tion, and a proof that his love to mankind paffeth all understanding.

There are three texts befides this that are very clear and direct proofs that Chrift was before all things, the evidence of which Mr Lindsey is at much pains to fet afide.

First, Eph. iii. 9. And to make all men fee what is the fellowship of the mystery which, from the beginning of the world, hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jefus Chrift.' These laft words, by Jefus Chrift, he says, are wanting in the Alexandrian, Ephrem, Cambridge manufcripts, and that Mill and Bengelius reject them. Dr Fell, however, who has collected various readings from more than 100 manuscripts and ancient verfions, mentions only two that want them, and they are retained in the text of Bengelius's Greek Testament, printed 1762. But though both Mill and Bengelius, and other reputable names, had rejected them, and they had been wanting in more manufcripts and verfions than Mr Lindsey mentions; yet, as they are found in others of as good, or perhaps better authority, we are not well warranted to reject, but ought rather to retain them, especially when the fame apoftle teaches us the fame thing in other places. This text may therefore be confidered as a clear proof, though not the only proof, that God the Father created all things by Jefus Chrift, his first and only-begotten Son.

Second. Col.i. 15,-17. 'Who is the image of the invifible God, the first born of every creature,

ture, for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invifible, whether thrones or dominions, principalities or powers; all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things confift.' This text contains fuch clear and direct proof, that all things were created by Jefus Chrift, that he is before all things, and that by him all things confist, that it is surprising any person should dispute its evidence: Yet Mr Lindsey is at much pains to invalidate the evidence of this, as well as feveral others that speak to the fame purpose. And to this end, among other things, he fays, That the facred penmen were left to themselves to ' deliver the truths they were well acquainted with in their own language, according to their own genius, and the best of their skill and knowledge of the perfons to whom they wrote, 'fo as might be moft efficacious to win them over to embrace what they taught.

The imaginary hierarchy, therefore, and government of angels and invisible powers, which the apostle found his countrymen and others prepoffeffed with from ancient tradition, and the opinions and philofophy in vogue, he finely turns to his own purpose, and makes ufe of it to teach them the excellency of the gofpel, and the manifestation of a divine power in the perfon of Chrift and his followers, by which it was supported.'

What are we to think of the facred penmen being left to themfelves? Are we to fuppofe they were left to write imaginary fables to gain converts to the gofpel? Were Mr Lindsey or Dr Priestley writing to perfons prepoffeffed with the opinion that Christ existed before, and was the creator of all things? can we think, that, in order to convince them that this opinion was falfe, they would tell them, as the apostle does his countrymen and others, that Christ was before all things, that he created all things, and that by him all things confift? We have reason to suppose they would be more guarded in their expreffions, or rather that they would use expreffions directly oppofite; which is a plain evidence, that their ideas refpecting that fubject are directly oppofite to those of the apostle.

It seems rather difficult to conceive in what fense the apostle is fuppofed finely to turn the imaginary hierarchy of angel to his own purpofe; for if it was his purpose to reclaim them from a prepoffeffion in favour of this hierarchy, he certainly took a very improper method, fince his words are directly in favour of this prepoffeffion. Mr Lindsey alfo fays, That the fcripture language fuppofes, that the Jewish and heathen difpenfations were governed by angels good and bad, and that there was a regular fubordination among these good and • evil powers, authority and rule being exer"cifed among them as among the states of this world.' If he believes that the fcripture language fuppofes this hierarchy, it seems rather

6

prefuming

prefuming too far in him to fuppofe it imaginary. No man fhould retain these prepoffeffions which make him differ from what he believes to be the language of fcripture.

To obviate the force of the laft-quoted paffage as a proof that Chrift was before all things, and that all things were made by him, Mr Lindsey fays, first-born of every creature means only the chief, the lord of all mankind,—of the new creation.' And, as it might be • wondered how one of mankind fhould be at the head of the creation, he goes on to explain it, viz. for by him were all things created.' And this creation of all things he fuppofes not to be a proper creation, but a new frame, conftitution, arrangement, regulation of the things here mentioned.' Now, as he here allows that the headship of Chrift, and his dominion over mankind, reft upon their being created by him, and holds that a new creation is meant, he must either hold that all men are created anew by Chrift, or that he is not Lord over them all. But it is neither true that all men are created anew, nor is it true that Chrift is not Lord of all; therefore this explanation, which neceffarily fuppofes one of thefe, must be falfe. Nothing can be more evident, both from fcripture teftimony and experience, than this, that all men have not faith, and that fome receive not the things of the Spirit, without which none can be created anew. And it is alfo certain, from the fame infallible teftimony, that Chrift is Lord of all; that he is Lord both of

the

the quick and of the dead, and that he is the head of every man. This is not the only difficulty that preffes upon the explanation which Mr Lindsey and other Socinian writers give of this text; for if creation here means the new creation, then Christ, being the firft-born in this creation, and all being created anew by him, he must have exifted before Adam or any of his posterity were regenerated, or created anew in righteousness and true holinefs. They must therefore either deny that any were regenerated or created anew before the incarnation of Chrift, or allow that he exifted before that time. But the words of the text will not apply to the new creation, for the apostle fays, by ' him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth,' &c. But it is not true that all things either were, or are as yet, created anew by Chrift; nor have we ground to believe that new creation will apply to the things in heaven. Neither will the words of the text apply to a new frame, constitution, or regulation of all things under Chrift; for it is not true that all things were renewed, framed, or constituted under the regulations of Chrift's government, when the apostle wrote these words. This was fo far from being the cafe, even as to mankind, that the throne of iniquity was then standing in full force, and fra med many mischievous laws after that, by which the blood of the faints was fhed like water. And in far later times, the kings of the earth and their armies are reprefented as in a state of

open