PART I. GROUNDS FOR THE CONVICTION THAT UNITARIANISM IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL. CHAP. II. Evidence of each Book of the New Testament, respecting the Nature of our Saviour. THE chief opinions respecting the nature of Jesus. Christ, which oppose the Unitarian doctrine are the following, 1. That he is the only God;-2. That he is the very and eternal God, of one substance, power, and eternity with the Father ;-3. That he is inferior to the Father, yet properly God, and the creator and governor of at least this world; 4. That he existed before his human birth, but without any agency in the creation or government of the world. There are many shades of difference between these leading opinions; but these are the prominent differences, and the division is suffici ently accurate for my purpose. It must, I should suppose, be admitted on all hands, that at the time when the books of the New Testament were written, all was known by the Apostles, which can now be known respecting the nature of our Saviour; and that no one of the writers of the New Testament, could be ignorant of what was then known. Again, it appears to me equally clear, that the writers of the New Testament did not compose their respective books with reference to each other, so that all might together form one whole; but that each wrote what was requisite for his particular purpose, without reference to what might in future be written by others. From these positions I infer as a natural consequence, that if either of the first three opinions above stated concerning the nature of Jesus, be accordant with the matter of fact, we may reasonably expect to find in every book in which he is expressly spoken of, sufficient reason to believe that the writer was acquainted with it and believed it. The circumstance must have been so astonishing in every point of view, that one who for more than thirty years was to all outward appearance a o The Gospel of John seems to imply an acquaintance with one or more of the first three Gospels, or with the basis of them; and it appears to me very probable that the writer had in view, among other things, to supply deficiencies in the previous narrations, particularly with respect to those transactions which displayed the great criminality of the Jews in rejecting Jesus. That it was not his purpose to supply defects respecting the nature of Christ, I infer from his own statement in ch. xx. 31.-But though it is probable that John's Gospel would not have been written, if the other Evangelists had recorded the events and discourses which he relates, yet there is no room whatever to suppose, that any one of the other Evangelists was influenced in his silence as to the supposed superior nature of Christ, by the knowledge or expectation that John would supply his defects on that point. man, who experienced all the wants and sufferings incident to human nature,-who, manifesting indeed the possession of divine powers, spoke of them as the gift of God, and while employing them lived with his disciples, and was regarded by his followers at large, as a man,-who, at last, though. holy and innocent, after experiencing intense distress of mind and acute pain of body, died as a malefactor on the cross,-and who, though raised from the dead by the power of God, and exalted to power and great glory, before his ascension was occasionally with his apostles as a man with his fellow-men', and for some time after was spoken of by them without any reference to the superiority of his nature,--it must, I say, be so astonishing in every point of view, that this person should have been himself the supreme Jehovah, or a being of one substance, power, and eternity with the Father, and himself the very and eternal God, or even the highest of created beings and the creator and governor of the world, that it appears to me next to impossible, that any to whom this stupendous event had been communicated, could, after such communication, write or speak of him in terms which could lead their readers or hearers to suppose that they were ignorant of it, or even leave them in doubt whether they fully believed it. Now most competent judges agree, that the earliest of the Gospels was not written, in its present form at least, till John xxi. Luke xxiv. iii. 23, &c. &c. ii. 22, 23, 36. iii. 13. v. 30. x. 38.. A. D. 63 or 64, which is more than 30 years after the effusion of the Holy Spirit; that the book of Acts was not written till A. D. 63 or 64; and that the first written of the other books, viz. the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, was not written till A.D. 52. In the foregoing paragraph, I have purposely omitted speaking of the fourth scheme, (that of simple pre-existence,) because I am sensible that owing to the adoption among the Pharisees of the doctrine of the pre-existence of men in general, the mere circumstance that Jesus existed before his human birth, would not be so astonishing or confounding to the imagination of a Jew, as the suppositions considered before. Still, as no one of the present advocates for this opinion connects it with an hypothesis so unfounded both in reason and revelation as the pre-existence of all men, but all of them maintain that the state in which Jesus existed before his human birth, was a state of glory and happiness far superior to what is enjoyed by any in the present world,-that in fact Jesus, before his human birth, was not a man but a being of superior nature to that of man,-it seems to me that much of the weight which presses upon the former hypotheses, presses upon this of the simple pre-existence, as maintained by all who now maintain it, and as it ever will be, so long as the foundation for it is sought in the Scriptures". According to this hypothesis, Because some of the strongest passages in favour of the pre-existence if they prove that point, prove also that the supposed prior existence was a state of great glory and happiness. one who lived and died as a man, who did nothing that a man could not do if God were with him3, who taught nothing which man could not teach, if God communicated to him His willt, who, during his abode on earth, was regarded by his apostles and all his followers as a man, and was afterwards spoken of by them as a man, was in reality a being of superior order, who had existed in a state of great glory and happiness, and was made man, in order to accomplish certain purposes which the advocates for this hypothesis must allow could at least as well have been answered by a proper human being, endowed with sufficient power by God, and sufficiently acquainted with his will respecting mankind. Now as this circumstance, if the matter of fact, must have been known to those who have recorded the words and actions of our Saviour before they committed their accounts to writing, it seems to me next to impossible, that three of them should have written respecting this illustrious supra-human personage, not only without in any way declaring his superiority in nature to other men, but so as to give no room for the inference that they knew of such superiority,-in fact just as we should expect persons of their age and country to write respecting one of whom they knew that he was a man from God pointed out by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him"," and "declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead";" and as to his nature, no more than this. 66 |