troversy evidently resolves itself into the question, whether the hypotheses of the Homoeusians, and of Clarke, are more consistent with themselves, with the scriptures, and with sound philosophy, and are encumbered with fewer difficulties than our doctrine. That they are not, we have already shown. (p. 2.) But admitting for a moment, that the arguments which we have urged are not conclusive against the objections of the Homoeusians; admitting, that the unity of the creator or Most High God is not so clearly taught in the scriptures, as to destroy the force of their arguments against it; still we may demonstrate the inconsistency of their hypothesis, by applying to it, with a few modifications, the arguments which we have urged above against the Socinians, who admit that Christ is to be worshipped. For let it be granted, that the passages which inculcate the worship of one God, are not to be understood exclusively; that the words which signify adoration, are sometimes used to denote a subordinate species of worship; that the divine attributes are communicable to a spirit distinct from the Most High God-granting all this, how can it after all be proved, that the being called Father and Jehovah in the scriptures, is, indeed, the supreme and independent God? Can it be inferred from the phrase, one God, applied to him in 1 Cor. viii. 6? Is not Christ in the same verse, called one Lord, though according to the Homoeusians and Arians, subordinate to another Lord ?*

nature. (See Zacharia's Bibl. Th. III. Th. p. 201. Doederlein's Inst. Theol. Chr. P. II. § 231. obs. 4. Storr's Dissert. in Epist. ad Philipp. Tübingen. 1783. p. 18.) On the other passages see our remarks above, (p. 164, &c.) in addition to which we have only this to say, that there is not a passage in the Bible, which asserts, that any perfection or dignity was bestowed upon Christ by God before his incarnation.

That the fourth verse is not more favorable to the Homoeusian and Clarkian hypothesis, will be apparent on a comparison of that verse with Isa. xliii. 10, 11, and xliv. 6-8. As to the supposition,

Or from Christ's repetition of the words of Moses in Deut. vi. 4? (See Mark xii. 29.) But it must be admitted, even by those who maintain the Deity of Christ, that these words are to be understood in a restricted sense. Why then, may we not suppose, that they were intended merely to exclude the false gods of the Gentiles, or to assign to Jehovah the highest place among the sov, or gods who pertain to us. It is easy to draw the same conclusion, with respect to the other passages adduced by Clarke in his scripture doctrine of the Trinity, (P. I. Ch. I. § I.) But, say the Homoeusians and the followers of Clarke, the creation of the world is referred to the Father as a primary cause: for the Father is said (Heb. i. 2,) by the Son to have made the worlds. But even admitting that the Father was the primary agent in the creation of the world, how can it be inferred from this, that he is the supreme and independent God-by those too, who believe that an inferior spirit may be endowed with all the attributes required in the creator of a world? It follows, therefore, that the hypothesis of the Homoeusians and of Clarke, is inconsistent with itself;* a conclusion greatly

that, in all these texts the unity of the Supreme God is asserted, without denying the existence of a plurality of true Gods, I do not see how it can consist with the drift and context of the passages. In 1 Cor. viii. 6, particularly, those who are called Gods are placed in opposition, not to the Supreme God, as such, (for most of the Gentiles acknowledged one Supreme being,) but to the one true God. (See Gal. iv. 8, 9.)

* The same objection may be urged against the theory proposed by Paul Maty, though certainly ingenious and well calculated to remove some exegetical difficulties. He assumes, that the yes is a finite Spirit, produced by the infinite and uncreated Spirit called the Father in the scriptures, and personally united with him, before the creation of the world. (See Mosheim's Modesta inquisitio in novam dogmatis de S. Trinitate explicatione, quam cl. P. Maty nuper proposuit. Helmst. 1735, and Anton. Driessen's Examen sententiae quam D. P. Maty proposuit Groningae. 1733.) Now I cannot see how it is

strengthened by the philosophical arguments which we have adduced above.* It may be observed in addition, that they are involved, in no small difficulty respecting Christ's exinanition, as it is called. For besides that, it is unscripturalt to suppose such a change in the λoyos as Arians and Homoeusians for the most part believe him to have undergone when he was made flesh; it is certainly quite as hard for human reason to comprehend how an exalted spirit could be thus thrust down into a state of infantile ignorance and weakness, or how the divine wisdom could allow it, were it possible, as it is to understand the mysteries involved in our hypothesis. We have no hesitation, therefore, in drawing

possible for Maty to demonstrate his proposition respecting the Father, without contradicting himself. For suppose some one should contend that the Father, as well as the Son, is a finite spirit, and is called God (in 1 Cor. viii. 6) merely on account of his intimate union with the Deity, affirming that this hypothesis harmonizes better than that of Maty, with the baptismal formula in Matt. xxviii. 19. Can the followers of Maty possibly refute such a theory with any show of consistency? Besides, as Maty assumes the union of three natures, God, the yes, and the man Jesus, his doctrine is certainly not less mysterious than ours.

* To which may be added, those adduced by Toellner, in his Theol. Untersuch. I. B. 1st. St. p. 33.

+ See Heb. i. 12. Συ ο αυτος 4.

This difficulty is not at all diminished by the hypothesis suggested by an anonymous author in Priestley's Theological Repository, Vol. I. p. 431, and in the British Theological Magazine, Vol. III. p. 802, that the cys was changed into a human soul.

♦ See Lardner's letter against the Arians, in the Brit. Theol. Mag. Vol. III. p. 731.

| The Homoeusians, whom I have read, are not very happy in their explanation of those passages which relate to Christ's exaltation. I do not see how the supposition, that the reward of Christ consisted in the pleasurable consciousness of his own merits, (See Br. Theol. Mag. Vol. III.) can be reconciled with some expressions used by the apostles, descriptive of Christ's glory, (such as Phil.

the conclusion, that the hypothesis of the Homoeusiaus and of Clarke respecting the divinity of Christ, plausible as it is, and in a practical point of view so nearly allied to ours, must, nevertheless, yield to the latter as being more harmo nious with the whole tenor of the scriptures as well as more consistent with itself. That it is not, after all, wholly free from difficulties, can give offence to no one, who remembers the words of Paul (1 Cor. xiii. 9.) EK MEKPOTE FINNEKOMEN, we know in part.

ii. 9. compared with Eph. i. 20. Heb. i. 3; x. 12. &c.) And as to the hypothesis of Clarke (Scripture Doctrines, P. II. 47.) that the acgos, who before his incarnation merely participated in the honors of Jehovah, was permitted, after death, as a reward for his services, to be worshipped as personally distinct from Jehovah, it would seem to imply that Christ enjoyed higher honors before than after his incarnation.

THE MOSAIC HISTORY ACCORDANT WITH THE EXISTING

STATE OF THINGS.

1. It is remarkable, in the history of man, that his body is covered with artificial clothing; while all other animals have a natural covering suited to their condition and climate. Now, if man really needs clothing, why did his Creator place him in this wide world, unprovided with a natural covering, suited to his wants? It will not be satisfactory to answer, that man was endowed with reason, and was capable of providing clothing for himself; for reason would be too slow in its operations, for his comfort; it would have been long before he could discover the proper materials for clothing, and then, how could he, without instruction, have formed these materials into convenient garments? Upon mere principles of reason, there is something altogether unaccountable in this abandonment of man to the slow process of discovery.

But there is another remarkable circumstance connected with the artificial clothing of the human body, and that is the shame of nakedness, which is found in every tribe and nation under heaven, except a few miserable savages, who have by long separation from the rest of the human family, lost every particle of the common traditions of our race. Clothing for the purposes of warmth and defence, is not necessary in all climates; but every where, an attention is paid to covering the body, for the sake of decency. Reason dictates nothing of this kind. Among the other animals, there is no vestige of any such feeling. How then shall we account for these universal facts? In no other way,