Nazareth, they had crucified the Lord of glory or that the per son whom they had slain was no other than the Creator of the world, in human nature! In the first instance, the Apostle appealed to what the Jews themselves knew of Christ; in the last, to what he knew concerning him, who, with his fellow-apostles, had beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. Did Peter speak as would a "modern Unitarian," when he said to his countrymen, Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved? Such language, I fear, is seldom, if ever, used in their pulpits. It is such, however, as I have never met with in their writings. On the contrary, one of their principal writers endeavours to explain it away, or to prove, that it is not meant of “salvation to eternal life, but of deliverance from bodily diseases."t Dr. Toulmin finds Stephen before the council, but makes no mention of his death; in which he is described as praying to Christ, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.-Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Having made a few remarks upon the eighth chapter, he observes, "I next meet with this Apostle (Peter) receiving an extraordinary commission to preach unto Cornelius and his house." But why does he skip over the ninth chapter, which gives an account of the conversion of Saul? Was it because we there find the primitive Christians described as calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus? (ver. 14. 21.) And why does he make mention of "the fine speech of the Apostle Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus," and yet overlook that solemn charge, Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood?§ Is it because he thinks, with Dr. Priestley, that "we ought to be exceedingly cautious, how we admit such an expression ?"|| That seems to be the reason. But then, we ought to be as cautious, how we admit the book which contains it. +Dr. Priestley's Familiar Letters, No. XIV. * Dr. Toulmin, p. 14. + Page 17. § Chap. xx. 28. Familiar Illustrations, p. 36. In preaching to the Jews, the apostles insisted that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Son of God; resting the proof of these assertions upon the fact that God hud raised him from the dead; and Dr. Toulmin reckons this to be, "what, in modern style, is called Unitarianism."* But this is proceeding too fast. Before such a conclusion can be fairly drawn, it must be proved, that these propositions have the same meaning in the Socinian creed, as in that of the apostles. Let us examine whether that be the case. When they asserted, that Jesus was the Christ, the meaning of the terms must be supposed to have been sufficiently understood. When Paul preached at Athens, though he ultimately brought Christ into his discourse, yet he did not use this kind of language. It would have been improper to have done so. The Athenians would not have understood what he meant by Jesus being the Christ but the Jews did; and the ideas which they would attach to this name, must be collected from the means of information which they possessed. If, as Socinians affirm, the Christ preached by the apostles, was only an instructor of mankind; if he suffered martyrdom only in confirmation of his doctrine; and if his being called the Son of God, denoted him to be nothing more than human; it must be supposed that these were the ideas which the prophets bad given of the Messiah, which our Lord himself had professed, and which the Jews had understood him to profess. And, if all this be true, it must be granted, that the apostles used these terms in the sense of our opponents; and Dr. Toulmin's conclusion, that "their preaching was the same, for substance, as that of modern Unitarians," is just. But, if the Messiah, prefigured by Jewish sacrifices, and predicted by the prophets, was to take away the sins of the world, by being made an atoning sacrifice; if Christ, in professing to be the Son of God, professed to be equal with God; and if his countrymen generally so understood him, and, therefore, accused him of blasphemy, and put him to death; then it is not true that the apostles could use these terms in the sense of our opponents, and Dr. Toulmin's conclusion is totally unfounded. The reader may now judge of the propriety of the following language, used by Dr. Toulmin. "If you suppose, Sir, that these * Page 28. sentiments were inculcated and blended with the great truth, the Messiahship of Jesus, it is supposition only, which is not supported by the testimony of the historian, nor by the practice of the apostolic preachers on any other occasion. You may build on suppositions; but I must be allowed to adhere to what is written."* Now, I appeal to the intelligent reader, whether Dr. Toulmin has any thing more than supposition, as the ground of his conclusion, that the apostles, in teaching that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, "taught nothing more than what, in modern style, is called the Unitarian doctrine." The only ground for such a conclusion, is, the supposition that the Messiah, predicted by the Jewish prophets, was not to become an atoning sacrifice, but a mere instructor of mankind: that he was to be merely a man; that his being called the Son of God, denoted him to be nothing more than human; that this was the substance of what he himself professed, and of what the Jews understood him to profess. All this is mere supposition, for which not the shadow of a proof is offered; and yet, without it, Dr. Toulmin's conclusion must fall to the ground. Contrary to all this supposition, I take leave to observe, First: That the Messiah prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, and predicted by the prophets, was to become a sacrifice of atonement or propitiation, for the sins of the world. His soul was to be made an offering for sin. The Lord was to lay on him the iniquity of us all. He was the Lamb of God, who was to take away the sin of the world. But, if the Old Testament representations were in favor of the Messiah's being an atoning sacrifice, the apostles, in declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, virtually declared him to be an atoning sacrifice. Secondly: That the Messiah, predicted by the prophets, was to be God manifest in the flesh, or God in our nature. Unto the Son it was said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The child born was to be called the mighty God. He who was to feed his flock like a shepherd, to gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, was no other than the Lord God, who would come with strong hand, and whose arm should rule for him. The goings forth of him who was to be born in Bethlehem, were of old, from everlasting. But, if the prophetic representations of the Messiah, were in favor of his being God in our nature, the apos→ tles, in declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, virtually declared him to be God in our nature. Thirdly That our Lord, in saying I am the Son of God, was understood by the Jews as claiming an equality with God; that he was, on this account, accused of blasphemy, and finally put to death; and all this without having said any thing that should contradict the idea which they entertained. Jesus said, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. The Jews said, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. But for the apostles, under these circumstances, and without explaining away the supposed blasphemy, to assert that Jesus was the Son of God, was the same thing as asserting him to be equal with God: and their calling on his murderers to repent and be baptized in his name, for the remission of sins, was calling them to retract their charge of blasphemy; to embrace him in that very character for claiming which they had put him to death; and to place all their hopes of forgiveness in his NAME, by which alone they could be saved.‡ From these premises, and not from mere supposition, I conclude, that the deity and atonement of Christ, were comprehended in the great doctrines of his Sonship and Messiahship. If Dr. Toulmin's remarks on the Acts of the Apostles are for eign to the argument, much more so are those which respect the concessions of ancient Fathers, and modern churches and church men. To these I shall make no reply. And, though I have so far followed him, as, in these few pages, to reply to some of his observations; yet, I desire it may be noticed, that I shall not hold myself obliged to pursue this subject any further. If Dr. Toulmin choose to resume the controversy, let him keep to the subject; namely, The moral tendency of our respective systems. Any thing besides this will be entitled to no reply. Psalm xlv. 6. Compare Heb. i. 8. Isa. ix. 6. xl. 10, 11. Micah v. 2. + John v. 17, 18. xix. 7. |