any thing which has a tendency to throw obstacles in the way of the child's mastering those branches of the subject thus withheld. It should rather studiously open all avenues by which such knowledge is accessible, and any work of the kind, which has a tendency to divert the reader from those avenues altogether, or to make him resort to them later than he otherwise would, is not merely incomplete, but essentially defective."

NOTE ZZ. (p. 38.)

That the apostle is speaking of the Supreme Being, is apparent from the context; (v. 17, 18, 25 ;) and is conceded by all commentators with whom I am acquainted.

NOTE AAA. (p. 39.)

It will not be irrelevant to transcribe here a paragraph from Cranz's history of Greenland, illustrative of the apostles' doctrine. The historian represents an unenlightened Greenlander, reasoning as follows: "I have often thought that a Kajac with its appurtenances could not possibly be selfexistent, but must be the product of human skill and labor, and apt to be spoiled by the ignorance of him who attempts to make them. Now the most diminutive bird is more complicated than the best Kajac, nor is any man capable of making one. But man himself is more complicated and artificial in his structure than all other animals. By whom then was he made? He is generated by his parents and they again by theirs. But whence came the first men of all? They sprang from the earth. But why do men no longer spring from the earth? and what can be the origin of the earth itself, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars? There must of necessity be some one, who is the maker of all these, who has always been, and can never cease to be. He must be inconceivably more powerful and wise than the wisest

or deny it. If they deny it, they destroy the very notion of a necessary nature. If they admit it, how can they believe in the existence of a being infinitely perfect, numerically different from God, and dependent on him?

NOTE WW. (p. 37.)

Genesis ii. 2, (compared with Exodus xx. 11.) Isaiah xliv. 24. Jeremiah x. 12. Ps. viii. 4. cii. 26, &c.

The language of all these passages is such that the writers cannot be supposed to mean a mediate act of the Deity, or one performed by proxy.

NOTE XX. (p. 38.)

On the supposition, that the world was created by an inferior being, how shall we account for the singular ignorance in which the early Jews were kept of this important fact? This circumstance is the more remarkable, because it appears to have been intended by the Deity to accommodate his system of government and instruction to the national propensity of his people towards polytheism, so far as it could be so accommodated, without abandoning the truth. Nor is it a sufficient reason, that the revelation of this fact would have led them into absolute idolatry. For it is well known that the Mosaic Law recognised sacrifices and other rites, very similar to those in use among the heathen.

NOTE YY. (p. 38.)

Apropos to this subject are the words of Lessing, in the following passage from his Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, (1789, p. 29.) "An elementary book for the use of children, may without impropriety, pass over in silence any particular branch of the science or art upon which it treats. But it is not at all allowable, that it should contain

any thing which has a tendency to throw obstacles in the way of the child's mastering those branches of the subject thus withheld. It should rather studiously open all avenues by which such knowledge is accessible, and any work of the kind, which has a tendency to divert the reader from those avenues altogether, or to make him resort to them later than he otherwise would, is not merely incomplete, but essentially defective."

NOTE ZZ. (p. 38.)

That the apostle is speaking of the Supreme Being, is apparent from the context; (v. 17, 18, 25 ;) and is conceded by all commentators with whom I am acquainted.

NOTE AAA. (p. 39.)

It will not be irrelevant to transcribe here a paragraph from Cranz's history of Greenland, illustrative of the apostles' doctrine. The historian represents an unenlightened Greenlander, reasoning as follows: "I have often thought that a Kajac with its appurtenances could not possibly be selfexistent, but must be the product of human skill and labor, and apt to be spoiled by the ignorance of him who attempts to make them. Now the most diminutive bird is more complicated than the best Kajac, nor is any man capable of making one. But man himself is more complicated and artificial in his structure than all other animals. By whom then was he made? He is generated by his parents and they again by theirs. But whence came the first men of all? They sprang from the earth. But why do men no longer. spring from the earth? and what can be the origin of the earth itself, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars? There must of necessity be some one, who is the maker of all these, who has always been, and can never cease to be. He must be inconceivably more powerful and wise than the wisest

man. He must also be good, because all that he has made is so good and profitable and even necessary for our welfare."

NOTE BBB. (p. 39.)

I freely admit, that the words of Paul are not to be so strictly understood, as to apply the language of the nineteenth and succeeding verses to all the Gentiles collectively and individually; but, at the same time, I deny, that he has reference exclusively to their philosophers.

NOTE CCC. (p. 40.)

Clarke himself admits, that "the bare use of the prepositions is not indeed, of itself, a sufficient foundation for these distinctions. For d' is used also of the Father, Rom. xi. 36, and Heb. ii. 10, of the son, Col. i. 16. By or IN him were all things created." He adds, however, that "when they are used in express contradistinction to each other, as in that passage now cited, 1 Cor. viii. 6, they cannot but very much strengthen an interpretation grounded at the same on other texts and upon the whole tenor of Scripture." (See the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 90.) That this last is a mere assumption, is evident from what we have already said, respecting the unity of the Creator, and will be shewn more clearly in the second section.

NOTE DDD. (p. 40.)

See the passages quoted by Storr (über den Zweck, &c. p. 457,) to which may be added Matthew xii. 24, 28, where Ev, though not convertible with uro, plainly denotes a principal efficient cause. I cannot, therefore, agree with Kleuker in supposing, that the phrase εν αυτω εκτίσθη τα παντα is borrowed from the cabalistic system, and signifies, that all things were created in him and with him, or in other words, that he

contains within himself το πληρωμα παντων των κτισθέντων, the fulness of all created things. The improbability of this hypothesis is clear, from the scriptural account of the creation and of the Creator; besides which, the historical evidence is wholly inconclusive. Nor is this deficiency of proof at all supplied by the arguments of Kleuker, in his book called Johannes, Petrus, und Paulus als Cristologen betrachtet (Riga. 1775, p. 223,) or in that lately published, über die Natur und den Ursprung der Emanationslehre bey den Kabbalisten. I am especially incredulous, with respect to the cabalistic origin of the apostle's phraseology in Col. ii. 9. Acts xvii. 28. Rom. viii. 20. 1 Tim. i. 17⋅ vi. 15. James i. 17. John i. (See KLEUKER über die natur, &c. p. 77.) Any further discussion of this point, however, would be foreign from my subject.

NOTE EEE. (p. 40.)

It may be, that the apostle, in the passages referred to, had in view the opinion, that the world was made by some distinguished angel; and in order to refute it, first asserts, that the world was made dia 8 λoys, by means of the Son, (not by means of angels); and afterwards, affirms expressly, that the Son is far superior to angels, who are only God's ministering spirits, and is just as truly the Creator as Jehovah himself.

I cannot venture with the learend Griesbach, to change the reading (d') in the verse before us upon mere conjecture. And as to explaining avas to mean dispensations, it cannot be reconciled with Heb. xi. 3. See GRIESBACH'S Progr. de mundo a patre condito per Christum, 1781; and MICHAELIS' Erklärung des Briefes an die Hebräer, P. I. Heb. i. 1.

NOTE FFF. (p. 41.)

This inference is strikingly confirmed by the language which Paul uses, Rom. i. 25, in reference to the Creator,