NOTE TO THE APPENDIX. Dr. Horsley triumphantly appeals to Barnabas's testimony to prove the early orthodoxy of the Hebrew church, p. 286. Dr. Priestley's reply, ibid. Jeremiah Jones's estimate of the value of Barnabas's testimony, ibid. Dr. H., sensible of the weakness of his argument from the church of Ælia, endeavours to bolster up his charge against Origen by two citations from his Reply to Celsus, p. 287;-both charges unfounded and trifling, ibid. Dr. P's. severe remark, Dr. H. misled by Mosheim: and having brought the charge, thought A Summary View of the various Opinions which have been en- tertained concerning the Person of Christ; with the Argu- ments for, and Objections against, each. Sect. I. Proper Unitarian Scheme, p. 291;-the doctrine stated, ibid. Reasons why they assume the title of Unitarians, p. 296. -Arguments for the Unitarian doctrine, ibid. Objections urged, p. 299. Reply, p. 302. Arians, who believe Christ to be the Maker and Governor of the world, not properly Unitarians, p. 308.-Sect. II. The Socinian Scheme stated, p. 309. Objections against it, p. 311. Sect. III. Low Arian Scheme, p. 313;-opposed, p. 314.- Sect. IV. High Arian Scheme stated, p. 315. Argument in favour of it, p. 318. Objections against it, p. 319. Objections against limited Arianism, p. 321. Sect. V. Semi-Arian Scheme stated, p. 322. Arguments in its favour, p. 323. Objections, p. 324.-Sect. VI. The Indwelling Scheme stated, p. 325. Arguments and objections, p. 326. Sect. VII. Sabellian Scheme, p. 327.-Sect. VIII.* Swe- denborgian Doctrine, p. 328.—Sect. IX. Tritheism, p. 330.—Sect, X. Trinitarian Doctrine, ibid. Arguments in favour of the Deity of Christ, p. 331. Objections, p. 332.-Hypothesis of the Realists, p. 336;-of the Nominalists, p. 337.-Proper Athanasian Scheme, p. 338.-Remarks, p. 339.-Remarks upon those who adopt Scrip- AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE PERSON OF CHRIST. INTRODUCTION. THREE principal hypotheses have been maintained concerning the person of Jesus Christ. 1. That Jesus of Nazareth is a proper human being, the greatest of all the prophets of God. 2. That a pre-existent created spirit of a higher or lower degree in a supposed celestial hierarchy animated the body of Jesus. 3. That the divine nature, or a divine person, was so united to the human body and soul of Jesus as to form one person, who is both truly God, and truly man. The first of these is the doctrine of the Unitarians; the second is that of the Arians; and the third is that of the Trinitarians. All Christians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was to outward appearance a man like other men: and that though he was an inspired prophet, who performed miracles, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, he is not, on these accounts solely, to be regarded as a being of rank superior to the human race, but that separate and direct evidence is necessary for the establishment of this specific fact. Hence it follows that, in this inquiry, the whole burthen of proof lies upon those who assert the pre-existence, the original dignity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. and If any one affirm that a being who has every appearance, every incident and quality of a man, is not a real man, but a being of an order superior to mankind, it is incumbent upon him to prove his assertion. If he fail in his proof, his hypothesis vanishes, and the person in question must be regarded as a real man. It is therefore by no means necessary for the Unitarian to adduce proof of the proper simple humanity of Jesus Christ. It would be equally reasonable to demand of the Jews a demonstration of the proper humanity of Moses. If the Arian or Trinitarian doctrines be not satisfactorily proved by direct and specific evidence, the Unitarian doctrine must be received as true. For who is so unreasonable as to require evidence to prove a man to be a man? In this controversy, therefore, the proper province of the Arian and Trinitarian is to propose the evidence of their respective hypotheses; that is, to state those passages of Scripture which they conceive to be conclusive in favour of their doctrines. The sole concern of the Unitarian is to show that these arguments are inconclusive: that the passages in question are either of doubtful authenticity, or misunderstood, or misapplied. This is the precise state of the question. It is admitted by all parties. It must be continually kept in view. This view of the subject points out the true and only proper method of conducting the argument. It is by proposing and carefully examining the controverted texts. He who will not submit to this labour must be content to remain ignorant, or to take his opinions upon trust. The following observations may be of use to guide our inquiries. 1. If Jesus or nis apostles peremptorily and unequivocally declare the doctrine of his pre-existence and original dignity, |