GRIESBACH act? He inserted òg in his first edition; but in his second edition he acted in opposition to even his own authority (which we are required to follow), in addition to every other evidence, by the omission of eòs, and the insertion of os. Whether he acted correctly or not, may be easily ascertained from a comparison of the following summary of authorities for the two readings, viz.

From a comparison, or rather a contrast, of these authorities, you will easily perceive which is the correct reading; whilst, at the same time, it is of very little consequence whether these disputed passages be kept out of sight or not in this controversy, as I have ample supply of other texts, whose genuineness and authenticity cannot be questioned.

I must now advert to a strange, and to me a surprising admission, which Mr. Porter yesterday made, in reference to his religious views. The admission was expressed in these words: " My views of the person of Christ are accompanied in Scripture with some difficult and perplexing circumstances to my own mind, which lead me to look upon those who differ from me with charity and candour." What a noble sacrifice at the shrine of truth! And in what, let me ask Mr. Porter, do these difficulties and perplexities consist? Is it not in this, that he is not able to resist the strong scriptural assertions of the Deity of Christ, which the Scriptures contain? For my part, I

can see no perplexities in the views which I hold in reference to the personal glory of Christ. I can reconcile and connect all the statements of revelation, in consistency with the opinions I hold, as satisfactorily as a weak and finite intellect can; and I am confident of this, that the Apostle Paul never made such an admission as this of Mr. Porter's. His language was, "I know in whom I have believed;" and if Mr. Porter would surrender his present views, and become a sincere believer in the true Deity of the Saviour, then, under the teaching of the Spirit, all these difficulties and perplexities under which he is now labouring would banish and disappear.

Mr. Porter next asserted, that the Evangelists, MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE, never once assert the Deity of Christ; and that JOHN is supposed to have done so only once, or perhaps twice. Now, let me suppose, for a moment, that this is correct; in order to show, by a simple illustration, how unserviceable such a fact would be to his argument. Suppose I had occasion to call on Mr. Porter at his own house; and, on having gone there, found that he was not in his parlour, or his drawing-room, or in his office; would I be justified in leaving the house under the impression that he was not there, whilst he was at the very time occupied in his study? Surely not. Now, vulgar and simple as this illustration may appear, it serves to detect the fallacy of the remark which I wish to expose. The Bible is one compact structure of divine truth, reared by a single architect-the Spirit of God. It consists of different departments; namely, of the various books of which it is composed. Now, suppose I did not find the doctrine of the Saviour's Deity in MATTHEW, MARK, Luke, or JOHN; or, in fact, in any one of these departments, except, for instance, the book of the REVELATION; would I be justified in rejecting that doctrine? Surely not. If I find this doctrine clearly revealed only in one book of Scripture, and even in one isolated passage of that book, I should consider myself bound to give it implicit assent, just as much as if it constituted the pervading and reiterated topic of revelation. And let me further ask: If I did not find this doctrine in the evangelical history, does Mr. Porter mean that I should employ a kind of sponge, for the purpose of obliterating those statements of it which the Epistles contain? Surely not, if I regard the Bible as one compact volume, written by a single author, namely, the Spirit of God. Further: Suppose the Evangelists did not once allude to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, could I not have accounted for this omission-I argue upon the superadded supposition, that this doctrine is contained in other parts of Scripture-upon principles which should have satisfied our finite judgments? The Evangelists professed to record the history of the days of the flesh and humiliation of the Son of man: might they not, then, without compromising their faithfulness as biographers, have adhered inflexibly to the subject they proposed; whilst the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance they wrote, reserved the revelation of the Saviour's Deity for some subsequent portion of his work? How would Mr. Porter refute the infidel, who should argue that the Bible teaches atheism, because the name of Deity does not once occur in the book of Esther? And will he have the goodness to inform me, what precise amount of

evidence will satisfy his judgment in support of the true Deity of Christ? In the mean time, I hold it as an axiom, that we should be satisfied with that quantum of evidence which the Holy Spirit is pleased to impart. The Sadducees, who considered their written rule of faith to be comprised within the limits of the five books of Moses, were still under an obligation to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection, although there might have been no other evidence for it than what the language of God to Moses—“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and of Jacob"-conveyed; in which that doctrine is only taught inferentially, and in which the argument that supports it rests upon the use of the verb "am;" which bears a reference to the present, in contrast to the past tense; suggesting the argument that, as God is not the God of the dead but of the living, so, although the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had long since been consigned to their original dust, yet as to their souls, they must have been alive in a state of glory at the time when God said, in the language of encouragement to Moses, "I am their God." Here, then, is one instance of our being under obligation to believe a most important doctrine, although taught only by inference. Alas! alas! this feeling of dissatisfaction at the amount of evidence which it has pleased the Holy Spirit to give in support of the Deity of Christ, too much resembles the spirit of those who, when the Saviour hung upon the cross, surrounded by every symptom of dereliction and dismay, exclaimed, "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross, and we will believe thee."-But I now deny the position, that the Evangelists, MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE, did not plainly assert the doctrine of the Deity of Christ; and this I am warranted to do, after the amount of evidence from their writings which I yesterday advanced.

of.

I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon the passages Scripture to which Mr. Porter referred yesterday. I have already said, that when he threw down his own building by the strange admission to which I have already alluded, he came over to my side, and kindly commenced to build my house, before I had commenced to do so myself. And this he did, by quoting a number of passages which, as I shall show, are positive and affirmative proofs of the doctrines which I hold; for they prove my first proposition-I refer you to the printed rules-directly and immediately, and they establish my second proposition indirectly and mediately. This position I shall illustrate by an examination of the texts which he advanced; viz.

He first referred to DEUT. vi. 4, “Hear, O Israel! the Lord, our God, is one Lord;" or "Jehovah, our Elohim, is one Jehovah."-This passage clearly proves my first proposition, which asserts "There is one God Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged Deity of every creature."-So that I feel indebted to Mr. Porter for proving my side of the question for me. But, this text indirectly supports my second proposition; for the words "our God," or "our Elohim," are in the plural number, which, I argue, is an indication of some sort of plurality being included in the nature of Deity. And if my doctrine, that Christ is one God with the Father" is correct, then this peculiar phraseology is at once accounted for.

66

He next referred to Isa. xxxvii. 16 and 20;-verses which at once prove the doctrine of the unity of Jehovah: which constitutes my first proposition. But they also demonstrate indirectly my second proposition, relative to the true Deity of Christ: and this will be evident, when I show that the same divine titles and works, which in this passage are ascribed to Jehovah, are elsewhere ascribed to Christ; which I do by the following comparison; viz.

ISAIAH XXXVii. 16, 20.

O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim; thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. *** Now, therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord, even thou only.

Similar attributes ascribed to Christ.

By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth. -COL. i. 16.

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.-JOHN xx. 28.

I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.-REV. iii. 10.

The next passage which Mr. Porter referred to was ZECH. xiv. 9, which also proves my first proposition directly, and my second indirectly; which will also be evident from the following comparison:

ZECH. xiv. 9.

And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Similar attributes ascribed to Christ.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.-MATT. xxviii. 18.

And from Jesus Christ, who is * * the Prince of the kings of the earth.-REV. i. 5.

** And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. -1 COR. viii. 6.

And as Mr. Porter has laid some stress upon the latter clause of this passage, "his name shall be one," I beg to remind him, that, if he understands these words in a strictly literal sense, they contain as valid an objection against the Deity of the Father as of the Son.

He next referred to NEH. ix. 6, which also proves my first proposition directly, and my second indirectly; as will be evident from the following comparison; viz.

NEH. ix. 6.

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone: thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, and thou preservest them all; and all the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Similar declarations in reference to Christ.

For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.-COL. i. 16, 17.

Upholding all things by the word of his power.-HEB. i. 3.

Let all the angels of God worship him.-HEB. i. 6.

He next adverted to MARK xii. 29, which also proves my first and second propositions in the same manner; as will also appear from the following comparison:

MARK Xii. 29.

The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord (Κύριος εἷς).

A similar declaration made in reference to Christ.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord (sis Kúgios) Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-1 COR. viii. 6.

He next adverted to GAL. iii. 20, “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one." I merely allude to his quotation of this passage, in order to remark what a proof it affords of the superficial manner in which he must be in the habit of reading the Scriptures; for who that understood the spirit of the Apostle's reasoning in the context of this passage, would think of producing it as a proof of the simple unity of the divine nature? I shall merely paraphrase this text, which will at once show how irrelevant it is to the subject of our discussion: "Now the very idea of mediation necessarily implies the existence of more parties than one; but in the Christian scheme of mediation, the Divine Being is one of the parties concerned."

I shall now direct my attention to those proofs which Mr. Porter advanced in support of the Deity of the Father exclusively. I must request you, however, to remark attentively, that he is bound by the terms of his first proposition, not merely to prove that the Father is the only true God, but that the Father only is the only true God. I repeat this remark as being of the first importance to our subject: he is bound not merely to prove the exclusive Deity of the Father, but the exclusive Deity of the Father exclusively. And it will appear evident, after an inspection of the arguments he has advanced, that he has completely failed in making out his case as stated in his first proposition.

He first referred to MATT. xxiii. 9, "Call no man your Father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven."-I reply, that the Father personally is not exclusively referred to here: the words "your Father," evidently mean your Creator; for any one who has read the Scriptures with ordinary attention must be aware that the title of Father is frequently given to the Divine Being in the sense of Creator, as in MAL. ii. 10, "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?"-And, in this sense, I maintain that Christ is included in the designation of "Father" in this passage; for he is the Creator and Preserver of all things (COL. i. 16, 17); and, at the time when he pronounced these words, he was in heaven as to his divine nature, though in his human nature he was on the earth; for he says, in JOHN iii. 13, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven."

The next passage to which he referred, as a proof of the exclusive Deity of the Father, was MATT. x. 29, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them cannot fall to the ground without