"self." (Page 87.) In this it is plainly implied, that if it had been said of Christ that he "stretched out the heavens alone, " and made the world by himself," it would have justified the conclusion that no other was employed in the work along with him. Do not the words, then, when used by Jehovah, imply, that no other besides Jehovah was employed in the work of creation? and if Jesus Christ be not Jehovah, do they not consequently express what is not true?

Let me now examine a little the strictures themselves. I begin with observing, that here, as in all other places, we are left in the same mysterious uncertainty about Mr. Yates's own sentiments: The question to be determined," says he, " is, "Whether, supposing that our Saviour created the material "universe, he accomplished this undertaking by his own in"herent, underived, and unaided omnipotence, or whether " he was employed and empowered to fulfil the counsels of a "superior." (Page 217.)-" I have already stated, that many "Unitarians altogether deny the existence of Christ previous"ly to his conception in the womb of his mother; but that

"many others agree with the orthodox Christians in asserting,

"that he lived before his incarnation in a state of glory, and "was employed by the Deity as an instrument in creating "the material world. The determination of these lesser differ"ences does not belong to our present inquiry: they are to "be settled among Unitarians by their own amicable discus"sions. The question now before us is, Whether, granting the "pre-existence of Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation un"derived power." (Pages 82, 83.)—" But the passages which "represent Jesus as the creator of the material world, also suppose the exercise of power previously to his incarnation. "These passages are decisively favourable to the Unitarian "doctrine, that, if Jesus was concerned in the formation of

"the heavens and the earth, he was only employed as an in"strument in the hands of God his Father." (Page 83.) But whether Mr. Yates' is a believer in the existence of Christ before all worlds, and his being their instrumental creator, or not, I am not so much in the secret as to inform the curious inquirer,—although I strongly suspect the negative to be the truth.

Mr. Yates's critical strictures on the texts in question relate almost entirely to the proper meaning of the Greek prepositions AIA and 'тпо. This, therefore, it becomes especially necessary to investigate.

Having quoted John i. 3, 10: Col. i. 16: Heb. i. 2: he says, "These passages, as I have now quoted them " from the common translation of the New Testament, leave it "undecided, whether Christ created all things by his own ❝underived and independent authority, or merely as an in❝strument directed by the Supreme Being. In the Greek "original, there is no such ambiguity. The preposition "AIA, in these passages translated BY, does not signify by

66.

any one as an original cause, (for this sense is expressed by "a different preposition, rПо) but it denotes THROUGH ANY " THING AS AN INSTRUMENT. For the sake of illustration, I “shall take the first example of the occurrence of AIA in the "New Testament: Matth. i. 22. Now all this was done, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by "the prophet,' or, more accurately, which was spoken by "the Lord through the prophet.' In the first place, the pre

position 'rпо, BY, points out the Lord as the original au"thor of the communication; and in the second place, the "preposition AIA, THROUGH, represents the prophet as the "medium, through whom this communication was conveyed "to mankind. The same distinction is accurately observed

"in all cases (and they are very numerous) in which the New "Testament writers produce quotations from the prophets of "the Old. They never introduce a prophecy by saying, that "it was uttered THROUGH the Lord, (dia rov Kugiou) and they 66 very seldom, if ever, say, that it was delivered By the pro“phet (uπo rov #go¶nrov); but through the prophet, and by the "Lord.

}

"The preposition AIA, followed either by a genitive or 66 an accusative case, occurs in the New Testament about "630 times. It is used to denote the efficient cause of the "production of an effect, (of course governing, in these in"stances, the genitive) about 290 times. I have examined "all the passages where it is found. I have observed, that "its general application, when used to point out an efficient "cause, is to represent, not the primary, but the secondary "or instrumental cause. This sense of the word seems, in"deed, to arise naturally from its original acceptation. It "properly signifies motion through a place. Hence it has "been transferred, by an obvious process, to the way or me"thod by passing through which any object is attained, or "the instrument by means of which any end is accomplish"ed." (Pages 84, 85.)-After having referred to his favourite authorities, Origen and Eusebius, he proceeds as follows:

"For these reasons, I think myself authorized to assert, "that when a New Testament writer employs the preposi❝tion AIA to point out the cause of any effect, he means "the instrumental, and refers to some other being, either ex"pressly mentioned or contemplated, who is considered as "the first or original cause. What, then, is the real im"port of the passages before cited, on the supposition that "they refer to the creation of the material universe? John i. 3. "All things were made through Christ as an instrument, but by

"God as their original contriver.Ver. 10. The world was "made through Christ as a subordinate agent. The passage "from Colossians has the same import, All things were

« created through him;” (τα παντα Δι' αυτού και εις αυτον εκτίσται) " and the passage from Hebrews, By whom He made the "worlds,' can only signify, if it relates to the creation of "the material universe at all, that God made the stars and "planets through the instrumentality of Jesus Christ. The "Greek words employed in these passages, cannot bear to "be interpreted so as to ascribe to our Lord the creation "of the material world by his own uncommunicated omni"potence. They directly contradict the notion, that Christ "stretched out the heavens alone, and made the world by "himself. They clearly imply, whether they be supposed to "refer to the formation of the earth out of chaos, or to the "RE-formation of its inhabitants through the influence of the "gospel, that Jesus Christ was only an instrument in the "work, and not a principal." (Pages 86, 87.)

On these statements, (which I have given at such length, because I would not seem to garble, or to shrink from them) I observe

... 1st. It is sufficiently well known to every Greek scholar, that AIA with the genitive case, signifies the efficient cause, whether primary or secondary, principal or instrumental. See Hedericus, Schleusner, Parkhurst, Stockius.

2dly. The same is the case with the preposition 'rão. See the same authorities.

3dly. Mr. Yates, in a note, refers to one passage, as the only one presenting much difficulty against the universality of his rule respecting the use of AIA; and, in the close of the note, he hints at the possibility of his opponent's bringing forward perhaps as many as two or three. The critical read

er may consult the following passages, if his previous acquaintance with the established use of this preposition in the Greek language does not supersede the necessity of this trouble. Math. xviii. 7: xxvi. 24: Mark xiv. 21: Luke xxii. 22: Acts xii. 9: xix. 26:*

Rom. iii. 27: v. 12: vi. (compared with ver. 9. being used, and with ver.

4: xi. 36: 1 Cor. i. 9: xii. 8. where the expression is varied, 11.) 2 Cor. i. 19: Heb. ii. 3. (where the reader will observe, that AIA and 'TПо are both used, the former of the Lord, and the latter of his apostles; so that here we have an instance either of AIA being the immediate, or of 'тПо being the mediate cause) Heb. ii. 10: (a very decisive passage) Heb. vii. 21: xiii. 11: 1 Pet. ii. 14.-I am much mistaken if more instances than these eighteen might not be adduced, of AIA signifying not the instrumental, but the primary effi

cient cause.

4thly. It is admitted, that AIA is more naturally employed to denote the instrumental cause than 'тПо; and that this is rightly accounted for from the original signification of the former, as given by Mr. Yates. We do not so readily associate with the latter the idea of medium. As AIA, however, frequently signifies the primary cause, so is 'ro sometimes used for the secondary. In the following places it is used as to God's speaking by the prophets, Math. ii. 17: iii. 3: xxvii. 35: Mark xiii. 14.

5thly. If, as Mr. Yates alleges, the idea of any thing being done by any one as an original cause," and not merely

* The hands might seem at first view to be the instrumental cause. The connexion shows, however, that the phrase "by hands" means by human agency, which in this case was direct, without subordinate instrumentality.

† Mr. Yates says there is strong evidence of iɑ being the true reading, and refers for this to Griesbach. Yet the evidence was not such as to induce Griesbach even to mark it as doubtful.