and the creation of the universe, are ascribed to him.*

I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on the passage in question, deserves a serious refutation. "Thou 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.

Col. i. 15-17:

66

"Who is the image of the in

* I readily admit, that kupios 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 Kuptos in the New Testament must of course, in such cases, have the same meaning as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The reason why KUρLos 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, Kupios, in the room of it.

visible God, the head of all creation; for by him were all things 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.

Because, in verse 20, Christ is said "to reconcile (aπоKaraağa) 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

66

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 (TρWTоTOKоs 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 οι ουρανοι καὶ

yn, 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. "Verily, he did not assist the angels (ου γαρ δηπου αγγελων επιλαμβανε Ta,) 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 Xpiorov, 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,Δι' οὗ (sc. υἱου) καὶ τους αιωνας εποίησεν.

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 (ε avrov), and by God (di' avrov), the very form of expression applied to Christ in Coloss. i. 16-20. So Heb. ii. 10, "For it became him (God the Father), for whom, di ov, are all things, and by whom, di ov, are all things," &c. 1 Cor. i. 9: "God is faithful, by whom di ou, ye were called into the fellowship of his Son," &c. Moreover, Ex and dia are sometimes interchanged as equivalents or synonymes. See Rom. iii. 30. So also ev and dia Coloss. i. 16,—τα παντα εν αυτῷ εκτίσθη, and δι' αυτού εκτισται,-ΐ. β. εν and δια, in these two phrases, are of the same import. See Schleusner's Lex. in voc. dia.

66

The difficulty remaining is to explain the phrase by whom do 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 Hosea 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 phra

7,

seology in Gen. xix. 24: "And Jehovah rained 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 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.