for the glory which he had with him before the world was; and yet this is hardly confiftent with the account that Luke gives of his increafing in wisdom.

No perfon, I think, can, with an unprejudiced mind, attend to these confiderations, and the texts of fcripture above recited (which are perfectly agreeable to the tenor of the whole) and imagine that it was the intention of the facred writers to reprefent Chrift either as the fupreme God, or as the maker of the world under God.

There is another hypothefis, of fome modernarians, which reprefents Chrift as having preexisted, but not as having been the creator or governor of the world, or the medium of all the difpenfations of God to mankind. But those texts

of fcripture which feem to be most exprefs in favour of Chrift's pre-existence dò likewife, by the fame mode of interpretation, represent him as the maker of the world; fo that if the favourers of this hypothefis can suppose the language of these texts to be figurative, they may more easily fuppofe the other to be figurative alfo; and that whatever obfcurity there may be in them, they were not intended to refer to any pre-existence at all.

The paffages of scripture which are fupposed to fpeak of Chrift as the maker of the world are the following, viz. John i. 3. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 15, Heb. i. 1. &c. Thefe, I will venture to fay, are the texts that most strongly favour the notion of Chrift's

pre-existence, and no perfon can doubt but that, if they must be interpreted to affert that Christ preexifted at all, they, with the fame clearnefs, affert that he was the maker of the world. But if thefe texts admit of a figurative interpretation, all the other texts, which are supposed to refer to the preexistence only, will more eafily admit of a fimilar conftruction. These two opinions, therefore, viz. that Chrift pre-existed, and that he was the maker of the world, ought, by all means, to ftand or fall together, and if any perfon think the latter to be improbable, and contrary to the plain tenor of the fcriptures (which uniformly reprefent the fupreme being himself, without the aid of any inferior agent, or inftrument, as the maker of the univerfe) he should abandon the doctrine of fimple pre-existence also.

In what manner the proper unitarians interpret thefe paffages of fcripture may be seen in my Familiar illuftration of particular texts of fcripture, in feveral of the focinian tracts, in three volumes quarto, and especially in Mr. Lindsey's Sequel to his Apology, p. 455, to which I refer my reader for a farther difcuffion of this fubject.

It is only of late years, that any perfons have pretended to feparate the two opinions of Chrift's pre-existence, and of his being the maker of the world. All the ancient arians maintained both, as did Dr. Clarke, Mr. Whifton, Mr. Emlyn, Mr. Pierce,

Pierce, and their followers; and I do not know that any other hypothefis has appeared in writing, except that it is alluded to in the Theological Repofitory.

IV. Arguments from History against the Divinity and Pre-existence of Chrift; or a fummary view of the evidence for the primitive chriftians having held the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift.

N.B. To each article is fubjoined a reference to publications in which the fubject is difcuffed: H. fignifying the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chrißianity. vol. 1. R. Reply to the Monthly Review, and L. Letters to Dr. Horsley. To each article is alfo fubjoined a reference to the following Maxims of Hiftorical Criticism.

1. It is acknowledged by early writers of the orthodox perfuafion, that two kinds of herefy exifted in the time of the apofties, viz. that of thofe who held that Chrift was fimply a man, and that of the Gnoftics, of whom fome believed that Chrift was man only in appearance, and others that it was only Jefus and not the Chrift (a pre-exiftent spirit who defcended from heaven and dwelt in him) that fuffered on the crofs. Now the apostle John animadverts with the greatest severity upon the latter, but makes no mention of the former; and can it be thought probable that he would pass it without cenfure, if he had thought it to be an error; confidering how great, and how dangerous

an

an error it has always been thought by thofe who have confidered it as being an error at all? Maxim H. p. 9.

12.

2. The great objection that jews have always made to christianity in its prefent ftate is, that it enjoins the worship of more gods than one; and it is a great article with the chriftian writers of the fecond and following centuries to answer this objection. But it does not appear in all the book of Acts, in which we hear much of the cavils of the jews, both in Jerufalem and in many parts of the Roman empire, that they made any fuch objection to christianity then; nor do the apoftles either there, or in their epistles, advance any thing with a view to fuch an objection. It may be prefumed, therefore, that no fuch offence to the jews had then been given, by the preaching of a doctrine so offenfive to them as that of the divinity of Chrift must have been. Maxim 12, 13. L. p. 59.

3. As no jew had originally any idea of their Meffiah being more than a man, and as the apostles and the first chriftians had certainly the fame idea at first concerning Jefus, it may be supposed that, if ever they had been informed that Jefus was not a man, but either God himself, or the maker of the world under God, we should have been able to trace the time and the circumstances in which so great a difcovery was made to them; and also that we should have perceived the effect which it had upon

upon their minds; at least by fome change in their manner of speaking concerning him. But nothing of this kind is to be found in the gospels, in the book of Acts, or in any of the epiftles. We perceive marks enow of other new views of things, ef pecially of the call of the gentiles to partake of the privileges of the gospel; and we hear much of the disputes and the eager contention which it occafioned. But how much more muft all their preju dices have been fhocked by the information that the person whom they at first took to be a mere man was not a man, but either God himself, or the maker of the world under God? Maxim 13. L.

p. 55.

4. All the jewish chriftians, after the destruction of Jerufalem, which was immediately after the age of the apoftles, are said to have been Ebionites; and thefe were only of two forts, fome of them holding the miraculous conception of our Saviour, and others believing that he was the fon of Jofeph as well as of Mary. None of them are faid to have believed either that he was God, or the maker of the world under God. And is it at all credible that the body of the jewish chriftians, if they had ever been inftructed by the apoftles in the doctrine of the divinity or pre-exiflence of Chrift, would fo foon, and fo generally, if not univerfally, have abandoned that faith? Maxim 6. H. p. 7. R. p. 3: L. p. 14.