I have not hesitated to site the passages referred to in the beginning of this Number. And, when we find the great person who is there spoken of, described repeatedly, as having come down from heaven, as from a place of settled abode previous to his appearance among men, (see John iii. 13, 31, vi. 38, 62. xiii. 3. xvi. 28, &c.) when we find him declared by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 47.) to be the Lord from Heaven and again, (Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8.) to have been in the form of God, yet to have taken upon him the form of a servant, and to have been made in the likeness of man: when again, we find him represented (Hebr. i. 2, 3.) as that Being, by whom God made the worlds: and as the brightness of his glory: which GLORY, as has been already noticed, he had with God before the world was: and when, again, we are told (Coloss. i. 15, 16.) that he is the image of the invisible God; and that by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth: when these, and numerous other passages of the same import, are to be met in the Evangelic and Apostolic writings, and the whole tenor of Scripture is found perfectly corresponding; I own, I cannot feel this essential article of the Christian faith much endangered, either from the confidence of this writer's assertions, or from the force of those arguments, under whose mighty shade he is content triumphantly to repose:

Lest however curiosity may have been excited with respect to those αναποδειχτοι συλλογισμοι, which Mr. B. and his friends, profess to have at their command, I subjoin the following specimen. The passage in Heb. i. 2, which directly assigns the work of CREATION to Christ, will be admitted to be one of those, that "seem to assert his pre-existence." In what manner is this fallacious semblance to be removed?Δι' ου και τους αιωνας εποίησεν, Grotius

translates, For whom he made the worlds: and thus gives to the word dia, a signification, which not only has no parallel in the entire of the New Testament, but is in direct opposition to the established rule of all Grammarians: Sia, with a genitive case commonly signifying the means by which; but never implying the final cause, unless when joined with the accusative. See Phavorinus,* Scapula, Stephanus, Hoogeveen in Viger. Glassius, &c. See also, on the application of the word in the New Testament, Sykes on redemption, pp. 196. 221. 241.—but par ticularly Schleusner's enumeration of its various senses, which seems to be quite decisive on the point. The solitary instance which Grotius has been able to discover in defence of his translation of the word dia, is to be found in Rom. vi. 4; in which it is manifest that his criticism cannot be maintained. Schleusner so pronounces upon it in the most peremptory terms.

Whilst Grotius thus violates the rules and analogy of the language, in one part of the sentence, later Socinians, finding this mode of distorting the

Λια, πρόθεσις. στο μεν συντάσσεται γενική, δηλοί μεσιτείαν. οιον, δια σε εποίησα τιδί, μεσιτεύοντος σε δηλονότι, ότε δε αιτιατική, αιτίαν, οιον, δια σε επεσα τίδι. Phavor. p. 480.

† Amongst the multiplied texts which Schleusner has collected, the only one, which seems to him not to coincide in the general result, is from 2 Pet. i. 3. But this is manifestly a mistake, as may be clearly seen on consulting Rosenmuller, Newcome, and indeed almost every commentator, upon the passage. It is to be noted also, that under the head of a coupled with the genitive, the 20th sense ascribed by Schleusner, bears no reference to the final cause, though the Latin term, which he makes use of, may at first sight seem to imply it.

I do not mean by this expression to intimate, that Grotius is, strictly speaking, to be ranked among the followers of Socinus. I am aware, that this charge advanced against him by the author of L'Esprit de M. Arnauld has been refuted. (See Bayle's Dict. Vol. V. pp. 581, 582.) And his single treatise, De

sense indefensible, have betaken themselves to another, where they have exercised an equal violence on the original.-Tous auras, which elsewhere in this very Epistle (xi. 3.) is allowed to mean the material world; and which is always used plurally by the Jews, as implying the inferior and superior worlds; and in its connexion here, exactly corresponds with the things in Heaven, and the things in Earth (Col. i. 16;) and upon the whole clearly means the physical world, or the Heavens and the Earth;* is yet strained by the Socinians, to imply the Evangelical dispensation: so that the entire passage is made to signify, merely, that by Christ's ministry, there should be, as it were, a new creation; that is, a new church begun upon earth. Now, it deserves to be considered, on what principle of just interpretation, such a translation can be adopted. It is true, that Christ, in some of the Greek versions of Isai. ix. 6. has been stiled, πατηρ του μέλλοντος αιώνος. But, ad mitting the word here to imply a dispensation that was to come, does it follow that this one dispensation is to be expressed by the plural word avas? To force upon it this meaning, is again to do violence to grammar and usage. And yet this is done,

Satisfactione Christi contra Faustum Socinum, might be judged sufficient to redeem him from the appellation. But his exposition of most of the passages of Scripture relating to the divinity of Christ, is so clearly favourable to the main principle of the Socinian scheme, that with some latitude the term Socinian is not unfairly applicable.-Dr. Lardner, in his Letter on the Logos, (vol. xi. p. 112. Kippis's Edition of his Works) written expressly for the purpose of establishing the proper humanity of Christ, affirms, that "Grotius explains texts better than the professed Socinians."--Whether Lardner, then, viewed him as far removed from the pale of the Fratres Poloni, is surely not difficult to decide.

* See Whitby and Rosenmuller, in loc. and Col. i. 16. likewise Peirce and Hallet:-also Krebs. Observ. on Col. i. 17.

because the plural interpretation, by whom he constituted the AGES OR DISPENSATIONS, lets in the obnoxious idea of pre-existence, as completely as the sense of a material creation can do.

It may be worth while to enquire, in what way Mr. Lindsey has treated this subject, in an Essay written by him, in the 2nd vol. of the Theological Repository, entitled "Brief Remarks concerning the two creations;" the express object of which is to shew, that none but a moral or spiritual creation was to be ascribed to Christ. He never once notices this passage of Hebrews; but directs his attention almost entirely, to the text in Colossians, and to that in Ephes. iii. 9. And this is the more remarkable, as he refers to a passage to the same purport, in the very same chapter of Hebrews. The reason of this, however, it may not be difficult to discover, when it is considered, that in the passages which he has examined, though manifestly repugnant to his conclusion, there was not to be found so brief and stubborn an expression, as τους αιώνας εποιησεν. As to the arguments derived by him, from the passages, which he has thought proper to notice, they do not seem entitled to very minute attention. They amount merely to a note of Mr. Locke on the one; and an assertion, on the other, that the natural creation cannot have been intended, "because this is uniformly spoken of, throughout the Bible, as effected by the immediate power of God, without the interposition of any other being whatever."

Thus, Mr. Belsham's assertion, that Mr. Lindsey would overturn the notion of the pre-existence of Christ, is maintained by Mr. Lindsey's own assertion that he has done so. He admits indeed, that his argument is not likely to "have any effect upon those who are Tritheists, or Orthodox in the vulgar and strict sense; who can with the same breath,

and in the same sentence, without being astonished at themselves, assert, that there are three Creators and yet but one Creator. There is no arguing (he adds) with men that can swallow, without feeling, downright contradictions." Mr. Belsham, in his engagement, that the champions of his tenets, would be able fully to establish them, by proving, that all such passages of Scripture as contradicted them, were "either interpolated, corrupted or misunderstood," forgot to make the exception, which is here very properly introduced by Mr. Lindsey: -for sound argument must surely be lost upon such men as the above.

But let us examine farther, in what way the parallel passages in Colos. i. 16. and Ephes. iii. 9. which, by attributing the work of creation to Christ, seem to intimate his pre-existence, are explained by other writers, who are fellow-labourers with Mr. Belsham, in the laudable work of reducing the exalted dignity of our blessed Saviour to the common standard of human nature. It is true, says Mr. Tyrwhitt, (Commentaries and Essays, vol. 2.) that it is said (Eph. iii. 9.) that God created all things by Jesus Christ. But these words are thus to be interpreted :-things must be taken for persons, because there are passages where the word is so understood:-by things that are, must be intended persons peculiarly chosen by God, as the Jews were, in opposition to the Gentiles, who are described as things that are not. But, as we now speak of the Christian dispensation, by all things must be understood, all persons, whether Jews or Gentiles, who believe in the Gospel and by the word created, is meant to be conveyed, "not the giving being, or bringing into existence; but the conferring benefits and privileges, or the placing in a new and more advantageous state of being."