have excited the greateft outcry imaginable; as it did afterwards, when that doctrine was advanced, and as it continues to do at this very day.

As all the Jews expected that their Meffiah would be a mere man, the natural defcendant of David, it is evident that the apoftles, and other primitive chriftians, who were all zealous Jews, must have received him as fuch. It is evident from the Gofpels, and is acknowledged by all christian writers of the four first centuries, that the apofiles confidered him in no other light during the whole of their intercourfe with him; having no idea of his being God, or the creator of the world under God. It is no less evident from the Acts of the Apostles, and is alfo acknowledged by the fame early writers, who were themselves trinitarians, that the apoftles announced him as fuch to their nation, and the world, viz. as nothing more than a man approved of God by figns and wonders which God did by him, and whom God had raised from the dead. And that they had any private information of their mafter being of a higher rank in the creation than themselves, but that they thought it prudent to use great referve in the communication of this knowledge to others (though fuch is faid to have been their conduct by the ancient trinitarian writers above referred to) is abfolutely incredible.'

We own that, from the moft careful confideration and comparison of the tenor of the apostles' writings, it appears to us, that their great object of oppofition was the errors of the Gnoftics, to which we may add, that the Jews, in this state, were not fit to receive the more complicated doctrine of the Trinity. The apostles must have known what were the accufations againft their divine mafter; and if they had not felt the force of this doctrine, a doctrine which they declined explaining or commenting on, the injustice of the fentence in this view must have been fometimes the fubject of their difcourfes.

The fecond period contains the Hiftory of the Chriftian Church to the end of the Reign of Adrian, including the perfecution under Domitian. We may obferve, in general, of perfecutions, that they were neither extenfive nor conftant. The fanaticifm of the mob was always ready to attribute every misfortune to the Christians, and at times they drew a flow, occafionally a reluctant, edict from the emperors. If we confine the tolerance to the rulers rather than to the people, Mr. Gibbon's representation is more confonant to hiftory, and to the state of opinions in that era, than the violent defcriptions of many authors who think Christianity is more honoured as it was more perfecuted, and with a favage minuteness count the wounds of the martyrs as the glories of the Gospel. In reality, the forbearance of the emperors was often owing to M 4 contempt

contempt rather than humanity, and the fury of the multitude was excited by the moft improbable calumnies, the fictions probably of the Jews.

Of the Gnoftics in this period, our hiftorian gives a particular account; and they seem to have been a neutral fect, fometimes holding their peculiar tenets in conjunction with the law, fometimes with the Gospel. It is evident that they were held in the highest deteftation by the more rational Chriftians of this period, and their denying the refurrection, the great discovery revealed by Christ, fully accounts for this deteftation. Of the Chriftian writers in this part, much has been already said. The authenticity of the fhepherd of Hermas, and the Epiftles of Barnabas Clemens we cannot difcufs with any advantage. Dr. Priestley feems too intent on eftablishing his own fyftem, when he adds, that reading works in the church was not a proper criterion of their being written, in the opinion of the early Chriftians, by infpiration. We fufpect it is not very generally believed at this moment, that every part of the books now read in churches is infpired, and itis not very easy to find any author fo adventurous as to point ont thofe particular parts which are dictated by infpiration. Philo, an author much attached to the Platonic philofophy, in Dr. Priestley's opinion, the perfon who led the way to thofe fpeculations which ended in the doctrine of the Trinity, and Jofephus, an historian well known, are the laft authors in his account of this period.

The third period extends from the death of Adrian in 138, to that of Marcus Aurelius, one of the most philofophical of emperors, and one of the most determined enemies of the Chriftians. The most diftinguished martyrs in this reign were Polycarp and Justin; but the mind is much pained by the horrors of the punishments too minutely detailed. The Montanifts, a fect chiefly diftinguished by their aufterities, belong to this æra, an æra, however, most remarkable by its being the epoch of the Trinitarian doctrine. We have always confidered the fyftem of the Gnostics as leading the way to the application of the Platonic reveries to the Chriftian fyftem. The logos of Plato, the divine ray, was not very diftant from the phantom of the Gnoftics; but with the Chriftian Platonifts this ray was attached to a human being, and the Word was made Flesh." Whatever may have been the opinion of the transcendent excellency of Christ, the apostles certainly did not raife their ideas fo high as to determine the degree of that excellence, or to decide whether Chrift, who was to fit on the right hand of God, was equal with God. This was to be the work of a more speculasive age, and of a careful comparison of the tenor and general

Spirit

fpirit of the fcriptures. Dr. Priestley thinks it was received with displeasure: it was certainly explained with caution, and received, as might be expected from its incomprehenfible nature, with referve. After explaining this doctrine as it was first promulgated, our author proceeds to examine the state of the Jews in this period and the fubfequent ones, collected chiefly from Bafnage's history of this nation; and he obferves that from the time when the doctrine of the Trinity came to be generally profeffed by the learned Chriftians, we read of few or no converts to Christianity from the Jews. This doctrine, he thinks, was highly disagreeable to thefe zealous profeffors of the divine unity, and if they are ever to be converted to the Gospel, it must be, in our historian's opinion, on the Unitarian fyftem. But on examining the extent of this period, we must attribute this fact to another cause, or confider the Trinitarian doctrine as fpreading more rapidly than Unitarians will perhaps willingly allow.

The fourth period extends from the reign of Commodus ia 180, to that of Decius in 249; and, as ufual, is divided into the general hiftory, particular tranfactions, progress of the old and appearance of new doctrines and fects, concluding with the account of the writers. We must fpeak only of what - is most remarkable. In this period the perfecutions were neither fevere, general, nor long continued. Chriftianity flourished, and the relaxation of the rulers leffened the fervour of zeal, the fortitude of fufferers, and allowed the reftless mind to follow its peculiar doctrines, and the imagination to foar beyond the judgment. To this period, and to the relaxation, which was the effect of fecurity, we must attribute what will be more confpicuous in the fubfequent one, the temerity with which many denied the tenets of Christ, or escaped from perfecution, and what was the immediate confequence, the extraordinary merit attributed to martyrs, those who had suffered punishment for their religion; and to confeffors, who had the boldness to own their faith in Chrift. This period of fecurity also gave rife to fome fuperftitious opinions (we have no hesitation in this inftance in ufing Dr. Priestley's language) and fome trifling controverfies. The difpute concerning the period of Eafter, or an annual feftival in commemoration of the refurrection of Chrift, was one of these ; and the opinions respecting the facred nature, as well as the real purifying vistue' of baptifm, and the elements received in the Lord's Supper, are proofs of the progrefs of fuperftition.

The Unitarians in this period became more confpicuous. The diftinguishing term, however, feems to fhow them to have been confidered as a peculiar fect; and if Ebionite is derived

from

from poverty, it is not probable that this name should have been given by the unbelieving Jews, on account of the contempt in which they held them.' The Ebionites, as preserving the unity of the Godhead, fhould rather have been treated by the Jews with peculiar refpect. This period was, however, diftinguished by the first treatise written against them, viz. A. D. 185, which we would account for in a manner different from Dr. Priestley, by fuppofing that they were not before this time confidered as important or refpectable. Their name is fome proof, and it is remarkable that, at this time or foon afterwards, the greater part of the bishops were Trinitarians or Platonifing Chriftians, in our hiftorian's words. If the former had been confidered as the real doctrine of the apoftles, and the latter an innovation, it is furprising that a change fo general paffed without a controversy.

- In the next period, from the reign of Decius, 249, to that of Dioclefian A. D. 284, we find a fevere perfecution, begun by a fanatical mob in Egypt, and continued for fome time by the authority of the emperor's edict. It appears, however, to have been but a fhort one occafionally renewed under Gallus and Valerian, though the exceffes of the common people, exceffes generally fudden and often temporary, probably continued while the reins of empire were held with a trembling unfteady hand. In the accounts, it must be remembered, that we read the defcriptions of Chriftians who must have been eager to accumulate every tale of horror, to enhance their own fortitude or to confirm that of their difciples. This æra was diftinguished by the timidity we have before accounted for, and the rife of a new fect of auftere Puritans, the Novatians, called Cathari (xabapoi, clean,) from their extraordinary virtue. It does not appear what the peculiar tenets of Novatus in other refpects were, but that they differed from those generally adopted is probable, from the Novatians rebaptifing fuch as quitted the Catholic church to join them. The Novatians, in our hiftorian's opinion, were of great ufe in quickening the zeal and leffening the defpotifm of the church, as well as in promoting free enquiry and difcuffion, advantagės which Dr. Priestley thinks, perhaps with juftice, have attended dissent and schifms in every age. The origin of the monks, to be traced evidently from the reveries of the Gnoftics, and their opinion concerning the fupreme excellence of the foul, and its rifing by contemplation beyond this lower fphere, notwithstanding its earthly clog, is explained by a neat masterly outline of the whole fubject. Retirement was at this time firft practifed, as the perfecution began in Egypt, and the mountains of the Thebais and neighbourhood afforded fecure

retreats.

retreats. What a treasure on this fubject might we not have expected from the united refearches and abilities of Dr. White and Mr. Badcock, if death and other accidents had not prevented the profecution of the defign? The Unitarians, in this period, feem to advance in credit and dignity; and the chief of the Millenarians, in the conference with Dionyfius, is faid to have been convinced of the error of at leaft fome of his tenets.

The fixth period relates to the perfecution under Dioclefian A. D. 302, to the fettlement of the empire under 'Conftantine A. D. 313'-completed only in 325. The period, Dr. Priestley obferves, was favourable to Chriftianity, fo far as related to the general acknowledgement of its truth, but highly unfavourable with regard to its effects on the hearts and lives of men.' In our hiftorian's view, however, the chief blot in this period is the union of the religious and civil fyftems of Christianity with the temporal power, which employ. ed as much cruelty against its parer fpecies' as was ever employed against Christianity itself. This fhort period was diftinguished by a fevere perfecution more continued and fevere than the church had yet experienced; but by this means the diseases of indolence and fecurity were removed, and the ancient spirit and zeal of Chriftians revived. In the account of this perfecution, the hiftorian follows Eufebius; but though he has claffed in a feparate chapter the narrative of those punishments, mixed with fable, yet we strongly fufpect many of the facts, supposed to be authentic, are mifreprefented or fabulous. When the wild beafts to which the Chriftians were expofed, retired on their making the fign of the cross, it would have completed the ftory, if the fword, the laft inftrument employed, had loft its temper. In fhort, from many circumftances, we fufpe&t the timid bishop of Cæfarea to have been often deceived, or to have copied from thofe terrors which haunted his mind, when he was led to make fome improper conceffions. It is well obferved that the Christian religion, at the time of the acceffion of Conftantine, must have been widely diffeminated, as in the period of the greatest disturbances there was no heathen competitor; but might we not with equal reafon add, that Unitarianifm could not be very prevalent when a Trinitarian emperor was allowed to fit equally on the throne. Were the Unitarians afleep that they did not oppofe the idolater and the idolatry, or were they still literally Ebionites? Our author's obfervations on the intrinfic merit and the undeniable evidence of that religion, which could not only fupport itself, but extend fo widely, notwithstanding every kind of oppofition from learning, power, and philofophy, are truly excellent and convincing.

At