Jehovah, who is God alone, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature." These additional proofs you will find in ExOD. ix. 14; xv. 11; DEUT. iii. 24; PSALM 1xxxix. 6,8; MAL. ii. 10; JOHN viii. 41. In his remarks upon this last passage, Mr. Porter argued, that the Jews considered the Father exclusively to be the true God; and inferred the correctness of their views from the fact, that Christ never reproved them as guilty of a misapprehension in this particular. Now, in reply to this, I beg to say, that I would just as soon rely upon the authority of Mr. Porter, as upon the authority of the Jews; for, in fact, it is of no consequence to either side of the argument, whether the Jews recognised the Deity of Christ or not; because, as they did not recognise his Messiaship, such a principle of reasoning would prove more than Mr. Porter would be willing to allow : it would go the length of proving, that he was not the promised Messias. And as to the assertion, that Christ never corrected the erroneous views which his countrymen according to the flesh entertained of his person, it is not borne out by fact; as the Saviour did, on many occasions, give plain intimations of the Divinity of his person. He did not, indeed, in plain and unqualified terms, declare, in so many words, that he was "the God of heaven and earth;" but he supplied the premises from which an intelligent mind could draw the conclusion, that whilst he was perfect man, he was also perfect God. He did not, I say, on all occasions, openly and publicly appear in the streets of Jerusalem, proclaiming himself, in the presence of the Jews, as the God of heaven and earth. He knew that there were many things which he had to communicate to the people, which they could not yet bear. He knew that his chief employment, whilst upon earth, was to glorify the Father, and that, when he had completed that work, the Father would send the Spirit to glorify his Son; and, accordingly, we find the Spirit glorifying Christ as divine, by inspiring Paul to declare, that he is over all, blessed for evermore-that by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, and that by him all things consist; and by testifying, as the beloved Apostle declared, that he is "the true God and eternal life;" and by several other declarations of the Saviour's Deity, which I advanced in argument yesterday, and to which Mr. Porter has not, in a single instance, replied. And do you ask the reason why Christ did not thus directly announce his Deity? The answer is easy. To do so would have frustrated the grand object of his mission; for "had his countrymen known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." But it was arranged in the councils of heaven, before the sun disclosed, by his new-born splendour, the loveliness and beauty of this terrestrial creation, that the Saviour should be delivered, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, into wicked hands, to be crucified and slain; that thereby he might make his soul an offering for sin, his body a sacrifice for transgression; in order that, by virtue of such an atonement, God might display himself to the intelligent creation as just, and as the justifier of the ungodly that believeth in Jesus.

You will find another proof of my first proposition in MATT. vi. 26, 28, and 30.-I wish to make a remark upon the principle of

reasoning which Mr. Porter applied to this passage of Scripture. He compared the 26th verse, in which it is said, that the " Father feedeth the fowls of the air," with the 30th verse, in which the same work of providence is attributed to "God;" and from a comparison of the two, he inferred the Deity of the Father. Now, Mr. Porter's use of this principle recognises and sanctions my mode of reasoning yesterday, in proving the Deity of the Son. I quoted many passages in which divine works and prerogatives are ascribed to God, and compared them with others in which the very same divine works and prerogatives are ascribed to Christ, and thence inferred the true Deity of Christ; and I have now the judgment of Mr. Porter, giving a clear decision in favour of the legitimacy of this plan of reasoning.

Mr. Porter advanced LUKE X. 21, as a proof of the true Deity of the Father. I again say, that I fully admit the validity of his reasoning from this and other passages, which he has quoted as proofs of the Deity of the Father. For do you suppose that it is necessary for me to deny the Deity of the Father, as preliminary and preparatory to proving the Deity of the Son? I assume and hold the Deity of the Father: it still remains with Mr. Porter to advance his proofs, that the Father exclusively is God.

The next passage to which he referred was JOHN iv. 23, 24: "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."-In the course of his remarks upon this passage, Mr. Porter asked if I could produce a similar declaration in reference to the Son. I answer at once, that I will produce a passage which, upon his principles, is of infinitely higher authority. He believes that Christ is a created being, however high he may regard him in capacity, nature, or knowledge; and that the Father exclusively is the one uncreated God: in his estimation, therefore, the authority of the Father must be infinitely more binding than that of the Son, who speaks, in the above announcement, to the woman of Samaria; but the Father has recorded his inviolable command, in reference to the Son, in HEB. i. 6, “Let all the angels of God worship him” (rçoczvvnsáτwrav air). In reply to Mr. Porter's additional remarks upon this passage, I beg to remind him, that Christ does not say, that the "true worshippers shall worship the Father only."-The word "only" does not occur in the passage. In fact, this text defines part of the Christian doctrine, in reference to Christian worship, but not all; and Mr. Porter, by supposing that it does reveal the whole mind of the Spirit, in reference to the object of worship, casts, by anticipation, a charge of idolatry upon the dying prayer of Stephen, which he offered up when full of the Holy Ghost; and upon the conduct of Paul, in thrice praying to Christ, as recorded in 2 COR. xii. 8. He even casts an imputation of teaching idolatry against the Father himself, when he said, "Let all the angels of God worship the Son;" and he stamps the impress of blasphemous idolatry upon the very angels themselves; for they are represented in Scripture, as worshipping Christ; as is evident from ISA. vi. 1-3, compared with JOHN xii. 41, which proves,

that the Prophet spoke of Christ: and if any more proof be desired, I refer to REV. v. 14, where the four and twenty elders are represented as worshipping God and the Lamb.

Mr. Porter next referred to JOHN vi. 45, 46, and argued that because the terms "God" and "Father" are indifferently used to express the same person in these two verses, that, therefore, the Father is God. I admit, at once, the conclusiveness of the reasoning as proving the Deity of the Father.

Mr. Porter next advanced some passages, in which he asserted, that God the Father was spoken of so distinctly from Christ, as necessarily to prove the Deity of the Father exclusively, and to contradict altogether the Deity of the Son. Now, in reply to this argument, I shall advance some texts in which the Father is spoken of so distinctly from God, as, if this principle of reasoning were valid, would prove that the Father is not God. For instance, in GAL. i. 4, we read, "according to the will of God and our Father" (To 80 nai Пargòs nμãv); in PHIL. iv. 20, "Now unto God and our Father" ( de Oey xai Hargiu); in COL. iii. 17, "Giving thanks to God and the Father" (εuxagioTouvres Tŷ : nai Пargi); in 1 THESS. i. 3, " In the sight of God and our Father” (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς u); in 1 THESS. iii. 11, "Now God himself and our Father" (aris de o Oeds xai Harng hu); and in JAMES i. 27, "Before God and the Father" (agar eŵ nal Пargi).—-Now, in each of these instances, and in many others, the Father is spoken of so distinctly, in the phraseology of each passage, from the word "God," as would, upon Mr. Porter's principle of reasoning, prove that the Father is not God; but I merely advance these examples, to illustrate the futility of the principles upon which he has been reasoning, and in order to have the opportunity of making this general remark,-that I can produce arguments against the Deity of the Father, equally plausible with those which he advances against the Deity of the Son.

Mr. Porter has said a great deal about Christ's not knowing the day of judgment, and has expended a considerable portion of his time in commenting upon the interpretations which Dr. WARDLAW, and Mr. STUART, of Andover, have given of MARK Xiii. 32; but I consider all that he said as totally irrelevant, as he was impugning explanations which I never advanced. One would suppose, that Mr. Porter came here to argue with Dr. WARDLAW and Mr. STUART— not with me. What have I to do with Dr. WARDLAW's interpretation? He is not my bishop; nor am I bound to identify my judg ment with his. If, however, Mr. Porter wishes for a few months' occupation when this discussion is over, let him sit down and write an answer to Dr. WARDLAW's Sermons on the Doctrine of the Trinity, or to Mr. STUART'S work, to which he has also alluded. As neither Mr. STUART'S work on the Deity of Christ, nor Dr. WARDLAW's last edition, have as yet been answered, it might be worth his while to prepare a reply to them. I now, however, declare that I will not advance any interpretation of MARK Xiii. 32, until Mr. Porter shall have explained for me Rev. xix. 12, which asserts, that Christ "had a name written, which no one (ouders) knew but he himself." What I wish to know is, how will he reconcile this decla

1

ration with the omniscience of the Father? As soon as he will give me a satisfactory solution of this difficulty, I shall then reply to the argument which he has advanced against the omniscience of the Son from MARK Xiii. 32; in which it is said, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father." As to Dr. WARDLAW's and Mr. STUART'S interpretations of this passage, I reject them both. This declaration may be considered presumption on my part; but I cannot help it. I would give a different one, and will do so as soon as Mr. Porter shall answer my question in reference to the text in REV. xix. 12.

Mr. Porter next quoted Acrs iv. 24 and 27, in order to prove the Deity of the Father. The passage reads thus: "And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is. *** For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together."-His argument upon this passage was this, that since Christ is here styled the Holy Child of God, his Father must necessarily be God. I feel much obliged to him for this argument, and for the principle upon which it is based; and will apply it to a passage which you will find in LUKE i. 35, in which the angel is represented as saying to Mary, "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." In this passage the Holy Ghost is represented as the Father of the Son of God; therefore, the Holy Ghost is God; and, therefore, Mr. Porter has supplied me with an argument for the Deity of the Holy Ghost.

In the course of his last speech, Mr. Porter informed us that whenever he rises in this Meeting-house to read the Scriptures, he always directs the attention of his hearers to any errors in the common translation, and explains the passages in which they occur, according to the original. I would beg, then, to ask him, does he correct the mistranslation which occurs in the latter clause of JOHN v. 19, "For what things soever the Father doeth, these doeth the Son likewise"? Does he inform his congregation, that the word "these" should more correctly be rendered "the same," and that thereby the identity of operation between the Father and Son would be stated in more express and emphatic terms, if this correction were introduced into the English text? I would also beg to ask, when he reads the passage in HEB. i. 3, in which Christ is described as "upholding all things by the word of his power," does he correct the mistranslation in this text by stating, that the word "his" should be translated "his own;" so that this passage represents Christ as "upholding all things by the word of his own power," thereby contradicting the notion, that Christ was only invested with a derived and delegated ability? And if it is here asserted, that Christ" upholds all things by the word of his own power," I would Jike Mr. Porter to exert his intellectual powers of calculation, in order to ascertain the height and depth, and length and breadth of

that Almighty power which can and does uphold all things? Could a finite power uphold all things? Surely not. I ask, then, does Mr. Porter correct this mistranslation, and tell his congregation that Christ upholds all things by the word of his own power? And I would here add, that I read this passage according to GRIESBACH'S received text, which we have both admitted, as you will see by referring to the printed definition of the standard.

As I do not wish to leave any argument of Mr. Porter's unanswered, I shall now revert to his speech of yesterday, in which he quoted EPH. iv. 5, 6, in order to prove the exclusive Deity of the Father exclusively. The passage is as follows: "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Upon this passage, I beg to make the following remarks:

(1.) The term "Father" is here used, not to designate merely the Father personally, but as a general title of the Supreme Being, whether subsisting in one or in three persons. And to prove this, I do not require the advantage of a petitio principii; for the words which stand in connexion with the word "Father," clearly show that this is its import in the passage: "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

66

(2.) Even admitting that the term "Father," in this text, is to be understood of the Father personally, still I argue that the expression "one God," which precedes it, cannot exclude or contradict the Deity of the Son; or else, on the same principle, the expression one Spirit" in the 4th verse, and "one Lord" in the 5th verse, would exclude the Father from being either "Lord" or Spirit;" though he is elsewhere in Scripture designated by both of these titles. So that Mr. Porter's plan of arguing from the use of the exclusive term " one," as contradicting the inclusion of the Son in the Godhead, must at the same time overturn the Lordship and dominion of the Father; and, if applied in both cases, will go far to represent the Bible as a system of Atheism.

(3.) Admitting, also, that the expressions "one God and Father of all," refer to the Father personally, yet we find that every attribute which, in that view of the passage, is ascribed to the Father, is elsewhere ascribed to the Son; as, in JOHN iii. 31, it is said of Christ, "He that cometh from above, is above all;" in Roм. ix. 5, he is styled, "God over all, blessed for evermore;" in COL. i. 17, it is asserted, that "by him all things consist;" and, in HEB. i. 3, that he "upholds all things by the word of his own power."

Another passage adduced by Mr. Porter yesterday, in opposition to the Deity of Christ, occurs in MATT. xix. 16, 17: "And behold, one came, and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Now, in reply to his arguments from this passage, I beg to remark, that in reading it, we should lay the emphasis on the word "why," and not on the word "me;" for the object of Christ was to ascertain what views the young man entertained of his person and character;