he underwent temptations such as would naturally follow from the new circumstances in which he was placed:-that though he spoke and acted with a dignity and authority suited to his heavenly commission, yet he directed his disciples to pray to God and make him the object of their chief affections, without claiming any personal honour to himself, still less intimating that he was himself intitled to divine honour and worship:-that having in vain endeavoured to convince the Jews, by his miracles and instructions, that he was the promised Messiah, and that his kingdom was not of this world, he was crucified by them in circumstances of great suffering and ignominy :that previous to his crucifixion, he underwent great distress of mind:-that he died and was buried: that he rose again from the dead; appeared to his Apostles in Galilee; and gave them their final commission to spread his religion.

Throughout the whole of Matthew's Gospel, there is not a single passage which indicates that the Evangelist thought our Saviour to have possessed any nature superior to that of man. He records two expressions of our Lords,* which

Matt. xi. 27. "All things have been delivered [or communicated] to me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father, but the Son, and he Q whomsoever the Son chooseth to reveal him."-On this passage I observe, 1. That since he to whom the Son reveals the Father, knows the Father, the expression can have no reference to the nature of God, which is incomprehensible by finite minds, nor to the general proceedings of his universal providence, which are also out of the reach of the human understanding fully to comprehend; and the connexion obviously points out, that "knowing the Father,' means, knowing his purposes with respect to the mission of our

are usually understood as implying the possession of power and knowledge in a degree inconsistent with his simple humanity; and two others, which are supposed to imply a personal universal presence with his disciples.* The Apostle also records the baptismal form which is now commonly used;† and the author of the Introductory Narrative speaks of the application of the name Emmanuel to Jesus. no advocate for the

But it is probable that superior nature of Jesus

Lord. 2. This determines the meaning of the expression knowing the Son; viz. knowing the full extent and purport of his mission, and shews that it has no reference to any supposed incomprehensibility of his nature. 3. The whole refers to the time then present. 4. Whatever knowledge of the divine purposes Jesus possessed, it was communicated to him by God; and he could communicate it to others.

Matt. xxviii. 18. "All power [or authority] has been given me in heaven and on earth." The only difficulty here is as to the nature and extent of the authority; for whatever the authority was, it was given to Jesus, and he who gave it could also fit him for employing it. Some remarks on the passage will be found in Chap. VI. § 3.

*Matt. xviii. 20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.-Ch. xxviii. 20. And lo, I am with you always to the end of the age.

On these passages some remarks will be found in Ch. VI. § 3; I content myself here with observing, that whatsoever be the nature and duration of the presence here spoken of, the same power which raised him from the dead, which carried him from this earth, and rendered his body incorruptible (see Rom. vi. 9.) could doubtless communicate to him the properties on which such presence depends.

The stress which is laid by many on the baptismal form as a proof of the Trinity, will oblige me to make some remarks upon it (see Ch. V.) To me it appears clear, that if this be as some say the chief support of the doctrine, it must soon fall, never to rise again. If the baptismal form do not favour this doctrine, it obviously is no proof of a superior nature in Christ.

If the name Emmanuel (God with us) imply that Jesus is God, then indeed there must be to us as to the heathen,' gods many and lords many;' for many names in the Hebrew language imply at least as much as Emmanuel, such as Elihu, my God himself; Eliah, the Lord God, &c.

would deny, that if we had been possessed of this Gospel alone, the doctrine of his divinity,* or even of his pre-existence, could never have been received as Christian doctrine.

Evidence of MARK, A.D. 64.

II. Nearly the same observations may be made respecting the Gospel of MARK. This Evangelist, who was the relation and disciple of Peter, and who is usually thought to have compiled his narrative under the immediate direction of that Apostle, says not one word which indicates that he considered our Saviour as having a nature above that of man. He records one expression of our Lord which I regard as fatal to the Trinitarian scheme, though at first view it appears most favourable to the superiority of his nature to that of angels;t but this is in appearance only; and at most, as all will allow, if favourable to the latter opinion, it in no way proves the point.

* I use this word throughout, in reference to the nature of Jesus Christ. I admit the divinity of his mission, of his office or character, of his revelation; I too should readily use the expression divinity of Jesus himself, (in reference to his being the representative of God, to his possessing the spirit beyond measure, &c.) were it not ambiguous in its import, and most commonly used in reference to a superior nature supposed to be possessed by Jesus. Against this supposition my objections rest.

+ Mark xiii. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no one (neither the angels that are in heaven, nor the Son,) except the Father.' It might more reasonably be expected that Jesus would have been informed of the exact time of the coming of the Son of man, than that any other being, however exalted in nature, should be made acquainted with it.

Evidence of LUKE, A.D. 63 or 64.

III. IT can scarcely be necessary to add, what every careful reader of the Gospel of LUKE must know, that it contains nothing from which alone it could be inferred that Jesus possessed a nature above human, or existed before his human birth. If the usual interpretation of ch. i. 26-38, really give the meaning of the Evangelist, then he informs us that our Saviour's birth was owing to the miraculous agency of divine power;* but he also records circumstances which, if not totally inapplicable to a being possessed of a nature more than human, are at least most applicable to one who was strictly and properly speaking a human being: he says (ch. ii. 40) that the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,' (the very words which he had employed respecting the Baptist,) filled with wisdom, and the grace (or favour) of God was upon him;' and in ch. ii. 52, he says, and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man.'—In different parts of his Gospel, he relates the effect of the miracles of Jesus upon the minds of the beholders;-they convinced the people that God

6

The reader will find in Appendix I. my opinion respecting the genuineness of the introductory chapters of Luke's Gospel, and also respecting the real meaning of the passage which is supposed to teach the miraculous conception of our Lord. It cannot be too much borne in mind, that this last is a question having no peculiar relation to Unitarianism. That Jesus was not the son of Joseph, is an opinion which I reject, because I deem it inconsistent with the express declarations of the Scriptures, (that Jesus was the son of David,) and not required by the statements of Luke; but I never felt it in any degree affecting the doctrine of the simple humanity of our Lord.

C

was of a truth with him, but never led them to the inference that he was more than man.* He records some facts of high interest respecting the character and humanity of our Lord, which are not recorded by the other Evangelists;† but there is not, I believe, through the whole of his Gospel, above one passage which appears to indicate that he possessed a nature more than human; and the appearance merely arises from not distinguishing character or office from nature.‡

IV. It may now be convenient to attend a little to the other invaluable narrative of this Evangelist. In the Acts, St. Luke has given an account of the preaching of Christ among the Jews by Peter, of the extension of the gospel-covenant to the Gentiles, of the conversion of Paul, and of his preachings among the Gentiles, and before some eminent men, both Jews and Gentiles.The British and Foreign Bible Society printed 2000 copies of a translation of John's Gospel into the Mohawk language.§ It may not unreasonably be supposed that the Mohawk Indians will for some time know nothing of the Scriptures but what they now possess; and that their views of Christianity will, in a great measure, be those

• See Luke v. 26. vii. 16. xvii. 15, &c. and Matt. ix. 8. Ch. vii. 36-50. xxii. 43, 44. xxiii. 34, 46, &c.

Ch. x. 22. See the Note on Matt. xi. 27, p. 22.

§ See First Report, p. 16.

Not that I think that the Gospel of John, translated with tolerably accuracy, and left to make its own impression, would give persons of plain good sense a conviction of the divinity or pre-existence of Jesus, for cases have occurred to my knowledge proving