ject of much higher importance, and with consequences of a yet more pernicious nature; the subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable division throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three persons of the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries, had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas. The Church indeed had frequently decided against the Sabellians and others, that there was a real difference between the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinct from them both; or as we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist in the Deity; but the mutual relation of these persons to each other, and the nature of the distinction that subsists between them, are matters that hitherto were neither disputed nor explained, with respect to which the Church had consequently observed a profound silence :-nothing was declared to the faith of the Christians in this matter, nor were there any modes of expression prescribed as requisite to be used in speaking of the mystery. Hence it happened, that the Christian doctors entertained different sentiments upon this subject without giving the least offence, and discoursed variously concerning the distinction between Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, each one following his respective opinion with the utmost liberty." On this quotation I beg leave to remark, that if, in the first and purest ages of Christianity, the followers of Christ entertained such different opinions

on the subject of the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without incurring the charge of heresy and heterodoxy, and without even breaking the tie of Christian affection towards each other, it is a melancholy contrast that the same freedom of opinion on this subject is not now allowed, nor the same mutual forbearance maintained amongst those who call themselves Christians. Moshiem, p. 412: "In an assembly of Presbyters of Alexandria, the Bishop of that city, whose name was Alexander, expressed his sentiments on this head with a high degree of freedom and confidence, and maintained among other things, that the Son was not only of the same eminence and dignity, but also of the same essence with the Father this assertion was opposed by Arius, one of the presbyters, a man of a subtile turn, and remarkable for his eloquence." Page 414: "The Emperor Constantine, looking upon the subject of this controversy as a matter of small importance, and as little connected with the fundamental and essential doctrines of religion, contented himself at first with addressing a letter to the contending parties, in which he admonished them to put an end to their disputes; but when the Prince saw that his admonitions were without effect, and that troubles and commotions, which the passions of men too often mingle with religious disputes, were spreading and increasing daily throughout the empire, he assembled at length, in the year 325, the famous Council of Nice in Bithynia, wherein

:

the deputies of the Church Universal were sum moned to put an end to this controversy. In this general council, after many keen debates and violent efforts of the two parties, the doctrine of Arius was condemned; Christ declared consubstantial or of the same essence with the Father; the vanquished Presbyter banished among the Illyrians, and his followers compelled to give their assent to the creed or confession of faith whic was composed by this council." It must not escape the notice of my readers, that so late as the year 314, the doctrine of the Son being of the same nature with the Father, was supposed to be a matter of small importance, and little connected with the fundamental and essential doctrines of religion.

The reason for the majority being in favour of the three persons of the Godhead at the Council of Nice, may be easily accounted for, as I noticed before. More than nine tenths of the Christians of that age, including the emperor and princes, were Gentile converts, to whom the idea of a plurality of Gods was most familiar and acceptable, and to whose reason as well as practice the worship of a deity in the human shape was perfectly consonant, as appears from the following quotation, as well as from the Roman and Grecian histories. Moshiem, [Vol. I.] p. 25; "The deities of almost all nations were either ancient heroes renowned for noble exploits and worthy deeds, or kings and generals who had founded empires, or women become illustrious by remarkable actions or

was

useful inventions: the merit of these dis tinguish ed and eminent persons, contemplated by their posterity with an enthusiastic gratitude, was the reason of their being exalted to celestial honours.' We find also in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul declared to be God by the people of Melita, and both Paul and Barnabas regarded as gods by the inhabitants of Lystra; and the Saviour ranked in the number of false gods even by professed heathens. Acts, ch xxviii. ver. 6: "Howbeit they looked when he (Paul) should have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly; but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said he was a God." Acts, ch. xiv. ver. 11: "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." Moshiem, [Vol. I.] p. 65: "Many who were not willing to adopt the whole of the doctrines of Christianity, were nevertheless, as appears from undoubted records, so struck with the account of his life and actions, and so charmed with the sublime purity of his precepts, that they numbered him (Jesus) among the greatest heroes, nay even among the gods themselves." Page 66 66; "So illustrious was the fame of Christ's power grown after his resurrection from the dead, and the miraculous gifts shed from on high upon his apostles, that the Emperor Tiberius is said to have proposed his being enrolled among the gods of Rome, which the opposition of the senate hindered from taking effect." If some of the Heathens from the nature of their superstitions could rank Jesus

among their false gods, it is no wonder if others, when nominally converted to Christianity, should have placed him on an equality with the true God, and should have passed a decree, constituting him one of the persons of the Godhead. These facts coincide entirely with my own firm persuasion of the impossibility, that a doctrine so inconsistent with the evidence of the senses as that of three persons in one being, should ever gain the sincere assent of any one, into whose mind it has not been instilled in early education. Early impressions alone can induce a Christian to believe that three are one, and one is three; just as by the same means a Hindoo is made to believe that millions are one, and one is millions; and to imagine that an inanimate idol is a living substance, and capable of assuming various forms. As I have sought to

attain the truths of Christianity from the words of the author of this religion, and from the undisputed instructions of his holy apostles, and not from a parent or tutor, I cannot help refusing my assent to any doctrine which I do not find scriptural.

Before concluding, I beg to revert to one or two arguments respecting the nature of Jesus Christ, which have been already partly touched upon. It is maintained that his nature was double, being divine as Son of God, and human as Son of man -that in the former capacity he performed miracles and exercised authority over the wind and the sea, and as man was subject to and experienced human feelings, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain.