would determine anything, and be sincere and consistent men,) some choose the former and some the latter, according as they more inclined to one way or the other. There is certainly no medium betwixt orthodoxy and Arianism, (for *Semi-Arianism, if so understood, is perfect nonsense and contradiction,) there being no medium between God and creature, between unmade and made. Men may conceal their sentiments, suppress consequences and speak their minds but by halves; and so one Arian may be more cautious, or more artful than another; but, in truth and reality, every man that disowns the consubstantiality, rightly understood, is as much an Arian as Eunomius or Aetius, or any of the ancient Arians were, or, even as Arius himself, excepting only some few particulars, which were not his standing and settled opinions.

NOTE B.

"The Son is supposed a creature of the Father's. Now, if his being of, or from, the Father, in this sense, makes him one God with the Father, it will follow that angels, or men, or, even things inanimate, are one God with the Father also. Indeed, to do you justice, you do not so much as pretend, that unity of principle, or anything else, can make him one God with the Father; which is enough to show how very widely you differ from the ancients, in the main point of all. They thought it necessary to assert that Father and Son were both, one God. So Irenæus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandrinus, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and even Eusebius himself, after some debates upon it, as may appear from the testimonies before referred to; and of the Post-Nicene Catholic writers, in general, every body knows how they contended for it. The thought that the divinity of the Son could not be otherwise secured, and Polytheism at the same time avoided, than by asserting Father and Son to be one God; and they thought right. But what do you do? or how can you contrive to clear your scheme? We ask if the Son be God, as well as the Father? You say, yes. How then, we ask, is there but one God? Your answer is, the Father is supreme, and, therefore, he, singly, is the one God. This is taking away what you gave us before, and retracting what you asserted of the Son. If supremacy only makes a person God, the Son is no God, upon your principles; or, if he is God notwithstanding, then Father and Son are two Gods. Turn this over as often as you please, you will find it impossible to extricate yourself from it. You can say only this; that you do not admit two supreme Gods. This is very true, no more did the Pagan Polytheists, nor the idolatrous Samaritans, nor others condemned in Scripture for Polytheism."

The allegation made by Unitarians therefore, that this doctrine is absurd and contradictory, is founded on ignorance and presumption. It is also suicidal, since all such objections apply with equal, if not greater, force to the Unitarian hypothesis. The existence of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, and yet spiritual being, involves every difficulty and every apparent contradiction imputed to the doctrine of the Trinity, and

*Semi-Arianus, et Semi-Deus, et Semi-creatura perinde monstra et portenta sunt, quæ sani et pii omnes merito exhorrent.-Bull D. F., p. 284.

is just as far beyond the utmost capacity of human reason. Difficulties insurmountable to human reason inhere in the very nature of the subject; and such difficulties therefore, must be one characteristic of a divine revelation and pre-eminently, as it relates to the nature of God and his mode of existence. Besides, to use the words of Bishop Horsley, "hath the Arian hypothesis no difficulty, when it ascribes both the first formation and the perpetual government of the universe, not to the Deity, but to an inferior being? Can any power or wisdom less than supreme, be a sufficient ground for the trust we are required to place in Providence! Make the wisdom and the power of our ruler what you please; still, upon the Arian principle, it is the wisdom and the power of the creature. Where then, will be the certainty that the evil which we find in the world, hath not crept in through some imperfections in the original contrivance, or in the present management? Since every intellect below the first, may be liable to error, and any power, short of the supreme, may be inadequate to purposes of a certain magnitude. But if evil may have thus crept in, what assurance can we have that it will ever be extirpated? In the Socinian scheme, is it no difficulty that the capacity of a mere man or of any created being, should contain that wisdom by which God made the universe? Whatever is meant by the Word in St. John's gospel, it is the same Word of which the Evangelist says, that "all things were made by it," and that it "was itself made flesh." If this Word be the divine attribute Wisdom, then that attribute, in the degree which was equal to the formation of the universe, in this view of the Scripture doctrine, was conveyed entire into the mind of a mere man, the son of a Jewish carpenter. A much greater difficulty, in my apprehension, than any that is to be found in the Catholic faith.

The Unitarian hypothesis implies also, that the Son was born before all times, yet is not eternal; not a creature, yet not God; of God's substance, yet not of the same substance; and his exact and perfect resemblance in all things, yet not a second Deity—a creed really involving those contradictions in terms of which the orthodox are wrongfully accused. It cannot escape from one of two conclusions-" either the establishment of a sort of polytheism or as the more practical alternative, that of the mere humanity of Christ; i. e. either the superstition of paganism, or the virtual atheism of philosophy. It confesses our Lord to be God, yet at the same time infinitely distant from the perfections of the One Eternal cause. Here, at once, a ditheism is acknowledged. But Athanasius pushes on the admission to that of an unlimited polytheism. "If," he says, "the Son were an object of worship for his transcendent glory, then every subordinate being is bound to worship his superior." But so repulsive is the notion of a secondary God, both to reason, and much more to Christianity, that the real tendency of Arianism lay towards the sole remaining alternative, the humanitarian scheme."*

The Arian creed, if considered in all its bearings and deductions, will, perhaps, appear much less rational and philosophical than has been sometimes asserted. It has been described as a simpler and less mystical hypothesis than that of the Trinitarians, and yet it requires us to apply the same term, God, to two beings who differ as widely from each other as the Creator and his creature. It requires us to speak of Christ as the

*See Newman's History of Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 220, 221, 246-248.

begotten Son of God, though he only differs from all other creatures by having preceded them in the order of time. It requires us to believe of this Created Being, that he was himself, employed in creating the world; and to invest him with every attribute of Deity, except that of having existed from all eternity. If we contrast these notions with the creed of the Trinitarians, they will be found to present still greater difficulties to our faculties of comprehension.*

ARTICLE II.

"ELSE WHAT SHALL THEY DO WHICH ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL? WHY ARE THEY THEN BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD?"-1 Cor. 15: 29.†

This is one of the most difficult passages in St. Paul's epistles. It has given abundant employment to the speculative and curious. Its explanations have been almost as various as its interpreters are numerous. Each construction has been defended more or less ingeniously, and in a manner satisfactory to the author. Many inquirers into St. Paul's meaning change their own opinions respecting it, as soon as they read some new commentator; while others are only confirmed in their own. views by opposition, and set themselves at once to refute whatever conflicts with their own expositions. In the meanwhile, this passage has been anxiously expounded. Scarcely any explanation of it has been generally adopted, none has gained for itself a catholic character, and settled deep in the convictions of the universal church. It has, consequently, been regarded as uncertain, if not almost useless; and Christians at large, when they privately read this portion of God's word, or when they

* Burton's Testimonies of the Fathers to the Trinity, page 4.

This article, as the reader perceives, is presented in the form of a sermon. It is from the pen of the Rev. J. H. Fowles, recently deceased, one of the most Evangelical and useful ministers of the Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia, and for many years a resident of this State. It has a special interest attaching to it, as being one of the last discourses delivered to the people of his charge; and thus giving point to his exposition of this difficult passage. As the author has passed away from earth, we have not felt at liberty to alter in any degree, the form of his discourse; although being designed for a congregation, it differs from the usual form of Review articles.-EDS. S. P. REV.

hear it in the church, or at the burial of the dead, derive no more instruction from it, than they would from a letter that is sealed. Under these circumstances, it may seem presumptuous to attempt to solve what some are disposed to consider almost a divine enigma; or to endeavor to turn to use what has been generally regarded as unprofitable, and left untouched. But in our manner of handling the text, we shall endeavor to avoid any such imputation. We shall treat every explanation of it, which is consistent with the analogy of faith, with the most charitable consideration; nay, every such explanation will be included in, and enforced by, that which we adopt. May we not hope, therefore, that some benefit will be conferred, if you become simply convinced, that the text is susceptible of interpretations, which have been regarded as satisfactory by many learned and pious men, and that it is mere creature infirmity which prevents all from perceiving the true meaning of the Holy Ghost? Would not a still greater good be reached if we are able to point out to you the real intention of the Spirit of God in this scripture, and some of the lessons which he here designed to teach? It is with such hopes and objects, that we invite you to enter into an exainination of our text. "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" It may seem almost superfluous, and yet, perhaps, it is worth while to remark, that by the phrase," What shall they do?" St. Paul designed to ask, what benefit will they receive? It is a common colloquial expression to which this meaning is attached. Let à merchant, for instance, tell us of the golden harvest he expects to reap by sending a cargo of goods to a certain port, where they are now selling at a high price. Nothing would be more natural than for us to ask him, but what will you do, that is, what profit will you make if the vessel should be wrecked; or, if before its arrival, the price of those goods should fall? That this is, moreover, what the apostle meant, is made plain by the context, where, in one of the series of questions which he puts, in order to prove the same point, he asks, "If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead

a

rise not?" So that the meaning of our text is, obviously, "What advantage will it be to those who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" And now, before explaining what baptism for the dead means, let us inquire what was the object of our apostle in asking the question which we find in our text? In reply to this. we say, that it is evident, that our whole chapter was intended to convince the Corinthians, that there would be a future resurrection of the disciples of Christ from the dead. There had sprung up some at Corinth, as we are told in the 12th verse, who maintained that there was to be "no resurrection of the dead." It was to root out this radical heresy, that our apostle penned the entire 15th chapter of his epistle. His declarations and reasonings on this point, are pursued to the close of the 23d verse, where he says, "Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection, "afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." Having thus alluded, however, to the second advent of our Lord, St. Paul saw fit to encourage the mind of the weary believer with the prospect of that undisturbed and eternal reign of peace which should be ushered in when Christ's Mediatorial Kingdom should cease, and the sceptre of the universe should be delivered up to the Triune Father of Heaven, who would never permit any enemy to harass or injure his people, but govern in such a way that he himself would be "all in all." Here the apostle resumes the thread of his discourse, and upon the supposition that those who had died in Christ should not hereafter be raised, asks, in the words of our text, "Else what shall they do," (what benefit will they enjoy) "who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" We see, then, that the text was designed as an argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead at the last day. Having thus determined the object of St. Paul, in asking the question before us, we are prepared to exclude as unworthy our attention any explanation of that baptism for the dead to which he refers, which has not an immediate and obvious bearing on the future rising of the bodies of all those who have died in the Christian faith. But even within this limit, there are various plausible interpretations of the passage, which claim