Later Unitarians in Christianity 225ther God, or the maker of the world under God. It is
this: The manner in which our lord speaks of himself,
and of the power by which he worked miracles, is in
consistent, according to the cornmon construction of lan
guage, with the idea of his being possessed of any proper
power of his own, more than other men have.
If Christ was the maker of the world he could not
have said that of himself he could do nothing, that the
words which he spoke were not his own, and that the
Father within him did the works. For if any ordinary
man, doing what other men usually do, should apply
this language to himself, and say that it was not he that
spoke or acted, but God Who spoke and acted by him,
and that otherwise he was not capable of so speaking or
acting at all, we should not hesitate to say that his lan
guage was either false or blasphemous '"
It would also be an abuse of language if Christ could
be supposed to say that his Father was greater than he,
and yet secretly mean his human nature only, while his
divine nature was at the same time fully equal to that of
the Father. There is nothing that can be called an ac
count of the divine, or even the super-angelic nature of
Christ in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke; and
allowing that there may be sorne colour for it in the in
troduction to the gospel of John, it is remarkable that
there are many passages in his Gospel which are deci
sively in favour of his simple humanity.
Now these evangelists could not imagine that either
the Jews or the Gentiles, for whose use their Gospels
were written, would not stand in need of information
on a subject of so much importance, which was so very
remotefrom the apprehensionsof themboth,andwhich
would at the same time have so effectually covered the
reproach of the cross, which was continually abject to
the Christians of that age. If the doctrines of the divin
ity, or pre-existence, of Christ are true, they are no doubt
in the highest degree important and interesting. Since,
therefore, these evangelists give no certain and distinct
account of them. and say nothing at an of their impor
tance, it may be safely inferred that they were unknown
to them.