accommodated language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah only, to a created and dependent being. Kugios (Lord) in the Greek, corresponds to the word Jehovah in the original Hebrew—the Septuagint having commonly rendered it in this manner. And, though Jehovah is not in the Hebrew text, (Ps. cii. 25), yet it is evident, from the preceding context, that it must be understood there as the subject of the verb, thou hast founded. Christ, then, is here called by the Apostle, Jehovah; and eternity, immutability, and the creation of the universe, are ascribed to him.*

"Thou

I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on the passage in question, deserves a serious refutation. wast the cause," says he, "that the earth was founded; and on thy account the heavens were made." If this be not a different thing from what the language of the Apostle naturally means, or can mean, I confess I know not any bounds which may be set to paraphrastic or mystical exegesis. Suppose now the Gnostics, who maintained that evil demons, and not Jehovah, created the world, should have paraphrased the first verse in Genesis in this manner, Thou, Jehovah, wast the cause why the heavens and the earth were created ;" and, when asked how this could consist with their sentiments, or what they could mean by it, they should have replied, "Out of enmity to thee, the evil demons brought the material creation into existence," then they would have explained away the creative act of Jehovah, exactly as Grotius explains away the evidence that Christ was the Creator.

66

Col. i. 15-17. Who is the image of the invisible God, the head of all creation; for, by him were all things

*

I readily admit, that xup105 is not always synonymous with Jehovah : But where the word Jehovah is used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, Kupios stands, in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, as the translation of it. Therefore, xupios, in the New Testament, must, of course, in such cases, have the same meaning as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The reason why nugios is used by the New Testament writers as the translation of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the Jews, in reading their sacred writings, were not accustomed to pronounce the word Jehovah, but read, for the most part, Lord, xugios, in the room of it.

created, both celestial and terrestrial, visible and invisible, of whatever order or rank they are all things were created by him and for him. Therefore, he was before all things, and by him are all things sustained."

The places in which I have departed from our common version, are not differently rendered in order to make them favour the cause which I have espoused; for they determine nothing respecting the point now at issue. They are rendered as above, merely to make the meaning of the passage in general as plain as the nature of the case will permit.

66

Because, in verse 20th, Christ is said "to reconcile (άoxατarλažα) all things unto himself," and these are said to be "6 things in heaven and things on earth;" and, afterwards, he is represented as breaking down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. Some ingenious commentators have supposed that "things in heaven and things on earth," mean Jews and Gentiles. How very unnatural this explanation is, no one can help feeling, who reads the passage in an unbiassed manner. In what tolerable sense can the Jews and Gentiles be called " things visible and invisible?" or how shall we explain the phrase, things in heaven and things on earth," as applied to them? By "reconciling things in heaven and things on earth," seems evidently to be meant, bringing into union, under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a new and special bond of intercommunication, both angels and men. In like manner, the two great parties on earth, Jews and Gentiles, are united together. But why Christ should be called "the image of the invisible God," and the "head (ewToToxos, the first born) of all creation," because he is merely the instrument of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is not apparent to me. Yet, to be such an instrument, is all that the passage in question ascribes to him, if we are to construe it in the manner above related. But, when you understand the words of the Apostle, as describing the creation of the worlds celestial and terrestrial, (or dugavo nai hyn, compare Heb. i. 10-12), and ascribing it to Christ, then you find sufficient reason for designating him by the exalted appellations in question.

It has also been affirmed, that a moral creation only is

here ascribed to Christ.

But words like these, in such a connexion and with such adjuncts, are nowhere else used in this sense. Moreover, in what sense has the moral creation by Christ affected the angels? The good ones needed not repentance or pardon; the bad ones have never sought or obtained either. 66 Verily, he did not assist the angels, (ου γαρ δήπου ἀγγελων ἐπιλαμβάνεται), but the seed of Abraham." -Heb. ii. 16.

Until I see different light, therefore, shed over the passage in question, I must regard it as very clearly ascribing the creation of the universe to Christ.

But you will say, perhaps, that in John, i. 3, « All things are said to be made by Christ, dia Xgiorov, as the instrumental, not the principal cause,-the preposition dia denoting such cause. In Col. i. 16, it is also said, that all things were created by Christ (di' avtov); and in Heb. i. 2, God is said to have created the worlds by his Son,-Ai (sc. υιου) και τους αιωνας ἐποίησε.”

The allegation, however, that dia does not designate the principal as well as the instrumental cause, can by no means be supported. In Rom. xi. 36, " All things are said to be of God (i avtov) and by God (di vrs);" the very form of expression applied to Christ, in Col. i. 16-20. So, Heb. ii. 10, "For it became him, (God the Father), for whom di iv, are all things, and by whom, di ov, are all things," &c. 1 Cor. i. 9, " God is faithful, by whom, di iv, ye were called into the fellowship of his Son," &c. Moreover, ix and die are sometimes interchanged as equivalents or synonymes. See Rom. iii. 30. So also, v and dia, Col. i. 16,—τα παντα ἐν ἀντω έκτισθη and δι αυτου ἐκισται. ρ. ἐν and dia, in these two phrases, are of the same import. See Schleusner's Lex. in voc. dia.

The difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase, «by whom di où he (the Father) made the worlds;" Heb. i. 2. The Apostle has added sufficient, in verses 10-12, as it might seem, to prevent mistake here. If, however, the difficulty seems still to press, it may be compared with Hos. i. 7, "I (Jehovah) will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah." Is the second Jehovah merely the instrumental cause in this case? Of the same nature is the phraseology in Gen. xix. 24, “ And

Jehovah rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone FROM JEHOVAH out of heaven." Must the last Jehovah, in this case, be a being inferior to the first? If not, then the phrase that God made the worlds by his Son, does not imply, of course, that the Son is of an inferior nature. It does imply that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son; and this is what we aver to be a Scripture doctrine. It seems to declare, also, that the Godhead, in respect to the distinction of Son, was in a special manner concerned with the creation of the worlds. What is there impossible or improbable in this?

From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, it appears plain that the Apostles have ascribed the creation of the universe to Christ. And now we come, in order, to the consideration of the simple question, whether he who created the world is really and truly divine.

First, then, permit me to ask, If the act of creation does not prove the being who performs it to be omniscient, omnipotent, and independent, is it possible for me to conceive of any thing which does or can prove the existence of such a being? To bring this world into existence from nothing to establish such perfect concord and design. through all the operations of nature-to set in motion the unnumbered worlds and systems of worlds, and all in the most perfect harmony and order-requires more intelligence, more power, and more wisdom, than ever belonged to any finite being. And if these things do not characterise the infinite being, it seems to me no proof that such a being exists can be adduced.

It is in vain to tell me here that the creation of the universe can be performed by delegation-by an inferior and subordinate being. What can be meant by omnipotence and infinite wisdom, (all of which must belong to a Creator), being delegated? Can God delegate his perfections? If so, then the Gnostics, when pressed with the argument that Jehovah, the God of the Jews, was the Supreme God, because he created the heavens and the earth, might have replied, that he did this only by delegated power; and that the act of creation, therefore, proves nothing. You reply to such an allegation, that the act of creating the universe is one which no finite or secondary being can per

form.

If this act do not designate the absolute, Supreme, omnipotent and omniscient Being, then no proof that such a Being exists can possibly be adduced.

We use the very same arguments to confute those who maintain that Christ created the world by delegated power. The Apostle, having decided the question that Christ did create the world, has decided, consequently, that he must be truly divine.

Agreeably to this reasoning, the Bible everywhere appeals to creative power as the peculiar and distinguishing prerogative of the Supreme God; and attributes it solely to Jehovah. Read Gen. ii. 2, 3; Exod. xx. 11; Is. xliv. 24; Jer. x. 12; Ps. viii. 3, 4; cii. 25, and other passages of the same tenour. Read Is. xl., and onward, where God, by his Prophet, makes a most solemn challenge to all polytheists to bring the objects of their worship into competition with him, and declares himself to be distinguished from them all, by his being "the Creator of the ends of the earth," (verse 28), and by his having formed and arranged the heavens, (verse 26).

Can it be made plainer than these passages make it, that creative power was regarded by the Hebrew Prophets as the appropriate and peculiar attribute of the Supreme God? Need I say, that the Old Testament is filled with passages which ascribe the work of creation to Jehovah alone? Who does not find them everywhere intermixed, in the most delightful and affecting manner, with all the instructions of the sacred Hebrew writers ?

Now, if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create the universe, why should all the instructions of the Old Testament be so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jewish nation to disbelieve and reject this fact? Specially so, as the Jews were strongly inclined to polytheism, and a plurality of gods would have been very agreeable to their wishes. And why, after a lapse of so many centuries, should the writers of the New Testament overturn all that the Hebrew Scriptures had taught on this subject, and lead men to admit that a finite being could and did create the world? Most of all, how could Paul say, (Rom. i. 20), that the Heathen were without excuse for not acknowledging the eternal power and Godhead of the Divi