an instrument in the destruction of the world?

There is

certainly no contrast exhibited in these expressions: God merely uses angels as his ministers; but by Christ he will destroy the world; since the office here assigned to Christ could itself be only ministerial.

NOTE DD. (p. 31.)

The author of an English article in Der Brittische Theologe (Vol. IV. Halle, 1781, p. 204,) maintains, that all the expressions borrowed from the 102d Psalm have reference solely to the Father, and are introduced for the purpose of demonstrating the dignity of Christ, by showing the transcendant glory of the being, from whom Christ's glory was derived-or to prove the endless duration of Christ's kingdom from the eternity and immutability of God. If either supposition be admitted, the language of the apostle becomes exceedingly obscure, and his reasoning altogether frivolous. Would any one who had formed no pre-conceived opinion, ever gather from the context, that the author's drift was such as is supposed? Or would any one infer, from the fact of Christ's receiving certain honors from the Father, that he was above the angels? Or does it follow, because he is God's prime minister, that he is to be preferred to all his other ministers? Nor do I perceive how the endless duration of Christ's kingdom can be any more inferred from the eternity of God, than the endless duration of heaven and earth. And it is the more improbable that Paul would have employed this wretched argument, because, in this same passage, he explicitly asserts the mutability of the visible creation; and, in another place, (Cor. xv. 24,) teaches clearly that the mediatorial kingdom of the Son itself, will, in the end, be surrendered to the Father.

Perhaps Priestley.

NOTE EE. (p. 31.)

If Paul did indeed consider Christ to be the Most High God, he was certainly at liberty to transfer to him all that is said in the Old Testament of God. I would observe, in passing, that in the sixth verse, Paul appears to have borrowed the words of the Old Testament, for the purpose of describing what succeeded the resurrection: and I should be disposed to interpret the fifth verse, on a similar principle, by comparing it with Luke iii. 22, and Matt. xvii. 5, did not the words xa aλw forbid such an exposition.

NOTE FF. (p. 31.)

Zacharia is of opinion, that the words borrowed from the 102d Psalm, have reference, remotely, not immediately, to Christ, and are introduced for the purpose of admonishing the reader, that none but the Creator of the world could be its Sovereign Governor. This doctrine is substantially coincident with our's, but I doubt whether the words borrowed from the Psalmist are at all apropos to the supposed design. (See Zach. Bibl. Th. P. I. p. 459.)

NOTE GG. (p. 32.)

Even admitting this interpretation, the essence of our argument is unimpaired. It does not follow, because the Father laid the foundations of the earth by, or by means of, Christ, that the words ny yny &c., must be understood of a new creation, physical or moral.

εμε properly signifies to lay the foundations of an edifice, and, in a secondary sense, to erect the superstruc ture. In both senses, God is said to have founded the earth. See the Septuagint Version of Ps. xxiv. 2; lxxxix. 11; civ. 5; cxix. 90. Job xxxviii. 4; Prov. iii. 19. Isa. xlviii. 13; li. 13. Zechariah, xii. 1.

NOTE HH. (p. 32.)

For example, ποιειν τον ουρανον και την γην, Gen. i. I. Exod. xx. 2; xxxi. 17. Nehem. ix. 6. Ps. xcvi. 5; cxxi. 2; cxxiv. 8; cxxxiv. 3; &c. To which may be added such as these : ετοιμαζειν, κτίζειν τον ουρανον και την γην ; καταβολη (θεμελίωσις) κοσμου. (Heb. iv. 3. &c.)

NOTE II. (p. 32.)

Those who consider the language of Isaiah in certain passages, (lxv. 17; li. 16,) as militating against our conclusions, should recollect, that, in one case, the words 'n and П are expressly added; and, that in the other, the words, &c., may (if genuine) be understood in reference to the original creation. (See Doederlein, and Walther, on the passage.) But even admitting, that'in Isa. li. 16, the prophet has reference to some universal change of an extraordinary nature, the adoption of that meaning, in the case before us, is forbidden by the context. For suppose, that the import of the words, Την γην εθεμελειωσας, is nothing more than this-Thou hast produced some extraordinary change what becomes of the antithesis between these words and those which follow, Aura aroλvrai, &c.? I might also mention the violent construction necessary to make agy mean the origin of the gospel dispensation.

NOTE JJ. (p. 32.)

To the considerations suggested in the text, may be added this, that if mention were made of the Messiah as a mere man, it could not possibly be said, in any sense, that the world was made for him.

NOTE KK. (p. 32.)

Sée (in the Septuagint Version) Deut. ii. 7; iv. 28; xvi. 15; xxiv. 19'; xxvii. 15; xxx. 9; xxxi. 29. 1 Kings xvi.

7. 2 Kings xix. 18. 2 Chron. xxxii. 19; xxxiv. 25. Job i. 10; x. 3; xiv. 15. Ps. viii. 6; ix. 16; xxviii. 5; xc. 17; xcii. 4; cxi. 7; cxv. 4; cxxxv. 15; cxxxviii. 8. Isai. ii. 6; v. 12; xvii. 8; xxxvii. 19; lx. 21; lxiv. 8. Jer. i. 16; xliv. 8. Lam. iii. 64; iv. 2. Hos. xiv. 4. Hagg. ii.

15, 18.

As to what Grotius says, in his note on the tenth verse, with respect to y, having, in Hebrew and Chaldee, the sense of propter, I cannot imagine how that should determine the meaning of the phrase in question.

It should be added, that in every case where any thing is called the Egyov of a person, with which he is only morally concerned, some action is always implied on his part, which has contributed to the effect. An act done for a person not yet in existence, and, of course, not yet acting, is certainly never called his work. Those, therefore, who deny Christ's pre-existence, must, at the same time, either deny what the apostle, in the tenth verse, explicitly asserts, or abandon all the ordinary usages of speech. Those on the other hand, who admit his pre-existence, must also admit, that our interpretation is simpler, and does less violence to language, than that proposed by Grotius.

NOTE LL. (p. 33.)

It has never yet been shown, that xrge and xridis, by themselves, are ever used by Paul to denote this new creation See STORR über den Zweck der Evangelisch. Gesch. Johann. p. 434.

NOTE MM. (p. 33.)

W. A. Teller, in his Dictionary of the New Testament, attempts to justify this forced interpretation, by quotations from Philo, and from Paul himself; but in my opinion very unsuccessfully. From a sentence in Philo's treatise Пgs Mov

agxias, where he says, that the universe is the sanctuary of the Deity, and the heavens his most sacred shrine, Teller strangely infers, that the Jews were accustomed to employ the word ougavos in the sense of shrine or temple.*. We should have a strange vocabulary of Greek and Hebrew meanings, if we received the reveries of Philo as authority. Another passage, which he cites, is, that in the treatise Пeg Tiyavawv, where he distributes men into three classes-men of the earth (rns yns,) men of heaven (rou ougavou,) and men of God,(rou EOU,)-those of earth being such as are engrossed in sensual enjoyments, those of heaven, such as are absorbed in the pursuit of knowledge, &c. Now, in this passage, he does not even hint at the distinction between Jews and Gentiles; and yet Teller brings it forward to prove, that ra sv rois Bugavois xai Ta ɛTins yns expresses that distinction. How little support this interpretation has from other Jewish writers, has been clearly shewn by the learned Koppe. (N. T. Vol. I. Eph. i. 10.)

The passage from Paul's own writings, upon which Teller chiefly insists, is Eph. i. 10, which he explains as Schoettgen and Locke had done before him, but upon very untenable grounds. The word avaxspaλaista is always used in refer ence to persons, not to things. (See Raphelius.) The inference is, therefore, fair, that avaxɛpaλaiwσagdaι, should be so interpreted, as to give this meaning to the sentence. All things that are to be performed in these latter times, in heaven and on earth, are committed to Christ, and to him alone. But that syns, in Col. i. 20, will not bear the same interpretation, is apparent from the context.

* Το μεν ανωτάτω και προς αλήθειαν ιερον Θεου τον συμπαντα κόσμον είναι ; ΝΕΩΝ μεν έχοντα αγιώτατον της των οντων εσίας μέρος ΟΥΡΑNON, avadnμara de res adregas. (L. II. p. 820.) He might as well have inferred from this passage that the Jews used adrages and avadŋpara

as synonymes.