consistent with the doctrine of the apostle, who distinctly asserts, in the second verse, that the Father laid the foundations of the earth by means of the Son. There is nothing, however, in the words before us, which, in itself, has such a meaning, nor any thing in the context which renders that idea necessary to complete the sense. Nor could the words by Christ, or by means of Christ, be inserted in the latter clause-The heavens are the work of thy hands. From these considerations, it appears most probable, that the expressions of the tenth verse have reference to the Son precisely in the same sense as the eighth and ninth; and consequently, that the words Zu Kugis, are addressed to Christ. If this conclusion be admitted, it follows of course, that Christ is represented by the apostle, as the creator of the world. The expressions here employed-thou hast laid the foundations of the earth-the heavens are the work of thy hands, and others of like import,‡ are uniformly used in the scriptures, to denote the first and original creation described by Moses, and can never be so twisted from their strict sense, as to mean mere moral reformation, or a new creation of the world itself, such as Artemonius pretends took place.§ Grotius interprets the words Tnv ynv, &c. thus: Thou wast the cause of the earth's being founded, and for thy sake were the heavens made. To this intorpretation it may be objected, that the forms of speech in question are always used in scripture to denote the efficient cause of the creation-and there is not a single passage to be found, where a thing done on account of any person, or for any person's sake, without his actually doing it himself, is called his work, or the work of his hands. T * See note GG. * See note JJ. ↑ See Psalm viii. 4. 6. § See note II. ¶ See note KK, Such being the import of these words, and such the person to whom they are addressed, the irresistible conclusion is, that the same work of creation which the Psalmist ascribes to Jehovah, the apostle Paul ascribes to Christ. This conclusion is corroborated by the words of the same apostle in another place, (Col. i. 16, 17,) where he infers that the Son is the Lord of every creature (or the whole creation, Baons XtIdsws, v. 15,) from the fact, that by him were all things created (εν αυτώ εκτίσθη τα ωαντα) that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. Here again we find Paul representing Christ as the maker of the world. We cannot explain the sentence otherwise, without doing violence at once to the construction and the context. I admit that there are instances* in which xav and xris are so modified by being joined with other words,t as to denote the change from a worse to a better state; in particular, the moral renovation, effected by the gospel. But I do not see how such a meaning can be fixed upon the term as used in the case before us. To interpret the expression, things in heaven and things in earth, visible and invisible, to mean the Jews and Gentiles, is an outrage on the principles of language. The words 'must signify either all things in the widest sense, which the visible and nvisible universe contains, or in a narrower acceptation, angels and men of every rank and order.§ But who can suppose the apostle to have meant, that the pure spirits who dwell in the city of God, or the fallen angels whom the scriptures uuiformly represent as excluded from salvation, were created (x8εvre) in the same sense in which Chris * Such as Ephes. II. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; which passages are appealed to, as decisive of the question by Jonas Schlichting, Grotius, Wetstein, &c. † See note LL. See note NN. See note MM. See note 00. tians are said (Eph. ii. 10.) to be created in Christ Jesus, and (Gal. vi. 15,) to be a new creature? Can it be supposed, that creation would be asserted of the angels, in this sense, by the same apostle, who, (Heb. ii. 16,) explicitly declares, that Christ took not upon himself the nature of angels with a view to their salvation? It may be said, however, that no such objections could be arged against a more extended interpretation of the words, as indicating some great revolution wrought in the general condition of the universe. But, even admitting the reality of such a change, affecting men and angels, I hold, that the usage of the New Testament writers will not justify this vague interpretation of the words.* I deny that any instance can be found in the writings of Paul or in the whole New Testament, where xris or xridis can, with any plausibility, be shown to mean such a general or universal change as is supposed. And I need scarcely add, that the apostle's reasoning will be rendered weak indeed, if we understand him to deduce the inference, that Christ is the first-born of every creature, (gwrorOXOS TUONE XTIσEWS) from the fact of his having wrought some universal change in the nature or condition of the universe. Since, then, both the usus loquendi and the context are so utterly repugnant to any forced interpretation of the word ExTidon, it follows, that it must be understood of the first or original creation And it is worthy of observation, that the apostle has expressed this ascription of creative power to Christ, in language remarkably explicit and precise. He first enumerates the several classes of created things, celestial and terrestial, invisible and visible, of whatever rank or order, affirming Christ to be their author; and then shuts out every difficulty and exception by comprehending all in * See note PP. See note RR. † See note QQ. one general proposition: all things were created by him* and for him.t It appears, therefore, that both John and Paul explicitly declare, that the Son of God is the maker of the world. We are now to deduce from these premises the fact, that the power and perfection of Christ are numerically the same with those of the Father. I freely admit, that no sueh consequence ean be inferred from the terms of the passages which make Christ the Creator, considered in themselves. But at the same time, I maintain, that, having once conceded the truth of the assertion, that the world was made by him, the whole tenor of the word of God and every principle of sound philosophy constrain us to admit, that he is God identical with the Father. That there is one supreme God, the Scriptures uniformly teach. That this supreme God must have made the universe, by the exertion of incommunicable power, and consequently that it could not possibly have been accomplished by the agency of any being inferior and subordinate, is a proposition capable of proof, not only from scriptural authorities, but by reasoning upon abstract principles. The former doctrine of the unity of God is so interwoven with the system of truth revealed in the sacred scriptures, that, withont impeaching their authority, it cannot be consistently denied. No one at all familiar with the books of the Old Testament, can be ignorant, that Moses and the other prophets proposed it as the end of all their ministrations to impress indelibly upon the hearts and understandings of the Jews, a proper conception of the one true God, Jehovah ; and that See Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 8; where di' aurs and is autov, are used in reference to the Father. i. e. for his glory, or in dependence on his power. See Koppe's N. T. Rom. xi. 36. ‡ e. g. Deut. xiii. 2; Isai. xliii. 10. xliv. 6—8. xlviii. 11. See Zachar. Bibl. Theol. p. 1. p. 302. this same essential truth which lay at the foundation of the Jewish faith, was fully sanctioned and confirmed by Christ and his apostles, is evident as well from their acknowledging, in general terms, the divine legation of the ancient prophets,* as from their more explicit declarations on this very point, in various parts of the New Testament. If, then, it is admitted, on the one hand, that there is one supreme God, and, on the other, that Christ is the Creator; to demonstrate the identity of the latter with the former, we have only to prove, that creative power is an incommunicable attribute of God. To this task let us now address ourselves. The arguments upon this point will be naturally two-fold, philosophical and scriptural-those founded upon abstract principles, and those derived from revelation. I shall consider them in turn. In the first place, then, neither philosophy nor common sense will permit us to ascribe less than infinite perfection to the maker of the world. We can form no conception of active power in a higher degree than that exhibited by him, the mere exercise of whose volition brought all things out of non-existence, of combining and arranging them at pleasure. We can imagine no extent or force of intellect superior to that which grasps in its comprehension all the numberless combinations and relations which bind the elements of the world together.§ And we can conceive no benevolence and wisdom more exalted than that which controls and directs all means and causes to the best of ends-the true felicity of sentient and intellectual nature. How, then, without confounding all distinction between infinite and finite, can we ascribe this power, this wisdom, and this goodness, to a finite being?|| Indeed I know not whether there e. g. Heb. i. i; Acts iii. * + See note SS. See Plotner's Aphorisms. 18, 21; 2 Pet. i. 10; John x. 35. P. I. p. 459. (new ed.) |