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 objects 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 detestabie light in which they must strike its votarists, were they not grossly besotted; it would at least afford us an opportunity of adminis tering 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 up, tween the resurrection of two men, and deduce an inference from the one to the other; but in the objects in which the Unitarian reasoner represents his fundamental tenet as exemplified, the analogy is so faint as to elude our perception, the inference so remote as to defy an induction. The resurrection, of the Prophet of Nazareth was attended with circumstances so peculiar, that we can scarcely conceive another case with which it can be identified. It cannot follow by necessary consequence, that' because that frame which never saw corruption was raised the body which moulders to dust, or is consumed to ashes, will again resume its vital warmth and motion. We mention this case out of numbers that may be imagined; and it sufficiently demonstrates that some intermediate links must be supplied in the chain of proof, by which objects thus unassociated and remote, are connected together. These links we can indeed very easily supply; but when supplied, we at once perceive, that they' supersede the Unitarian proof, which is simply deduced from the resurrection of a prophet of Nazareth. If from the debasement of this scheme, we now lift our eyes,. and look up to the system of pure genuine Christianity, it re presents our Lord's death as directed to an end which was infinitely higher than that of giving proof of a resurrection. In the humonia copia Oe (that multiplicity of design which can apply the same means to the attainment of different ob jects), we have reason to admire and adore that Wisdom which gave to his resurrection this variety of application, and rendering it a proof of his immeasurable power, laid the foundation of that proof, by which we may deduce our own from his resurrec tion. He permitted the annihilation of his natural power in submitting to death; and by raising himself up, set the seal of truth to his promise, and proved himself possessed, not merely' of power to perform what he has declared, but of that preternatural power which is more than adequate to our resuscitation. For he who could work so great a miracle in his own person, when he submitted to the bondage of death, must be adequate fo work the same miracle individually in ours, now that he has broken the fetters of the grave, and triumphed over the de-' stroyer. So far, therefore, is the consideration of his divine nature from being subversive of the evidence of a resurrection, that it confirms the proof deducible from his revival from the grave by the strongest corroboration. But let us subduct this notion of inherent power from his resurrection, and we can no more infer from his having risen, that we shall rise, than it can be inferred from the historical fact of his having cured the dropsy or leprosy. VOL. IV. SEPTEMBER, 1815. R Impotent Impotent as the attempt of our author is to establish the fundamental tenet of his creed, it is surpassed in imbecility by his efforts to account for the manner in which that creed was superseded. To accomplish this end, the heathen notion of the Divinity of our Lord is assigned the double duty of explaining how the primitive doctrine, 1. of Christ's simple humanity, and 2. of the resurrection of the dead, were ultimately subverted, in the fall of which the pure Unitarian faith was necessarily in volved. P. 63. sqq. It cannot be necessary to enter into the merits of a proof which is deduced from an assumption, equally absurd and unfounded. Yet false and foolish as we have proved our author's fundamental position, that the heathens acknowledged the Divinity of Christ; it is equalled in these engaging qualities by his inference, that they employed this notion to subvert the proof of a resurrection. As intrepid assertion weighs very light in the scale against positive fact; our author may be sent for instruction to his own authorities; and they will teach him a different lesson, without imposing on him the task of forcing it by torture from their unwilling assertions. The Gnostics, he may there learn, rejected the incarnation*, and the Heathens the resurrection, because they accounted both absurd and impossible. Consequently, even according to the scale of his own meagre scheme of religion, they never could have passed the threshold of Christianity: for, faith in the humanity of Christ and in a general resurrection are we believe essential articles even in the Creed of Unitarian Christianity. We are freed from the task of pursuing these absurdities any further to their consequences. Our author having thus laid his train, and prepared us for the eventful moment of applying the match, very prudently retires from the consequences of an explosion. Having concluded his long demonstration or dream, and proved very much to his own satisfaction, that some possibility existed, that corruptions might have tainted the primitive doctrine; in the expectant moment, when we looked for some evidence of the fact, he very politely takes leave of his subject and proof, in the following terms: "In this chapter my purpose is briefly to detail a few impor tant facts respecting the corruptions of Christianity, leaving the evidence of them to develope itself, as occasion may require in the course of the volume." P. 80. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. I. cap. xxvi. § 1. 2. p. 145. + Cels. ap. Orig. Lib. V. cap. xiv. p. 588. a. b. Athenag. de Besur. p. 44. a. c. Theoph. ad Autol p. 77. c. ed Par. 1615. After After wearying ourselves in search of this evidence, it is true, without indulging the smallest expectation of discovering any, even the feeblest attempt to produce it: our readers need scarcely be informed how fully this expectation was answered. As we have, however, now reached the very point of attack at which the entire fury of the enemy is directed, it may not be imprudent to fortify it against the attempts of future assailants. In the Christian Heresies and the Heathen Philosophy, the adversaries of our religion have long pretended to discover the impure sources by which the apostolical faith was corrupted. After having inspected the source of this imaginary pollution we conceive it possible to demonstrate, in very few words, that this notion is not merely at variance with truth, but irreconcilable with possibility. Of the origin of the primitive Hereticks we cannot be ignorant. The uniform statement of early writers, inspired as well as ecclesiastic, represents them as descended from the school of Simon Magus, a native Samaritan*. The source of their errors, and the subject of the divinity and incarnation of Christ is thus easily discovered in the history of his compatriots. The Samaritans, who were regarded as heretics by the Jews, had been established in the region to which they gave their name, previously to the return of the Jewish tribes from the Babylonish captivity. As this event, however, took place previously to the collecting of the Jewish Canon, which was embodied by Ezra ; and as subsequent jealousies tended to embroil these sectaries with the Jews, they acknowledged no more of the Scripture text as canonical, than the Israelites had brought with them into captivity. The Prophets, who had predicted that event, whose works, of course, were not embodied in the canon until it had occurred, were in consequence rejected by the Samaritans. The Christian Hereticks, who were their immediate descendants, naturally inherited their prejudices; and both of the great sects into which they branched, rejected the prophetical writings, after the example of their founder §, and with them rejected, of course, one half of the proof of Christianity, which rests on the demonstration of inspiration and miracles. Having thus forined a creed, which excluded the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ, which the Prophets had plainly inculcated; according to this creed, they squared or rejected the Christian Ca *S. Iren. ib. cap. xxiii. § 2. p. 99. Basn. Hist. des Juif. Liv. II. ch. iv. § 19. Tom. III. p. 80. Id. ib. ch. xi. § 2. p. 215. S. Iren. ib. cap. xxvii. § 2. p. 106. S. Epiphan. ut supr. p. 239. n. *. § Id. ibid. § 3. p. 99. R 2 non, non*, as it suited their preconceived opinions. This account of the origin of those heresies, which carries conviction in its internal evidence, is confirmed by the external testimony of the primitive writers; from the times of St. Polycarp, who succeeded St. John, to the age of St. Epiphanius +, who speaks of the remains of those sects, as existing in Cyprus in the era in which he flourished. The origin of the School of the new Platonists, which was established in Alexandria, is not involved in greater, obscurity. The foundation of that sect, which was laid in the scheme of a grand comprehension, which was to include the Platonic aud Peripatetic Philosophy is ascribed to Ammonius. From this school descended Herennius, Plotinus, and Origenes, who were succeeded by Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Hierocles || the avowed and implacable enemies of the name and revelation of Christ. Under Plutarch it was transferred to Athens, he having been a native of that city §; and Proclus, Syrianus, Marinus were his successors. Isidore and Damascius must be referred to the same school, by whom the remains of the sect were again transferred to Alexandria. But we must not confound the Philosophic and the Cater chetical School, which were equally established in that city. Of the former we have an account in a fragment of Origen, whose authority is definitive on the point at issue; as he presided in the one and frequented the other but he sets at the head of the former School his master Pantænus and we learn from Eusebius, that the succession of his disciples consisted of Clement, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius and Pierius **. Some further account of the Catechetical School, after this period, may be collected from a fragment of Philippus Sidetes, who was the last of the series of lecturers. He represents the succession as perpetuated in Theognostus, Serapion, Petrus Martyr, Didy mus and Rhodou. By the last mentioned person it was S. Iren. cap. xxvi. 2. p. 105. cap. xxvi. f 4. p. 106. + Poly. Ep. ad Philipp. cap. vii. p. 188. S. Epiph. Hær. p. 58. d. Hierocl. de Provid. et Fat. p. 46. ed Lond. 1673. Porphyr. Vit. Plotin. p. ix... li Id. ibid.. Damas. Vit. Isid. ap. Phot. Biblioth. n. ccxlii. Orig. Epist. Oper. Tom I. p. 4. b. Conf. Euseb. His. Eccl, Lib. V. cap. x. p. 220. 1. 29.Lib. VI. cap. xix. p. 282. 1. 34. ** Euseb. ub. supr. cap. xxvi. p. 292. 1. 10. ++ E. Cod. MS. Baroc. n. 142. f. 216. ap. Dodwel. Dissert. in Iren, p. 488, ed. Oxon. 1689. transferred |