the first and second chapters; second, actions and discourses of Jesus at or near Capernaum, reaching to ix. 51; third, narratives of journeys to Jerusalem, to the end of the nineteenth chapter; fourth, accounts of the last days of Jesus, his resurrection and ascension, to the end of the book. These divisions are sub-divided into the following sections:

First division, i. 5-80, apparently an original, highly poetical composition; ii. 20, 21-40, 41-52, apparently detached narratives.

Second division, iii. 1-22 to the end, iv. 15, 16—30, 31-44, v. 11, 12—16, 17-26, 27-39, vi. 11, 12, vii. 10, 11-50, viii. 21, 22 to the end, ix. 45, 46–51.

Third division, a collection of narratives, partly of the last journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem before the feast of dedication, ix. 51, xviii. 14, partly of his journey from Jericho to Jerusalem, before his last passover, xviii. 15 to the end of xix., but not in strict order, either of time or place, divided into the following sections ix. 51, x. 24, 25—42, xi. 13, 14, xii. 53, 54, xiii. 9, 10-22, 23 -35, xiv. 24, 25-35, xv. 1, xvii. 10, 11-19, 20, xviii. 14, 15-34, 35, xix. 48.

Fourth division, xx. and xxi. xxii. 1-6, 7-23, 24-30, 31-34, 35-38, 39, xxiii. 49, 50—54, 55, xxiv. 12, 13— 44, 45 to the end.

Each of these four divisions, Schleiermacher supposes to have been a compilation, drawn up in writing by different individuals, probably Jewish disciples, partly from oral accounts, partly from written fragments; and that Luke compiled his Gospel from these four collections. Whatever may be thought of this mode of accounting for it, an attentive reader of the gospel will, I think, perceive, that this division, both into four parts and into sections, is extremely natural. The verbal agreements between this and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are then accounted for by the supposition, that they also had collections of at similar kind, by which they were assisted in writing their Gospels. I have thus endeavoured to give your readers a brief outline of this system, for a more complete view of which I must refer them to the Essay itself.

T. C. HOLLAND.

JESUS CHRIST AN UNITARIAN TEACHER AND WORSHIPER.

Manchester, March 18, 1828.

SIR, THE design of this communication to you is to shew, that our Lord Jesus Christ was an Unitarian; and if you think it worth a place in your valuable publication, it is at your service for insertion.

Christians of Trinitarian sentiments, as well as every other sect, in their religious conversations and exercises, have always used a language that necessarily corresponds with the creed they profess to believe. Trinitarians speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, as distinct in person; they speak of them as each having the same attributes, of both being infinite in perfection and dignity, and of both being equally objects of religious adoration and of all the parts of religious worship. Many of Trinitarian sentiments insist much on one of the names of God as a proof of a plurality of persons in the Deity: they say the word Elohim is in the plural number, and that it signifies that three equal persons exist in the Divine Nature. They speak of the second person in the Trinity; they call him the God-Man; they say he came to make an atonement for sin; which atonement was either to render God merciful or to enable him to be so: and they farther add, that those doctrines are some of the essential doctrines of the gospel, which whoever does not believe is not a Christian, and is not entitled to salvation.

Now, suppose a man set apart to the office of the Christian ministry in a Christian congregation, the members of which are professed Trinitarians; suppose this man should constantly preach to the said congregation for one, two, or three years, what he conceived to be the doctrines of the gospel; and yet never, no, not even once, either in his prayers or sermons, mention the word Trinity or use the phrases Three Persons in one God, God the Son, GodMan; if he should never tell his hearers that the word Elohim is in the plural number, and that it signifies three persons in the Divine Nature, and when he had occasion to translate it, he should always translate it in the singular number; if he should explain the phrase, Son of God, not as descriptive of nature, but as a title of office; if he should speak of Christ as a Son of Man, and most frequently call him a man sent from God; if he should describe the Divine Being as in and of himself merciful, and

ready to forgive men on their sincere repentance and reformation; and if, under the influence of this view of the Divine clemency, he should never use the word atonement; and, lastly, if he should tell his hearers that one person only was God, I ask, would there be an individual of the congregation who had observed the omission of those things that were not said, and paid attention to those things that were said, who would not be ready to rise up and affirm, with a full conviction on his mind, This preacher is not of our sentiments- This man is a Unitarian?-Such a preacher was Jesus Christ. He preached for one, two, or three years constantly, probably every day in the year; and yet, in the Evangelists who give us an account of what he taught, we find he never uses the word Trinity, nor the word atonement; he never uses the phrase God the Son, or asserts that he and the Father were one nature, or that he and the Father were one being or one God; or that he had the same attributes as the Father, and was equal to him in perfection and dignity: he never calls himself the God-Man; he never uses the word God, as denoting the Divine Being, in the plural number, but always in the singular, precisely as a Unitarian would; he refers to him by personal pronouns, and these are always in the singular number; as in Matt. vi. 33, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. In Matt. xix. 4, 7, our Saviour refers to Gen, i. 26, 27, in which the Hebrew word for God and the pronoun referring to it are said to be in the plural number; but he translates them both in the singular: "Have ye not read, that he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female? What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." In Mark xii, 29, our Saviour quotes Deut. vi. 4. In this text Moses uses the word God with the plural termination, but our Saviour translates it in the singular: "Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." A Unitarian would do the same, because he thinks that the Hebrew plural termination, when annexed to the name of God, and the plural pronouns referring to him, are nothing more than Hebrew idioms to express excellence or dignity.

Our Saviour speaks of God and himself together precisely as a Unitarian would do, that is, as two distinct beings. John v. 32, 37, "There is another that beareth

witness of me. The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." viii. 17, 18, "It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." vi. 38, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." xiv. 1," Ye believe in God, believe also in me." In these passages it is obvious to remark, that our Saviour declares that there are two witnesses to his doctrine, himself and another, the Father; that the Father sent Christ; that he came in obedience to the Father; that they have each a distinct will; and that they are both to be believed. Precisely such a distinction of person and being would a Unitarian make.

If a Unitarian were asked what is his distinguishing doctrine, he would answer, "The distinguishing doctrine of the Unitarian is this that Being who is called the Father is the only true God.". Even so does our Saviour express himself. John xvii. 3, "This is life eternal, to know thee (the Father, see ver. 1) the only true God." When our Saviour speaks of himself in regard to the rank he holds in the scale of being, his language is the same as a Unitarian would use. John x. 29, "My Father is greater than all." xiv. 28, (6 My Father is greater than I." viii. 4, he calls himself a man. Ver. 28, he calls himself the Son of Man. When our Saviour speaks of the origin of his power and authority, he speaks precisely as a Unitarian would do on the same subject. John v. 19, "The Son can do nothing of himself." Ver, 30, "I can of miné own self do nothing." Matt. xxviii. 18, All power is given unto me." John xvii. 2, "As thou hast given him power over all flesh." Ver. 7, "Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me, are of thee." John v. 27, "The Father hath given him authority to execute judgment." vii. 16, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." viii. 28, viii. 28, I do nothing of myself, but "I as my Father has taught me." Ver. 40, "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God." As he had heard some things, and had been taught some things of God, so he declared them. But what he had not heard, and what he had not been taught, he presumed not to declare; and in one instance he says he knew nothing about it. Mark xiii. 32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the

angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." All this is the direct language of a Unitarian,

66

Our Saviour calls himself the Son of God. The Jew's attempted to pervert this phrase from the simple meaning in which our Lord used it, and attempted to found upon it a charge of blasphemy. Our Lord justifies himself in taking to himself the title, and against the charge of the Jews, and he does so entirely on Unitarian ground. The sense in which the Jews pretended to understand him seems to be this: By calling God your Father, and your self the Son of God, you assume an equality with God.” Our Saviour had said, John v. 17, 18, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said God was his Father, making himself equal with God." x. 32, 33, "Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, heing a man, makest thyself God." How did our Saviour answer to this charge? Did he admit that the Jews had put a right sense upon his words?-and did he justify himself from the charge of blasphemy by declaring that he possessed all the attributes of the Divine Nature that he was absolutely God?-God-Man ?— that, in his divine nature, he was of the same substance with the Father? A Trinitarian would have done so for he has always agreed with the Jews in their sense of our Lord's use of the words Father and Son. But very different, indeed, was his answer. In the first instance we are informed that Jesus answered and said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself." In the second instance, we are informed, that "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" Here we have our Lord's own explanation of his calling God his Father, and himself the Son of God, viz. because the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world. He had a right to call himself the Son of God, and to call God his Father, because the word of God had come to him; and others of former times, unto