passage, in general, as plain as the nature of the case will permit.

Because, in verse 20, Christ is said "to reconcile (xaTaλağa) all things unto himself." and these are said to be "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 (newroronos) 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. when you understand the words of the apostle, as describing the creation of the worlds celestial, and terrestrial, (or ougaros mas in, comp. Heb. i. 10-12,) and ascribing it to Christ; then you find sufficient reason, for designating him by the exalted appellations in question.

But

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 no where 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. "Verily he did not assist the angels, (ου δηπου αγγέλων επιλαμβανεται,) 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' avrov;) and in Heb. i. 2, God is said to have created the worlds by his Son; Al' ¡v (sc. ύπου) και τους αιώνας εποίησε.”

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

Must

The difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase, “by whom, ou, 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." 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 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 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 perform? 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 every where appeais to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing prerogative of the Supreme God; and attributes it solely

to Jehovah. Read Gen. ii. 2, 3. Ex. xx. 11. Is. xliv. 24. Jer. x. 12. Ps. viii. 3, 4. cii. 25, and other passages of the same tenor. Read Isaiah 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," (v. 28;) and by his having formed and arranged the heavens, (v. 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 every where 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 Divinity, from the evidence which his CREATING power afforded-from considering the THINGS THAT WERE MADE?

And is this truth, (that the Deity possesses eternal power and Godhead,) so plain then, and so easily deduced from CREATING ENERGY, that the very heathen are destitute of all excuse, for not seeing and admitting it; and yet, can it be the object of Christianity to bring us back to the very polytheism, for which the apostle condemned them? To bring us to "worship the creature more than the CREATOR ?" Does Christianity contradict a truth of natural religion so plain and incontrovertible, that the very heathen were

without excuse for not acknowledging it? And after reading such a passage in the writings of Paul; can it be possiAle to suppose, that he ascribed the creation of the world to any thing but the true God only? Compare now Acts xvii. 23-26, with John i. 1-3, and 10; Heb, i. 10—12; Colos. i. 14-17; and then say, Is it possible to admit the rules of interpretation, which you have laid down, and not admit that the apostles designed to assert, that Christ is the Creator of the Universe? And if he is so is it possi ble to deny that he is truly divine?

It were easy to produce passages of the New Testa ment, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to God; (as John v. 17-23. xiv. 9, 11.) But as the vindication of these would swell these letters beyond their proper length, I shall not enter into the discussion of them at present. I am not anxious to increase the number of witnesses; for acknowledging the New Testament to be of divine authority, I consider whatever it plainly declares once to be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the testimony, therefore, is more the object of my solicitude, than the number of witnesses: a point, I may add, in which many, who have defended our sentiments, have greatly erred.

I shall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scripture, in which Christ is declared to be God.

Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the Fathers; and from whom, in respect to the flesh (his human nature,) Christ (descended,) who is the supreme God, blessed for ever. Amen."

In regard to this text, it may be remarked, first, that although Griesbach has filled his margin with conjectural and other readings, he attributes no considerable weight to any of them; for all the Manuscripts of the Epistle to the Romans, which have been collated, contain the text as it stands; as do all the ancient Versions, and nearly all the Fathers.

In rendering To xava σapxa, in respect to his human nature, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in Rom. i, 3.* Acts. ii. 30. And that ό ως επι πάντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους

vas, is literally translated, who is supreme God, blessed for ever, may be shown in various ways. O w is here put, as,

As it stands in the Textus Receptus.