like the word of man; but a Divine perfon, who existed with God, and was God; and exprefsly tells us, that this Perfon is JESUS CHRIST.

These confiderations are fufficient to remove the doubt, which fome fuggeft, about the genuineness of the beginning of this gofpel: as if it favoured more of the wild fpeculations of the Gnofties, than of revealed truth. For it appears from hence, that the ideas are not fo new and strange as they imagine.-Befides, to fuppofe that Cerinthus compofed, either the beginning of this gofpel, or the Revelation, is an ungrounded furmife. Not the former; for it ought not to be detached from the reft, nor from John's epittles, nor from his Apocalypfe: in which these phrafes, the Word; the Word of God; and Jefus Chrift, the true God, are used repeatedly Not the latter; for Cerinthus would never think it advisable to forge and publish books under the name of his avowed oppofer; nor would the churches of Afia have received the abfurd imaginations of that heretic, for the gospel of John-Nor can any two things be more incompatible, than the doctrines of the evangelift, and the dogmas of that herefiarch. Cerinthus believed, that angels created the world; that a fallen angel gave the law; and that Jefus was really the fon of Jofeph. He taught, that Jefus was a man, and Chrift the power of God; which power came upon him at his baptifm, and returned to heaven at his death. He affirmed, that Jefus fuffered the inconveniences of life, and the violence of perfecution; but that Chrift wrought ftupendous miracles, and and was fuperior to all oppofition-That Chrift was impaffible, though Jefus fuffered; and that Chrift fell upon the apostles, at the feast of Pentecoft. I pafs over the crimes which he authorized, and the extravagant fubordination of ons; which were common to him with other Gnoftics. Now these are fuch notions as have not the least countenance in the gospel according to John. Why, then, these unreafonable doubts and restless inquiries? If the paragraph under confideration

must be suspected of being compofed by a Gnoftic, because it establishes the pre-existence and Divinity of Jefus Chrift; we may, for the fame reason, fufpect the whole New Testament to be the work of those heretics, and reject it all at once.

CHAPTER X.

The Arian hypothefis equally indefenfible.

ON a fuperficial furvey of the Arian system,

it feems much more plaufible than that of Socinus ; because it preferves entire the pre-existence of Jefus Chrift, which is a doctrine moft exprefsly and repeatedly mentioned in the New Teftament: and, indeed, were we to ftop here, the former would undoubtedly have the advantage. But when we more closely confider the fabject we find, that the Socinian hypothefis is free from feveral capital difficulties which attend that of the Arians, thofe ancient enemies to the cause of truth and the Divinity of Jefus Christ. This will appear if the following things be confidered.

The term GoD, muft neceffarily be understood, either as a name of office, or of nature; as denoting external qualities and trufts, or intrinfic excellence and effential perfections. The Arians, therefore. cannot defend themselves, when they are urged with the confideration of the name, GOD, which is given to Jefus Chrift, by faying; 'It is a name of office, and Christ only bears it as an ambaffador of the Molt High;' which is the evafion of the Socinians. For as the difciples of Arius confefs, that Chrift exifted, not only before his appearance in the world, but also before the creation; they cannot deny but he was, in fome fenfe, Gon, before the

t

formation of the univerfe. Thofe paffages of Scripture, which they explain of his pre-existence, are very exprefs, in this refpect." In the beginning was the Word, and "and the Word was with God, and the Word was "God." But if they allow, that the Word was with God, in the beginning; and that he was God, before the formation of the world; they ought alfo to grant, that he was in the form of God; that he is "the true God; the mighty God; the great God; God bleffed for ever." For there is no more reason to allow the one, than there is to acknowledge the other.

But, as they deny this confequence, they will permit me to afk, How the nanies and praises, which are appropriated to the Great Supreme, can belong to Chrift in his firft eftate; in which he neither reprefented God, nor acted in his name, nor was his ambassador to men? For if he were a mere creature, however exalted and glorious, it could not be lawful to exprefs his effence and attributes by the name, GOD. Can it be faid, without impiety, of the most excellent creature, "He "exifts in the form of God, and thinks it not robbery

to be equal with God;" Though the Locos, in his pre-existent ftate, poffeffed a Divine glory, in comparison with us; can we, on the Arian hypothefis, attribute a Divine glory to him, when confidered as being with GOD? What, muft he bear the name of that incompre henfible Being, who is infinitely more exalted above him, than the moft excellent creature is above the meaneft infect, or the smalleft atom!-Inftead, therefore, of faying, "He was in the form of God," before he humbled himself; we must affirm, that he was always in the form of a fervant, in the form of a creature: and that much more in heaven, than when upon earth; much more before the creation of the world; than when she converfed with men, For with what perfections foever a creature may be endued, it is much more in the form of a fervant, when in the immediate presence of God, than when among men. Inftead, therefore,

of the facred writers informing us, that Chrift, in his firft eftate and when with his Father, was God; they fhould have faid, that he was then, comparatively, nothing. As a nobleman, whofe grandeur is very confiderable, when in a country village; loses much of his fplendour, when at the king's court and in the royal prefence.

Again: Jefus Chrift, confidered in his firft eftate, and as with God, bears the name, GoD, either because he is God, or because he ads as God, or because he reprefents God. Not the firft; for, on the Arian principles, he is a creature; and therefore, how excellent foever he be, he cannot, without falfhood, be described by a name confecrated to the Creator. Nor the fecond; for in his firft ftate, before the creation, he did not act at all; or, if it were fuppofed that he did, it was only as the minifter of God; and, confequently, he ought not to bear a name appropriated to the first Cause. Nor can it be the laft; for he could not represent God to the inhabitants of the heavenly world, before they had an existence. Nor, when the angels were formed, had they any need of fuch a representation. For they fee God face to face; that is, as much as is neceffary to the plenitude of their holiness, happiness, and glory. Nor could he represent him to men; for, at the time fuppofed, they were not created. Befides, why, in order to reprefent God, muft he bear his name? May not a fuperior be reprefented, without the perfon reprefenting bear his peculiar character?-Here the Arians are greatly embarrassed; which embarraffment is much increased by confidering, that Jefus bears the name, GOD, with diftinguishing and fublime epithets. For he is called, the TRUE GOD; the MIGHTY GOD; the GREAT GOD; and GOD BLESSED FOR EVER.

Another difficulty attending the Arian hypothesis, is this: They cannot explain thofe paffages of Scripture which affert, that Chrift "made the worlds;" that he "created all things, vifible and invisible ;" that he "laid

"the foundations of the earth, and that the heavens are "the works of his hands; and that he upholds all things "by the word of his power;"-they cannot, I fay, explain these, and fimilar paffages, without contradicting themselves; by acknowledging his Divinity, properly fo called, after they have denied it, or without running on the most evident abfurdities. For as they understand thofe paffages literally, which declare that God made "all things by Jefus Chrift" and that "without him

was not any thing made that was made;" they are obliged to attribute to him the creation of heaven and earth, with all their inhabitants. It, therefore, necessa rily follows, that the WORD either made all things by his own power, as the fun enlightens the earth by his beams; or, having no inherent power for fuch a work, was the mere infrument by which the infinite power of God exerted itself; as the apoftles, who had no power of their own, by which to work miracles, were only inftruments in the hand of Omnipotence, to control the course of nature, and to aftonith and blefs the world. If the latter, we have reafon to complain of being deceived by the language of Scripture, which fays exprefsly; "All things were made by him." How unac countable it is, that he should be called God, if he be only the inftrument by which Divine power and wisdom difplay themselves! And, confidering the care which the apostles take, to guard against a supposition that they wrought miracles by their own power; we cannot but think it exceeding ftrange, and as tending greatly to mislead our conceptions, in matters of the highest importance to the glory of God and the falvation of men, that they are not equally careful to inform us, That it was not by his own power that Jefus formed the universe and wrought his wonderful works. But, fo far from it, they repeatedly declare, that their Divine Master is he "by whom ❝and for whom all things are"-That he " laid the "foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the 46 works of his hands"-That he "created all things