in the whole volume of the New Testament, a single prayer addressed to God the Son, Redeemer of the World; or to God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son; or to the Holy, Blessed, and Glorious Trinity, Three Persons and One God. These terms, and the ideas which they express, and the religious worship founded upon those ideas, are strangers to the Book. The Apostles did not forget the lesson of their Saviour, who taught them to pray to the Father, and to none besides. They "bowed their knees," as one of their number expresses it," to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," Eph. iii. 14. For an example of their united worship, I refer all who hear me to Acts iv. 24-31; where a prayer is found, which I think every reader wil! agree with me, is a most striking specimen of sublime and simple Unitarian worship; presented under circumstances, moreover, in which their supplications would naturally have been presented to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, if they had thought it possible to present such homage without violating the great law to which the Saviour himself referred, "Thou shalt worship Jehovah thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." I allude especially to the closing sentence of the prayer,"Grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus." Here they pray for gifts of the Holy Spirit; but their prayer is not addressed to the Holy Spirit: they pray for miracles to be wrought in the name of Jesus; but they do not present the supplication to Jesus himself. They pray as Unitarians pray, and as their Saviour prayed,― to the Father only to Him who made heaven and - earth, the sea and all that in them is. If, then, Unitarians pray amiss, the whole assembled brotherhood of the Apostles of our Lord have set us an example of error. But whence have our Trinitarian friends derived the example of such devotions as I have adverted to already? This question it may not be easy precisely to answer; but they certainly do not derive it from the Bible. Again, I can conceive no fact so likely to produce an overpowering effect of awe and astonishment upon the minds of the Apostles themselves, as the announcement of the Saviour's Deity. To think that he whom they had seen, heard, and handled, their familiar friend and daily companion, was the Eternal and Unchangeable Jehovah! The first whisper of the fact must have sounded in their ears like a clap of thunder; the first glimpse of its reality must have struck them with consternation, like a sudden flash of lightning. Yet we find no trace of any such change coming over their feelings: we see no symptom of its effects. If they knew this doctrine, they acted as no other men would have acted, they felt as no other men would have felt, under their circumstances. If they were aware of the tremendous secret, when, I ask, was it revealed to them? Was it before they accepted our Lord's invitation to become his Apostles? Was it while he lived among them? Was it after his ascension? Fix the period when you please, where are the proofs of that astonishment which must have attended upon the communication of such a tremendous fact? And how do you explain, that while the Apostles and Evangelists are so careful in relating the other discourses and declarations of our Lord, upon subjects comparatively trivial, they have not thought it necessary to record any speech of his NO. 207. VOL. XVIII. 2* or any revelation from God, in which they received the knowledge of a subject the most important and awful that ever was revealed! And how does it happen, that, while they repeatedly doubted and questioned statements made to them upon points of inferior moment and easy of belief, they received this most difficult of all hard sayings so readily that it excited no doubt; it never even occasioned their surprise- it never even appeared to stand in need of explanation? These inquiries can only be answered in one way. The Apostles never heard of such a Doctrine. Had they heard of it, we should have heard their doubts. - Again, Even were we to grant that the Apostles were so constituted that what appears to other men a stupendous mystery — which makes reason "stand aghast," and half confounds even faith itself. appeared to them an ordinary every day occurrence; so trivial that they have not even thought of recording the time when it was first made known to them, and that it never occurred to them to ask any explanations or confirmatory proofs; are we to believe that their heathen converts and Jewish disciples, to whom they preached this doctrine, were so destitute of natural feeling as to receive it without hesitation or question? The Apostle Paul was obliged, both orally and in no less than three of his Epistles, to enter into long and labored defences of his conduct in admitting Gentiles to become members of the Church of Christ, on equal terms with the Jews; but he never was put upon his defence respecting the doctrine of the Trinity; nor was any other of the Apostolic College compelled to explain, or illustrate, or establish by proof, this hitherto unheard-of tenet. Are we to believe that Jewish prejudice and heathen philosophy both submitted, without difficulty or question, to receive this astounding dogma? It is notorious, nay undeniable, that there is not in the New Testament any record of any controversy having sprung up in the Church on the subject of the Trinity. What can more convincingly prove, that in the times of the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity had not been broached? Or, if we admit, contrary to all probability, that both the Apostles and their converts could receive this tremendous doctrine without any emotion of surprise, or doubt, or difficulty, is it credible that no one should have been found, either among their Jewish or heathen opponents, who would take it up as matter of accusation against them?* Yet, that no such charge as that of teaching the Trinity ever was preferred against them, is evident from the whole history of their lives. We have, * The charge against Peter and John (Acts iv. 2) was, that " they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead." The charge against the twelve (Acts v. 28) was, that they had "taught in this name; that they had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine; and that they intended to bring this man's blood" upon the High-Priest and the Council. The charge against Stephen (Acts vi. 14) was, that he had "spoken against the holy place and the law, by saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy that place, and change the customs which Moses delivered." The charge against Paul, at Corinth, (Acts xviii. 14,) was, that "he persuaded people to worship God contrary to the law of Moses." The charges against him at Ephesus (Acts xix.) and at Cesarea (Acts xxiv.) are not more to the point. The latter is summoned up by Festus (Acts xxv. 19) 66 some questions about their own religion (that of the Jews,) and about one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul affirmed to be alive." The Apostle, therefore, had affirmed the resurrection of Christ; but had said nothing of his being God equal with the Father or the Second Person of the Undivided Trinity. in the Acts of the Apostles, several instances of their trials and persecutions for the sake of Christ, including a statement of the crimes of which they were accused, and the charges under which they suffered. But not in one solitary instance were they charged with departing from the common faith of their countrymen respecting the Unity of God. On the whole, whether we look to the express declarations and recorded teachings of the Apostles of Christ, or to their whole tenor of conduct and character,—wheth, er we look to the doctrines which they proclaimed, or to the reception which these doctrines experienced,-wheth er we look to the facts which actually occurred in the course of their ministry, or to the absence of other facts which would have necessarily ensued, had they inculcated the modern doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, and its associated tenets, we are compelled to believe that they held, professed, and taught, no other than a purely Unitarian faith. -- But, as this conclusion has been impugned, and vehement allegations have been put forth, asserting, that these illustrious men inculcated the doctrines of modern Orthodoxy, it becomes necessary to examine more minutely the grounds on which these allegations rest. To this inquiry, we shall now proceed without farther preface, arranging our observations in the order which seems most natural to the subject. In following this method, we are led, in the first place, to consider the evidence which has been produced to prove that the Apostles inculcated the doctrine of the Trinity properly so called. There is a passage in the common English version of |