But further, Christ is the first born of every creature, or of all creation. First born means first created, or first caused to exist. There must be a cause for the existence of every being, that is created or born. No being ever caused his own existence. The Almighty himself did not cause his own existence. He existed eternally without cause; while he is the cause of all other existence. Then, as we are assured that Christ was born, that his being was caused, it is impossible that he can have existed eternally without causé. Of course he is not the eternal God; he cannot be supremely Divine. But he holds an extraordinary, a transcendantly exalted rank in the scale of being, as he was the first begotten, or first caused of all creation. So, as he is the first, he must be a part, or one of, all creation, as the Bible informs us, his existence was caused, yea, by that Being, who, he has declared, is his Father and our Father, and the Father of all created or caused being. The first born of all creatures must be a person created, as much as the second born, or third, or any one afterwards. Cain was the first born of the human race; but he was as truly one of the race as Abel was, or as Moses or the Prophets were. But all things were created by him (the Son), that are in heaven or upon earth," &c. And John says, i. 3d, "All things were made by him." At first view, here seems to be an assertion that the

Son of God, and

But a little re

not the Father, created all things. flection, examination, and reference to other texts of Scripture, will make all plain. In the first place,

we have just shown that the Son is the image of the invisible God, and so could not be God himself; and that he derived his own existence from the Father; and that he has no power but what is given him of his Father, that the Son can do nothing of himself, is undeniably proved in the Scriptures; therefore he could not, of himself create all things, or anything. And then Paul does not say that he (the Son) created all things, but that all things were created by him ; as "God spoke by his Son, in these last days, by whom also he made the worlds." It is nowhere said that Christ, or the Son, was the Creator of the worlds or of all things, but that they were created or made by him. Solomon's temple was built by the workmen, but Solomon was the builder; and the mechanics, who framed it, by Solomon's commands were not King Solomon. A treaty is made by an ambassador, by virtue of the power given him by his king, yet it is strictly the king, who makes the treaty; and such ambassador is never thought to be the king. A thousand cases of this kind might be suggested. But reason and common sense, in accordance with the general tenor of the Scriptures, will easily explain and reconcile all texts of this nature; will teach clearly the difference between principal and agent, between original and derived power, between an independent, self-existent Being, and one of derived, dependent existence and power, and between the Father and the Son.

In Acts xx. 28. Paul is said to have charged the brethren and elders "to feed the church of God,

which he hath purchased with his own blood." This passage, if we were to give to every word the literal common meaning, would fill us with amazement, and would contradict acknowledged facts. God (in the common sense the Supreme God) is a purely, spiritual Being, without any kind of materiality; and blood is material. Therefore the Supreme Spirit could not purchase, or acquire, the church with his own blood, or by shedding or giving his own blood; because he had not, he could not, without a change of his immutable nature, possibly have any blood, strictly of his own, to shed, or bestow, for any object whatever. Are we then to reject this passage from the word of God, because, in its strict literal sense, it appears to be inconsistent, impossible, and untrue? By no means. But we must endeavor to find its true meaning, by comparing it with other texts of Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that is false, if rightly understood; but there are many truths, that are veiled in figurative language, in ambiguous words, or hyperbolical expressions. As Christ represented, that every one must hate father and mother, brother and sister, &c. before he could be his disciple. Now it is evident, that he did not mean that this should be understood literally; because he constantly taught the duty of love to father and mother, and even to all mankind - and that a man could not love God, if he loved not his brother." But by hating, here, he undoubtedly meant a restrained, subordinate love, a lesser love. for father and mother, than for him. As he said.

at another time, "whosoever loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” So Paul here could not have meant literally that God purchased the church with his own blood, the blood of the Spiritual Jehovah; because that was impossible; but he must have meant, with the blood of his own Son, who was connected with flesh and blood; and who, Paul says, in Ephesians, "loved the Church and gave himself for it "shed his blood and sacrificed his life for it. Besides, "which he hath purchased with his own blood" is not a correct and good translation of the Greek, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου; but it may be rendered, "which he hath acquired, by peculiar blood". not by common blood, such as used to be offered in Jewish sacrifices, as the blood of bulls and goats, nor any human blood; but by the special blood of his Son, Jesus Christ. Such, I am persuaded, is the true sense of the text. And thereby will all difficulty and inconsistency be removed, and the passage will read according to known facts. But if any should doubt this construction, there is another matter to be considered relating to this passage. It is contended that TOυ OEOÙ in reading, "the church of God," is spurious that it should be the church of the Lord Toυ XULOû. This reading is supported by Griesbach and other high authorities. But it must be acknowledged, that the present reading, TOU OEOû (of God), is held to by other good authorities. It is not necessary here to state them. Upon examination of the whole, I confess, I have some doubts which of the two should be considered the true one. But I do

not consider it material to the question under consideration, which reading is adopted. For if TOU OεOU (of God) is correct, to be consistent and intelligible, it must be understood, not in the common, but in an inferior sense, so as to mean the Son of God, or Christ; and then it will be, in part, the same as Toυ nuqιou (of the Lord.) Or the last part of the verse must be taken according to the foregoing interpretation, not as "his own blood," the blood of God, (which is an idea expressive, at least, of horror, if not of impiety, and which I am loth to make use of,) but of his only Son, whose blood, every one must acknowledge, and the Scriptures fully declare, was shed or given for the church, and to effect the redemption of the whole world. But upon any consistent interpretation of the passage, I cannot perceive that it furnishes any proof of the supreme Divinity of Christ, the Son of God.

Again, Paul speaking of Christ, Phil. iii. 21, says, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able, even to subdue all things unto himself." This text is considered by some a strong proof of the supreme Divinity of Christ; because they say, that none but the Almighty Creator and Director can change our vile body into a glorious body like Christ's-that it requires the exercise of Almighty power. But Paul says, Christ shall perform it-that he is able to do it. But how is he able to perform such a glorious work? Has he the power, originally, underivedly,