logical blunder*, which supposes a man to be in existence in the reign of Trajan, who was certainly put to death in the reign of Domitian. We have dwelt thus particularly on the subject of our author's "Introduction," as it contains the fundamental principle on which his entire system is built. On reducing Philo and Josephus from the rank of primitive Christians to their proper level * Vid. Huds. in Joseph. contr. Apion. Tom. II. p. 1329. n. f. Whist. in Joseph. Jew. Antiq. Procem. p. 2. n. e. Josephus inscribes his Life" to Epaphroditus, vid. Joseph. Vit. § 76. Tom. II. p. 39. ed. Haverc. specifying in the course of it, that K Agrippa II. was then dead; Justus of Tiberias having deferred the publication of his history until that occurrence took place, that the falsity of his statements might not be detected; Id. ibid. § 65. p. 33. Justus, however, fixes the death of K. Agrippa to A. D. 100. ap. Phot. Bibliothec. Cod. xxxiii. which perfectly accords with the statement of Josephus, that Justin's history was com pleted during the life of Vespasian and Titus, though the publication of it was deferred twenty years after the time when it was composed. Joseph. ibid. p. 33. Now as Vespasian died A. D. 80, before which time it is not probable that Justin completed his history of the Jewish war, which was not terminated until A. D. 73: if we allow for the 20 years during which it remained unpublished, it brings down the time when Josephus, in addressing Epaphroditus, speaks of that history as published, and of Agrippa as dead, to A. D. 100. Nothing however is more certain than that the Epaphroditus, who was freedman to Nero, was put to death by Domitian, A. D. 95. Vid. Dio. Hist. Lib. LXVII. cap. xiv. p. 1113. He cannot of course form any middle term to connect the Epaphroditus who was known to Josephus with the Epaphroditus who was known to St. Paul But, in truth, we have only to compare the description of Josephus, Vit. § 76. p. 39. Antiq. Jud. Proœm. § 2, Tom. I. p. 2. with that of the Apostle, Phil. ii. 25-30. in order to discover the ludicrous absurdity of conceiving them the same person; Josephus having courted the favour and protection of the one, while the other is commended to the respect and protection of the Philippians. The title under which Josephus addresses his patron, is κράτισε ἀνδρῶν Ἐπαφρόδιτε; which is precisely the title St. Paul gives to Festus, Act. xxvi. 25. οὐ μαίνομαι, κράτισε φῆσε, Ι am not mad most noble Festus: as "the most noble Epaphroditus". must have conceived him, had he found himself addressed in the following terms, τὸν ἀδελφον καὶ συνεργόν καὶ συτρατιώτην με ὑμῶν de Torohov, These last words, instead of proving that the Apostle's fellow-labourer, was the most noble Epaphroditus, a Procurator to Trajan, justify the received notion that he was the humble Epaphroditus, who was afterwards bishop of Philippi; vid. Bevereg, in Canon. Apost. i. Patr. Apost. Tom. I. p. 458. col. 1. among among infidel Jews, the force of their testimony, which under any view must have been perfectly harmless, when cited against Christianity, now wholly vanishes into smoke. And whether their evidence is adduced against the miraculous conception, or the introductory chapters of the Gospels, by which that doctrine is proved, it is entitled to just as much respect as may be due to the "Nizzachon" of Rabbi R. Lipmann, or "Calm Inquiry" of Mr. Thomas Belsham, works which we conceive to rival each other as much in piety, as in learning and sense. Our author having thus laid his foundation, proceeds on the main object of his work. His first part, which is divided into ten chapters, consequently opens with disclosing the source from whence the orthodox opinion has originated relative to the Divinity of our Lord. In this pious undertaking, "Mr. Jones (who) professes to be an ardent and patient enquirer, guided only by the evidence of facts, and not by the authority of the learned," has contrived to demonstrate this repugnance to owe any thing to the labours of the learned, by the equally liberal use and parsimonious acknowledgment which he makes of Dr. Lardner's laborious collections. The authorities which he thus musters, he directs to that point, to which, as may be easily conjectured, the reasoning of the Unitarian champion primarily tends. "The Heathens, it is well known, believed in the existence and agency of many gods. These, as they supposed, often appeared in the shape, or entered the bodies of men. When Jesus Christ appeared, and exhibited, in the miracles which he performed, the proofs of his divine mission, the conclusion was natural, that he was himself one of the gods, acting by virtue of his own power, and not with the authority of Jehovah. A Jew, who disbelieved the Pagan gods, would more rationally infer that he was the servant. of God-endued with power to prove the truth of his delegation. But the spirit of Paganism dictated to its votaries a very different inference; and this dictate will appear the origin of the Divine, nature, which has ever since been imputed to Jesus of Nazareth." P. 47. Thus far, however, we are brought round by this ingenious mode' of advancing, to the precise point from whence we set out. From this representation, which our author proceeds to confirm and exemplify, by the convenient assistance of Dr. Lardner, it appears, that the heathens were found polytheists at the beginning, and continued such to the last. But this is but a small part of the merit of this argument, which is a happy exemplification of that method of superabundant proof, which in establishing twice as much as is requisite, virtually proves nothing nothing at all. From this reasoning it as certainly follows, that Paul and Peter, and the other Apostles, were deified not less than our Lord; for they also were men preternaturally empowered, who by working miracles gave evidence that they were gods. If such was the effect of that miraculous power, with which the primitive ministry was endued, our author must again disprove twelve parts out of the thirteen, which compose his own demonstration, before he can be admitted to have advanced a single step in his proof: for it is peculiar to those who maintain the orthodox faith, to deny the divinity of the twelve apostles with the same stedfastness that they assert the divinity of Christ. But on proving thus much, we conceive he will leave his original proof as inefficient and hollow as we could desire. But we can probably help this sophist to a distinction which will enable him to extricate the question out of that happy perplexity into which it blunders under his explanation. If therefore we may be allowed to state the truth, in a manner little known to Unitarian logicians, without suppressing the better part of it, the question between the Orthodox and Unitarian will assume a very different hue. Let the purblind sophist therefore restore that part of the argument which has been thus dexterously or unwittingly suppressed; let him acknowledge prophecy as well as miracles to form the proof of our Lord's divinity; he will thus possibly unriddle the mystery in which the question between us is otherwise inextricably involved ;-how Christ was received as God, while his Apostles were merely acknowledged as men. In fact, on this species of divine demonstration, the founders aud apologists of Christianity have invariably insisted from the first. It is the proof to which the Apostle St. Peter appeals on the first preaching of the Gospel; it is the proof to which the Evangelist St. Matthew appeals in the opening chapters of the first part of the sacred canon which he composed*. The long list of Christian apologists, who have contended for the faith, from St. Barnabas to St. Athanasius, never deviate from this line of prooft, which was con * Comp. Act. ii. 14. 16. 25. 30. 33. 34. Matt. i. 22. 23. ii. 6. 15. 17. iii. 3. &c. + S. Barnab. Epist. cap. i. ii. Patr. Apost. Tom. I. pp. 56. 60. S. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. capp. v. vii. Patr. Apost. Tom. II. pp. 35. 86. J. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 286. d. sqq. ed. Par. 1675. Tertul. adv. Jud. cap. vii. p. 188. sqq. ed. Rigalt 1675. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. iv. cap. xi. p. 239. S. Cypr. adv. Jud. Lib. II. cap. ii, sqq. p. 32. ed. Ox. 1682. Orig. contr. Cels. Tom. I. p. 365. d. sqq. ed. Bened. Euseb. Dem. Evang. Lib. IV. cap. xv. p. 171. sqq. Lib. V. per tot. p. 202. sqq. S. Athan. contr. Arian. Orat. I. eap. xiii. p. 417. cap. lii. sqq. p. 456. &c. ed. Bened. secrated secrated by the observance of their inspired predecessors. The modern Unitarians, we are sensible, emulating a different example, reject the prophetical part of the demonstration, which, we are likewise sensible, was rejected by their precursors, the primitive Ebionites; and as the proof of genuine Christianity is in all ages conclusive, the consequences of this rejection of its evidence, are, under all circumstances, the same. The he retics of either age not only reject the conclusion which this evidence establishes, that Christ was incontestibly God, but, demonstrate their sense of its conclusiveness, by rejecting those parts of the Scriptures as spurious, by which this pure, this essential doctrine of Christianity is infallibly proved. We have, however, yet another exception to put in against the deductions of the researcher. The conclusion which he labours to establish, as it is insufficient in its intention, is likewise unfounded in fact. We have still to observe, that however admirably calculated the methods of Evangelical demonstration were to attain the purposed object, such is the obstinacy and fully of the human heart, that they generally failed of their end. The Heathens, some very partial instances excepted, neither admitted the divinity of our Lord, nor admitted his miracles to be a proof of it. We retain, unfortunately for the credit of the contrary assumption, adequate accounts, delivered on the testimony not merely of Christians, but of Heathens and Jews, of the effects produced by the display of miraculous power, which distinguished the ministry of our Lord. Instead, however, of proving the despised and crucified Galilean a god, whose humiliation and sufferings but ill accorded with their gross notions of the glory of a divinity, they very effectually proved him a magician. If Celsus be any authority, such was the effect which was wrought on the Heathens t. If the Talmudists be any authority, such was the effect produced on the Jews. The Christians fully confirm the truth and evince the antiquity of this representation; not merely by the methods in which they countervailed the prejudices of both parties, but by the explicit allegation of their words. From the age of Justin Martyr to that. of St. Athanasius, evidences might be easily accumulated § in. * S. Epiphan. Hær. xxx. cap. xviii. Tom. I. p. 142. b. ed. Petav. + Vid. Cels. ap. Orig. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. Tom. I. p. 346. Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Talmud. v. TUD, p. 1460. Just. Mart. Apol. Maj. p. 72. a. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 296. a. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. II. cap. xxxii. § 4. p. 166. Arnob. adv. Gent. Lib. I. p. 25. ed. Varior. 1651. Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. I. cap. Ixviii. p. 302. Euseb. Dem. Evan. Lib. III. cap. v. p. 125. a. Id. contr. Hierocl. p. 512. d. S. Athanas, de Incarn. Verb. cap. xlviil. Tom. I. p. 89. e. proof proof of the fact. In a word, so inveterate were the prejudices of Jew and Gentile against the doctrine of a suffering Saviour, so debased their conceptions of the nature of God, that their preconceived opinions on these subjects irresistibly opposed the operation of those proofs which demonstrated the divinity of our Lord *. The platform of our author's work being thus laid, two ob jects necessarily fall within the compass of his design : 1. to trace the causes by which pure Unitarianism declined, and 2. to point out the impure source from which the orthodox faith has descended. The foulest sink of Heathen and Gnostic depravity is accordingly sounded and opened up; from the one he deduces the doctrine of the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, and from the other the doctrine of Original Sin, Free Grace, Justification, &c. Most bitterly do we deplore, that our time and limits will not permit our following the author through the congenial element into which his fancy now leads him, with a species of drunken infatuation. Hopeless as the task would be, by a selection out of that mass of nonsense and blasphemy which he has accumulated," to exhibit the Unitarian creed and its advocate in that detestable light in which they must strike its votarists, were they not grossly besotted; it would at least afford us an opportunity of administering that salutary correction, which is necessary to bring an offender to himself, who does not merely forget the respect due to the faith which has the sanction of laws, human and divine, but deems the decencies of social life only devised to be outraged. To the castigation of one error we will, however, descend; as it involves the only point that has even the show of plausi bility, and is deemed of fundamental importance by its author. "And here it must be observed," says Mr. Jones, "that the simple humanity of Christ is essential to the validity of the whole scheme. Jesus Christ rose from the dead as a pledge of the resurrection of mankind: he must therefore in nature and constitution be one of that kind. For if he inherited the divine nature, it most obviously followed, that a being, who by virtue of his superior nature, survived death, is no proof of the resurrection of an inferior race of beings, who by nature are subject to death." P. 64. How the resurrection of one man can be the proof of the resurrection of another, even after this demonstration, we are rather too dull to discover. We can perceive an analogy be Vid. Cels. ap. Orig. ut supr. Lib. II, cap. ix. p. 392, d. Tryph. ap. J. Mart. ut supr. p. 249. b. tween |