of the most absurd, nay, one of the most blasphemous ideas imaginable that SIN exists in heaven amongst the pure and spotless angels of light, so as that they require Jesus, "as a Mediator" or peace-maker, to make up the breach between God and them! But this is not all; for the Unitarian view of the passage also implies, or rather affirms, that devils themselves are required to do homage to God, through Jesus as their Mediator! For, let it be observed, that beings "under the earth" (which, no doubt, refers to, or includes, fallen spirits,) are required to "bow," or do homage, in the very same way that those “in heaven and in earth" are. That is, according to Mr. M., not TO JESUS, as the object of it, but through him, as the medium of it. Are we, then, to suppose, not only that angels are required to worship God, through a Mediator, but that the very devils themselves are commanded to do homage, through Jesus as a Mediator! Yes; through him, as a Mediator; or, to use Mr. M.'s own words, "in the name of Jesus, as our Mediator."

Now, who that is in his right mind can, for a moment, entertain the fearful idea of Jesus sustaining the office of Mediator, in relation to angels and devils, as well as men? None! I therefore conclude that Mr. M. has not carefully considered the meaning of the passage, as it is here demonstrably evident that his interpretation of it cannot possibly be true. We shall here give Dr. DODDRIDGE'S Paraphrase of the text :-"In humble subjection to JESUS' authority and command, every knee should bow, and every spirit submit of celestial beings, in their various orders of dignity and glory, as well as of those upon and under the earth-angels and men, the living and the dead: yea, devils themselves shall do Him homage, and HE be ever ADORED as the Saviour of his redeemed people-as the Head of all holy and happy spirits; and the Sovereign and uncontrollable LORD of all," &c. This is DODDRIDGE's exposition of the text; and a very just and judicious one it is. To conclude our remarks, however, upon this passage, I observe -that our Lord is in it either represented to us under the character of a MEDIATOR-the medium of divine adoration and worship OR, he is represented to us as being himself the immediate and proper OBJECT of that worship. None can question this who looks at the passage. But, we presume, it has been here clearly demonstrated, that he is not represented to us in it under the character of a Mediator, inasmuch as such a view of the text (independent of the other considerations already mentioned,) involves some of the most palpable absur

R

dities. We conclude, therefore, that he is set forth to us, in this passage, as being himself the immediate and proper OBJECT of divine adoration and worship.

I now call upon Mr. M. to refute the preceding reasoning, if he can; and to justify his interpretation of this portion of Scripture, which represents Christ to us not only as the Mediator of men, but of angels, yea, and of devils. Let him do this-all this, if he can; but, if he finds truth so against him that he cannot do so, then let him, (as an honest and faithful minister of the Gospel would, and as one who truly feels the responsibility of his office will do,) retrace his steps, and publicly recal the unnatural and absurd interpretation which he has given of this passage of Holy Scripture. And, when he is doing so, let him also remember his exposition of Rev. xv. 2, 3, which I noticed in my last letter. I would now, before leaving PHIL. ii. 10, put it to the candour of every reader, if it has not been here clearly shewn, from this one text, that Trinitarians are fully justified in their practice of worshipping JESUS in the Sanctuary? For, be it observed, that the practice is an act of worship, offered immediately to CHRIST; and, as such, no real believer in his proper DEITY can, we think, conscientiously refuse to join in it. Let those who refuse to render this homage to Christ beware, lest their refusal to do so does not proceed from the same source that the conduct of those rebellious individuals did, of whom our Lord speaks, when he says, "But those, mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” LUKE XIX. 27.

In page 69, Mr. M. quotes the following pungent reasoning of Mr. Bagot, in reference to Christ's having CREATED all things:-" Admitting, for the sake of argument, (says Mr B.) that Christ was only a created being, and was only the agent of omnipotence, I ask, whether did Deity confer upon him a finite or an infinite power? If a finite power, (continues he,) I answer, that this would be insufficient for the work of creation. If an infinite power, I answer, that it would be impossible to communicate this, as it would imply the existence of two Omnipotent Beings." To this reasoning, Mr. M. replies, "I fully agree with him, (Mr. B.) in thinking that infinite power cannot be given; because, if this were possible, I see nothing to prevent the multiplication of Omnipotent Beings, ad infinitum. But, I ask him, (Mr. B.) would be take it upon him to limit omnipotence so far, as to say that God cannot impart, to a subordinate agent, power sufficient

for the work of creation, in any sense?" Here, it will be observed, Mr. M. retreats or shifts from before the force of Mr. B.'s argument, by denying that creation is, in Scripture, properly applied to Christ. But, then, as the Apostle has, in COL. i. 16, most expressly, and without limitation, ascribed the CREATION of" all things, visible and invisible," to CHRIST, it remains with Mr. M. to shew, that when he did so, he only meant to say what he affirms, that is, "that the creation ascribed to Christ refers to his arranging the material and visible creation," and, of course, not to his having actually CREATED ALL THINGS! (P. 68.) As I have already sufficiently exposed this piece of artifice, (for I can call it by no better name,) of Mr. M., wherein he evidently wishes to get rid of, or undermine the truth of, that Scriptural declaration "By him (Christ) were ALL THINGS CREATED," I shall here leave it, after just observing that this question is not one at issue between Mr. M. and Trinitarians, but between Mr. M. and an inspired Apostle. I would, therefore, recommend him to go and settle this question with his real antagonist.

66

Should any Unitarians, however, here say that they do not agree with Mr. M. in supposing that creation is not properly, or in its proper sense, ascribed to our Lord in the Scriptures-that they do believe that CHRIST has, as the Apostle says, "CREATED all things," but, still, that he has done so by the exercise, not of an Almighty power, but of a power that was finite:-As this is the general opinion entertained by those who are called High Arians; and, as it is more dangerous or deceitful than the other, because more plausible, I shall here take some notice of it, although it does not come immediately within the compass of my notice, as a reviewer of Mr. M.'s Letters. The High Arian here assumes that it was not necessary that CHRIST should be possessed of infinite or Almighty power, in order to CREATE. I oppose this, by the two following arguments :1. Creating power is evidently the source of all power that exists, except itself. If, therefore, creating power be not infinite, there is no such thing in existence as infinite power. 2. The Apostle says, "the invisible things of God, from the creation, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his ETERNAL POWER and GODHEAD." Rom. i. 20. Here we are told that "the things that are made"

prove the existence of an "eternal power." "By the things that are made," reasons the Apostle, "we see clearly the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead." The works of creation, therefore, demonstrate that their

Maker is possessed of "eternal power and Godhead." Now, I ask, can 66 ETERNAL power," as applied to "GODHEAD," be a finite power? In other words, can the eternal power of GOD be a finite or limited power? No, verily. Christ, therefore, as the Creator of all things, must have possessed and have exercised a power that was infinite, yea, and eternal; for no other power, according to the Apostle, is "seen and understood" as having been the cause of "those things that are made." And, more than this, from the above reasoning of the Apostle, it also appears, that he who created or made all things, is possessed of GODHEAD also. " By the things that are made," says he, we" clearly see the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead." Now, as the things which are made, were all made and created by CHRIST, it follows, that in or " by these things, which he has made' or created, we clearly see his eternal power and Godhead." For, as the Apostle reasons, they are the mirrors in which we behold the rays of the divinity or Godhead of him who is their author, maker or cause. Now, I assert, and I assert it without any fear of rational contradiction or opposition, that he who questions or denies the validity of the above reasoning, does, at the same time, question and deny the certainty of that of the Apostle; for all must perceive that it is founded upon the very same premises or basis that his is.

66

To make this appear still more evident, if possible, I observe, that it is perfectly plain, from the reasoning of the Apostle, that infinite, or (as he himself expresses it,) "eternal power and Godhead," was necessary, absolutely necessary, to the production or creation of all things; as no other kind of power, he reasons, is " seen and understood" as the origin of "the things that are made.” Now, if, as all Unitarians allow, Christ possessed and exercised not an Almighty or infinite power, but a power that was finite and limited, it is clear that if this were all he possessed, he could not, by the exercise of it, have created one single being, much less every thing that has been made. But we are assured, upon infallible authority, that Christ has created all things; therefore Christ must have possessed and have exercised a power that was infinite; or, as the Apostle has it, an "eternal power."

I remain, Mr. Editor, yours respectfully,

Ballymena, Feb. 9, 1836.

J. M.

LATE ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC WORSHIP. THE design of the following observations is, to reprove that injurious, but too prevalent, practice, of either coming after the prayer is concluded, or whilst it is offering, to the great interruption of the devotion of others. Late attendance upon public worship is now become so far a matter of custom, that some hearers are never at the first prayer; and the frequency and extent of this indecent behaviour towards God and the ordinances of his house, has taken away, in too many, all consciousness of its evil, and all sense of shame on account of it, although they are daily offenders in this matter. But it is surely a great evil, and ministers ought, in the most plain and affectionate manner, to remonstrate against it, and never cease reproving for it, till they have brought their hearers to a renunciation of the practice.

The coming into the house of God either in or after the time of prayer, indicates something wrong in the temper and conduct of professing Christians. It should seem that their hearts are not duly apprised of the excellency and importance of the privilege about to be enjoyed, and, therefore, have no hunger or thirst for it. When the mind of the good man is rightly disposed towards the house and worship of God, his language will be that of David, “ my soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God." Psalm lxxxiv. 2. The time of returning to the place where the Lord has manifested his glory, and dispensed his grace to the soul, will be anticipated with pleasure, and the hours of delay be counted almost with impatience.

A late attendance upon public worship indicates a jumbling and confounding of the duties of religion. When on a Lord's day morning I perceive a professor come running into the house of God, either in the middle of prayer, or when it is quite over, I suspect not only that it has been a morning of much hurry with him-that his closet and family devotions have been confused, and performed in a hasty, careless, and negligent manner; but I sometimes fear they must be altogether omitted. Remember, Christian, this is the established law of the house of God, "Let all things be done decently, and in order." 2 Cor. xiv, 40.

and

It shows, also, a contempt for some important branches of divine worship. These persons seem to say, that prayer praise are of no importance in the service of God. It is al