step, the Trinitarians represent Jesus as pacifying the Father, and enabling offenders to escape the vindictiveness of God. Thus the Son is represented more merciful than God, and both Father and Son actuated by different principles, the one is inexorable, and inflexibly just — the other is made to appear merciful, and full of compassion. Is it possible to regard two such opposite characters as one and the same being ; and how can we believe that two such dissentient minds can reside in one God ; and how can we avoid preferring owe before the other 1 If the Father y*roM;ws upon me, with all the malice of infinite vindictiveness, then I shall love the Son in preference to the Father, for He smiles upon me in the loveliness of mercy and compassion — where a frown will terrify, a smile shall win the heart. What a confused object is the God of the Trinity, to use the words of a modern writer ; the Trinitarian Deity is a heterogeneous being, who is, at the same moment, one and many — who in- cludes in his own nature the relations of Father and Son, or in other words is Father and Son to himself — who, being viewed as one person, is at the same moment, the supreme God, and a mortal man; omniscient and ignorant y almighty and impotent ; such a being is certainly the most puzzling and distracting object, ever presented to human 13 thought. In contemplating so chanoing a God, the mind finds nothing to rest upon ; and instead of receiving distinct and harmonious impressions, is disturbed by shifting un- settled images. To commune with such a God, must be as difficult, as to converse with a man of three different coun- tenances, speaking with three different tongues. — The fact is, that our orthodox brethren do not worship three dis- tinct Gods, but rather a Trinity of names, — and it would be well for those who speak in the most disrespect- ful manner of Unitarian views of God, and who boast of orthodoxy, to look into their own minds, and enquire if they are othodox, and consistent Trinitarians. There is reason to believe that three parts of those who profess to hold the Trinity, have scarcely bestowed one half hour's serious thought upon the subject; they content themselves with the reflection that it is a mystery, and therefore not to be explained, and hence they are satisfied with confessing a doctrine with their lips, which is, on their own showing, in- explicable. But how any Christians can believe that doc- trine which they cannot understand or explain, we are at a loss to imagine. As it regards the mystery of the Trinity, the last refuge of the Trinitarian, when pressed with the difficulties that attend his doctrine, what is more humiliating to him than to be obliged to fly to mystery, to shelter him from tlje argument of an opponent. The Trinitarian asserts that the Trinity cannot be explained because it is a mystery ; we do not call upon him to explain the doctrine, but merely to state it in terms that we can understand ; and when he employs language in expressing the doctrine which accord- ing to its common interpretation, represents three distinct deities, to use the language of holy writ, and not that of fallible men. If he attaches a peculiar meaning to the word in which he states his doctrine, let him explain this meaning to us, but it is mere evasion to tell us he cannot explain the doctrine because it is a mystery, when we only ask him to explain the expressions in which he clothes the doctrine. When so much difference of opinion pre- 14 vails among the Trinitarian advocates themselves res- pecting the Trinity — when it cannot be stated by them in intelligible terms, surely Unitarians are at liberty to doubt the truth of such a doctrine. We should like to know^ what the unlearned man can make of the Tri- nity, when one Divine tells him it is the union of three persons, in the Godhead — another that it consists of three differences, by another of three diversities — by another of three suhsistencies — by another of three dis- tinct cogitations, and by another of three somewhats. When so many opinions are intended among Trinitarians themselves, respecting their own doctrine, surely Unitarians may be permitted to entertain an opinion different from all the rest, which is that the Trinity itself is an error. We trust that as a body of Christians, it is, and ever will be our desire to avoid offending against the Unity of the Deity, so explicitly revealed in Scripture, and to hold fast the belief of one God, in one being. The Trinitarian thinks he can believe a God in three persons, without destroying the Unity of the Deity — be it so. But as he cannot explain the conceptions of his 'own mind to the satisfaction of those who enquire into his doctrine — as he cannot express his own notions, without appearing to destroy the Unity of the Deity — let him learn to forbear with his Unitarian brother who clings to the more literal interpretation of Scripture, who is fearful of offending the Deity by repre- senting him to be what he is not, especially since the Trinitarian cannot produce a single passage in the Bible, in which his doctrine is taught, in the language he em- ploys in stating it. As Unitarians, we object to the doc- trine of the Trinity, because it is not to be found in the sacred writings, and cannot be expressed in scriptural lan- guage, but that a new phraseology is obliged to be invented for the purpose of stating it, and according to our concep- tions, at least, it cannot be held consistently with the simple and lovely doctrine, so plainly taught in scripture, that God is one and not three, that he is a spirit and not a 15 person, "God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." There is one point more in the controversy between us and the Trinitarians, which deserves consideration, it is this, we have heard within these few years, some Trinitarians make use of an argument on their side of the question, which has surprised us not a little. They maintain that they who believe in the Deity of Christ, and in the doctrine of the Trinity, are as strictly V nitarians as we are. Now this is amusing ; we heartily rejoice to think that that name which it has been the fashion through so many years to despise and miscall, is growing into favour with the world. Peace to your slumber- ing ashes, ye departed Unitarian worthies, and hallowed the spot where ye lie, but could ye know the mighty changes that have taken place in the religious world since ye labour- ed therein, there would be a mighty shaking amongst your dry bones, and your tombs, methinks, would scarcely contain ye. But let us for one moment enquire into the claims of Trini- tarians to the name Unitarians. " They say they are Unita- rians as well as we — how so? the term Unitarian, does not mean and never did mean, simply a believer in one God as distinguished from Polytheists. How can it mean this, seeing that it is a term which has arisen out of disputes within the Christian church, where all parties have ever professed to believe in only one God. Let them consider to what conclusion this objection leads — a conclusion Avhich they will be the last persons to admit. Are not Unitarian and Trinitarian correllative and opposite terms? does the name Trinitarian signify a believer in three Gods? they would answer ?io, it means a believer in three divine persons in one God ; well then, the Unitarian,which is the opposite term to Trinitarian, does not mean simply a believer in one God, but a believer in the strict personal Unity of God, do Trini- tarians believe in the Unity of God in this sense ? certainly not — how then can Trinitarians be Unitarians as well as we ?" But to conclude, in this discourse we have only noticed those passages of scripture, \yliich are allowed to be 16 the strongest arguments in favour of the Trinity, and from these we maintain that the doctrine in question cannot be fairly deduced. We have seen that the doctrine is not con- tained in the recorded discourses of Christ and his Apos- tles ; neither is it found in the confessions of faith required of the jDrimitive converts — neither is it recognised in the earliest controversies, which agitated the church ; no traces of the Trinity are found in ecclesiastical history, until after the Apostolic age. But after Christianity began to be cor- rupted by the speculations of philosophers, then it became developed, and was the subject of serious contention. The Trinity sprung up subsequently to the times of the Apos- tles. Mosheim, whose religious bias was in favour of the Trinity, says, ** in the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt, which kindled deplorable divisions in the Christian world." It 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. The Emperor Constantine, not considering the importance of the discussion, addressed a letter to the contendins: parties, in which he admonished them to end their disputes ; but when the prince saw that his admonitions were without effect, and that the troubles and disputes were daily spread- ing throughout the empire, he assembled in the year 325, the famous council at Nice, in Bithynia, wherein the de- puties of the church were requested to put an end to the controversy, And in 381, 150 bishops 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 yet received among Christians as the gospel of Jesus Christ. From this time the Trinity became enrolled amongst the orthodox doctrines, and though Calvin expressed his disapprobation of the word as barbarous, and savouring of heathenism, and Melancthon, bewailed the sanguinary tragedies it would cause to be enacted, the reformation did not destroy its roots, and it is still a upas tree,'\\\ the garden of theology, withering the 17 tender plants of truth and righteousness. Before our Tri' nitarian brethren pronounce Unitarianism a false and dan- gerous doctrine, let them seriously consider the following- facts : that in the old Testament, there are about 2000 passages in which the Unity of God is either positive- ly expressed or implied. In the New Testament, the Father is styled one, or only God, seventeen times; he is also styled God absolutely, by way of eminence and supremacy, 320 times. The highest epithets or attributes are applied to him 105 times, and there are no less than 90 passages which shew that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to him ; and there are no less than 300 passages wherein the Son is represented as subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from him, receiving from him his divine power, and acting in all things, agreeably to the will of God, Surely amidst all this evidence in favour of God's Unity and of his supremacy to the Saviour, Unitarians are justified in maintaining that altho' " there be that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many and Lords manyj yet to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him." 1 Cor. 8c. 5 and 6v. We will now relieve your patience, by expressing our gra- tification on observing your attention to the arguments this evening, adduced to shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is neither taught nor deducible from the word of God, and as Unitarians, we ardently pray that the progress of light and knowledge will be fatal to the doctrine of the Trinity. Of this we feel convinced by the qualification and expla- nations to which its advocates are accustomed to resort. It is not trusted in its original mystery, and its deformity is covered up and concealed from the vulgar gaze, by the additions of ingenious theologians. But it can never stand the test of an enquiring age. Reason will refuse to lend its testimony to support a contradiction. Charity will rejoice at the dispersion of error which has embittered the lives and deaths of thousands, and shed the blood of many martyrs. D 18 Yes, my friends, we may not live to see it, but as sure as the word of God is true, and the Scriptures become more investigated and better understood, so surely will the doc- trine of the Trinity be exploded. Already, many passages once considered irrefragable proofs of it, are given up by its more enlightened advocates. Already, texts which were once thought indubitable evidence of that doctrine, are now quietly resigned to take their place on neutral ground. But we have stronger reasons than all these, for believing that the doctrines of the Trinity must ere long be bound together, and placed upon the shelf of some antiquary, to be looked at by coming generations as a curious relic of their pious fore- fathers' theological blunders, and amazing credulity. Such my friends, as the history of the past, the character of man, the tendencies of society, and the language of pro- phecy, these lead us to believe, that the time is hastening, when the mystery of the Trinity shall give place to the glo- rious doctrine of the divine Unity. ** The hour cometh, yea, is already come, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." LECTURE ir. ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST. Matt. xxii. 42. WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST — WHOSE SON IS HE ? In calling your attention this evening to an inquiry into the na- ture and person of our blessed Master, we have no other end in view but, to the best of our ability to endeavour to answer the question propounded by our Saviour in the words of our text. It must be well known to you all, that this enquiry has occasioned violent dissensions, and given rise to various opinions in the Christian church, about which polemics are still disputing with more zeal, it is to be feared, than charity. The various opinions which have been entertained respecting the nature and person of our Lord Jesus Christ, by those who have professed to be his disciples, may now be considered as divided into three distinct classes. The first maintain that Christ has existed from eternity, and is the second per- son of the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God ; the second, that he is a subordinate spirit, or intelligent being, em- ployed by God in creating and governing this world, and who upon his miraculous conception and birth, animated his body, and supplied the place of a human soul. The third class, maintain that Jesus Christ was in body and mind, truly a human being, who had no existence before his conception- but was distinguished from all other human beings and prophets of the most High God, by being appointed or chosen of the Father, to be the Saviour of men. The first of these doctrines is called the Trinitarian, the second the Arian, and the third the Unitarian scheme. The first hypothesis having been, as we endeavoured to shew in our last lecture, 20 taken under the protection of the civil power, about the year 317, anc\ ever since enjoyed the sanction of councils, and synods, and found a principal place in the creeds of almost all established churches, it is reasonable to sup- pose, that it has taken very deep root in the human mind, and consequently every other hypothesis opposed to this, has been considered both dangerous and false. Neverthe- less no religious doctrine ought to be pronounced as false and dangerous, merely because it has not the sanction of the edicts of emperors, the decree of councils, or the pre- scription of churches, but to be held false, or true, ac- cording to the extent to which it agrees with, or is opposed to, the language of the sacred Scriptures. Religion is a concern between man and his maker ; and man is accountable to none but to God, for the consequences of any religion he may espouse, provided that his religion rests upon the word of God, and is calculated to make him a good man, and a useful member of society. As we are addressing Pro- testant Christians, we feel that we are not called upon to offer the least apology for exercising our right to enquire into the truth or error of the popular notions respecting the nature, and person of Jesus Christ ; because, if on enquiry, it is found, that such popular notions do not rest on scriptural evidence, it is the duty of every lover of truth, and particularly that of a Christian teacher, to protest against them ; and if on the other hand, such notions are not only supported by, but expressly taught in the Scrip- tures, every man is bound to cherish and maintain them. If whilst instituting an enquiry into the Trinitarian views of our blessed Saviour, we by any possibility, let fall expressions which Trinitarian advocates may deem too harsh or uncharit- able, let our apology be the consequences of their doctrine, rather than a wilful attempt to wound their religious prejudices. Having made these few preliminary observations, we shall first enquire whether Jesus Christ was in every respect one and the same with the supreme Deity, at the same time that he was truly man ? The Trinitarian affirms that in the person 21 of Jesus Christ, two natures were united, a Divine and Human — that the divine nature was in every respect God, and possessed therefore every attribute of the supreme being, the Almighty Jehovah — that the human nature was that of a mortal man, but without sin. In stating- this doctrine it is sometimes declared that the Almiyhty took upon him our nature, at others that Jesus Christ was the one supreme God. Of this doctrine, we are com- pelled to confess that we do not understand the terms in which it is expressed, and that like the Trinity it involves very serious inconsistencies. To assert that Jesus was at the same time perfect God and perfect Man, appears to be a contradiction. God we believe is a being of infinite perfection — but man is an imperfect creature, how then can these be supposed to exist together so as to make one person, — one intelligent being ? Is it possible to believe that om- nipotence and weakness, omniscience and ignorance, can be united in one mind ? Would it not be as reasonable and intel- ligible to assert that light is darkness, that heat is cold, and that sweetness is bitterness ? Would it not be considered as a monstrous inconsistency, to say that a man in the perfect possession of his rational powers, could at the same time be completely an irrational being — but this would surely not be a bolder assertion than to say, that the divine and human nature, each perfect and complete in itself, could subsist together in owe person ; for be it ever remembered that there is a far broader line of separation between the supreme being and man, than between man and an irrational animal. Is it to be believed for one moment, that the entire essence of the Deity — that all his attributes in their infinite perfection, could reside in a human being ? " That the high and the lofty One who inha- biteth eternity, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contaii;, could actually be confined within the limits of a human frame ? Do our Trinitarian brethren rightly consider what they say when they affirm that Jesus Christ is God Almighty. Observe, that the term Jesus Christ, is the name of our Sa- viour as man — it is the name by which he was distinguished •22 while on earth, from other human beings. Surely it will not be asserted that his human Jlesh was God, nor will his human soul be said to be God, what portion then of Jesus Christ, is said to be God ? Is it the divine nature that dwelt within him, i. e. within his human nature ? If this be said, it surely cannot entitle the man Christ Jesus, to be considered as God supreme. The Deity dwelling within Christ cannot con- stitute him the supreme Being, no more than the Deity's dwelling within Christians, (as he is said to do in scripture,) can constitute them Gods. Christ says, that he and the Father dwelt in those that loved him. " If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." — John 14c. 23v. But this surely cannot make a Christian, both Christ and the Father, because they are represented as abid- ing with him. St. Paul says to the Corinthians, in the 2nd epistle, 2c. 6-1 6 v., " Ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in tliem and walk in them." Christ tells the Philippians, in 2c. 13v., " That God work- eth in them both to will and to do." He tells the Ephesians in 4c. 6v., " That there is one God and Father of all, who is in you all." John says, 1 John 4c. 15v. *' Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God.^' St. Peter declares, 2 Pet. Ic. 4v. that " By the precious promises of the Gospel, Christians are made partakers of the divine nature.'^ This is a very strong expression — and when St. Paul says, " That in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead," he must have used this language in the sense in which he prayed that the Ephesians iiiight be fille