The argument under this heading may well be left to the extracts culled from various works upon the subject. The following quotations from Trinitarian authors are in as strong, if not stronger language, than it would be put by their opponents:

PROFESSOR STUART:

"Derivation is inevitably attached to the idea of begotten, present it in what shape you will; and then self-existence and independence, of course, cease to be predicable of the Logos. How, then, is He not different -- yea, immeasurably different -- being from the Father?. . . How immeasurably more exalted still must the Father be above the Son and Spirit, if He is the ground and cause of their being." -Commentary on the Romans, Essay i.

DR. SOUTH, Disputant in "Trinity" Debate with Dr. Sherlock:

"For that anyone should be both Father and Son to the same person (David) to produce himself, be cause and effect too, and so the copy give being to its original, seems at first sight so very strange and unaccountable that were it not to be adored as a mystery it would be exploded as a contradiction." -Sermons, vol. iii., p. 240.

ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON:

"It is yet further certain, that not only the name and title of God, but the most incommunicable properties and perfections of the Deity, are in Scripture frequently ascribed to the Son and the Holy Ghost; one property only excepted, which is peculiar to the Father, as he is the Principle and Fountain of the Deity, that he is of himself, and of no other, which is not nor can be said of the Son or Holy Ghost." -Sermons, xliv., p. 547.

BISHOP PEARSON:

"We must not therefore so far endeavour to involve ourselves in the darkness of this mystery, as to deny that glory which is clearly due unto the Father; whose pre-eminence undeniably consisteth in this, that he is God not of any other, but of himself, that there is no other persons who is God, but is God of him. It is no diminution to the Son, to say he is from another, for his very name imports as much; but it were a diminution of the Father to speak so of him: and there must be some pre-eminence, where there is place for derogation. What the Father is, he is from none; what the Son is, he is from him: what the first is, he giveth; what the second is, he receiveth. The first is a Father indeed by reason of his Son, but he is not God by reason of him; whereas the Son is not so only in regard of the Father, but also God by reason of the same." -Exposition of the Creed, vol. i., p. 47.

PRAYER

An argument upon such an exalted subject would be incomplete which did not mention that equally exalted and equally sanctified subject of "Prayer."

Few facts can be so prominent in the Scriptures as the mode of offering prayer. No prayer, it will be discovered, is ever addressed to Christ; on the contrary, in giving a model prayer to His disciples Jesus is diligent not only in exalting and in reverencing His Father, but in entirely excluding Himself therefrom. His place as the High Priest and the altar was to be introduced when He had laid down His life and had been received again from the dead, and had gone on high to the Father's right hand as the Mediator and the High Priest on man's behalf. Then, and then only, could prayers be offered through His sanctifying name; but never even then could they be addressed to Him. There is no instance of prayer being so addressed recorded in the whole of Scripture.

John Locke, the eminent author, a Unitarian, has made some very wise remarks upon this complex question, when considered in relation to the three Gods in one:

"It (the Trinity) is inconsistent with the rule of prayer directed in the sacred Scriptures. For if God be three persons, how can we pray to Him through His Son for His Spirit"? -Quoted Stannus, Origin Doctrine Trinity, p. 30.

Ponder this question, for in the early apostolic age it was a divine command to ask the Father for the bestowal of the power of the Spirit through the Mediatorship, of the Son.

HOLY GHOST

Another argument to be urged against the Trinity is contained in some statements by writers upon the Third Person of this Trinity. The arrangement of this work will not allow of entering fully into this point; for an analysis of this phase of the question is reserved for a later chapter. Let it suffice to state here that it will then be shown that the Holy Ghost or Spirit -- which are synonymous expressions -- is that power by which the Almighty works His will.

A few quotations will be given to illustrate the conception of Trinitarians and historians upon both the standing of the Holy Spirit in the first ages, and also admissions of the language used in relation to the Spirit in the Scriptures. The first will show from history that the Holy Ghost was not considered a person in the early ages of the Church:

"In the first youthful age of the church, when the power of the Holy Spirit made itself to be so mightily felt as a new creative transforming principle of life, it was still very far from being the case that the consciousness of this Spirit, as one identical with the essence of God, had been thoroughly and distinctly impressed on the understanding." -Neander, History of Christian Religion and Church, vol. ii., p. 337.

While JEREMY TAYLOR states in relation to Revelation:

"That the Holy Ghost is God is nowhere said in Scripture. That the Holy Ghost is to be invocated is nowhere commanded; nor any example of its being recorded." -Works, vol. xiii., p. 143.

And WETSIUS on the Creed says:

"It is nowhere, we confess, said expressly, and in so many words, The Holy Spirit is the most High God." -Dissertations, xxiii. 16.

BISHOP BURNET:

While, finally, attention will be drawn to the exponent of these Articles of Religion of the English Church already referred to, when he defines Spirit":

"Spirit signifies wind or breath, and in the Old Testament it stands frequently in that sense the Spirit of God, or wind of God, stands some times for a high and strong wind; but more frequently it signifies a secret impression made by God on the mind of the prophet: so that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy are set in opposition to the vain imaginations, the false pretences, or diabolical illusions, of those who assume to themselves the name and the authority of a prophet without a true mission from God." -Thirty-nine Articles, Article v., p. 84.

For further examinations of this phase, attention is invited to the chapter where some leading authorities on the Hebrew and Greek language are cited.

Thus far, then, the argument is completed in its statement; the subject of the chapters following will be the analysis of the several matters upon which the ground of evidence is not common. As the introduction has been designed to show that the early Christians quickly departed from their pristine purity in faith and practice, so this section has been planned to demonstrate that modern Christianity has en deavoured to uphold a doctrine introduced during a period of chaos, resulting from the transition from the pure and simple mode of belief in the early ages to the philosophically tainted doctrines of the times succeeding the Apostles; and that this modern system has striven to uphold this doctrine in opposition to the plain and dogmatic affirmations of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, the express revelation of God Himself; and to the admissions of their own writers.

Whatever the conclusion may be from the evidence here adduced, all who read ecclesiastical history must rest assured with:

"The millions inside and outside the churches who have declared that original Christianity was marred by no such blot on its brilliant disc as the exaltation of Jesus into the place and name of Deity." -Edward White, Life in Christ, p. 211.

ANALYSIS TO SECTION 2, CHAPTER 1: The Use of the Word "Lord" In The New Testament