lefs than a contradiction in terms. It may be worth while to adduce two or three inftances more. By him, viz. by Jefus Chrift, fays St. Paul to the Coloffians, were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, vifible and invisible, &c. all things were created by him and for him. Ch. 1. 16. Does not all this imply unoriginateness? Is not Christ reprefented here as abfolutely the Creator? Yet in this very chapter reference is had to the Gofpel-difpenfation, and in that reference terms must neceffarily be used importing fubordination and inferiority. So in the ft. chap. of the Revelation, where Christ is styled Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, &c. the fame reference is made. I am he that liveth, and was dead. So again, the Word was with God, fay's St. John; and this expreffion does not neceffarily imply equality, or coexistence. But what follows?-The Word was God.

We not unfrequently meet with interpreters who agree in oppofition to the catholic fenfe of a paffage, but differ in the mode of

See this text miferably distorted in Locke's Reafonab. of Chriftian. p. 67.

it ;

it; who, like contrary qualities in bodies counteracting each other, mutually defeat their respective ends by repugnancy of conftruction. We will turn to one or two fin-gular inftances of this. By whom alfo * he made the worlds, fays the Apostle to the Hebrews, fpeaking of Jefus Christ. One hould hardly think these words liable to be misunderstood. But Grotius, unwilling, as it fhould feem, that Jefus Chrift should be supposed to have any concern in the creation, even as an agent or minifter, gives us to know, that the worlds were made not by him, but for him, or for his fake; agreeably enough to part of a text just now cited, and agreably to the notion of the Jewish Rabbins, that the world was made for the Melfiah. Now, in the first place, not to insist with Dr. Whitby, that this construction manifestly wrefts the prepofition da, with a genitive cafe annexed to it, from its proper import, I wish to observe, that there is no admitting this learned writer's expofition of the place before us, and of that other paffage of the Epifle

Heb. 1. 2.

to

to the Romans, Chrift was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, (the single one with which he fupports his interpretation,) without obfcuring, or confounding our ideas of the divine operations. For, according to our author, God the Father made the worlds for the glory of his Son, but * raifed up that Son from the dead for his own glory.-Chrift was raised from the dead for the glory of the Father, fays our commentator; fo that by this interpretation the Apostle in effect affirms, that Christ was raised ·from the dead by the Father for the glory of the Father which at beft is uncouth phraseology. But let us fee how the paffage will fare under the management of Socinus and his followers. Thefe gentlemen are fenfible of the powers of the prepofition in question, but are equally reluctant to believe Jefus Christ to have been the Maker of the Univerfe.-By whom he made the Worlds; ie. fay they, by whofe agency, or ministry God established a Spiritual kingdom, and reconciled be world unto himself by the Gospel dispensa

Rom, 6. 4.

tion. Are not thefe feveral expofitions as irreconcileable as light and darkness? And have we not reason in abundance rather to reject both, than to fubfcribe to either? I juft obferve farther; that Grotius had been more confiftent, had he done no violence to the prepofition aforefaid, and adopted the Socinian interpretation. For he is intirely of one mind with the Socinians in his explication of the above-cited parallel in the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Coloffians.

But this is not the only inftance of this great writer's inconfiftency with others and with himself. Convinced by ocular demonftration of the refurrection of his Mafter, Thomas anfwered and faid, that is, fay fome very gravely, in effect cried out, or exclaimed, My Lord, and my God. For, it feems, this is not the language of confeffion, but of aftonishment! Grotius however fees this matter in a very different light. "Hic primum, fays he, ea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab Apoftolis Jefu tributa, postquam fcilicet fua refurrectione probaverat,

"fe

"fe effe a quo vita et quidem æterna ex"pectari deberet. Manfit deinde ille mos in "Ecclefia, ut apparet non tantum in fcriptis Apoftolicis, ut in nono capite Epiftolæ ad "Romanos commate quinto, et veterum "Chriftianorum, ut videre eft apud Juftinum Martyrem contra Tryphonem, fed et in "Plinii ad Trajanum Epiftola, ubi ait Chris"tianos Chrifto, ut Deo, carmina ceciniffe."*

And yet we are not much obliged to this eminent commentator for an acknowlegement which appears to have been forced from him. In the first place, it is not true that Christ is styled God purely because he is the refurrection and the life, as is here more than intimated. It is not true, that he is so called by the Apostles and firft Chriftians, merely on the strength of the paffage before us. For though the terms in which St. Thomas declares his conviction, My Lord, and my God, occur not before, nor poffibly could, Christ is not only in effect in many places, but also expressly ftyled God in this Gospel. In the next place it is worth remarking, that this author

*See Grotius in loc.