and put themselves wholly under the Jewish constitution. He had said a great deal, in the three first chapters, to free them from this perplexity, but yet takes occasion here to offer them a new argument, by telling them, that Christ, the same Jesus that died, and was laid in his grave, was exalted to the right hand of God, above all the heavens, in the highest state of dignity and power, that, he himself being filled with the fulness of God, believers, who were all his members, might receive immediately from him, their head, a fulness of gifts and graces, upon no other terms, but barely as they were his members."

After having compared Psalm xxxvi. 6, “O Jehovah, thou preservest man and beast," with Col. i. 17, "By him (by Jesus) all things consist," and with Heb. i. 3, "He upholds all things by the word of his power," the Editor thus concludes, "The Son, then, is either equal to Jehovah in preserving power, or Jehovah himself." In the first place, in some ancient manuscripts, instead of "by him all things consist," there is the phrase "all things are united in him," which of course bears no comparison with the above Psalm, "O Jehovah, thou preservest man and beast." In the second place, he may perceive from the context, that by the term "all things," the apostle could have meant only the things concerning the Christian dispensation; for we find, in the verse immediately following, Jesus is declared to be "the head of the body, the church," and in the preceding

verse," the things" are enumerated as orders and ranks in the religious and the moral world, and not natural substances. In the third place, admitting even the interpretation of the Editor, that all natural substances consist by Jesus, we cannot help yielding conviction to the repeated avowal of Jesus,

"That the apostle does not here intend the creation of natural substances, is evident; for 1st, He does not say, that by him were created heaven and earth, but things in heaven and things on earth; 2dly, He does not, in descending into detail, specify things themselves, viz. celestial and terrestrial substances, but merely states of things, viz. thrones, dominions, &c., which are only ranks and orders of beings in the rational and moral world; 3dly, It is plain, from comparing ver. 15 and ver. 18, that Christ is called the first-born of the whole creation, because he is the first who was raised from the dead to an immortal life; 4thly, The creation of natural objects, the heaven, the earth, and sea, and all things therein, when they are plainly and unequivocally mentioned, is uniformly and invariably ascribed to the Father, both in the Old Testament and the New. Hence, it follows, that the creation, which the apostle here ascribes to Christ, expresses that great change which was introduced into the moral world, and particularly into the relative situation of Jews and Gentiles, by the dispensation of the gospel. This is often called creation, or the new creation, and is usually ascribed to Jesus Christ, who was the great prophet and messenger of the new covenant. See Eph. i. 10, ii. 10-15, iii. 9, iv. 24; Col. iii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17. This great change the apostle here describes under the symbol of a revolution, introduced by Christ amongst certain ranks and orders of beings, by whom, according to the Jewish demonology, borrowed from the oriental philosophy, the affairs of states and individuals were superintended and governed. See Mr. Lindsey's Sequel, page 477, and Wetstein in loc." Improved Version.

manifesting that the support of all things, or the things of the new dispensation by Jesus, is entirely owing to the power vested in him by the Father of all things, without which, he is totally unable to support them. John xvii. 2: "Thou hast given him (the son) power over all flesh." Ch. v. 30: "I can of mine ownself do nothing," &c. As to the term “ all things, Ta Tayra, found in Heb. i. 3, just quoted by the Editor, it signifies also, all the things belonging to the Christian dispensation, as I observed before. But if the Editor again insists his mode of interpretation, as meaning all natural objects by that term, he, by referring to John xiv. 24, "The word which ye hear is not mine but the Father's," and Matt. xxviii. 18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth," must be convinced that the word of power, by which Jesus upholds or rules all things, is, in fact, belonging to the Father.

upon

In his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus, the Editor repeats (page 561) Psalm xlv. 6, as quoted in Heb. i. 8, "Thy throne, O Jehovah, is for ever and ever." My reader may observe, that to apply to Jesus the term "Jehovah," the peculiar name of God, the Editor perverts the verse in question by placing the word "Jehovah" instead of "God," a term which is in the Scriptures commonly used, not only for the Creator, but for other superior existences. He, at the same time, neglects entirely the

original Psalm, in Hebrew nb, "Thy throne, O God," and also the original Epistle to Hebrews, in Greek 805, "The throne of thee, O God." I now beg to ask the Editor to let me know his authority for this unaccountable change. I should, for my own part, be indeed very sorry and ashamed of my opinions, if I found myself compelled to make perversions of scriptural passages, and to set aside the suggestions of common sense, to support the doctrines that I may have been persuaded to profess, It is again worth observing, that the Editor quotes the above passage of Psalm xlv., omitting entirely to notice my remarks on it in the Second Appeal. I am, therefore, induced to repeat them, in the hope that he may reply to them, and-adopt a regular mode of argumentation. After stating that Moses was also called God in [the] Scriptures, I thus proceed: "On what principle, then, can any stress be laid in defence of the deity of the Son, in the prophetic expression, quoted in Hebrews from Psalm xlv, 6, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever'; especially when we find, in the very next verse, words that declare his subordinate nature, Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows'?" (Page 170.) "But it deserves particularly to be noticed, in this instance, that the Messiah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is, in the very same sense, described in verse 7, ( God

thy God,') as having a God superior to him, and by whom he was appointed to the office of Messiah." (Page 285.)

In the third place, no scripturalist ever hesitated to apply Psalm xlv. directly to Solomon, after his marriage with the daughter of Pharoah, as is evident from the context: "My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready

writer. Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house: so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty; for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him. Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth." If the application of the word "God" in an accommodated sense, entitle Jesus to deity, how much more properly should the direct application of the same word, "God," to Solomon, according to the Editor, exalt him to a participation in the divine

nature?