From these additional manuscripts More
reached the conclusion that Newton was not orthodox but an Arian. He proceeded to say that Newton was not only an Arian but, because of the manner in which he understood Jesus’ role as prophet, a Unitarian

The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.

When they had set this formulary, [the Nicene Creed] we did not leave
without examination that passage in which it is said that the Son is of
the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Questions
and arguments thence arose, and the meaning of the terms was
exactly tested. Accordingly they were led to confess that the word
consubstantial [omoousio~] signifies that the Son is of the Father, but
not as being a part of the Father. We deemed it right to recieve this
opinion; for that is sound doctrine which teaches that the Son is of the
Father, but not part of His substance. From the love of peace, and lest
we should fall from the true belief, we also accept this view, neither do
we reject the term “consubstantial.” For the same reason we admitted
the expression, “begotten, but not made;” for they alleged that the word
“made” applies generally to all things which are created by the Son, to
which the Son is in no respect similar; and that consequently He is not a created thing, like the things made by Him, but is of a substance
superior to all created objects. The Holy Scriptures teach Him to be
begotten of the Father, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible
and inexplicable to all created beings. So also the term “of one
substance with the Father,” [ek th~ ousio~ tou patrou] when
investigated, was accepted not in accordance with bodily relations or
similarity to mortal division of substance, nor abcission, nor any
modification or change or diminution in the power of the Father, all of
which are alien from the nature of the unbegotten Father. It was
concluded that the expression “being of one substance with the Father,”
implies that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the
creatures which He has made; but that to the Father alone, who begat
Him, He is in all points perfectly like: for He is of the essence and of the
substance of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been
given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to assent to it....

Yes. However, look at the observation below:

Ok @tycho, let us switch back to our witnesses: the holy books.

why are they holy? are the books themselves self aware? are they holy because we deem them to be holy? are they holy because they deem themselves to be holy? what of other books deeming themselves to be holy? what of other books deemed by others to be holy?