mother, and while he hung upon the crofs. And to imagine the creator of the world to have been in those circumftances is an idea at which the mind revolts, almost as much as at that of the fupreme God himself being reduced to them.

Befides, if Chrift retained, and exercifed all his former powers in this ftate of apparent humiliation, he must have wrought all his miracles by a power properly his own, a power naturally belonging to him, as much as the power of speaking and walking belongs to any other man. But this was expressly difclaimed by our Saviour, when he faid, that of bimfelf he could do nothing, and that it was the Father within him who did the works. Alfo, on this fuppofition, it must have been this fuper-angelic being united to the body of Jefus, that raifed him from the dead; whereas this is an effect which is always afcribed to God the Father only.

If, on the other hand, Chrift was divefted of his original powers, or emptied himself of them upon his incarnation, the whole fyftem of the government of the univerfe must have been changed during his refidence upon earth. Either fome other derived: being (which this scheme does not provide) muft have taken his place, or the fupreme being himfelf must have condefcended to do that which the scheme supposes there was an impropriety in his. doing. For certainly the making and the governing of the world would not have been delegated to another,

another, if there had not been some good reason in the nature of things (though it be unknown to us, and may be undiscoverable by us) why the world fhould have been made and governed by a derived being, and not by the fupreme being himself. And this reafon, whatever it was, muft, as far as we can judge, have operated during the time that Chrift was upon the earth, as well as before.

If Chrift was degraded to the ftate of a mere man during his humiliation on earth, reason will ask, why might not a mere man have been fufficient; fince, notwithstanding his original powers, nothing was, in fact, done by him, more than any other man, aided and affifted by God as he was, might have been equal to ?

If we confider the object of Chrift's miffion, and the beings whom it refpected, viz. the race of man, we cannot. but think that there must have been a greater 'propriety, and use, in the appointment of a mere man to that office. What occafion was there for any being fuperior to man for the purpofe of communicating the will of God to man? And as an example of a refurrection to an immortal life (to enforce which was the great object of his miffion) the death and refurrection of one who was properly and fimply a man was certainly far better adapted to give men fatisfaction concerning their own future refurrection, than the feeming death (for it could be nothing more) of fuch a being

as

as the maker of the world, and the refurrection of a body to which he had been united. For, as he was a being of so much higher rank, it might be faid, that the laws of his nature might be very different from thofe of curs; and therefore he might have privileges to which we could not pretend, and to which we ought not to afpire.

If the world was created and governed by a derived being, this being, on whom we immediately depended, would be that to whom all men would naturally look. He would neceffarily become the object of their prayers, in confequence of which the fupreme being would be overlooked, and become a mere cypher in the universe.

As modern philosophy supposes that there are innumerable worlds inhabited by rational and imper. fect beings (for all creatures must be finite and imperfect) befides this of ours, it cannot be supposed but that many of them must have stood in as much need of the interpofition of the maker of the univerfe as we have done. And can we fuppofe either that this fhould be the only fpot in the universe fo highly distinguished, or that the maker of it should undergo as many degradations as this scheme may require?

The doctrine of Chrift's pre-existence goes upon the idea of the poffibility, at leaft, of the pre-exiftence of other men, and supposes an immaterial foul in man, altogether independent of the body; fo

that

that it must have been capable of thinking, and acting before his birth, as well as it will be after his death. But these are fuppofitions which no appearance in nature favours.

The arian hypothefis, therefore, though it implies no proper contradiction, is, on feveral accounts, highly improbable a priori, and therefore ought not to be admitted without very clear and ftrong evidence.

III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TRINITARIAN HYPOTHESES FROM THE

AND THE ARIAN

SCRIPTURES.

I SHALL now fhew, in as concife a manner as I can, that the doctrine of the trinity, and also the arian hypothefis, have as little countenance from the fcriptures as they have from reafon. The fcriptures teach us that there is but one God, who is himself the maker and the governor of all things; that this one God is the fole object of worship, and that he fent Jefus Chrift to inftruct mankind, empowered him to work miracles, raifed him from the dead, and gave him all the power that he ever was, or is now poffeffed of.

1. The fcriptures contain the clearest and most exprefs declarations, that there is but one God, without ever mentioning any exception in favour 'of a trinity, or guarding us against being led into any mistake by fuch general and unlimited expreffions.

preffions.

Ex. xx. 3. Thou shalt have no other

God before me. Deut. vi. 4.

Hear, O

Ifrael, the

Lord our God is one Lord.

Mark xii. 29.

The firft

of all the commandments is, Hear, O Ifrael, the Lord

our God is one Lord.

1 Cor. viii. 6. To us there

is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,

Jefus Chrift, by whom Eph. iv. 5, 6. One one God and Father

and we in him; and one Lord, are all things, and we in him. Lord, one faith, one baptifm, of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Tim. ii. 5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Chrift Jefus.

On the other hand, not only does the word trinity never occur in the fcriptures, but it is no where faid that there are three perfons in this one God: nor is the doctrine explicitly laid down in any other direct propofition whatever. Chrift indeed says, John x. 30. I and my Father are one; but he sufficiently explains himself, by praying that his difciples might be one with him in the fame fenfe in which he was one with the Father. John xvii. 21, 22. That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; and the glory which thou gavest to me, I have given them, that they may be

one, even as we are one.

2. This one God is faid to have created all things; and no intimation is given of his having employed any inferior agent or inftrument in the work of creation. Gen. i. 1. In the beginning God created

the