It is the want of evidence, after all, that is the greatest difficulty with me. And I see nothing to be gained by it, were the Arian hypothesis true.

But if Jesus be a man like ourselves, then we can say, in the language of St. Paul, (2 Cor. iv. 14,) "Knowing, that he, who raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus, and shall present us with you." For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth even so the son, quickeneth whom he will. (John, v. 21.)

It is on this hypothesis, and, as I conceive, on this only, that we can account for all the innocent infirmities of Jesus-his passions, his suffering, and death. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts, ii, 26.) Not. another Jesus, but that same Jesus who was crucified.

The apostles (if we may except St. Stephen and St. Paul, when they had a vision of Christ) ever prayed to God, as distinguished from Christ; as he directed them: In that day ye shall ask me nothing: (John, xvi. 23:) and this they did after his resurrection and ascension. See Acts. iv. 23, 30. They lifted up their voices to God and said: Lord thou art God who hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is therein. And now Lord behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word—and that signs and wonders may be done in the name of thy holy child (servant) Jesus.

From the above, and from all that has been said, it is evident that the apostles, and all who conversed with our Lord, before and after his resurrection, considered him in no other light than simply a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him. (Acts, ii. 22.)

"From this plain doctrine of the scriptures," says Dr. Priestley, "a doctrine so consonant to reason

and the ancient Prophecies, Christians have at length come to believe what they do not pretend to have any conception of, and that which it is not possible to frame a more express contradiction. For while they consider Christ as the supreme eternal God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, they morcover acknowledge the Father and the Holy Spirit to be equally God, in the same exalted sense, all three equal in power and Glory, and yet all three constituting no more than one God.”*

Having, therefore, shown that the unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, is clearly the doctrine of the scriptures, we shall take notice of a few of the writings of the first age of the church on this subject.

"The members of the Jewish church were, in general, in very low circumstances, which may account for their having few persons of learning among them; on which account they were much despised by the richer and more learned gentile Christians, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, before which event all the Christians in Judea (warned by our Saviour's prophecies concerning the desolation of that country) had retired to the north-east of the sea of Galilee.t

"In general, these ancient Jewish Christians retained the appellation of Nazarenes, and both Origen and Epiphanius acknowledge that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the same people, and held the same tenets, though some of them supposed that Christ was the son of Joseph as well as of Mary, while others of them held that he had no natural father, but had a miraculous birth. Epiphanius in his account of the Nazarenes (and the

* Hist. Corrupt. vol. i. p. 3, 4.

This quotation, and all which follow in this lecture, being taken from Dr. Priestley's History of Corruptions, vol. i. I shall only refer to the authors referred to in that work.

+ Haer. 29. Opera, vol. p. 125.

Jewish Christians never went by any other name) makes no mention of any of them believing the divinity of Christ, in any sense of the word.

"Almost all the ancient writers who speak of what they call the heresies of the two first centuries, say that they were of two kinds; the first were those that thought that Christ was a man only in appearance, and the other that he was a mere man.* Tertullian calls the former Docetæ," (which is the same as the Gnostics,) and the latter Ebionites."— (These latter are believed to be those who held to the true doctrine of the scriptures in this particular, but were considered as heretics in the days of Tertullian.)

"Austin, speaking of the same two sects, says, that the former believed Christ to be God, but denied that he was man; whereas the latter believed him to be man, but denied that he was God. Of this latter opinion Austin owns that he himself was, till he became acquainted with the writings of Plato, which in his time were translated into Latin, and in which he learned the doctrine of the Logos.

"Now that this second heresy, as the later writers called it, was really no heresy at all, but the plain simple truth of the gospel, may be clearly inferred from the apostle John taking no notice of it, though he censures the former, who believed Christ to be man only in appearance, in the severest manner.And that this was the only heresy that gave him any alarm, is evident from his first epistle, chap. iv. ver. 3, where he says, every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (by which he must have meant is truly a man) is of God. On the other hand, he says, every spirit which confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof

* Lardner's Hist. of Heretics, p. 17.

ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. For this was the first corruption of the Christian religion by the maxims of heathen philosophy, and which proceeded afterwards, till Christianity was brought to a state little better than paganism.

"Athanasius himself was so far from denying that the primitive Jewish church was properly Unitarian, maintaining the simple humanity and not the divinity of Christ, that he endeavours to account for it by saying, that all the Jews were so firmly persuaded that their Messiah was to be nothing more than a man like themselves, that the apostles were obliged to use great caution in divulging the doctrine of the proper divinity of Christ. But what the apostles did not teach, I think we should be cautious how we believe. The apostles were never backward to combat other Jewish prejudices, and certainly would have opposed this opinion of theirs, if it had been an error. For if it had been an error at all, it must be allowed to have been an error of the greatest consequence,

"Those who held the simple doctrine of the humanity of Christ, without asserting that Joseph was his natural father, were not reckoned heretics by Irenæus, who wrote a large work on the subject of heresies; and even those who held that opinion are mentioned with respect by Justin Martyr, who wrote some years before him, and who, indeed, is the first writer extant, of the gentile Christians, after the age of the apostles.

"The manner in which Justin Martyr speaks of these Unitarians, who believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, is very remarkable, and shows, that, though they even denied the miraculous conception, they were far from being reckoned heretics in his time, as they were by Irenæus afterwards. He says, there

* De Sententia Dionysii, Opera, vol. i. p. 553. † Dial. Edit. Thirlby, p. 235.

are some of our profession who acknowledge him, (Jesus) to be the Christ, yet maintain that he was fixos avIgwños, a mere man.' (And by this term Irenæus, and all the ancients, even later than Eusebius, meant, a man descended from man.) I do not agree with them, nor should I be prevailed upon by ever so many who hold that opinion; because we are taught by Christ himself not to receive our doctrine from men, but what was taught from the holy prophets and by himself."

(This language has all the appearance of an apology for an opinion contrary to the general and prevailing one. Were not the holy prophets men? and did not Christ say, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me? and did he not prove that doctrine to be of God, by the signs and wonders which God did by him? To receive therefore the doctrine of God from Christ, or from the holy prophets, i. e. from men, is one thing; but to receive the doctrines of men, is another, and a very different thing.

Justin Martyr proceeds,*) Jesus may still be the Christ of God, though I should not be able to prove his pre-existence, as the son of God who made all things. For though I should not prove that he had pre-existed, it will be right to say that, in this respect only, I have been deceived, and not to deny that he is the Christ, if he appears to be a man born of men, and to have become Christ by election.'— This is not the language of a man very confident of his opinion, and who had the sanction of the majority along with him.

"The reply of Trypho the Jew, with whom the dialogue he is writing is supposed to be held, is also remarkable, showing in what light the Jews will always consider any doctrine which makes Christ to