any thing was wanting in the fcheme of christianity.

However, it is not, certainly, from fo few cafual expreffions, which fo easily admit of other interpretations, and especially in epiftolary writings, which are seldom compofed with fo much care as books intended for the use of pofterity, that we can be authorized to infer that fuch was the ferious opinion of the apoftles. But if it had been their real opinion, it would not follow that it was true, unless the teaching of it should appear to be included in their general commiflion, with which, as I have fhewn, it has no fort of connexion.

If any fhould be convinced that thefe four paffages, do not authorize us to conclude that Chrift made the world, they must be interpreted in fuch a manner as not to imply his fimple pre-exiflence; and if this cannot be inferred from thefe texts, it certainly cannot from any other. Confequently, both the doctrine of Chrift having made the world, and that of his fimple pre-existence, muft ftand or fall together.

5. It will be seen in its proper place, that the Arian hypothesis, loaded as it is with the greatest natural improbabilities, and altogether destitute of support in the scriptures, was the natural consequence of other false principles, which also naturally sprung from the philosophy of the times in which christianity was promulgated. That philofophy is now exploded, but the articles in the christian system which were derived from it remain. Platonism is no more ;

but the trinitarian and Arian doctrines yet subsist; and with many, the latter remains, when the former, from which it arose, is abandoned. Thus the fruit is preserved, when the tree on which it

grew, is cut down.

Had there been no Platonic nous, or logos, christians would never have got a divine logos, or second God, the creator of the world under the supreme God, and the medium of all the divine communications to the patriarchs ; and had there been no such divine and uncreated logos in the christian system, we should never, I am confident,

F4

have heard of a created logos being provided to answer the same purpose.

Also, if it had not been a doctrine familiar to all the schools of philosophy, that the souls of men in general had pre-existed, it would never have been imagined that the created soul of Christ had pre-existed. But when other souls are deprived of this great privilege, it remains, contrary to all analogy, and all principles of just reasoning, attached to that of Christ only, just as with many, the doctrine of a divine uncreated logos is abandoned, and that of the created logos, which sprung from it, remains in its place. But an attention to the true causes and original supports of the Arian doctrine in all its parts, and the reasons for which these causes and supports of it have been given up, cannot fail to draw after it, in due time, the downfal of the Arian doctrine itself. In the mean time it is held by many as being a medium between two great extremes, the doctrine of the proper divinity of Christ on the one hand, and that of his fimple humanity on the other.

SECTION

SECTION VI.

Reafons for not confidering Arians as being properly Unitarians.

THE great objection to the doctrine of the trinity is, that it is an infringement of the doctrine of the unity of God, as the fole object of worship, which it was the primary defign of the whole fyftem of revelation to establish. Any modifica tion of this doctrine, therefore, or any other fyftem whatever, ought to be regarded with fufpicion, in proportion as it makes a multiplicity of objects of worship, for that is to introduce IDOLATRY.

That the doctrine of three perfons in the divine nature is making three Gods, has, I think, been fufficiently proved. But they who do not think that Chrift is equal to the fupreme being, but only the maker and governor of the world under him, are willing to think that they are not included

in

in the censure of making a multiplicity of gods, or in any danger of introducing more objects of worship. They therefore call themselves unitarians, and think themselves perfectly clear of the charge of giving any countenance to idolatry. Indeed, this

. is an accusation to which the Athanasians themselves plead not guilty. I think, however, that it applies not only to them, but even to the Arians, and therefore, that strictly speaking, the latter are no more entitled to the appellation of unitarians than the former. My reasons for this are the following:

1. If greatness of power be a foundation on which to apply the title of God, they who believe that Christ made the world, and that he constantly preserves and governs it, must certainly consider him as enjoying a very high rank in the scale of divinity, whatever reason they may have to decline giving him the title of God. They must allow that he is a much greater being, or God, than Apollo, or even Jupiter, was ever supposed to be. His derivation from another, and a greater God, is no reason why

he