dent upon, the Supreme Being for his existence, and for

all his powers:

That the doctrine which the Arians hold concerning the important design of the death of Christ, is confirmed by numerous passages in the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, in which that event is represented as fulfilling purposes under the divine government beyond that of any human being, and as being the great anti-type of the expiatory sacrifices of the Levitical law.

The Arians also observe, that titles and characters are ascribed to Christ; that regards are claimed by him, and homage is paid to him, which would be highly improper and unbecoming if he were only an exalted man:

That there was a peculiar propriety in appointing the same glorious person to be the redeemer of the world, and the final judge of all mankind, who was the original maker and governor of the world, and the medium of all the former dispensations of God to the human race. This supposed harmony of the divine dispensations is represented by the friends of the Arian hypothesis as a strong presumptive argument in its favour.

Finally, it is maintained, that the great dignity and authority of Jesus Christ on the one hand, and his derivation from, and entire dependence upon, the Father on the other, was the prevailing doctrine of the first and purest ages of the christian church.

The Arian hypothesis is opposed by the following objections:

That this hypothesis is equally inconsistent with the proper deity and the proper humanity of Jesus Christ; for the Maker of the world in a human form could not with propriety be called a man :

That if the Logos be the maker, supporter, and governor of the world, he must be supreme God; for there is but one former, preserver, and director of all :

That

That if the Logos is Jehovah, he must be the supreme Jehovah, for there is but one Jehovah :

That to admit two objects of religious worship, though the homage paid to one is called supreme, and that to the other subordinate, is wholly unauthorized and unscriptural, and is, properly speaking, polytheism and idolatry :

That it is more probable that the union of so exalted a spirit as the Logos with a human body would render the material system impassible and immortal, than that the attributes of the Logos would by such an union be degraded to a level with the faculties of other human beings:

That the Arian hypothesis excludes the divine Being from almost all concern in the formation and government of the universe, and weakens the regards due to him from his creatures; while, on the other hand, it tends to fill the mind with disquieting apprehensions, by representing the administration of the universe as in the hands of a being of limited wisdom, power, and benevolence:

That the Arian doctrine is vague and ambiguous; it being a matter of great doubt amongst the advocates for this hypothesis, whether the Logos made and governs the world by the exertion of his own uncontrolled will and power, or whether he acted by direction from, and in immediate subordination to, the divine Being who supplied him with power for the occasion: whether in his incarnate state he retained any consciousness of his pre-existent glories; whether, and in what sense, and to what degree, his attributes were quiescent; whether he performed his miracles by his own or by his Father's power; and whether he raised himself to life. Also, in what way the preservation and government of the universe was conducted while its proper maker and governor was reduced to the state of a human being, and even of an infant:

That the doctrine of atonement and vicarious suffering,

in

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 natural world, cannot reasonably be limited to any thing short of the whole created universe: "for without him," it is said, "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

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

all

all created existence; that he passesses 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 'onlybegotten,' 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,