resemblance to that which the expressions naturally suggest and in their true sense they may mean nothing more than what a human being, exalted and endowed as Jesus is, may be qualified to perform. God declares to the prophet Jeremiah, chap. i. 10, “See, I have set thee this day over all nations, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant;" when nothing more was intended than to authorize the prophet to declare the divine purpose. And the promise to Peter, Matt. xvi. 19, that whatsoever he bound or loosed on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven, is usually understood in a similar sense. The prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem is expressed in language as strong, and in figures as awful, as those which relate to the last judgement; and the personal appearance of Christ himself, with his angels, is as expressly asserted; see Matt. xxiv. 29. Luke xxi. 25, &c.: yet, for any thing that appears, these calamitous events were brought to pass by natural means, and probably without any personal, certainly without any visible, interference of Christ. He was only so far concerned in it, as, in the symbolical language of prophecy, to declare authoritatively that the event would happen.

6. May we not then be permitted to conjecture, that when Christ is represented as appointed by God to judge the world, nothing more may be intended by this language, but that the final states of all and every individual of mankind shall be awarded agreeably to the declarations of the Gospel? This supposition is perfectly analogous to those cases which are cited under the preceding head, especially to the strong expressions which are used concerning our Lord's advent for the destruction of Jerusalem; the accomplishment of which in a figurative, and not a literal sense, seems intended to direct our minds to the interpretation of those symbols which typify, and of

that

that language which announces, the personal agency of Christ and his disciples in the awful solemnities of the final judgement. This explanation affords a very easy solution of the language of Paul concerning the saints judging the world. The apostles and christians in general may fitly be represented as assessors with Christ on the tribunal of judgement, as by the very profession of christianity they bear their solemn testimony, to the unbelieving world, of the divine declaration by Jesus Christ, that there is a life to come, in which men shall be rewarded according to their works.

In perfect analogy to this interpretation, Christ is figuratively represented as a lawgiver, because the precepts of his Gospel are laws to govern the conduct of his disciples: -he is figuratively a priest, because he voluntarily deli vered himself up as a victim; and sacrificed his life in the cause of truth, and in obedience to the will of God.-He is figuratively a conqueror and a king, and universal dominion is ascribed to him, because his Gospel and religion will gradually prevail through the world, and all nations will eventually submit to its authority. In like manner, Christ is figuratively a judge, because the final states of all mankind will be awarded in a future life agreeably to the solemn, repeated, and explicit declarations of his Gospel.

Our Lord himself appears to give some countenance to this interpretation, by the language which he uses, John xii. 47, 48, "If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him. THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, THE SAME SHALL JUDGE HIM AT THE LAST DAY."

It is a consideration of some weight, that this interpre tation relieves the doctrine of the proper humanity of Jesus

Christ from that great difficulty which has been stated above, viz. that a mere man should be appointed to judge the characters, and to assign the final states of all the human race; and obviates an objection which, to some inquisitive and reflecting minds, has appeared insurmountable 19.

It is obvious that the same arguments will apply to the personal agency of Christ in the resurrection of the dead, though the difficulty in this case may not perhaps be quite so great as in the other. And if And if any should object that such a latitude of interpretation would make the plainest language unintelligible, let the objector consider, that no language is less intelligible than that of unfulfilled prophecy, which may nevertheless be made perfectly intelligible by the event. The personal agency of Jesus in the general resurrection of mankind is not more distinctly asserted, than his visible and immediate agency in the dissolution of the Jewish polity. But as the event proves in the latter case, that nothing more was intended than a solemn and authoritative prediction of the catastrophe, it is not impossible that it may be equally so in the former. And it is a fact certainly known, and universally admitted, that in the language of prophecy the prophet is often said to do that which he is inspired to foretel. See Hos. vi. 5. Rev. xi. 6.20

19 In this light it has been said that this objection appeared to the late reverend and learned Hugh Farmer of Walthamstow, who thought that difficulties from particular texts might be overcome. To the wri

ter of this note this eminent divine, whose name would do credit to any cause, distinctly acknowledged that Tertullian's celebrated testimony to the unitarianism of the primitive christians, upon which great stress is justly laid by Dr. Priestley in his controversy with Bishop Horsley, had never been answered.

20 See Dr. Priestley's Letters to Dr. Price, No. IX.

SECTION

SECTION XI.

CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.

RELIGIOUS Worship is homage, mental or verbal, addressed to an invisible being, who is supposed to be capa ble of attending to such addresses, and to possess a voluntary power of doing good or evil to the worshiper.

Idolatry, strictly speaking, is the worship of an image, or of a being of whom an image is the symbol. In a more general sense, it is addressing religious worship to a being who is not authorized to receive it. Hence it follows, that religious worship which in the estimation of one person is an indispensable duty, is by another regarded as idolatrous. The worship of the Virgin Mary and other saints, as they are called, in the Roman church, is by Protestants deemed idolatry. And upon the same principle, the worship of Christ by Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians, is idolatrous in the judgement of Unitarians, who conceive of God alone as the proper object of religious worship. A conclusion which Trinitarians readily allow, if the Unitarian doctrine is true; and from which indeed some deduce an argument for the proper deity of Christ, as they think it incredible that the great body of christians should have been suffered for so many centuries to apostatize into idolatry. But not to insist upon the language of prophecy, which foretells this great apostasy, they who use this argument forget that the same reasoning would also establish transubstantiation itself. Unitarians, though they regard the worship of Christ as idolatrous and unscriptural, and productive of many hurtful consequences; and though, on this account, they think it their duty to enter their public protest

error.

protest against it, are very far from presuming to criminate their fellow-christians who fall into this great and common It is not for them to judge of the means and op. portunities of information which their mistaken brethren may possess, or of the motives by which they may be influenced. Nor do they pretend that the worship of Christ was ever alluded to in the cautions and warnings of the first teachers of christianity, nor do they believe that this species of idolatry was ever in the contemplation of the sacred writers. The idolatry which they continually and justly held up to infamy and abhorrence, was heathen idolatry, which was not only in the highest degree absurd in the theory, but which countenanced and even required the practice of the most odious and degrading vices.

The old Socinian doctrine, that Christ, after his ascension, was advanced to the government of the universe, and became the proper object of a secondary religious worship, is now universally exploded. Even the modern Arians, who, like Dr. Price, acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Maker and Governor of the world, and to be the Lord their Maker, have, however inconsistently with their principles, and with the examples of their predecessors, generally abandoned the worship of Christ. And upon this ground they lay claim to the honourable distinction of Unitarians. But as they continue to ascribe divine attributes and works to Christ, though they deny him divine honours, this claim is hardly allowed by the stricter Unita. rians.

At any rate, these Arians cannot avail themselves of the argument which many derive from the supposed authorized worship of Christ to prove his pre-existence and superior dignity; but are equally concerned with the proper Unitarians, to explain the passages alleged for this purpose in consistence with pure Unitarian principles.

It is proposed to state the principal texts in which the worship of Christ is said to be either taught or exemplified