nions will be reserved for the next Lecture but one; I might however answer your question in general, by saying, 'We have to urge all the rest of the New Testament, viewed consistently and collectively as a whole.' However, I will now call your attention to the following facts. "Those passages in the New Testament in which the Father is styled One or Only God, are in number seventeen. Those passages where he is styled God, absolutely, by way of eminence and supremacy, are in number 320. Those passages where he is styled God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, or attributes, are in number 105. Those passages wherein it is declared, that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to him, and that every thing ought to be ultimately directed to his honour and glory, are in number ninety. Passages wherein the Son is declared positively, and by the clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from him, receiving from him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to the will of the Father, are in number above 300."* To which list I beg to add the following. Jesus Christ is eighty-five times called the Son of Man, or the Son of a Man! And, still further, he is himself about seventy times called a Man! I do not pledge myself to be so perfectly accurate as to be within one or two, more or less, but the general statement is correct. Now will it be said, that in these instances, the writers meant only half of Christ? What are we to think of it then, that they never in a single instance said so? And if they never so explained it, have you any right to infer that they so understood it? What an amazing stretch of the powers of reason is here! They never call Jesus a God-man. They never speak of his two natures divine and hu man. They have put it upon record eighty-five times, that he was called the * These passages will be given at length in a Supplement. They will be found rather more numerous; but I have here retained the statement as made in Matthews's Recorder. End of 2nd. Vol. Son of a Man, and about seventy times that he was called a Man, and yet they NEVER tell you that the word ought to be understood differently from its common signification!! What an accumulation of evidence is here! With such ground to stand on, Christians, what have we to fear? The word of God is our foundation, wherefore should we be moved? "Though billows after billows roll, according to the will of the Father, are in number above 300."* To which list I beg to add the following. Jesus Christ is eighty-five times called the Son of Man, or the Son of a Man! And, still further, he is himself about seventy times called a Man! I do not pledge myself to be so perfectly accurate as to be within one or two, more or less, but the general statement is correct. Now will it be said, that in these instances, the writers meant only half of Christ? What are we to think of it then, that they never in a single instance said so? And if they never so explained it, have you any right to infer that they so understood it? What an amazing stretch of the powers of reason is here! They never call Jesus a God-man. They never speak of his two natures divine and human. They have put it upon record eighty-five times, that he was called the *These passages will be given at length in a Supplement. They will be found rather more numerous; but I have here retained the statement as made in Matthews's Recorder. End of 2nd. Vol. Son of a Man, and about seventy times that he was called a Man, and yet they NEVER tell you that the word ought to be understood differently from its common signification!! What an accumulation of evidence is here! With such ground to stand on, Christians, what have we to fear? The word of God is our foundation, wherefore should we be moved? 66 Though billows after billows roll, |