which apparently ascribe the highest sort of worship to God or Jehovah. But may not the command to worship Jehovah and him alone, have been a mere temporary institution? Or eyen waving that objection, how can it be proved, agreeably to Socinian principles, that goduveiv and λargɛusiv in Matt. iv. 10, (compare Deut, vi. 13, and Heb. i. 6,) denote the highest sort of adoration, or that the words aur pov, are not merely exclusive of the false gods of the heathen, but imply that worship is due to no one whatever but Jehovah? It may be answered, that the highest worship is unquestionably due to Him who is the creator of the universe, and who, of himself, has omnipotent authority over us; and we freely grant

it. But how will the Socinian prove, that the being called Jehovah or the Father, is the creator of the universe, and of himself, possesses divine power? May not those passages which are generally interpreted as relating to the creation of the universe, be understood in relation to a mere renovation of the earth? May it not be supposed that the creative power exerted by Jehovah, as well as the power which he exercises over men and spirits, is derived from some superior Deity? For that the words and xre often mean

mere reformation, and that the attributes of God may be imparted to a creature, no Socinian can consistently deny. It appears, then, that Socinus and his partisans are utterly unable to demonstrate the great fundamental doetrine of their creed, that the Father alone is God in the highest sense, and is alone entitled to the highest sort of worship.

But they involve themselves in another difficulty, which appears to me inextricable. They deny that it is lawful to render to angels any species of religious worship. In this very denial, however, they seem to be at variance with their own principles. For if worship is due to Christ, not on account of his essential nature, but because of the power which be possesses,* and which Socinians regard as absolute,

*See Bibl. Fratr. Polon. Tom. II. pp. 769, 775.

but inferior to God's, and consequently finite, why may not the angels who are also clothed with power-inferior, indeed, to Christ's, but notwithstanding, great* be adored in a proportionate degree? Is it because the glory of the Most High God would thereby be diminished? No, for the honor rendered to the angels on account of the power conferred on them by God, must redound to the glory of God himself. is it because we are commanded in Matt. iv. 10, (compare Deut. vi. 13,) to worship God alone? No, for Socinians themselves understand the word alone as not excluding those who are subordinate to God. For the same reason, their favourite argument derived from the words of the angel to John, forbidding him to worship him, and commanding him to worship God alone, is futile. For who could use this argument, if like F. Socinus, he interpreted the command to worship in a different manner from the angel who conversed with John. It is true that the worship of angels is no where

* That angels are clothed with extraordinary power, and exercise no small authority over the carth and its inhabitants, is plainly taught in various parts of the Sacred Scriptures, particularly in the Apocalypse, the divine authority of which, is acknowledged by Socinians. It apppears, indeed, to have been admitted by Faustus Socinus, who (Bibl. Fr. Pol. Tom. I. p. 791,) after asserting that the angels are possessed of great glory, and some authority, proceeds as follows: "As to the argument, [urged by those who deny that the words of God, in Gen. i. 26, were addressed to angels,] that it is not allowable to make the angels in any sense, partners of the Deity, in the creation of the world; we reply, that such reasoning is perfectly irrelevant, since nothing is more certain, than that God does communicate his own peculiar attributes to such of his creatures as he makes his instruments. We read, that man was first formed from the dust of the earth, and that afterwards the breath of life was breathed or blown into his face, (or rather nostrils). Now, although this is said to have been done by God himself, it can scarcely be doubted that he did it by the agency of angels. It is evident, indeed, from the expressions, formed and breathed."

enjoined úpon Christians in the scriptures. But that a thing may be lawful, though not positively commanded, is selfevident, and can scarcely be disputed by Socinus, who maintains that the invocation of Christ (which he distinguishes from adoration,*) though not commanded, is allowable; and that, if no command existed to the contrary, adoration itself would have been due to him.

But to pursue this any longer would carry us too far. Enough has now been said to demonstrate the inconsistency of those Socinians who admit that worship is due to Christ. On the whole, we feel ourselves justified in saying, that the higher Socinians place Christ, the more they are inconsistent with themselves and sound philosophy-and the lower they place him, the more they are at war with the plainest declarations of the New Testament. There can be no doubt, therefore, that, all things considered, our doctrine is more rational and credible than that maintained by Socinians of either class.

3. We must now consider briefly the sentiments of those who believe, with us, that a personal distinction existed between the Father and the Son before Jesus was born of

* Bibl. Fratr. Polon. T. I. p. 354.

nus.

+ S. Przipcov entertains higher views of Christ than F. SociHe declares (in his works, p. 452, &c.) that Christ partook of both the divine and human nature, but that both did not co-exist in him at once; the nature of the Son of God, who now reigns in heaven, being not human, but celestial and divine. But if this be so, it necessarily follows, that the human soul of Christ was annihilated, and a spirit substituted for it, endowed with all the attributes of God; a supposition, I need scarcely say completely at variance with the declaration of the Sacred Scriptures, that the same man Jesus, who was, on earth, now reigns in heaven, as well as with the doctrine of the unity of God, which cannot be reconciled with Przipcov's hypothesis, that all the peculiar attributes of God, and all the eternal concomitants of the divine essence and nature, are inherent in Christ since his exaltation.'

Maty, but define the nature of that distinction in such a way as to reject the idea of consubstantiality. To this class belong, 1. the Tritheists, if any such there are, who believe that the dia of the Father and the Son are precisely equal, but not numerically identical. 2. Those who hold that the nature of Christ is super-angelic as well as super-human, but regard the Son as inferior to the Father. The former hypothesis is so palpably inconsistent with the doctrine of the unity of God, that it needs no refutation. In examining the latter, we shall pass by the rigid Arians, and confine ourselves very much to those who hold, with the ancient Homoeusians, that the Son is similis xar' soiav to the Father, or, with Clarke* and others, that the Son partakes of all the

* The Father alone," says Clarke," is self-existent, underived, unoriginated, independent; made of none, begotten of none, proceed. ing from none. (Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. P. II. 5.) The Father is the sole origin of all power and authority, and is the author and principal of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit. (ib. 6.) The Father alone is in the highest, strict, and proper sense, absolutely supreme over all. (7.) The Son is not self-existent, but derives his being, or essence, and all his attributes, from the Father, as from the supreme cause. (12.) In what particular metaphysical manner the Son derives his being or esssence from the Father, the scripture has no where distinctly declared; and therefore men ought not to presume to be able to define. ( 13.) The scripture in declaring the Son's derivation from the Father, never makes mention of any limitation of time; but always supposes and affirms him to have existed with the Father from the beginning, and before all worlds. (115,) Whether the Son derives his being from the Father, by necessity of nature, or by the power of his will, the scripture hath no where expressly declared. (17.) By the operation of the Son, the Father both made and governs the world. (26.) Concerning the Son, there are the greatest things spoken in scripture, and the highest titles ascribed to him; even such as include all divine powers, excepting absolute supremacy and independency, which to suppose communicable is an express contradiction in terms. (◊ 27.) The Son, whatever his metaphysical essence or substance be, and whatever divine greatness and dignity is ascribed to him in scripture; yet in

communicable attributes of God, but in the mode of his existence and the order of his operation, is inferior to the Father.

The advocates of this doctrine are of opinion, that the language of such passages as John xiv. 28. 1 Cor. xi. 3; xv. 28. Col. i. 15. Phil. ii. 6, &c., can in no way be reconciled so well with those which ascribe the creation of the world and the possession of the highest divine attributes to Christ, as by supposing that the λoyos, though endowed with the attributes of Deity, is in some way generated or produced by the Father, and subordinate to him in all his acts. And it must be confessed, that among the many texts which speak of Christ, if you except Rom. ix. 5, there is scarcely one which may not be readily explained on the Homoeusian and Clarkian hypotheses, and that some, when considered in themselves without reference to the context, admit of a more satisfactory explanation upon the principles of Clarke than those of the Homoeusians. But since there are none at all which may not be reconciled with our doctrine without doing violence to the principles of interpretation,* the whole con

this he is evidently subordinate to the Father, that he derives his being and attributes from the Father, the Father nothing from him. (34.) Every action of the Son, both in making the world and in all his other operations, is only the exercise of the Father's power, communicated to him after an ineffable manner. (35.)

* As to Col. i. 15, on which Harwood and others lay such stress, the words πρωτοτοκος πάσης κτίσεως may be understood in application to Christ's human nature, exalted above all creatures on account of its union with the Deity, or in reference to the ages in the same sense in which God himself (as Wolff observes,) is called by the Jews primogenitus mundi. (See Doederlein's Instit. Th. Christ. P. II. p. 257. 3d ed.) And as to Phil. ii. 6-8, though I do not agree with those who regard it as an argument for the Deity of Christ, I think it has been clearly shown by some celebrated interpreters, that this passage may be readily explained in accordance with our doctrine, by referring the expressions in v. 6-8, (or at least in v. 8,) to Christ's human