sage by passage, those places in which ambiguities may be found by those which are direct and plain, all difficulties will vanish. Here THE FATHER is to be asked, because he alone can grant.

I shall even refer to the 26th verse of this chapter, the same which Mr. Bagot quoted:

JOHN xvi. 26. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you. I find I made a mistake in the reference, this not being the text to which Mr. Bagot adverted; but it is as express as the other: it tells against his own cause, and overturns the argument built on those texts which he delivered yesterday with such rapid volubility; for it shows that the Father, not Christ, is the being to whom petitions are to be addressed. Farther

CHRIST HIMSELF ADDRESSED PRAYER TO THE FATHER, AND TO THE FATHER ONLY.

And this, it must be allowed, is a circumstance which bears directly on the question at issue between us. Hitherto I have been strengthening Mr. Bagot's first proposition against himself; but I now proceed to draw the net a little closer around him, by bringing in those proofs which will plainly and directly establish my own second proposition. And I have indeed done so in some degree already, by the distinction which I have shown to exist in the language of Scripture, between God and our Saviour; but the texts to which I now refer, will establish the point even more directly.

JOHN xi. 41, 42. Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father! I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people who stand by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Can words be more express? Can these words be reconciled with the opinion which makes Christ himself the hearer of prayer, and the person who is alone able to grant petitions? If Christ were God, why should he pray at all? It will be said, as has been said, that Christ had no need of praying for himself, and that he did so only as an example to others; but that assertion is, dishonourable to Christ. It would make his example to be the example of hypocrisy. I do not believe that such a charge lies against our Saviour; for I am sure that our Lord never prayed but in spirit and in truth, and for blessings actually desired. Our Lord declares to his disciples

in

JOHN xiv. 16. I will pray THE FATHER, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

These words represent the Father as the being to whom our Lord addressed prayer, and looked for blessings.

JOHN xvii. 1. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER! the hour is come: glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee!

JOHN xvii. 5. And now, O FATHER! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

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.

These affecting words were spoken at a time when a cruel fate was about to overtake the Saviour, and his end was drawing near. Observe 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. 42. 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 (oudɛıç) 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 oudas 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