they are not only filent upon the fubject, but, in almoft every page of their writings, affert things in direct contradiction to it.

After having attempted to prove the divinity of our Lord, from the divine attributes and names which are given to him, Mr. Hawker obferves, that the following fuppofition feems to be inevitable, on the prefumption that our Lord is not truly divine; "That God himself fhould fuffer a fpirit of delufion and error to make its way into the church, inftantly on its eftablishment, and continue its baleful influence through so many ages, from the days of the apoftles to the prefent hour; which," he adds, "is at once the moft fenfelefs not to fay impious idea that can be conceived." (i) But all this is founded on the fuppofition that the apoftles and early chriftians were believers in the doctrine of our Lord's deity; a fact which Mr. Hawker has by no means proved to have been the cafe; and which is not to be admitted without fatisfactory evidence. He fays indeed, that "the Bishop of St. David's hath very clearly proved, by quotations from the writings of the early Chrif tians, that they did not deny this important article of our faith. And the learned world is certainly very highly indebted to him for refuting the affert

ions

(i) P. 221.

ions of Dr. Priestley on this head." (k) It would be an eafy matter for me to affert the contrary; but I wish not my reader to take any thing upon truft. Whoever defires to fatisfy himself on this point, fhould confult the writings of both thefe authors. It will be found difcuffed at large in Dr. Priestley's Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity, in the Controverfy between him and Dr. Horseley, in Dr Priestley's Hiftory of early Opinions concerning Chrift, and in his History of the Chriftian Church. I may refer those who have not time to perufe thefe large works, to a very fmall and cheap pamphlet, entitled, A general View of the Arguments for the Unity of God; and against the Divinity and Pre-exiftence of Chrift; from Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from Hiftory.

I readily allow that the doctrine of our Lord's deity has been profeffed, for a very long time, by the generality of chriftians; but this circumftance will no more prove it to be true, than it will prove the abfurdities of popery to be true; for the idolatrous worship of faints and images has prevailed among christians near fourteen hundred years, and the deification and worship of a piece of bread near a thousand. Indeed, the fame principle, if admitted,

(k) P. 17. note.

admitted, would juftify us in concluding from the existence and prevalence of evil, moral and natural, in the world, that our heavenly Father was not just, and wife, and good. The truth feems to be, that in this variety of opinions which the Almighty has fuffered to take place, as well as in all his other difpenfations, he has fome wife and benevolent ends to answer, with which fuch fhort fighted, creatures as we are, may be totally unacquainted. One end however, and a very important one, we know may be answered by it; it may teach us to be humble in our theological refearches, and to exercise candour, forbearance, and christian love, to all our brethren of mankind, from the confideration that we are ourselves fallible alike with them, being equally expofed to prejudice and error, and that there are confcientious men to be found

among all denominations of chriftians. Truly happy muft that man be, and peculiarly entitled is be to the name of chriftian, on whose mind, dif ference of fentiment on religious fubjects has produced thefe defirable effects.

Mr. Hawker concludes this part of the subject by attempting to account for the Unitarians' re. jection of the numerous and diversified evidences by which he imagines the doctrine of our Lord's deity to be supported. "It is not," he fays, "to be accounted for on common principles, and one

fhould

should be almoft tempted to apprehend that there must be some latent cause in the mind itself preventing their effect. The pride of human reafon, joined, perhaps, to what the apostle emphatically calls the god of this world, blind the minds of them which believe not, left the light of the glorious gospel of Chrift, who is the image of God, fhould fhine unto them." (i) I am far from being disposed to cast reflections upon any man. But I think I may juftly fay in reply to this infinuation, that if the eyes of any are blinded by the god of this world, they are the eyes of the man whofe fyftem of faith is connected with the good things of this world, whofe emoluments and dignities depend upon the peculiar articles of his creed, and not of the poor Unitarian. It must be evident to every one, that he has little or nothing to expect from this world; but, on the contrary, that he is obliged to forego all its emoluments and dignities. And this being the cafe, he must be free from a number of those temptations which might otherwife give an impróper biafs to his judgment, or which might unfit him for the investigation of truth, or induce him to dissemble it after he had really found it.

(1) P. 221. 222.

CHAPTER

CHAPTER XI.

Of Mr. Hawker's Arguments in Proof of the Deity of Chrift, from his having taken away Sin by the Sa crifice of Himfelf, from the laft Scenes of his Hiftory, and from his being appointed by God to raise the Dead and to judge the World.

HE next argument which Mr. Hawker pro

TH

duces in favour of the doctrine of our Lord's divinity is, his having taken away fin by the facrifice of himfelf. (1) But he has brought no argument to prove, that because he has done this he must therefore be God. All he fays on this fubject is, that "to give efficacy to the oblation he made, it became expedient that he should be holy, harmless, undefiled, feparate from finners, and in every way untainted with the pollution of that fallen race, whofe guilt he fuffered to expiate." (m) But this he certainly might be without our fuppofing his nature to be divine. Indeed, Trinitarians themselves, I think, muft allow, that it was nothing more than the human nature of Jefus Christ which made the facrifice, as it was impoffible for the divine nature either to fuffer or die. What arguments

(1) P. 222.

(m) P. 232.