English version, (which it is almost impossible not to notice,) and to understand the passage as it stands in the orthodox translation, we should esteem Jesus as the cause of all created things. But we should be in this case naturally inclined to ascertain whether Jesus was an efficient or an instrumental cause of those things; since the preposition "by," found in the verse, signifies either a principal agent of an action, or an instrument therein. We find Heb. i. 2, (as it stands in the English version,) deciding the question beyond a doubt: " (God) hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Eph. iii. 9: "Who (God) created all things by Jesus Christ." Here all the worlds are represented as made by Jesus as an instrument in the hands of God. It is hoped that after reflecting upon this decision, by the author of these Epistles,

notes on

world by Christ, as the agent and instrument of God. See his verses 3 and 10. But this is a sense which the word EyeVETO will not admit. Tvoua occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create. It signifies in this Gospel, where it occurs fiftythree times, to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted. Chapter xv. 7, xix. 36. It has the latter sense Matt. v. 18, vi. 8, xxi. 42, xxvi. 6. All things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ; i. e. by his authority, and according to his direction; and in the ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been done without his warrant. See John xv. 4, 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." Compare vers. 7, 10, 16; John xvii. 8; Col. i. 16, 17; Cappe, ibid. (Improved Version.)

the Editor may, perhaps, retract his assertion, that " in creating power, Christ is equal to Jehovah," and be of opinion that the world was made by the will of one being. Could not Jehovah, to whom the Editor ascribes omnipotence, create this world independently of another omnipotent being, equal to him "in creating power"? If not, the world must be, in this case, the joint production of Jehovah and Christ, as well as of the Holy Ghost, (whom the Editor here omits to notice,) and each of them must depend upon the others in creation, like joint managers of a concern. Can the Editor point out any set of men, or any nation professing a grosser polytheism than this? The only difference that he can shew between his notion and that of avowed polytheists, must consist only in respect of the increase or decrease of the supposed number of creators-a distinction which will amount to nothing intrinsic. I must now leave the subject to the sound judgment reader.

of my

The Editor further proceeds, saying, "With reference to Christ, Paul adds, (1 Cor. x. 25, 26,) 'Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."" He then concludes, "If this Psalm, (xxiv. 1,) then, speak of Jehovah the Father, the same absolute dominion over the earth is here ascribed to the Son as to the Father; if the Son, he is there termed Jehovah." St. Paul here justifies the eating of whatever is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm

or no.

xxiv. 1, as his reason for such justification, without the most distant allusion to Jesus: I am, therefore, at a loss to discover the ground upon which the Editor founds his foregoing conclusion. For further illustration I quote the paraphrase by a most eminent personage on the above verses of Corinthians: “Eat whatever is sold in the shambles, without any inquiry or scruple, whether it had been offered to any idol For the earth and all therein are the good creatures of the true God, given by him to men for their use." (Locke, Vol. VIII.) If the Editor still insists, in defiance of St. Paul's reference, of common sense, and of the above paraphrase, that in 1 Cor. x. 26, St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should take upon myself to refer him to Heb. i. 2, (the Son,) "whom he (God) hath appointed heir of all things;" and to John iii. 35, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” These I hope will convince him that all the power and possession of the Son, in heaven and on earth, are derived from the gift of the Father of the uni

verse.

The Editor quotes 1 Cor. x. 22: "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" whence he infers that "the Lord then is capable of being provoked by the worship of idols equally with God." Granting that St. Paul means Jesus by the term " Lord," and by the pronoun "he," in verse the 22nd, (a position which is unsupported by proof;) we still find nothing in the passage elevating Jesus

to equality with his Father. The apostle may, according to the Editor's interpretation, be supposed to have prohibited Christians from provoking Christ to jealousy, by partaking of the cup and table of devils, instead of those of Christ, of which their Master required them to partake, as appears from the immediately preceding verse-" Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Is it not natural that Jesus, who enjoined the apostles to observe the Lord's Supper, would be provoked to jealousy by his followers' partaking both of his table, and of the sacrifice offered to idols, without his thereby equalizing himself with God? I find that the prophets of God are declared in more pointed terms to have been jealous of the dishonour manifested to God; but no one has ever felt disposed to ascribe to them equality with his Divine Majesty. 1 Kings xix. 10: "And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, and thrown down thy altars," &c.

I will repeat verbatim the Editor's quotation of Psalm xxiv. 8, and Eph. iv. 8, and his inference of the deity of Jesus, from the comparison of the one with the other, that my reader may perceive how violently prejudice can operate upon the human mind. He says, (p. 561,) that " in verse 8th, one is about to enter heaven as the king of glory; who is called 'Jehovah,' mighty in battle.". In Eph. iv.

66

"Jesus, elsewhere styled the Lord of glory, ascends, having led captivity captive, which implies battle and victory. Here, also, the Son is either described as equal in might to Jehovah, or as Jehovah himself." There are not in verse eighth, nor in the whole Psalm xxiv., such phrases as captivity captive," or "ascend on high," as found in Eph. iv. 8; nor are there, in the whole chap. iv. of Ephesians, the terms "king of glory," or even "Lord of glory," or" mighty in battle," as we find stated in the above Psalm. The Psalm commences by a declaration of God's sovereignty over the earth-proceeds to state the virtues that must belong to those who seek his presence and desire his blessing-and concludes with an exhortation to Jerusalem to receive him as the king of glory-the Lord of hosts. But the subject of the above verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians, is Jesus, who ascended on high to give divine gifts to men, after he had descended first into the middle of the grave, as is evident from the immediately following verse: "Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth," and so on; a descent which cannot be ascribed to God. Eph. iv. 8, is an obvious reference to Psalm lxviii. 18, a fact which is acknowledged

* This term, "to lead captivity captive," is not synonymous to mighty in battle," nor equivalent in application. For one may be mighty in battle without leading captives; so one may lead captive, by miraculous or artful means, without being mighty in battle.