He yesterday alluded to Bishop HORSELY, which led me to imagine that he had read his works; but had he read the Bishop's Sermons on PSALM xlv., he never would have hazarded so gratuitous, so unproved, and so unproveable an opinion as that PSALM xlv. refers to Solomon. Does he not know, that the "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy?" Does he not know that David, in spirit, spoke of Christ ?-and has he not read the last verse of this Psalm, "I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever;" which never could be applied, in any sense, to Solomon? I beg to inform him, that PSALM xlv. refers to the mystical and spiritual union which subsists between Christ and his Church. He referred to the fact of the Queen being spoken of as accompanied by Virgins that be her fellows, as a difficulty in the Psalm; but let me tell him that the Queen is the Church universal, the Virgins that be her fellows are the different denominations of Christians; for there are different denominations and different partitions between the various denominations which constitute the Catholic Church of Christ. It would, indeed, be a glorious state of unanimity, if no such partitions existed, and that the church on earth were even now, what it shall be hereafter, "one fold under one shepherd;" but in the meantime, I say to you, my Orthodox Presbyterian fellow-christians-to you, my fellow-christians of the Covenanting Synod-of the Secession Church —of the Methodist, and Quaker Connexion, and of the Independent denomination, let us now congratulate one and other that the partition walls that divide us are not so high, but that we can even stretch our arms across them, and extend the right hand of Christian fellowship, to those from whom we are thus for a time divided!!

Mr. Porter yesterday argued, that róre Torayhderal, in 1 COR. xv. 28, should be rendered, "then shall the Son be MADE subject." Surely this implies, if it implies any thing, that he is not now subject!!! But I beg to refer him to the difference between the active and passive voices of this verb, which is proved in this very passage, where both occur. υποτάσσω is to arrange under; υποτάσσομαι, in the passive, is to be arranged under, or to be subject; and it cannot mean to be MADE subject, unless by superadding a passive signification to the passive!

He argued that the title of "Son of God" implies that Christ-is inferior to God. If so, his title, "Son of man," implies that he is inferior to man. Hence Mr. Porter must be something lower than a Humanitarian!!!!

He argued that the subjection of Christ to the Father implied inferiority of nature. If so, he must have been inferior in nature to Joseph and Mary, because he went down to Nazareth, and was subject unto them!!!!

He argued that he that is sent must be necessarily inferior in nature to him that sent him! I beg to say, that the fact is quite the reverse;

for suppose I required to send a messenger to any place, do you think I would choose a dog or cat, or any animal of an inferior nature to myself, to be my messenger: I would certainly send a person of the same nature with myself! But I would here distinctly remark, that official subordination never can prove natural inferiority; and official subordination involves merely a compliance with the will of another, and nothing more; and may be voluntarily assumed by an equal, as it was by Christ-for he says, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God."

His criticism on COL. i. 16, that ev aurw Tavra extion should be, "In him were all things created," is worth nothing; because ɛv is constantly used in the New Testament, in the sense of "by," and in this very passage it is explained by da at the end of the verse. We have, in fact, in this passage, three forms of expression, viz.-

ἐν αὐτῷ, δὲ αὐτοῦ,

εἰς αὐτὸν,

connecting Christ, in every possible way, as the sustaining, origi nating, and final Cause of the creation of all things. And I would here remark, that if he were only the subordinate instrument in the hands of a superior being, it could not have been said, that all things were created "for him," is avròv; as, in that case, all things would have been created for the being who employed him.

He next referred to 1 COR. iii. 21, 23, “Therefore, let no man glory in men, for all things are yours; whether Paul or Apollos," &c. It is quite evident from the context, which Mr. Porter read, that the expression, "All things are yours," is but a figurative mode of asserting, that all the ministers of the church are appointed, and all the arrangements of the Gospel made, for the spiritual benefit of the church.

His quotation from JOHN vi. 57, "1 live by the Father," and others of a similar kind, prove affirmatively that, in the possession of a derived existence, which is a necessary attribute of human nature, Christ was a perfect man; but, as to his Deity, we read in JOHN i. 4, "In him was life."

As to JOHN v. 26, "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," I call upon Mr. Porter to show how a created and finite being could be capable of even receiving the same independent existence as his Creator, so as to "have life in himself," as "his Creator has life in himself.”

As to JOHN v. 20, "The Father showeth him all things that himself doeth;" this passage only proves that his knowledge is commensurate with the works of the Father, which is a knowledge that no creature could contain.

As to CoL. i. 19, "It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" his quoting this only proves, that the English trans

U

lation is not, in his estimation, quite so inferior to the original as he asserted. The words, "the Father," are supplied by the translators; and I might as well supply the word, "himself," and read the text thus, "For it pleased himself that in him should all fulness dwell." And this is only one proof out of many that a new translation of the Scriptures, faithfully executed, would be more favourable to the Deity of Christ than the present.

As to JOHN v. 30, "Of myself I can do nothing: as I hear I judge;" the expression, "do nothing," is here explained to mean, that he does nothing, as Judge, of himself. And I ask, Could Deity act otherwise? Would the Supreme God judge the world from caprice or prepossession, and without a proper examination of evidence for the satisfaction of the persons judged?

Mr. Porter yesterday asserted, when contrasting the Epistles with the Gospels, that what comes from Christ is of the highest authority. I reply, ALL Scripture comes from Christ; for it was the Spirit of Christ, which was in the authors that gave testimony of what is revealed, (1 PET. i. 10, 11; GAL. i. 12); therefore the Epistles are as authoritative as the Gospels.

As to JOHN v. 19, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do;" this evidently means that the Father and Son are in such a sense so closely ONE, that the Son can do nothing of himself, or independently of the Father. If he had, on the other hand, said, that the Son "can do of himself what he does not see the Father do," then the passage would prove a complete distinction of being and power. And I would here ask Mr. Porter to explain how a creature could adopt the latter part of this verse without manifest blasphemy: "For what things soever the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise !"

As to MARTHA's words, in JOHN xi. 21, 22, "But now I know that whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee;" I simply reply, that MARTHA here expressed an Arian sentiment, which Christ immediately corrects, by claiming the power referred to, as his own in the 25th verse, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" just as Nicodemus was a Socinian when he said that Christ was only a man and a teacher, as recorded in JOHN iii. 2; for Christ instantly perceived that he was in an unregenerate state, as all Socinians are, and said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

As to Mr. Porter's criticism, that wherever Christ uses the personal pronoun "I," he speaks of his entire person, I answer, that this is not the fact; because he said to his disciples in one place, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" and in another place, he says, "And now I am no more with you:" and these apparently contradictory declarations cannot both be true, unless we

refer the latter to his human nature, and the former to his divine nature.

As to his quotation of Acts ii. 22, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man of God approved among you by signs," &c. I submit, in reply, the following dilemma: Mr. Porter is either a Socinian, or he is not; if he is a Socinian, let him say so. Why is he ashamed to acknowledge it? If he is not a Socinian, he has no business to fight with Socinian weapons, and thus to argue upon a principle which he does not believe.

Mr. Porter has produced many passages which speak of Christ in reference to his mediatorial subordination, and has argued for his inferiority from them, totally overlooking others which assert his Deity. I would again, therefore, illustrate this principle of reasoning. I read, for instance, in ACTS ii, 34, "For David is not ascended into the heavens ;" and I might just as well argue that David's soul was not in glory, from an isolated view of this passage of Scripture, omitting and disregarding other texts which prove it, as Mr. Porter might argue from passages in which Christ is spoken of as man, that he is only man, overlooking others altogether in which he is spoken of as God.

He next referred to MATT. xx. 23, in which Christ is represented as giving the following answer to Zebedee's children, when their mother had solicited that they might sit on his throne with him in his kingdom: "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." But, in reply to his objections from this text, I maintain, that these words do not, when taken in their strictly obvious meaning, contain any declaration at all inconsistent with the power of Deity; for God does not dispense the glories of his kingdom to those who ask for them through motives of vanity and ambition, as the mother of Zebedee's children did upon this occasion. Such honours are intended for "him that overcometh." REV. iii. 21. The text should be, "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give; but to them for whom it has been prepared of my Father;" i.e. Christ, when on earth in a state of humiliation, could not assume those prerogatives which he had for a time laid aside. And that this is its import, is evident from REV. iii. 21, where he asserts explicitly the very prerogative which he is here, on the Arian principle, said to disclaim: "To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne; even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne." And if any stress should be laid on the latter part of this verse,"for whom it has been prepared of my Father,”—I refer, in reply, to JOHN v. 19, where it is said, "For what things soever the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;" and to the declaration of Christ, in JOHN xiv. 2, "I go to prepare a place for you."

He next referred to 1 Cor. xi. 3: "The head of every man is

Christ; the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." But I reply, that this cannot be spoken of Christ in his divine nature, as it would then be equivalent to saying that "God is the head of God." It must, therefore, refer to his subordinate office as Mediator. And it is an enumeration of the parties concerned in the mediatorial scheme-Man, who is to be reconciled; Christ, the Me. diator, who reconciles; God, with whom the reconciliation is effected. And this passage plainly states the order in which the parties stand.

I MUST NOW PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE ARGUMENTS WHICH MR. PORTER HAS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPINION, AS STATED IN HIS SECOND PROPOSITION: THAT CHRIST IS, IN HIS HIGHEST CAPACITY, NATURE, OR CONDITION, A CREATED BEING.

The first proof which he advanced in support of this doctrine, was derived from REV. iii. 14, where Christ is styled "the beginning of the creation of God." But upon this passage I would remark, that,

By a common metonymy, the abstract term is put for the concrete; (as in 1 JOHN i. 2, where Christ is styled "that eternal life which was with the Father;") for when agxn is applied to a person, and does not refer to time, it generally signifies, the chief, or principal. As, for instance, in the Septuagint

EXOD. vi. 25: Avraι ai agxaι Targias λeviTWV, these are the heads of the family of the Levites.

NEH. ix. 17:

Hos. i. 11:

Edwxav agny, they appointed a captain.

Θησονται εαυτοις αρχην μίαν, they shall appoint for themselves one head.

In the New Testament, agxal, powers, is frequently used for agxorres, rulers; as in

But, further, in COL. i, 18, we find this very title given to Christ, in the sense of having the pre-eminence: "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning (ag), the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence and in REV. i. 5, a passage parallel to REV. iii. 14, Christ is styled "the prince of the kings of the earth" (i gxwv Twν Baσikéwv The yñs). And I may also add, that ag, in the language of ancient philosophy, denoted an efficient cause-that which gave a beginning to other things—a principle or source of existence.

I therefore conclude, that this passage in REV. iii. 14 may be thus translated: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, THE CHIEF or LORD of the creation of God." And, in that case, it will be parallel with the declaration of Christ in MATT. xxviii. 18: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”