in every sense of it, and under every explanation, is irrational, unscriptural, and repugnant to the perfections of

God:

That the Arian hypothesis is absolutely inconsistent with the Scripture account of the exaltation of Christ as the reward of his sufferings; the dignity and authority to which he is now advanced being no greater than what he originally possessed:

Moreover, that the doctrine of a created Logos is not the doctrine of the two first centuries: that it was first suggested at the latter end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century; and that, when first published, it excited general attention and alarm, and gave rise to a very long and vehement controversy. It cannot therefore be the doctrine of the Scriptures.

Against the hypothesis, that the Logos was the former but not the creator of the world, and which limits his energy and jurisdiction to this planet, or to the solar system only, and which denies him to be the proper object of religious worship, it has been objected:

That there is no foundation either in reason or Scripture for maintaining that the maker and governor of the world is a different person from him by whom matter was created:

That upon this hypothesis it may justly be asked, whether, if spirits are immaterial beings, God was the creator of immaterial substance, and the Logos formed it into spirit:

That there is no appearance in nature which should lead us to conclude that the being who made this system is different from the being who made other systems; for that the created universe, as far as our observation extends, appears to be one grand, connected, harmonious whole; from the immense extent of which, and from the mutual

relation and connexion of its various systems, and clusters of systems, according to the latest discoveries of Dr. Herschel, we are naturally led to infer the existence of one only omnipresent, intelligent, omnipotent, and governing will:

That those texts which are understood to ascribe to Christ the formation and government of the world, if they are to be interpreted literally, and as relating to the natu ral world, cannot reasonably be limited to any thing short of the whole created universe: " for without him," it is said, 66 was not any thing made that was made: All things were made by him and for him :"

And lastly, that if Christ be the creator, supporter, and governor of this world only, continually present with us, acquainted with our wants, hearing our prayers, and able to help us, he must of necessity be the proper object of our religious homage: he is "the Lord our Maker," whom we are required to worship; nor can it be more unreasonable to pray to Christ, than to ask a favour of any other friend who is present with us, 'or accessible to us1.

SECTION V.

THE SEMI-ARIAN SCHEME.

THIS hypothesis maintains that the Son of God is the eternal voluntary production of the Father's power; that he derived his existence from the Supreme Being in an incomprehensible manner, different from and superior to

1 Whiston, Emlyn, Peirce, and Dr. Price were the learned and able advocates of Arianism in the last century.

all

all created existence; that he possesses all communicable attributes, and is equal to the Father himself in all things excepting necessary existence; that he is the delegate of God in the creation and government of the universe, and the medium of all the moral dispensations of God to mankind; that he appeared under the name and character of Jehovah to the patriarchs, and gave out the law to Moses at mount Sinai and finally, that it was this glorious spirit which animated the body of Jesus.

In favour of this hypothesis it has been alleged,

That the Scriptures ascribe all divine attributes to the Son, excepting self-existence, which is necessarily incommunicable.

That eternity itself is predicated of the Son; and that an eternal derivation of existence involves no contradiction. For if God has been eternally omnipotent, he might from eternity exercise the power he possesses. To deny this would be a contradiction in terms:

That the Logos is repeatedly and expressly called God, and is represented as the creator, preserver, and governor of all derived beings without exception. "Without him was not any thing made which was made :"

That he is every where represented as deriving his existence from, and acting in subordination to, the Father; That, nevertheless, he is never expressly called a creature, nor represented as having been made out of nothing; nor is it any where said that there was a time when the Son did not exist, as the Arians positively teach :

It is particularly insisted upon, that he is called 'only. begotten,' which implies a mode of derivation peculiar to the Son, different from and far superior to the mode in which creatures in general are brought into existence. Finally, it is strenuously insisted upon, that this doctrine was held by all the Anti-nicene fathers, who, while they earnestly plead for the pre-existence, voluntary derivation,

and entire subordination of the Son, peremptorily deny him to be a created being, nor would they allow that there ever was a time when he did not exist. And indeed the great alarm which was universally excited when this doctrine was first published by Arius, proves almost to demonstration that the hypothesis of a Logos created out of nothing was perfectly novel, and unheard of before.

The principal and eminently learned advocates of this hypothesis of an eternally-derived but uncreated Logos, are Dr. Samuel Clarke the rector of St. James's, and Dr. Daniel Scott.

It is obvious to remark that this scheme is open to all the objections which may be urged against the proper Arian hypothesis: besides that it involves many difficulties peculiar to itself.

The distinction between generation and creation, as acts of the divine power and will, and the very supposition of an intermediate mode of existence between a self-existent and a created being, is arbitrary, unintelligible, and unscriptural, not to say contradictory and absurd.

The title of Son, as applied to Christ, has no relation to the metaphysical mode of his existence: it was conferred upon him at his baptism, as a designation of his official character of Messiah.

The expression only-begotten' is peculiar to the evangelist John, who uses it in the same connexion, and no doubt in the same sense, in which the other evangelists use 'beloved;' which means nothing more than that Jesus was the chief of all the prophets of God, and highly favoured above all others by the extent of his authority and the superiority of his miraculous gifts and powers.

Lastly, the advocates of this hypothesis mistake the doctrine of the primitive ecclesiastical writers, who, though they never taught, nor even thought of, the creation of the Logos, did not regard this glorious person as a per

manently

manently derived intelligent agent, distinct from the Father, but as an attribute of the Supreme Being, first occasionally, and afterwards permanently personified 1.

SECTION VI.

THE INDWELLING SCHEME.

THIS hopothesis represents the Logos as a created being. Dr. Watts seems to have regarded him as of the order of human spirits, but as having existed previously to the formation of the world; coinciding so far in opinion with the low Arians. Dr. Thomas Burnet and Dr. Doddridge assign to him the attributes and rank of the high Arian Logos, and represent him as the maker of the universe, and the medium of all divine communications.

In this Logos the Father is supposed to dwell by an intimate union, analogous to that of the soul and body; and in consequence of this union, or inhabitation of the Father, the attributes and works of God may be predicated of the Logos, and divine honours are due to him.

This hypothesis is thought by its advocates to reconcile in the easiest and the most satisfactory manner the proper deity of Christ with the proper unity of God, as in this case the Son is God only by the Father's godhead.

It is also considered as the best means of reconciling the inferiority of the Son with his proper deity; because, upon this hypothesis, he possesses a created as well as a divine

nature.

The Indwelling Scheme, as it is called by its advocates, is chiefly supported by those texts in which the miracu

1 Priestley's Early Opinions, book-ii, chap. 2.

lous