fore he could not extend his agency through the vast expanfe of created nature, nor take care of any thing when he was afleep and in the grave. As to that of Jefus Chrift being limited to a small space, we neither know the expanfion his glorious body is capable of, nor that of his pre-incarnate nature. If a small fpark of fire can expand a small particle of oil to a very wide extent in the condition of light and heat; or rather, if a small spark of fire can diffuse its operation in the condition of light and heat, to an unknown extent, through the medium, or by the means of a small particle of oil; through what immenfe extension may the operation of an infinite spirit extend through the medium, or by the means of a being begotten. immediately by, and bearing the express image of the Infinite and Invisible God.

It will hardly be doubted that the influence. of the fun extends, through the whole folar fyftem; why then should it be doubted that the influence of the Sun of Righteoufnefs extends through the whole moral fyftem? If all things in this material fyftem are enlightened and invigorated by the material fun; why might not God the Father create all things by Jefus Christ, and govern all things by him?

If Dr Priestley, or any other person should afk how Jefus Chrift created all things, and how he upheld the things that were at an im menfe distance from him when he was in this world? I pretend not to give a philofophical. anfwer. Though, I believe, it may be as eafily,

done

done, as he or any elfe can tell how an atom, or particle of matter, attracks or repulfes another atom, or particle, which is at some distance from it, upon the principles of that philofophy he adopts.

In his difquifitions relating to matter and fpirit, he fays, It has been afferted, and the affertion has never been difproved, that for any thing we know to the contrary, all the ⚫ folid matter in the folar fyftem might be contained within a nut-fhell, there is fo great a proportion of void space within the substance of the most folid bodies,' (Difqui. p. 22.) This is bringing matter ito a very fmall compafs, and confequently making the diftance of particles from one another proportionably great. But he seems to bring it to a smaller compafs still, when he says, "It confifts of phyfical points only, endued with the powers of attraction and repulfion.' (p. 24.) Now if he allows fuch inconceivably fmall particles, to have fuch mighty powers, as to act, and to be acted upon by others at an immenfe distance; with what confiftency can he limit the agency of him, in whom it pleafed the Father that all fullnefs fhould dwell, even the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

As to the agency of Chrift being exerted when he was afleep, or in the grave, he cannot fuppofe him more inactive in his most inactive ftate, than a particle of inanimate matter. And if particles of matter are endowed with powers that can act whether they be in motion or at

reft,

reft, why may not an animated being be endowed with powers that can act whether their bodies be awake or afleep, dead or alive. This may appear not fo favourable to the principle of materialism, which Dr Priestley confiders as a neceffary part of the Socinian fyftem, when he fays, It is my firm opinion, that the three doctrines of materialism, of that which is commonly called Socinianifm, and of philofo•phical neceffity, are equally parts of one fyftem;' (Intrad. to Difqui. p. 5.) but it is an opinion that has been very general among mankind, and the fcriptures do certainly favour it, that there is an intelligent principle in man that lives and acts both when the body is afleep and dead; and this idea receives no fmall fupport by analogy, from the philofophy that ascribes fuch great and active powers to inanimate matten.com

Suppofing then, that as the bodies of men are animated by their respective spirits, fo the body of Chrift was animated by that Great Being, called the Logos, or Word, whom the foriptures fay was made flesh, and who, though emptied and become poor as to perfonal enjoy. ments, and made lower than the angels in refpect of perfonal circumftances, yet retained powers and capacities as far fuperior to all created fpirits, as the powers and capacities afcribed to him by Mr Lindsey in his humiliation ftate exceed thofe of all men; how in that cafe can we know the power and influences he might have through the whole creation, or what

power

power and influence the Father might exert through the whole creation by him, in his low. * eft ftate of humiliation.

But fuppofing the exertion of the power of Chrift, or his office as governor of the universe, to be in fome refpect fufpended, when he was humbled, and divested of the glory he had with the Father before the world began; Dr Prieltly and thofe of his perfwafion can have no just cause to object to it; for, according to their hypothefis, the new creation and regulation that was made, and is carried on by Chrift in the world, is done by deputation, or by the agency of perfons prepared for that purpose by his miniftry. When therefore he afks, Who fupplied the place of Chrift in the government of the world, when his office was fufpended?' Might we not as well ask him, Whofupplied his place in the government of the church, when he left this world? If his prefence among a few illiterate men for a few months, (for he will hardly admit that the time amounts to years), if the fhort time he was with his difciples, inftructing them in the doctrines of the gofpel, was fufficient to qualify them, for managing the concerns of the church,' which has now been managed in his abfence for many generations; how much more might not his prefence with the thrones, principali-' fies, and powers in the heavenly places for thousands of years, perhaps for unknown ages, be fufficient to qualify them for conducting

the

the affairs of the universe for between thirty and forty years?

This part of the subject being that from which the greatest difficulties may be ftarted, Dr Priestley feems very unwilling to part with it, he therefore fays further, If the Supreme Being himfelf undertook it, what reafon can there be imagined, why he should not himself have always done it?' This question supposes that the government of Chrift fufpends that of the Father, whereas the fcriptures reprefent the government of the Father as exercised through Christ. Again he adds, • And yet, if there was a reafon in the nature of things, why this work fhould be done by another, and not by the Supreme Being himself, that reafon must have fubfifted while Chrift was on earth, as well as before.' It has been observed, that for any thing we certainly know, the perfonal agency of Chrift never was fufpended; and that if it was, an agency might be carried on through the whole creation, as properly his, as the government carried on in the church is his, according to the Socinian hypothefis. But fuppofing the agency of Chrift to be as little concerned in carrying on the affairs of the univerfe, during his abode on earth, as Dr Priestley supposes he was concerned in the affairs of the church before his incarnation, might not God fee as good reason for conducting the affairs of the univerfe in a different manner during his abode on earth, as for conducting the affairs of the church in a dif

ferent