JOHN xvii. 11. • * HOLY FATHER! keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

As a sufficient answer to the arguments broached on this subject, arising from the text "I and my Father are one,” I read—

JOHN xvii. 21. [I pray] as thou FATHER! art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. This text affords a sufficient answer to the argument brought forward by Mr. Bagot, proving the Deity of the Son, by the mutual indwelling which submits between him and the Father. If that text proves the Deity of the Son, the one now before us, equally proves the Deity of all his followers.

JOHN xvii. 24. FATHER! I will that they also whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Here not only does our Saviour address prayer to the Father, but it is declared that the glory to which Christ attained, was a glory which his Father gave him; and the ground for the impartation of this gift, was the love which the Father bore to the Son. This, however, is perfectly incompatible with the idea of his perfect Deity. How could glory be given to that Being who possesses, from eternity, all glory, power, and honour?

JOHN xvii. 25. O RIGHTEOUS FATHER! the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

I quote these texts from every part of JOHN xvii. to show that the whole of it is a prayer addressed to the Father ;· a prayer the most solemn and the most impressive ever written. I now turn to

JOHN xii. 27, 28. Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? FATHER! save me from this hour: but therefore came I unto this hour. FATHER! glorify thy Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying,] I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

name.

Ob

These affecting words were spoken at a time when a cruel fate was about to overtake the Saviour, and his end was drawing near. serve the person to whom his prayer was addressed, and the total submission of his soul to another's will; and ask yourselves, if this be the language of God Supreme!

MATT. xxvi. 39. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O FATHER! if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as THOU wilt.

This text was formerly quoted by me, and explained by Mr. Bagot; but his explanation I leave to make its own impression.

MATT. xxvi. 49. And he went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O MY FATHER! if this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, thy will be done..

The same transactions are recorded in MARK xiv. 35-39; LUKE xxii. 41-45; with the addition, by LUKE, that there appeared to him an angel strengthening him. An angel to strengthen Almighty God!

Again, when his disciples seemed disposed to resist the officers who were sent to apprehend him, he said to one of them

MATT. xxvi. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to MY FATHER, and HE will give me more than twelve legions of angels?

And when he hung upon the cross, we read

LUKE Xxiii. 34. Then said Jesus, FATHER! forgive them, for they know not what they do.

And we find that in

MATT. xxvii. 46. About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli! Eli! lama sabacthani! that is to say, My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me! Still farther, as we find it recorded in—

LUKE xxii. 46. When Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, FATHER! into thy hands I commend my spirit. And having thus said, he gave up the ghost.

And now, my friends-fellow Christians-fellow Protestantsyou who take the Bible for your guide-you who make the example of Jesus your model-you who take the word of Jesus for your rule! -I ask you what is that worship which is required to be offered up by the disciples of Jesus? Are we to suppose, if there be a proper Deity of the Father-and if there be a proper Deity of the Word— and if there be a proper Deity of the Holy Ghost-are we to suppose, that he who left us an example that we should follow his steps, would so far mislead us by that example as to confine our worship to one only; whereas to three persons that worship is due? I call on any of you to sit down, and read the record of Christ's life-to find him engaged frequently in prayer to the Father, from the earliest period of his ministry on earth-to see how, in every circumstance of his eventful life, he addresses himself in supplication to the Father who sent him to find him, when about to work miracles, address the throne of God in prayer-to observe how, when about to part with his disciples, he commends them in solemn petition to his Fatherto find him, when his crucifixion was approaching, expressing his humility and resignation to God by prayer to his Father-to find him, on the cross, commending his murderers to the mercy of their Maker, and his own spirit to the God who gave it ;—yes, follow him in his devotions from the beginning to the close of his career, and then say, if you can-all these facts being taken together-whether this was the conduct of one who was God over all, blessed for ever? This is a point which would well bear to be dilated on; but I spare you. It is an argument which addresses itself as much to the heart as to the head. I have read to you the words of our blessed Saviour; and if they do not speak to your feelings, why should I address myself to your understandings?

As I have now but a short time remaining of my forty minutes, I shall not enter on a new argument. I was about to reply to some observations advanced by Mr. Bagot; but these topics I must reserve for my last speech on this day..

MR. BAGOT.-Mr. Porter has informed you, in his last address, that I have been indebted to a Unitarian writer, Mr. LocKE, for the eulogium which I pronounced upon the Bible this day. This remark

affords me an opportunity of observing, that I am at all times ready to extract what is excellent from the writings of any man, even from those of PRIESTLEY, BELSHAM, or DRUMMOND, or any other Unitarian. But as to whether Mr. LOCKE was a Unitarian or not, I do not know; nor, as far as my argument is concerned, do I care: for though he was a philosopher of the first class, invested with great powers of intellect, which qualified him to be a guide and conductor through the intricate mazes of scientific research, yet Mr. LOCKE, as well as every other man who wishes to know the way of salvation, and how, as a sinner, he can be reconciled with God, must approach the Gospel as a little child, and learn at the feet of Jesus; for "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world ?"

I shall now examine the principle by which Mr. Porter has reconciled the passage in REV. xix. 12, with the omniscience of the Father. The passage in REV. xix. 12, is as follows: "He had a name written which no one (ouders) knew but he himself;" and the question which I proposed to Mr. Porter was this, How could he reconcile this declaration, that no one but Christ knew the name which he bore but he himself, with the omniscience of the Father? and what solution of this difficulty would he propose? He has now informed us, that he adopts the same view of the passage which King James' translators have chosen, and that he understands the Greek word oudag in a restricted sense, as denoting "no man" so that, instead of translating the word ouders in its plain and obvious sense, as denoting "no one," whether created or uncreated, he understands it in a more limited sense, as it occurs in the English version of the passage. Now, I shall apply the very same principle of restriction to the interpretation of MARK Xiii. 32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father :" and I reconcile this declaration with the omniscience of Christ in the very same manner, by understanding it as referring only to the human knowledge of the Saviour. I assume it as a Scripture truth, that Christ was omniscient as to his higher nature. This is evident from comparing JER. xvii. 9, 10, with REV. ii. 23; and from many other passages. I argue, therefore, that I must interpret MARK xiii. 32, upon a principle which will not contradict this doctrine. I, therefore, explain this text as referring to the knowledge which Christ possessed in his human nature. I proved to you, on yesterday, that when Christ assumed our nature, he became "in all things like unto his brethren;" but this would not have been true, if he had not assumed our ignorance. This passage, therefore, affords no objection against the Deity of Christ. What right, however, had Mr. Porter to quote this passage as affording an argument against my system? It is an affirmative proof of that part of my second proposition, which asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect man. It is an essential attribute of a "perfect man" to possess a faculty of progressively acquiring knowledge, and, after all his acquirements, to be capable of only a limited amount of knowledge; and, in reference to Christ, I prove the former by LUKE ii. 52, which asserts that "Jesus increased in wisdom ;" and I prove

;

the latter by reference to the passage under consideration, which asserts that there was something which he was ignorant of. As to his divine nature, I again remark, that there is a copiousness of proof to demonstrate that his knowledge is one with the Father's; as, for instance, in his own declarations: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;" "No one knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him:" and from the language of Peter, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee," which is equivalent to a regular syllogistic inference, that because Christ knew all things, he therefore knew that Peter loved him but it is evident that Peter would have been a bad logician, if he had used the word "all" in this passage in a restricted sense, as he could not have inferred from Christ's knowing some things, that he knew that Peter loved him, in as much as this fact might have been among the some things which, on this supposition, Christ did not know. The "all things," therefore, in the language of Peter, must mean "all things" in an absolute and unrestricted sense; otherwise his argument would be bad logic. To reconcile these declarations, therefore, of the omniscience of Christ with MARK xiii. 32, I am obliged to consider the latter passage as a positive and affirmative proof that Christ possessed a true human mind; and I will not submit to be placed on the defensive, in reference to this text, as I regard it as a necessary affirmative proof of part of my second proposition.

As to the passage thrown up against me in 1 JOHN v. 7, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," I beg to ask, What right had Mr. Porter to bring it forward? Did I quote this text as an argument, amongst the passages to which I yesterday referred ? Certainly not: and surely Mr. Porter had no right to criticise any passage as an argument on my side, unless what I have actually advanced. But as he has asserted that this text is an interpolation, I call upon him to bring forward, in detail, the proofs by which he supports this assertion.

Mr. Porter has rested some of his arguments upon an assumption, that I hold it as a principle, that the word Father, in Scripture, is always used in the sense of Creator. I beg to say, that I have made no such assertion. What I believe, in reference to this sub. ject, is, that in several passages the term "Father" is unquestionably used in the sense of "Creator;" as, for instance, in MAL. ii. 10: "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" I also believe, that the term Father is used to designate what we term the First Person of the Trinity, as the Father of Christ, which he is in a vastly different sense from that in which he is the Father of Christians. There is a remarkable combination of these two senses of the term Father in JOHN XX. 17, in which Christ says: I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and unto my God and your God." He does not say, "I ascend unto our Father and our God;" but he uses language which clearly marks the distinction which there is in the import of the terms which he employs, when applied to himself and to his people. I therefore infer, that the term

L

"Father" is used, in Scripture, in two senses: it is applied to the Father of Christians, and to the Father of Christ.

As to the wise declaration which Mr. Porter made in his last speech, that "he would not answer Mr. Bagot's criticisms, because his most strenuous exertions would fail to produce conviction;" this was a very good reason, indeed; and I beg to express my obligations to him for it, and to assure him that I perfectly concur with him in recognising the validity of the reason which it assigns!

I stated yesterday, that the Scriptures speak of Christ in three points of view; as Mediator-as perfect man-and as perfect God. As Mediator, I believe that he is subordinate to the Father, who sustains the higher office; and I now wish to advance a few additional proofs of his mediatorial subordination. These you will find in Roм. xv. 5, 6; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; EPH. i. 3; COL. i. 3; 1 THESS. i. 3-9; 1 PET. i. 3. On examining these passages at your leisure, you will find that they all prove satisfactorily the mediatorial subordination of Christ to the Father. I wish, however, to make a remark upon one or two of them.

In 1 THESS. i. 9, we read of Christians "turning to God from idols, to serve the living and true God." Now it is easy to show, from a comparison of this text with other parts of Scripture, that Christ is "the living and true God;" for the eternal employment of the glorified saints is represented in REV. xxii. 3, as serving God and the Lamb;" and the Father has given this command, in reference to Christ, which is recorded in HEB. i. 6, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Now, unless Mr. Porter allow, that Christianity has done nothing more than turn men from one system of idolatry to another, it must follow, from these texts, that Christ is the living and true God.

Again: I would remark, in reference to 2 Cor. i. 3,-"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," that it proves the Deity of the Holy Ghost; for we read, in LUKE i. 35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Hence it is evident that the Holy Ghost is the Father of the Son of God; and, consequently, is God.

Mr. Porter has again referred to the Lord's Prayer, upon which I have already commented; and must now revert to it, in order to correct a misapprehension into which he has fallen. He seemed to think that I spoke of that prayer as if it was to be exclusively offered up to Christ. I certainly hold no such opinion. I believe, that the words "Our Father" are a general designation of the Divine Being -Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And I beg leave again to say, that I do not consider it necessary to deny the true Deity of the Father, as a preliminary to proving the true Deity of Christ.

In reference to MATT. vi. 14,-"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,"-which Mr. Porter quoted in order to prove the Deity of the Father, I beg to remark, that it establishes a principle by which the Deity of the Son necessarily follows, as the Son also exercises the same divine prero