έσ

For

ἐσ "posed to excite or command himself, all ground of controverfy is removed. "it does not follow, that there is any mul"tiplication of the first cause, which is moft fimple, and one, because the phrase, let us make, is ufed. For Mofes might very fafely make ufe of this language, "fince he every where most clearly teaches,

that there is but one God; and, therefore, he only will defend his error by thefe words, who knowingly and wilingly errs *."

* Aut dicemus, plerumque id, quod majoris momenti videtur, majori quoque ftudio et deliberatione nos aggredi : ideoque fcripturam in creatione hominis peculiari modo loqui in plurali, faciamus: quod verbum videtur imperantis fibi ipfi, et ad fufcipiendum ac faciendum aliquid incitantis eaque re oftendere dominus vult, omnes reliquas creaturas fuo beneficio creatas. Sed five cum omnibus fecundis caufis loquatur deus, five cum intelligentiis tantum, five cum elementis, five cum animis, five regio more hæc dicat, feu denique incitet femetipfum, fibique imperet, conciliatione ejusmodi tota tollitur controverfia. Etenim non quia faciamus dicitur, inde fequitur multiplicatio aliqua primæ caufæ, quæ fimpliffima eft et unica. Mofes vero caufam cur ita fcriberet, juftam habuit, quia clariffime paffim docet unicum numen effe; eoque folus is, qui fciens volens errat, his verbis errorem fuam defenfurus eft. Conciliator, p. 12. VOL. III.

E

СНАР,

General Considerations relating to the supposed

Conduct of Christ and the Apostles, with Respect to the Duttrines of his Pre-existence and Divinity.

THE whole nation of the Jews having

been so well grounded in the great dotrine of the divine unity, ever since their return from the Babylonilh captivity, and their attachment to it having strengthened continually, as the whole of their history shews, especially in consequence of their persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and during their subjection to the Romans (in which their utter abhorrence of every thing that had the appearance of idolatry, is seen upon all occasians) and this being wellknown to, and allowed by all the christian Fathers; it could not but, even in their idea, require the greatest caution and address to teach them any doctrine that could be construed into an infringement of it.

That

That the doctrine of the divinity of Christ had this appearance, those Fathers acknowledged; when they supposed that Moses and the prophets could not teach it, left it should have given the Jews a pretence for relapfing into the worship of many Gods.

They could not imagine that this difficulty would be at all removed by the christian doctrine of Jesus being the Messiah. Because it was well known to them that the Jews expected nothing more than a man for their Messiah ; and even a man born in the usual way, a proper descendant of David. Their highest expectation concerning the Messiah was, that he would be a great prince, a conqueror, and a legislator, and perhaps that he would not die. The probability is, that they imagined that the race of their kings descended from David would be revived in him, and continue to the end of time. But all this is far fhort of the deification of the Messiah, or the idea of his being a great pre-existent spirit, the maker of the world under God, and who, in the name of God, had intercourse with the

pear ever to have entered into the head of any Jew, extravagant as their expectations were concerning the dignity and power of

their Meffiah.

Here then was a great dilemma in which the chriftian Fathers, advocates for the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, found themfelves. They were under the neceffity of maintaining that they were doctrines taught either by Christ or the apoftles, or they must have abandoned them themselves. Doctrines of this great extent and magnitude, and fo revolting to the minds of all Jews, they could not but fuppofe would alarm them very much; and therefore, that it was neceffary to introduce them with the greatest caution. Still, however, they must have been taught them fully and explicitly at one time or other.

Accordingly, we find, in their accounts of the preaching of our Saviour and his apoftles, that they did suppose that the greatest poffible caution was ufed, and that this cautious proceeding was continued even till after the death of most of the apostles; so that the doctrines of the pre-existence and

I

divinity

divinity of Chrift were not fully discovered till the publication of the gofpel of John, which was one of the laft of all the books of the New Teftament. But at that time they thought it to be abfolutely neceffary; as otherwise there would hardly have been any befides unitarians in the church; the knowledge of those great doctrines having, in their opinion, been confined to the apoftles and the leading chriftians only.

A more improbable hypothefis was perhaps never formed by man, to account for any fact whatever; and yet I do not know that the chriftian Fathers could have done any better. Let their fucceffors, who are equally interested in the folution of the problem, do better if they can. But certainly they who were nearer to the times of the apostles, were in a fituation to form a better judgment in this cafe than any perfons at this day can pretend to be; and therefore, I cannot help concluding, that they were well aware, that the fuppofition of this dif covery having been made at an earlier period in the gospel hiftory would have been liable to ftill greater objections than the hypothefis

E 3