doctrine; nor supported by the hope of immortality, resting on his resurrection: all would have been moral darkness still. But he was faithful to him who appointed him; he endured temptations; he performed the whole of his heavenly commission; he revealed the grace of God; he exhibited the power of religion in his own conduct; he submitted to death as necessary to the fulfilment of the divine purposes; he was obedient in all things to the will of God; and thus became perfect through sufferings. He is, therefore, exalted to the right hand of the Eternal; and is made Head of the church, or first and chief among the saints or children of God; who, through his faithful agency and the influence of his heavenly doctrines, are to be made partakers of inmortality.

It is only to consider our Saviour in this high and holy character, to consider him as faithfully fulfilling this important and divine work of a messenger from God, to enlighten and reform mankind; and all the epithets applied to him in the New Testament will appear perfectly just and consistent, without the strange and revolting interpretation, which the Trinitarians adopt. As he was amply qualitied by the Deity to instruct and save the world, it was most proper to speak of him as the Messenger and Son of God; as the Captain of our Salvation,' 'the resurrection and the life: as having power given him to bestow eternal life' on the obedient and pious; as 'judge of the world,' as having all authority in heaven and earth,' &c.

We will only add, that the passage in 1 John, v. 7, is acknowledged to be an interpolation by all candid and learned Trinitarians; that, in Acts, xx. 28, it should be Lord or Christ, and not God; and that the texts, 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. i. 8; 1 John v. 20, and Rev. i. 11 and 17, are not, all of them, as they now appear in our Testaments, agreeable to the most ancient and correct versions; and that some fairly admit of translations, which afford no support to the doctrine of the perfect equality of Christ with the Supreme Deity.

But upon all these points we have written more fully in other places, and do not now intend to enlarge. We rather refer our readers to Mr. Bailey, the author of the sermons mentioned at the head of this article. He is a decided and able advocate for the doctrine of the divine unity. We do not, indeed, perceive any arguments entirely new, or more convincing than have been urged by other writers. But it is apparent, he has thought. much on the subject; that he has read the Bible with attention, for the purpose of forming his opinions consistently with its inspired declarations; and that he is most sincere and impartial in his present convictions. He refers to the opposition of the

doctrine to our reason and understanding; but dwells chiefly on those passages of scripture which are supposed to relate to the subject. He insists on the express declarations in the Bible, that God is one; and that Christ was sent, commissioned and qualified by God for the great work of salvation: and that however highly our Lord is represented and whatever epithets are applied to him, they must all be taken and construed in accordance with other plain texts of scripture, which teach the unity of the Deity. The passages quoted by Trinitarians, are mentioned, and the criticisms and remarks accompanying, are correct and discriminating. But, above all, there is a most excellent spirit discover. ed in the whole discussion, which we recommend to all who engage in theological controversy. Why is it, we ask with surprise and regret, that among men who profess to be disciples of the blessed Jesus, and who are contending, not for triumph, but for truth, not for speculative tencts, but for doctrines according to godliness;' there appears so much ill will, uncharitableness and bitter reproaches? Alas, we fear, they know not what spirit they are of.' A humble and devout spirit, after all our researches and inquiries, will teach us charity, and will prevent our anathematizing others who are faithful in their investigations and true to their own convictions. We cannot, indeed, conceive that real christians will bite and devour one another.'

6

We are th more gratified with the views and reasonings of Mr. Bailey, because they are those of a man who has seen and felt all the difficulties with which the subject is encompassed, on the one side as well as on the other. He has been perfectly acquainted with the strong holds of orthodoxy, in which for years he dwelt. He knows the full weight of the arguments on which he once rested, and therefore can the better appreciate those which oppose them. The evidence which has satisfied ourselves, seems to acquire double value, when we find that it has proved sufficient also to satisfy one, who had been accustomed to regard it as light and weak. Mr. Bailey was formerly a decided Trinitarian. But from recent examination of the New Testament and serious reflexions on its declarations, he has become convinced that the doctrine is not taught in the inspired volume: That it is an article framed by fallible men; resting wholly, (so far as scripture is concerned) on forced and unauthorized constructions of a very few texts. The honesty, explicitness, and strength and clearness of reasoning, with which he has declared his convictions to the world, instead of persecution and reproach, merit commendation and praise.

We recommend these sermons to serious and inquiring christians, who are desirous of having their opinions rest upon the

6

foundation of the apostles and prophets; and who would have their faith stand, not in the pretended wisdom of fallible men, but in the plain declarations and instructions of the gospel, which is the power of God.' They will find all the main points of scriptural evidence, adduced with great clearness and conciseness, leaving every argument in its naked force, unencumbered by needless words, circumlocution, or repetition. We do not know that they would be likely to meet elsewhere an equally extensive view of the subject comprized within so small a compass, and set forth in so satisfactory a manner. The Sermons are six in number, with the following titles:

Sermon I. The Father alone to be worshipped, as the True God.

Sermon II.

Sermon III. dered,

Sermon IV. of God.

Christ and the Father, two distinct beings.
The names, titles, and works of Christ, consi-

Christ does not possess the peculiar attributes

Sermon V. Christ is not to be worshipped as God. Sermon VI. Christ possesses only one Intellectual Nature. We spare ourselves any analysis of the contents, and present but one specimen of the book.

2

The circumstance that both are mentioned in the same connexion, is no evidence that both are equally worshipped. This is confirmed by the following examples. "And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king." (I. Chron. xxix. 20.) Here Jehovah and David are connected as objects of worship, in the same way, as God and the Lamb are connected in the passages under consideration. Had these words been found in the New Testament, with the name Christ instead of the king, it is needless to say, how they would be applied by Trinitarians. We should have been told of the inconsistency, nay the idolatry, of uniting a creature with the Creator, in the same act of worship. The passage now shows, how we are to estimate this kind of argument. It proceeds on a wrong supposition; viz. that both of the persons, mentioned, must be equally objects of worship. When the congregation worshipped Jehovah and David, they doubtless worshipped each according to his character; the first, as God, the second, as king of Israel. Both were worthy of honour; but in unequal degrees. So, when blessing, honour, &c. are ascribed to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb; the nature of the case, and the description, given of the two, show, as in the other instance, that only one of them is worshipped as the supreme God. The language here no more proves the Lamb to be equal, or equally worshipped, with him, who sitteth on the throne; than, in the other case, it proves David to

66

be equal, or equally worshipped, with the Lord. Our Saviour said, Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." (Luke ix. 26.) Had the last clause been ;-" when he shall come in his own glory and of the Father, and of the holy Spirit ;"-we should probably have been told, that the glory of the three is the same, and therefore that the three must be equal; and, further, that it is inconsistent to mention the glory of a creature in connexion with that of the supreme God. The passage however entirely refutes this mode of reasoning; and shows, from the very best authority, that the glory of creatures may be mentioned in the same connexion with that of the Creator, without any design of representing them to be equal. St. Paul said, (I. Tim. v. 21.) "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels." Had this passage been read;—“ I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit;" it would doubtless have been regarded as a proof of the Trinity; on the ground, that, in the most solemn charge, which can be given to man, a created being could not consistently be united with the supreme God. Perhaps it would have been considered an act of worship to the three persons in the divine nature; and as an instance of the equal glory, which they receive. Of "him that overcometh," Christ said, "I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, and my new name." (Rev. iii. 12.) Though this is never thought to prove the supreme divinity of "him that overcometh;" yet, the angel, who is supposed to be Christ, is thought by many to possess essential deity, because God said "My name is in him." (Ex. xxiii. 21.). Why is an inference drawn in the latter case, which, as every one knows, cannot be drawn in the other?-pp. 57–59.

ARTICLE XV.

The History of the Church of Christ. By JOSEPH MILNER, M.A. 5 vols. 8vo. Boston. 1809. 12mo. 1822.

WE rank ourselves with those who believe that the world is gradually growing wiser; in religion as in every other department of knowledge. And yet on this supposition, we can hardly account for the singularly vicious taste of the public evinced by the sort of books that are growing into popularity. Why is it that the solid and deep-toned, though in some respects erroneous, devotional works of Taylor and Baxter and Watts, are every where giving place to the flimsy sentimental trash continually teeming from our presses, in the shape of Diaries

and Experiences? Why is it that the sensible and learned Expositions of scripture by Whitby and Doddridge, are likely to be intirely supplanted by the cumbersome volumes of Scott, whose wearisome Notes and Observations,' are not only read and endured, but praised and held as almost oracular? These surely are signs which would seem to indicate a retrograde movement of the human mind; so far at least as religion is concerned. It certainly must prove some such movement that another edition of Milner's Church History is demanded; an author remarkable for nothing more than for the dull and heavy manner in which te retails his dull and heavy matter. Our surprise that there should be a demand for a new edition of this book is the greater, because the same subject has been so often treated by other and abler hands; by men holding the same theological opinions with Milner, and yet in every respect superior to him as ecclesiastical historians ;-not only more learned, consistent and impartial, but also more dignified, more interesting, and even more powerful as the advocates of their party, and certainly more respectable as its representatives.*

The very principle on which Milner proceeds in writing his history, and which he boasts of so much as his new plan,' is liable we conceive to very strong objections. He thinks that ' in every age there have been real followers of Christ' who have constituted his church, and that 'to illustrate the character of these men, and point out some of the effects of the Holy Spirit upon them,' is the true and proper object of the ecclesiastical historian. Under these impressions he gives us what he is pleased to call, a history of the out-pourings of the Divine Spirit; without paying much attention to the secularities of the church, to its forms and customs in different ages, to the causes of its errors and dissentions, nor even to chronology or the connexion of the narrative. Now we do not deny that such a work, executed with judgment and in a good spirit, presenting in

1

* It is objected to Mosheim, and perhaps with some degree of justice, that he is too voluminous a writer and too erudite, as well as too much employed upon civil affairs, and upon the schisms and corruptions of the church, rather than upon the church itself, for general reading. But there are other works against which none of these exceptions can be taken. in particular the following The History of the Christian church from the Birth of Christ to the Eighteenth century: including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albegenses. By William Jones. 2 vols. 8vo. 4th Edition. London : 1819.' Here is a work respectable in every point of view, embracing the same period and written upon nearly the same plan with Milner's, coming too from an orthodox man and designed expressly for popular reading; and yet this book has been allowed to reach a fourth edition in England without having been reprinted in this country.