what portion, of Deity is implied in the person of Christ. It is, however, certain that it can be no more than one third, and it may be much less. But if the three distinct persons, as such, comprize the whole of Deity, then Christ is just one third of the Supreme Being, and no more.

That our trinitarian brethren do conceive of the Father and Son, as distinct portions or members of Deity may appear from this circumstance, viz. They suppose the Son, or second person, to be so united to the man Jesus, that the Son and the Man are but one person; and that the obedience, suffering, and death of the man, in that state of union, may properly be called the obedience, suffering, and death of the Son of God. But they do not suppose, that either the Father or the Spirit was thus united to the Man, or human nature. On their theory

the man Jesus is the Son's human nature. But were the three persons but one individual essence, if the essence of one person were united to the man Jesus, the essence of all the persons would be equally united to that man. Therefore if the essence of the Son be united to human nature, and the essence of the Father be not united, they are distinct essences.

If it were proper to affirm "the Deity of Christ," as many have done, the man, or human nature, to which the Son was united, would be properly the human nature of the Deity or Supreme Being. These conclusions, it is believed, cannot be set aside but by affirming, that the three persons are mere nonentities.

But if, to set aside these conclusions, it shall be said, that it was the divine person of the Son and not the essence of the Son, which was united to the "man of Nazareth," I would ask, how is the divinity of Christ to be supported? Can we affirm divine nature of a mere name without divine essence? And what is a Deity without divine essence? Can Christ be properly "the DEITY," while there is nothing of divine essence in him? But if the divine essence of the Son was united to human nature, and the Father was not equally united, the Father and the Son must be perfectly distinct essences or beings.

The doctrine of three distinct persons in one God, has been

supported with a particular design to maintain the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. But, although it places the Father and the Son on the ground of absolute equality, it is, in my view, infinitely degrading to both. It has often been objected to this doctrine that it implies three distinct Gods.— And much of the language which its advocates use, naturally leads to that conclusion. But to set that conclusion aside, they affirm that the three persons are but one Being. But if they can fairly avoid that conclusion, there is another which is unavoidable, viz. that the three distinct persons are but three distinct parts of the Supreme Being. It is manifest that neither of the persons, as such, can be regarded as a proper intelligent Being, for the three are no more than one intelligent. Being. But while we regard the Father and the Son as only distinct parts of the same Being, in what a diminutive light do they both appear, compared with the representations given by Christ. The Father he regarded as the Supreme Being, the only living and true God: and he represented himself as the

only begotten Son" of the "only true God." But the trinitarian theory sinks the Father from his proper dignity as the Supreme Being, to, at most, one third of that Being. And Jesus Christ is sunk from his proper dignity as the only begotten Son of the only true God to one third of the Supreme Being: And both the Father and the Son are at most but two thirds of ONE GOD.

Having been on similar ground myself, it is easy for me to believe that many who now attempt to support such doctrines, do it with a view to the honor of Christ. And so far as this is true, it is believed that they will receive his approbation. All this may be granted; and still it may be true that the sentiments are not only incorrect, but inconsistent with his true dignity, and degrading to his character. It may, also, be true, that there has been, and still is, an inexcusable neglect and unwillingness in respect to a thorough examination of the subject; and a criminal indulgence of a censorions spirit towards all who feel bound to think for themselves, and by thinking depart from the popular mystery.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY.

BETWEEN DR. PRIESTLEY AND DR. HORSLEY, THE MONTHLY REVIEWER, AND OTHERS.

Continued from volume i. page 277.

HAVING, in the last number of the Repository, stated that part of the controversy relating to the accounts which we have of the faith of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and to the direct historical evidence in proof of the unitarianism of the ancient Jewish church; we now come to another branch of the controversy. It relates to an argument of Dr. Priestley, which is as follows. The Jews in the time of Christ expected á man only as their Messiah. As a man therefore Christ must at first have been regarded by his apostles and disciples. If therefore he were God, or the maker of the universe under God, and it be supposed that this was afterwards known to them, we should be able to fix some period, or periods, when this communication was made, and to trace some effects and consequences from the disclosure of a fact so wonderful. We are able to do neither. But further, if the apostles had ever preached to the Jews, jealous as that nation was of maintaining the divine unity, any doctrine, which might be so easily understood as an infringement of it, it would have excited violent enmity against them among the unbelieving part of that nation, and many questions and controversies among those who believed. But we find no traces of any such effects in the writings of the New Testament. These difficulties, according to Dr. Priestley, were felt by the Christian Fathers. They agreed, that the Jews in the time of our Saviour were unitarians in the strictest sense; and they affirm that through fear of giving them offence, and through fear of leading the gentiles into polytheism, the doctrine of Christ's being God was divulged slowly, and with great caution, and not openly taught till the publication of St. John's gospel, after the death of most of the apostles. But this hypothesis could have been forced upon the fathers only from the necessity of giving some solution of the difficulties before stated; and of offering something to ae

count for a fact, which they who lived near the times could not deny, the prevalence of unitarianism in the early ages of the church.

The first part of this argument is very forcibly stated in the fifth of Dr. Priestley's First Letters to Dr. Horsley.

"I cannot," says he," dismiss this subject of the strong prejudices of the Jews in general in favor of their Messiah being merely a man (thus explicitly acknowledged by Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others, who say, that on this account the apostles did not preach the doctrine of the divinity of Christ at first, but only after the people were satisfied with his Messiahship) without requesting your opinion with respect to the time when this great secret, of Christ not being merely a man, but the eternal God himself, or the maker of heaven and earth under God, was communicated, first to the apostles themselves, and then by them to the body of Christians.

"You cannot say that John the Baptist preached any such doctrine; and when the apostles at first attached themselves to Jesus, it is evident they only considered him as being such a Messiah as the rest of the Jews expected, viz. a man, and a king. When Nathaniel was introduced to him it was evidently in that light, John i. 45, Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. He had then, we may suppose, no knowledge even of the miraculous conception.

“Now as you say, that Christ was so much more than man, that his being found in fashion as a man was really the most extraordinary part of his history and character;'* and at first the apostles, you must allow, were wholly ignorant of this; there must have been a time, within the compass of the evangelical history, when this most extraordinary part of his character was communicated to them. Now what period in the gospel history can you pitch upon, in which you can suppose that this great discovery was made to them? What traces do you find of it?

"That Jesus was even the Messiah was divulged with the

Charge 1, § 9.

greatest caution, both to the apostles, and to the body of the Jews. For a long time our Lord said nothing explicit on this subject, but left his disciples, as well as the Jews at large, to judge of him from what they saw. In this manner only he replied to the messengers that John the Baptist sent to him.

"If the High-priest expressed his horror, by rending his cloaths, on Jesus avowing himself to be the Messiah, what would he have done if he had heard, or suspected, that he had made any higher pretensions? And if he had made them, they must have transpired. When the people in general saw his miraculous works, they only wondered that God should have given so much power to a man, Matt. ix. 8. When the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men; and yet this was on the occasion of his pronouncing the cure of a paralytic person, by saying, Thy sins be forgiven thee, which the Pharisees thought to be a blasphemous presumption.

"At the time that Herod heard of him, it was conjectured by some that he was Elias, by others that he was a prophet, and by some that he was John, risen from the dead; but none of them imagined that he was either the most high God himself, or the maker of the world under God. It was not so much as supposed by any person that Jesus performed his mighty works by any power of his own; so far were they from suspecting that he was the God who had spoken to them by Moses, as you now suppose him to have been.

"If he was known to be a God at all before his death, it could only have been revealed to his disciples,' perhaps the apostles, or only his chief confidents among them, Peter, James, and John, suppose on the mount of transfiguration, though nothing is said concerning it in the history of that transaction. Certainly what they saw in the garden of Gethsemane could not have led them to suspect any such thing. But if it had ever been known to Peter, can we suppose he could have denied him as he did? Besides, as our Lord told them there were many things which he could not inform them of before his death, and that they should know afterwards; this was a