how the apostles could continue to call Chrift a man, as they always do, both in the book of Acts, and in their epiftles, after they had • difcovered him to be either God, or a fuper-. angelic being, the maker of the world under God. That the apoftles fpeak of Chrift as a being above angels, and afcribe the making of the world to him, is manifeft from their writ ings; nor is their doing fo, in any respect, inconfiftent with their calling him a man, as they frequently do. Their calling him a man was both proper and neceffary. It was proper, be cause he was truly and properly a man; con fifting of an intelligent nature, united with fiefh and blood, which are the constituent parts of a It was neceffary, to prevent their hearers. or readers from fuppofing he was not truly a man, because they afcribed fuch characters and actions to him, as belong to none who are defcended from Adam by ordinary generation.

man.

To whom, befides the Lord Jefus Chrift, did ever the Father fay, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? or, Let all the angels of God worship him? or, Thy throne, O God, is for ever? or, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footftool? To whom, befides Chrift, did ever the apoftles give the title of, Image of the invifible God? or, Firftborn of every creature? or, Only-begotten of the Father? What other visible being was ever the apostles allowed to worship or address as their Lord and God?

Upon the whole, what Dr Priestley has employ

54 Peculiar characters given to Chrift in Scripture.

ed to overturn the pre-existence and pre-eminence of Jefus Chrift before and above all things, dothall concur to fupport that pre-eminence, and clearly proves that he was before all things, and that by him all things confist.

In his History of Opinions, Dr Priestley endeavours to fupport what he had alledged in his Hiftory of Corruptions, againft Christ being before all things, and all things being created by him; and proceeds ftill farther, fo as pofitively to deny the miraculous conception of the Son of God, by maintaining that he was begotten by Jofeph and Mary in the fame manner as other children are of their father and mother.

6

So he fays, As the Jews expected that their Meffiah would be a mere man, and even be ⚫ born as other men are, the doctrine of his • having had any existence or fphere of action, before he came into the world, as that of his having been the Maker of the world, the giver of the law, the medium of all divine com⚫munications to the patriarchs, muft have been quite new and extraordinary doc ⚫ trines.' (Hift. of Opin. Vol. I. p. 23.) But how could he imagine that the doctrine of Chrift, being the Maker of the world, and the giver of the law, &c. would appear new or extraordinary to the Jews? When in the fame history he has informed us, that Philo, a Jew, held the Logos, or Word, to be, the vifible medium of all communications of God to man, that by which he both made the world, and also conversed with the patriarch of the Old

Tefta

Teftament. (Vol. II. p. 3.) That the divine Logos is the Firft-Begotten, is called the npxx (beginning)-having no visible form, as not falling under the senses; but is the exprefs image of God; his first-begotten Son, fuperintending all things as an officer under him.' (p. 10, 11, 12.) The Chaldee paraphrafts also represent the Logos, or Word of God, as a being diftinct from him. In the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, the Logos is reprefented as coming down from heaven against the ene mies of the Ifraelites; and the Jewish commentators in general, are faid to have held that the Meffiah being created before the world, God entered into covenant with him, that he fhould redeem the world, and the Jews especially. How then could thefe doctrines appear new or ftrange to the Jews? The opinions of the Jews, according to Dr Priestley's own account of them, are fo far from oppofing the idea of Chrift's pre-existence, and all things being created by him, that they are most directly in favour of the doctrine.

He fays, For any thing that we certainly know, God might have created one being of fuch extraordinary power, as fhould make it • unneceffary for him to exert any more crea tive power; fo that all that remained of crea'tion might be delegated to that great derived being. But it is highly improbable that this • fhould be the cafe.' The idea here suggested is very different from the idea the scriptures convey; for the exertions of the power of God

is here supposed to be fufpended by the existence of a being poffeffed of an extraordinary power; whereas the fcriptures reprefent the power of God as exerted through the existence of a being poffeffing extraordinary power. What extraordinary power God might have endowed a derived being with, we certainly know not; nor can we know what extraordinary power he actually endowed his only-begotten Son with; fince our Lord himfelf has given us to know, that, No one knoweth the Son but the Father: But this he gives us to know alfo,

That the Son can do nothing of himself." From which it appears, that the Father exerts his power through his Son, both in the creation, prefervation, and government of the world.

There is fomething (he fays) in the doctrine itfelf; which if we were not accuftomed to it, would appear exceeding revolting.. Such certainly is the idea of any being in human form, who was born, grew up, and died like other men; requiring the refreshment of food, reft, and fleep, &c. having been the Maker, and while he was on earth, and afleep, the fupporter and governor of the world. Had fuch an opinion been firft proposed in the prefent ftate of philofophy, it would have been rejected without further examination.'

1

To a perfon who believes the infinite power of God the Father, and the unlimited love,* condefcenfion, and refignation of Chrift, his humiliation from fo high to fo low a state will

indeed

indeed appear exceedingly amazing; but the mind, instead of revolting, will thereby unite. more closely in confidence and love, to the Father and the Son, who have done fuch wonderful things in favour of fallen creatures.

It seems difficult to perceive what philosophy has to do, or how it can determine in this cafe; either in its prefent, or in any other ftate. Philofophy can determine nothing about creation, nor can it lead to a caufe or caufes 2-: bove what is called the laws of nature; fo that no argument can be drawn from thence, against God's creating all things by Jefus Chrift. And as to the idea of the mediation, or the mediatory influence of Chrift extending through the whole univerfe, even in his loweit ftate of humiliation; no philofophical experiment will ever be found to difprove this, but the idea might perhaps rather be illuftrated and confirmed, by attending to the operations of fome natural causes.

It was an obfervation that one philofopher (Hutchinfon) made on the opinion of another," (Newton) that he attributed more to matter: than he would allow to. God, that is a power of acting where it was not; fo Dr Priestley allows powers of this kind to inanimate matter, but feems to deny them to his Lord and Saviour. His ftrongeft objection to the doctrine: that holds all things were created, and are upheld, by the mediation of Chrift, feems to ly in! this, that he is limited to a small space; and was fometimes in an inactive state; that there..

fore