The next paffage that I fhall produce, fhall be from the Epiftle to the Coloffians i. 15, &c. "Who "is the image of the invifible GoD, the firft-born "of every creature; for by him were all things cre"ated that are in heaven and that are in earth, vifi"ble and invifible, whether they be thrones, or do“minions, or principalities, or powers; all things were "created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things confift." Os 85 είκων του Θεού του αόρατου πρωτοτοκος πάσης κτίσεως, "born fuperior to every creature." The Apoftle is here giving a defcriptive character of the Son of GOD, and he describes in terms which are compatible only with a perfon who is GOD, as the Creator of all things, and the Upholder of all things muft be; which he here affirms that the Son of God is.

66

εςιν

But it will be proper to take fome notice of the words any тOU EOU TOU aopaтou. Mr Locke, the avowed enemy of what he calls the orthodoxy of the Church, in his note on 2 Cor. iv. 4. in effect gives us to understand that the fignification of the word any is "a mirror," and that CHRIST was no otherwise the image of GOD than the Apoftles were the images of himself by their large and clear communications of the Gofpel, and by their reprefenting as mirrors the glory of the LORD; and that in this fenfe "they were the images of CHRIST as CHRIST is the image of GOD." But, I apprehend exwy can in no fense whatever be interpreted a mirror, or an inftrument of reflection; it is, we all know, an image, a figure,

figure, a ftatue, an impreffion upon a coin, a graphical delineation, a figure reprefented from a mirror; but that it fhould fignify a mirror is what (I conceive) cannot be warranted by any inftance whatever in the Greek language.

Mr. Locke's idea is, that Mofes, by approaching to GOD in the mount, had a communication of glory from him which irradiated his face. In like manner, he supposes that the face of JESUS CHRIST was irradiated with a greater and permanent degree of glory from GOD, and that hence he is called by the Apostle the image of God. But was it ever heard in any language that the illuminated fubject was the image of that which illuminated it? that a fpeculum was the image of the fun; or a looking-glafs, reflecting the figure of a man, was the image of a man? We therefore may with the fulleft affurance pronounce, that CHRIST is not called the image of GOD on any such account' as is affigned by Mr. Locke. However, let us fuppofe it to be otherwise, and that he is therefore, and therefore only, called the image of GOD, because he was irradiated with a permanent and greater degree of glory from GoD than Mofes, which is the purport of Mr. Locke's argument. How will this confift with what St. Paul faith of him, as already cited, ἑαυτον εκένωσε, εταπείνωσεν ἑαυτον For, when did this degradation of himself take place? was it before or after the irradiation? if before, then for what end was the degradation? if after, then it should feem the irradiation would have been done away by it. However, not to dwell any

farther

great man, moft nor to take any

farther on the mistaken theory of this unworthy of fo acute a reafoner, particular notice of his perverted mifinterpretation of the word κατοπτριζόμενοι, to which he gives the fenfe of κατοπτρίζοντες TpOTS5; let us give decidedly from St. Paul himfelf the fignification of είκων του Θεού του αοράτου. The image then (faith St. Paul) of the GOD that is invifible was born before, or perhaps fuperior to, all creation: all things, whether in heaven or in earth, were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things confift. Will any one be hardy enough after this to affirm that say, when applied to the Son of GOD, means only a mirror, an inftrument of reflecting the light which it receives, and that CHRIST was no otherwife fuperior to Mofes than by his having received a greater influx of divine light? If we acknowledge that the Apostle was an infpired writer, let us receive, and acknowledge, that what he writes is true, when he teacheth us, as he most demonftrably doth, that the Son of God is GoD as a perfon in the Godhead, he has all the equal powers and prerogatives of GOD; as a diftinct perfon in the Godhead, he is the mw, the image as it were, the counter-part, of the invifible GOD. And thus it is that he himself faith to Philip (as hath been already noticed), "He that hath seen me hath "feen the Father," namely, because he is God as the Father is GOD. But let us proceed with the Apoftle's teftimony, Coloffians. ii. 8. "Beware “left any man spoil you through philosophy and

:

είκων,

❝ vain

1

"vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the "rudiments of the world, and not after CHRIST; "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God"head bodily; and ye are complete in him, which "is the head of all principality and power." 'Os egy ἡ κεφαλη πάσης αρχής και εξουσίας: which latter ex preffion appears moft evidently to be inapplicable, without blafphemy, to any being who is not GOD; and on this account I suppose it is, that we are here encountered with a various reading of της εκκλησίας, inftead of πασης αρχης και εξουσιας : but the reading is prima facie to be rejected; firft, because it would be tautological, the Apostle having but a little before, c. i. 18. faid the fame; and, fecondly, because it would have no direct reference to what went before.

The epiftle to the Coloffians appears plainly to have been written under an impreffion that they either had been, or were in imminent danger of being, corrupted by the falfe doctrine which was now beginning to contaminate the Chriftian Faith. The doctrine was concerning the perfon of CHRIST; with regard to whom various wild and unintelligible conceits had been adopted, and, among the reft, that CHRIST was an inferior being fent from the pleroma to inhabit the appearance of a human being. This wretched and phantaftical conceit the Apoftle meets directly in thefe words, Εν αυτω κατοικεί σαν το πλερωμα της θεοTЯTOS; therefore he was not fent from the pleroma and dwelt in him cuparms; and therefore he was

I

not

not a human being only in appearance, and he was κεφαλη πάσης αρχης και εξουσίας; and therefore he was not an inferior being. These few words, as they are in the moft direct oppofition to the erroneous doctrines at that time beginning to be in circulation concerning the perfon of CHRIST, fo do they moft fully establish this truth, that the Divinity of the Son of GOD is the doctrine of the Gofpel. There was a real and personal refidence, not temporary but permanent, Haton, of the whole Divinity in CHRIST, σwμATINWS, i. e. in union with his human nature.

From this paffage of the Apostle it is almost impoffible not to obferve how strongly he forefaw that Philofophy would prove the bane of Chriftianity, that by its plaufible and infinuating acts it would deceive its votaries by feeding their vanity, and thus betray them into an inextricable captivity: for, however the self-confequence of the human mind and its powers predominate, faith becomes entirely overwhelmed by it. Nothing then will be believed that is not fanctioned by its comprehenfion; and thus we hear it is faid, that, where mystery begins, religion ends; a most fenfelefs, and, however adopted by Philofophers, a most unphilosophical, affertion; for, if religion hath any thing to do with the invifible world, how very little is there which is not myftery, and which we are not quite unable to comprehend? Comprehend, if you can, a fpiritual body; and yet St. Paul tells us there is a spiritual body as well as a natural.

But,