scarcely, if at all, sanctioned by the usage of the Septuagint.-As the Evangelist had just spoken of this illustrious Declarer of the purposes of God, as being with God', favoured with direct manifestations of his will, vs. 3. may be justly rendered,

All things came by him,' &c. and this is fully justified by John's own use of you; or, it may be properly rendered, also agreeably to his use of the word,All things (i. e. relative to the new dispensation",) were done by him, and without him was not any thing done which hath been done and this rendering I have employed in my paraphrase in p. 63.-Respecting vs. 10, the cir

of God, so that the things which we see were brought about, ysyovevas, by things which had no appearance or likelihood to produce them.'

*The LXX use yua three times only as the translation of 2 to create, and of those, once only in the sense of creation, Gen. ii. 4; and even in this, there is room for doubt as to the meaning which the Greek translator affixed to it The other two instances are Exod. xxxiv. 10. Is. xlviii. 7. It is frequently employed as the translation of nwy, to make, to do, to form, but never when that word implies creation. It is also very frequently employed in the sense of become.

1 Exod. xxiv. 28. And he (Moses) was there wITH THE LORD forty days and forty nights.'

mrvoa signifies to come in the following instances: i. 17. vi. 16. 19. 25. X. 35. xiii. 2. xxi. 4. (of which i. 17. and x. 35. are peculiarly in point.) It signifies to be done in at least the following instances, xv. 7. xix. 36.

n The following passages sufficiently show that ra xaita, all things, may, and often must, be taken in a very restricted sense: Matt. xi. 27. (comp. John xv. 15.) xix. 27. Luke xxi. 32. John xiv. 26. 1 Cor. vi. 12. 2 Cor. v. 17. Phil. iv. 13. 1 Tim. vi. 17. 1 John ii. 20. 27. Rev. xxi. 5.John xiv. 26, and 1 John ii. 20. 27, are peculiarly in point, as denoting all things relative to the Christian dispensation.

cumstances require a different rendering. Kopos the world, according to the almost uniform usage of John, and agreeably to the next clause, signifies, the world of mankind, not the natural world P; and he frequently uses youal, become, to denote change of state: the expression noopos d'aurOU EYEVETO might therefore justly, but somewhat freely, be rendered, mankind were brought by him into a new state.' If however we translate more literally, and supply the ellipsis from the preceding verse, we then shall have the world became enlightened by him.' The two renderings coincide as to meaning; and both are fully justified by the matter of fact, and the latter (at least) by the Apostle's own phraseology: the common rendering is inconsistent with the Apostle's phraseology: and the common interpretation of it with various parts of the Scriptures: (see p. 157.)

20.] 1 Cor. viii. 6. See p. 37. note ('). No one can suppose that this passage affords any proof of

• This is no objection to either, for in vs. 6, the Evangelist uses it in a sense different from either: there was yεVETO a man sent from God.'

"Korpos occurs in the gospel of John about 78 times, and about 24 times in his epistles, which is oftener than any other writer in the N. T. uses it; yet in all these there are only two instances in which it is applied to the original creation, both of which occur in the same chapter. John xvii. 5. 24. Koomes is used in this sense also, Rev. xiii. 8. xvii. 8. These are the only instances I can find in which κόσμος is ар. plied by John to the original creation of the world, and in these the signification is decisively pointed out." Simpson's Explanation, p. 35.

See ch. i. 12. ii. 9. v. 4. 6.9. 14. viii. 33. ix. 22. 27. 39. xii. 36. 42. xvi. 20. This is a very frequent sense of the word in the Septuagint,

the doctrine, that Jesus was the agent in the natural creation; all that can be admitted is, that the phraseology will suit it.

21.] Eph. iii. 9. In God who created all things' "by Jesus Christ."-The connexion, as has been observed, directs us to refer this passage to the new creation but however this be, it proves nothing as to the point in question, since, in all probability, the words δια του Ιησου Χρισου Jesus Christ were not written by the Apostle. See Griesbach, who rejects them from his text as certainly spurious.

22.] Col. i. 16. 17. If this passage do not prove a doctrine which is so much in opposition with the general tenor of the Scriptures, that doctrine must surely be given up by every Scripturalist. To investigate it, we must take it in its connexion; and I shall give the literal rendering of Griesbach's text.

In the introductory verses, the Apostle expresses his gratitude that the Colossians possessed the hopes of the Gospel, which had then reached the whole world, and was bringing forth its proper fruit; and the pleasure which he felt from their affection towards himself. He tells them that it is the object of his prayers, that they might fully possess the knowledge of the divine will, that they might act so as to obtain the approbation of God, and derive from Him strength to endure patiently to the end: giving thanks to the Father,' he continues vs. 12. who hath made us fit for the participation of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath ' delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 'translated us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, even the for

giveness of sins, 15 who is the image of the in'visible God, the first-born of the whole creation'; 16 for in him all things have been created, 'those in heaven and those on earth, visible and 'invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or 'principalities, or powers, all things have been 'created through dia him and to as him; 17 and ' he is before all things, and all things are united t in him; 18 and he is the head of the body,

* Πασης κτίσεως Middleton seems to think, that this expression must be rendered every creature.' It does not much signify which; but in Eph. ii. 15, Tara Targ is correctly rendered, and without any censure on his part, the whole family. If the former refer to the new creation, the expres sions are equivalent; and at any rate, are the same as to construction.

I think it cannot reasonably be denied, that the meaning of the phrase, things in heaven and things on earth,' is the same here as in vs. 20. The point then is, whether, from the Scriptures, we have sufficient reason to believe, that the gospel dispensation was designed to reconcile the inhabitants of heaven to God; if not, which I think very clear, and, if we abide by the authority of the Writer to the Hebrews, indisputable, (see p. 52, note (x) things in heaven,' must mean, men of some particular civil or religious class, as well as things on earth.' That this is the fact is obvious from Eph. i. 1o. compared with ii. 11-18, and these passages also show what is meant by the expression in question, viz. the two great bodies of Jews and Gentiles, who in the Gospel were united into one body: things in heaven' denoting the Jews, once the peculiar people of God, and things on earth' of course the rest of the world. See Locke on Eph. i. 10, who refers to Dan. viii. 10. Luke xxi. 26, as cases in which the appellation beaven is given to the Jewish nation. See also Simpson's Essays on the Language of Scripture III. § 9. 15.

* Enx' whatever meaning we here affix to this verb, it must differ from the Apostle's use of it in every other place. The connexion obviously points to the one here given; which is a fully justifiable one, both as to derivation and actual usage.

even the church, who is the chief, the first-born from the dead, that he might in all things have the pre-eminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell in him, 20 and through dix him to reconcile all things to Himself, (making peace by the blood of his cross, through him,) whether those on earth or those in 'heaven.'

Against referring verses 16, 17, to the original natural creation, the following objections lie. 1. The connexion refers entirely to Gospel blessings, and to the instrumentality of Jesus in bringing mankind into a state of reconciliation and blessedness. 2. The manner of expression essentially differs from the usual manuer of expression respecting the natural creation, (see p. 157). 3. The natural creation is uniformly ascribed to God as one person, and to Him only. 4. If the Apostle had intended to reveal the supposed fact, it is surely reasonable to suppose that he would have expressed himself unambiguously, by saying, for instance, (instead of what he does say in vs. 16.) "For he (i. e. Jesus) made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in thein," as in Acts xiv. 15, we find that he actually said, the LIVING GOD, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.'

The following considerations, in connexion with those just stated, lead me, without hesitation, to refer these verses to the new or moral creation. 1. The connexion directs to this reference; the whole Epistle respects the blessings and moral effects of the Christian dispensation, and the instru