Pfal. cxxxvi. 3, 4. O give thanks to the Lord of Lords,-To him who ALONE doth great wonders.' And Ifa. xliii. 11. I, even 1 am Jehovah, and befides me there is NO SAVIOUR. But will any from this venture to deny that God wrought mighty figns and great wonders by Jefus Chrift, and that Chrift is the Saviour of finners, when we are expressly taught that God did these by his Son, (Acts ii. 22.) and that his name was called Jefus, because he faves his people from their fins (Matth. i. 21.)? We can therefore have no warrant to deny that God created all things by Jefus Chrift, from its being faid that he created the heavens alone, &c.

When any action is afcribed both to the Father and the Son, we are not, I apprehend, to fuppofe that the one does one part of the action, and the other another part thereof, but that the joint agency of both is concerned in effecting the fame thing; as Chrift himself teftified concerning the works which the Father gave him to do, when he faid, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. And when we are also taught, that There is one God the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom are all things; it appears very evident that God the Father alone, in the ftricteft fenfe, is the Creator and Saviour, as to the firft caufe, and alfo that Jefus alone is he by whom God the Father created all things, and by whom he faves fallen creatures from fin and misery.

We cannot expect any fimilitude in created nature by which the agency of the Father and

the Son can be properly reprefented; for who in heaven or on earth can be compared unto him? neither is there any work like unto the works that he hath done: yet we may find cafes in which the joint concurrence of two agents, or inflruments, are neceflary for effecting the fame thing. For instance, let us fuppose a place into which the light of the fun could not come, unless it was reflected from a mirror, the, fun would be the first caufe of that reflection, and the mirror the medium by which the reflecting would be conveyed; and the joint concurrence of both the fun and the mirror for ef fecting this would be fo neceffary, that the withdrawing of any one of them would make the reflection to ceafe."

Upon the fame ground that Socinian writers. argue against the agency of Chrift being concerned in the creation of all things, they may argue against his agency being concerned in redeeming, quickening, fanctifying, and reconci-, ling finners unto God; for thefe they will certainly allow to be afcribed unto the Father in the following paffages. Ifa. xxix, 22. Thus, faith Jehovah, who redeemeth Abraham,' Ifa.. xlvii. 4. As for our Redeemer, Jehovah of Hofts is his name. Pfal. xxxi. 5. Thou haft redeemed me, O Jehovah, God of truth." Pfal. lxxi. 23. My foul which thou haft redeemed.' Pfal. lxxx. 18. Quicken us, and we will call on thy name." Tim. vi, 13. God who quickeneth all things.' Eph. ii. 5. • Hath quickened us together with Chrift.

John

.

6

John xvii. 17. Sanctify them through thy truth.' 1 Theff. V. 23. The very God of peace fanctify you wholly. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jefus Chrift.'

It appears therefore very evident from the fcripture account, that God at first created all things by Jefus Chrift, and that he is now enlightening, fanctifying, and reconciling fin-ners to himself by him; fo that all the agency of God the Father, in the creation, prefervation, and government of creatures, has been, is, and will be by Jefus Chrift, who is the Alpha and Omega, the firft and the laft, in all the agency of the Father relative to his creatures. This idea of divine agency flowing from God the Father, as the fift caufe, and through Jefus Chrift, as the intermediate agent of operation and manifestation; is no way inconfiftent with the unity of the Moft High God; nor doth the inconceivable measure of wisdom, power, and goodnefs, which, in this cafe, muft fubfift in the perfon of Chrift, in any refpect injure our diftinct ideas of the infinite perfections of the Father: But, on the contrary, we are thereby led to a fituation from which we may contemplate, with greater advantage, the infinite being, power, wildom, and goodness of the invifible God. For if the agent by whom the immense fyftem of nature was made, (John i. 3. Col. i. 1.6.) unto whofe government all things are com mitted, (Matth. xi. 27.) and by whom all the complicated actions of intelligent creatures will

be

i

be judged, (John v. 22, 27. Acts x. 42.) muft poffefs perfections, powers, and capacities, quite beyond what we can conceive; how furpaffing far! how exceeding to an excefs! muft thefe perfections, powers, and capacities be in HIM who endued this agent with all these? All who deny the distinct perfonal existence of Jefus Chrift, in this high character, deprive themfelves of the advantage of beholding the glory of God in a proper manner in the perfon of Chrift; and created nature must be the highest medium through which the perfections of God can be viewed by them.

Dr Priestley argues alfo against the pre-exiftence of Chrift, from the opinion of the common people being against it; and his principal evidence for this feems to be taken from fomething to be found in the writings of Origin, and Tertullian. Origin mentions what he calls a corporeal, and a spiritual gospel, and alledges that the spiritual gospel was to be preached only to persons confirmed in the Spirit and bringing forth fruit in it; from which Dr Priestley infers, that the fpiritual gospel was the doctrine of the pre-existence of Chrift, and the corporeal that of his mere humanity; and that it was only a few who had fallen in with the views of the learned that would admit the former, while the great body of the people held the latter. This he confiders as a teftimony as exprefs as can be defired, and fhewing moft clearly that the generality of Chriftians denied the pre-existence of Chrift. But his inferences feem.

to

6

to be very ill-founded, for Origin does not oppose what he calls the corporeal gospel to the pre-existence of Chrift, but to that ftate which fucceeded his returning from his bodily ftate.' (Hift. of Corrup. v. iii. p. 263.) It appears therefore to be the glory and fpiritual nature of the future life, or the future difpenfations of grace in the awvwv aionian kingdom of Christ, to which he seems to have thought, the arv gofpel mentioned by John is fuited; (which might be called fpiritual as it is fuited to a spiritual ftate,) that he mentions as fit to be preached only to perfons confirmed, and bringing forth fruit in the fpirit. The corporeal gospel mentioned by Origin, being opposed by him to that which is spiritual and future, feems plainly to mean the outward form of religion fuited to the present state, with which the great bulk of profeffing Chriftians too often content themselves, without looking properly either into their own hearts, or into the scenes of futurity. And indeed as to carnal, or nominal Christians, it is to be feared they have had too great a majo rity in every age. And it may also be obferved, that the phrafe, των πεπιτευκναι νομιζομένων τα ther denotes nominal believers of the truth, than real believers of a particular opinion.

ra

As to Tertullian, he mentions fomething called æconomy being held by fome, which gave occafion to the common people to charge them with worshipping two or three gods; but this is rather like the beginning of what is called the Athanafian fyftem, than the doctrine of the pre

existence