in freeing us from the guilt of sin, or, in other words, from the punishment of it.1 desired to look into, and could at most discern but imperfectly, through the types and shadows of the patriarchal It is impossible, however, not to ob- and Mosaic dispensations. The great serve, that the Papists use the same mystery, now unveiled, was briefly language in defence of the doctrine of this, that God.... would only confer transubstantiation, appealing also to this mighty privilege at the instance, the literal sense of more texts of Scrip- as it were, and for the sake, of a tranture than one. Besides, how is it scendently divine person, his onlypossible that the blood of any man begotten Son, the second person in (and the divinity of Christ certainly the glorious Trinity, as we now style had no blood), considered in a literal him; that this divine person. sense, should cleanse from sin? Surely should descend from heaven, should there must be something figurative in become incarnate, .... should even such language as this; and why should the figurative sense end just where Bishop Hurd would fix it, rather than where Socinus would choose? pour out his blood unto death, and by that blood should wash away the stain of guilt. . . . In this awfully stupendous manner (at which reason stands aghast, and faith herself is half confounded) was the grace of God to man at length manifested." The natural effect of such a pause of astonishment as this, should be a close examination, whether a thing that even supernatural evidence can barely make credible, did ever take place; for in all cases, the more extraordinary any thing, any event, or any proposition is, the more evidence it requires. And when we consider the true meaning of the figurative language of Scripture, it will be found to assert nothing on this subject at which even reason can stand aghast. To me it appears extraordinary, that a man of Bishop Hurd's good sense should not be more staggered than he appears to have been, at the very man- Our author himself, after enumener in which he himself describes the rating the strongest figurative expresdoctrines of the divinity of Christ, and sions of the Scriptures on this subject, of atonement for sin by his death, as those in which the terms redemption, every sentence, and every clause of a ransom, propitiation, sacrifice, &c., ocsentence, being calculated to excite cur, closes the whole with this observaastonishment; but I shall only tran- tion: "Now let men use what art they scribe a part of it. After describing will in torturing such expressions as the gradual unfolding of the scheme these, they will hardly prevent our under the Jewish dispensation, he seeing what the plain doctrine of says, Scripture is, [viz.] That it pleased God to give us eternal life only in his Son, and in his Son only as suffering and dying for us. ."4 All this I readily admit, believing as firmly as Bishop Hurd can do, that it was expedient and necessary that such a person as Jesus Christ "At length Jesus Christ came into the world, to fulfil and to declare the whole will of God on this interesting subject; and from him, and from those commissioned by him, we learn what the wisest men, and even angels had 1 Sermons, I. p. 193. (P.) 3 Ibid. II. pp. 285-287. (P.) should preach as he did, and that he should die and rise again, or the end of the gospel, in forming men to a happy immortality, could not have been gained. This is certainly the doctrine of the New Testament, but then it is far from being the doctrine of atonement; which I think I have shown to be a very different thing from that which was taught by Christ and the apostles, and indeed to have been unknown for several centuries after Christ. It is no wonder that this writer should say, that "no Christian is bound to make this solicitous inquiry into the doctrinal.... part of the gospel; and that very "possibly his conduct is then most acceptable, when he looks no far. ther than to the authority of the gospel, agreeably to that well-known decision of our Lord himself, Blessed is he who hath not seen, and yet hath believed." For certainly such tenets as those above cited can never be believed on any other terms. Faith in them must be implicit, and without inquiry. It is rather extraordinary, however, that this writer did not perceive that the saying which he quotes of our Saviour relates only to a matter of fact, of which it was not possible that more than a very few persons could be eyewitnesses; whereas the things that he is contending for are doctrines, of which all persons at this day are competent judges, provided they make use of their reason, and examine the Scriptures for themselves. But even the looking no farther than to the authority of the gospel for articles of faith, may make a very solicitous inquiry absolutely necessary, considering how much, and how long, some articles of faith have been misrepresented. In fact, if the learned prelate could fancy himself out of the fetters of his church's creed, he might find the very articles which he so zealously contends for among the "quibbles and.... metaphysics which" (with a strain of pleasantry not usual to him, and indeed 1 Sermons, III. p. 52. (P.) rather uncommon in a sermon) he says the Pagan philosophers, when they "pressed into the church, in their haste, forgot to leave behind them."" But however these doctrines came in, to repeat the bishop's own words, "the presumptuous positions of particular men, or churches, are forwardly taken for the genuine doctrines of Christianity; and these positions being notunfrequently either wholly unintelligible, or even contrary to the plainest reason, the charge of nonsense, or of falsehood, is thus dexterously transferred on the gospel itself." This very just and wellexpressed observation I cannot help thinking to be peculiarly applicable to several articles of the creed of Bishop Hurd himself, as I think must be sufficiently evident from the preceding history. This writer, not content with what he himself had advanced against all improvements, or alterations, in the church in which he presides, quotes with the highest approbation what Mr. Burgh, in his reply to Mr. Lindsey, says against the idea of a progressive religion, viz. that "All that" the Bible " contains was as perspicuous to those who first perused it, after the rejection of the papal yoke, as it can be to us now, or as it can be to our posterity in the fiftieth generation.' This is evidently a mis-stating of the case; because it is not a progressive religion, but a progressive reformation of a corrupted religion, that is pleaded for. And as it cannot be denied that the corruption of Christianity was a gradual and progressive thing, can it be so very unnatural to expect that the restoration of it to its primitive purity should be gradual and progressive also? If the Reformation was not progressive, why does not this bishop prefer the state of it under John Huss and Jerome of Prague to that of Luther and Cranmer? He may say that they had not then completely rejected the papal yoke. 2 Ibid. III. p. 205. (P.) 8 Ibid. p. 209. (P.) + Ibid. Î. [Note] p. 244. (P.) But if by papal yoke he meant all the corruptions of Christianity contained in the system of Popery, and which had been enforced by the authority of the see of Rome, I say, that neither Luther nor Cranmer rejected the papal yoke, because their reformations were partial. qualified to judge for themselves, had not. It is nothing but the alliance of the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this world (an alliance which our Lord himself expressly disclaimed) that, supports the grossest corruptions of Christianity; and perhaps we must Besides, if we make the sentiments wait for the fall of the civil powers of the divines of that particular age, before this most unnatural alliance be which Mr. Burgh and Bishop Hurd broken. Calamitous, no doubt, will may call the proper cera of the Refor- that time be. But what convulsion in mation, to be our standard, why should the political world ought to be a subwe adopt those of Luther or Cranmer ject of lamentation, if it be attended in preference to those of Socinus, or with so desirable an event? May the even those of the Anabaptists of Mun- kingdom of God, and of Christ (that ster, who were all of the same age? which I conceive to be intended in the I know of no reason but that the opin- Lord's Prayer), truly and fully come, ions of Luther and Cranmer had the though all the kingdoms of the world sanction of the civil powers, which be removed, in order to make way for those of Socinus, and others of the it! same age, and who were equally well APPENDIX TO THE GENERAL CONCLUSION; CONTAINING A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS HOLDING THE DOCTRINE OF THE SIMPLE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. As the doctrine held by the primitive severity upon the latter; and can it church, and especially by the Jewish be thought probable that he should Christians, is of particular conse- pass over the former without censure, quence, it may give satisfaction to if he had thought it to be an error? some of my readers, to see the evidence for their holding the simple humanity of Christ stated in a more concise and distinct manner than it is done in the body of this work. I shall, therefore, attempt it in this place, and take the opportunity of introducing a few more circumstances relating to it. 2. Athanasius is so far from denying this, that he endeavours to account for Christ being spoken of as a man only, in several parts of the New Testament, and especially in the book of Acts, from the apostles not being willing to offend the Jews (meaning the Jewish Christians) of those times, 1. It is acknowledged by early wri- and that they might bring them to the ters of the orthodox persuasion, that belief of the divinity of Christ by two kinds of heresy existed in the degrees. He adds, that the Jews times of the apostles, viz. that of those being in this error (which he states as who held that Christ was simply a their believing Christ to be los man, and the other that he was man aveрwTos) drew the Gentiles into it only in appearance. Now the apostle also. John animadverts with the greatest 3. It is acknowledged by Eusebius and others, that the ancient Unitarians themselves, constantly asserted that their doctrine was the universal opinion of the Christian church till the time of Victor. advanced and urged by those who had been heathen philosophers, and espe cially those who were admirers of the doctrine of Plato, who held the opinion of a second God. Austin says, that 4. Hegesippus, the first Christian he considered Christ as no other than historian, himself a Jew, enumerating a most excellent man, and had no susthe heresies of his time, mentions several of the Gnostic kind, but not that of Christ being a mere man. He moreover says, that, in travelling to Rome, where he arrived in the time of Anicetus, he found all the churches that he visited held the faith which had been taught by Christ and the apostles. 5. Justin Martyr, who maintains the pre-existence of Christ, is so far from calling the contrary opinion a heresy, that what he says on the subject is evidently an apology for his own. As Hegesippus was contemporary with Justin, he must have heard at least of the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ; but he might not have heard much about the opinion of Justin, which was different from that of the Gnostics, though the pre-existence of Christ was a part of both. 6. Irenæus, who wrote after Justin, only calls the opinion of those who held that Christ was the son of Joseph as well as of Mary, a heresy. He says nothing of those who, believing him to be a mere man, allowed that he had no human father. 7. Those whom Epiphanius calls Alogi, among the Gentiles, held that Christ was merely a man; and as they had no peculiar appellation before his time, and had no separate assemblies, it is evident they could not have been distinguished as heretics in early times. 8. The first who held, and discussed, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, acknowledged that their opinion was exceedingly unpopular with the unlearned Christians, and that these latter were pious persons, who dreaded the doctrine of the Trinity, as thinking that it infringed upon that of the supremacy of God the Father. 9. The divinity of Christ was first .picion of the word of God being incarnate in him, or how "the catholic faith differed from the error of Photiñus," (the last of the proper Unitarians whose name is come down to us,) till he read the books of Plato; and that he was afterwards confirmed in his opinion by reading the Scriptures. Constantine, in his oration to the fathers of the Council of Nice, speaks with commendation of Plato, as having taught the doctrine of "a second God, derived from the supreme God, and subservient to his will.2 10. There is a pretty easy gradation in the progress of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ; as he was first thought to be a God in some qualified sense of the word, a distinguished emanation from the supreme mind, and then the logos or wisdom of God personified; and it was not till near four hundred years after Christ that he was thought to be properly equal to the Father. Whereas, on the other hand, it is now pretended, that the apostles taught the doctrine of the proper divinity of Christ; and yet it cannot be denied that, in the very times of the apostles, the Jewish church, and many of the Gentiles, held the opinion of his being a mere man. Here the transition is quite sudden, without any gradation at all. This must naturally have given the greatest alarm, such as is now given to those who are called orthodox by the present Socinians; and yet nothing of this kind can be perceived. Besides, it was certainly more probable that the Christians of those times, urged as they were with the meanness of their Master, should incline to add to rather than take from, his natural rank and dignity. Confessiones, L. vii. C. 19, &c. (P.) 2 C. ix. p. 684. (P.) New Appendix. CONSIDERATIONS IN EVIDENCE THAT THE APOSTOLIC AND PRIMITIVE CHURCH 66 WAS UNITARIAN. [These Considerations are derived from the letters of Dr. Priestley, addressed to Bishop Horsley, the Bench of Bishops, and others, and from his work called An History of the Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ." The above volumes are out of print and very scarce. The matter here presented is an abridgement, but, we may add, it is additional to what was promised to the subscribers to this Volume.] THE UNITY OF GOD: THE FATHER THE ONLY TRUE GOD. THE most express declarations concerning the unity of God, and the importance of the belief of it, are frequent in the Old Testament. The first commandment is, Exod. xx. 3: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' This is repeated in the most emphatical manner, Deut. vi. 4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." In the New Testament we find the same doctrine concerning God that we do in the Old. To the Scribe who enquired which was the first and greatest commandment, our Saviour answered, Mark xii. 29: "The first of all the commandments is, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." And the Scribe said unto him, ver. 32: "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other but he." Why is this ONE GOD in the New Testament always called the Father, and even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? And why are we nowhere told that this one God is the Trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? There are many, very many, passages of Scripture which inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity in the clearest and strongest manner. Let one such passage be produced in favour of the Trinity. And why should we believe things so mysterious without the clearest and most express evidence? . . . Had there been any distinctions of persons in the divine nature, such as the doctrine of the Trinity supposes, it is at least so like an infringement of the fundamental doctrine of the Jewish religion, that it certainly required to be explained, and the obvious inference from it to be guarded against. I will venture to say, that for one text in which you can pretend to find anything harsh or difficult to me, I will engage to produce ten that shall create more difficulty to you. How strangely must you torture the plainest language, and in which there is not a shadow of figure, to interpret to your purpose, 1 Tim. ii. 3: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Cor. viii. 6: "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;" or that expression of our Saviour himself, John xvii. 2: "That |