pre-existence, and no perfon can doubt but that, if they must be interpreted to affert that Chrift preexisted at all, they, with the same clearness, affert that he was the maker of the world. But if thefe texts admit of a figurative interpretation, all the other texts, which are fuppofed to refer to the preexistence only, will more easily admit of a similar conftruction. Thefe 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 represent the fupreme being himself, without the aid of any inferior agent, or inftrument, as the maker of the universe) he should abandon the doctrine of fimple pre-existence alfo.

In what manner the proper unitarians interpret thefe paffages of fcripture may be feen in my Familiar illuftration of particular texts of scripture, in feveral of the focinian tracts, in three volumes quarto, and especially in Mr. Lindfey'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 persons 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 Christ.

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 Chriftianity. 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 Criticifm.

1. It is acknowledged by early writers of the orthodox perfuafion, that two kinds of herefy exifted in the time of the apostles, viz. that of those who held that Chrift was fimply a man, and that of the Gnoftics, of whom fome believed that Christ 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 cross. Now the apoftle John animadverts with the greatest feverity upon the latter, but makes no mention of the former; and can it be thought probable that he would pafs 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 12. H. p. 9.

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 epiftles, advance any thing with a view to such an objection. It may be presumed, therefore, that no fuch offence to the jews had then been given, by the preaching of a doctrine fo offenfive to them as that of the divinity of Christ 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 apoftles 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 Jesus was not a man, but either God himself, or the maker of the world under God, we fhould have been able to trace the time and the circumftances in which fo great a difcovery was made to them; and alfo that we should have perceived the effect which it had

upon

upon their minds; at leaft by fome change in their manner of speaking concerning him. But nothing of this kind is to be found in the gofpels, in the book of Acts, or in any of the epiftles. We perceive marks enow of other new views of things, efpecially of the call of the gentiles to partake of the privileges of the gospel; and we hear much of the difputes and the eager contention which it occafi oned. But how much more muft all their prejudices have been shocked 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 deftruction of Jerufalem, which was immediately after the age of the apostles, are faid to have been Ebionites; and these 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 said 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-existence 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.

5. Had Chrift been confidered as God, or the maker of the world under God, in the early ages of the church, he would naturally have been the pro. per object of prayer to chriftians; nay, more fo than God the Father, with whom, on the fcheme of the doctrine of the trinity, they must have known that they had lefs immediate intercourse. But prayers to Jesus Christ were not used in early times, but gained ground gradually, with the opinion of Chrift being God, and the object of worship. Maxim 14. L. p. 18.

6. Athanafius reprefents the apoftles as obliged to ufe great caution not to offend their firft converts with the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and as forbearing to urge that topic till they were firft well established in the belief of his being the Meffiah. He adds, that the jews, being in an error on this fubject, drew the gentiles into it. Chryfoftem, and the christian fathers in general, agree with Athanafius in this reprefentation of the filence of the apostles in their firft preaching, both with refpect to the divinity of Chrift and his miraculous conception. They reprefent them as leaving their difciples to learn the doctrine of Chrift's divinity, by way of inference from certain expreffions; and they do not pretend to produce any inftance in which they taught that doctrine clearly and explicitly. Maxim 13. H. p. 12. L. p. 37. 53.

7. Hegefippus, the first chriftian hiftorian, him

felf