both of them Trinitarians and eminent in learning, the

Let the period be placed reads, " Of whom, as conwho is over all. God be

sense is materially changed. after the word all, and it then cerning the flesh, Christ came, blessed for ever. Which words are added as a doxology by the Apostle, in the way in which, in several instances, he has inserted a doxology in the midst of a paragraph.

10. In Acts xx. 28, we read, “Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." The true reading of this passage is the "blood of the Lord"; but I do not care to insist upon this. The expression is of course to be understood figuratively. No one will contend that it was literally the blood of God. It can mean nothing else than that God purchased the Church with the blood of his own Son Jesus Christ, which, on account of his intimate union with the Father, may be figuratively called God's own blood. This is the meaning which is adopted by the celebrated Baxter, author of the Saints' Rest.

11. John xiv. 9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father." The meaning of these words is sufficiently explained by the connection in which they stand. If you will read the fourteenth chapter through, they will give you no trouble. Christ made a clear revelation of God, and therefore made known of the Father as much as it is possible for us at present to know. So the words are explained by Dr. William Sherlock: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, that is, in plain words, the will of God was fully declared to the world by Christ. Thus God was seen in Christ." It is but another mode of saying that God was nade manifest in Christ, which leads me to speak of

another text, 1 Tim. iii. 16, which expresses the same doctrine: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, received up into glory." It needs no explanation to the Unitarian believer, for that God was manifest in Christ, and that thus the Wisdom of God, or his Word, was made flesh, we strongly maintain. For although "no man hath at any time seen God himself, yet the only-begotten Son hath declared him." The essential difference still remains between God, who is manifested, and Christ, by whom the manifestation is made.

We have now examined the most important texts which are supposed to be at variance with the Unitarian belief. If I have omitted any, they are such, I think, as are sufficiently explained by the connection in which they stand. For we again say, the highest terms of exaltation applied to Christ give us no trouble, so long as the connection shows that he received his exaltation, "because it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell." We may be at a loss to define the degree of his authority, but one such expression as that proves, beyond all doubt, that his authority was not independent or supreme.

As to the greater part of these texts, I feel sure that our explanation is good and sufficient. In a few cases only it remains doubtful whether the Unitarian or Trinitarian explanation is the most natural. But even if there were a great many such cases, the weight of evidence which has been adduced from the general testimony of the Bible is enough to decide us. For my own part, my mind rests

upon this subject without any doubt or wavering, for to me the meaning of the Bible seems so plain, that if there were fifty texts which I could not perfectly understand, although I should feel the difficulty, they would not shake my faith.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY.

WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS.

Romans ix. 5.

My object this evening is to show the argument for the Unitarian doctrine derived from Ecclesiastical History.

It is a subject to which more importance is attached than it really deserves. For, as we have the Bible in our own hands, we can read the words of Jesus and of his Apostles for ourselves, and these alone are enough to form our faith. They are indeed the only conclusive authority. To Jesus the Holy Spirit was given without measure. Whatever he declared himself to be, therefore, we are bound to believe; neither more nor less. Show us that he laid claim to be the Infinite and Supreme God, and we will so receive him; but as we can find no such words from his lips, but, on the contrary, repeated and distinct declarations of his entire dependence on God the Father, we receive this doctrine, and shall hold to it, let those who are called the Christian Fathers teach what they may. We do not, therefore, regard the subject of this evening as essential to our general argument. It becomes important chiefly because of the stress laid upon it by others.

By the Roman Catholics, the early traditions of the Christian Church and the writings of the Christian Fathers are regarded as the strong bulwarks of their faith. They do not hesitate to admit that the leading doctrines of Christianity cannot be proved by the Bible alone. Let me quote some of their language to this effect. "We believe the doctrine of a triune God," says Cardinal Hosius, "because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture."-Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVII.

"Those who bind themselves to Scripture alone, and who do not set up any other rule of law or belief, labor to no purpose, and are conquered by their own weapons, as often as they join battle with such pests [the Unitarians], that conceal and defend themselves likewise with the language of Scripture alone. And we know from history, that this frequently happened to them in the conferences and disputes into which they entered with the Photinians and the Arians." - Petavius, De Trin. Lib. III. Cap. xi. 9; Theol. Dog., Vol. II. p. 301.

"That the Son is of the same essence as the Father, or consubstantial with him, is not manifest in any part of sacred Scripture, either in express words, or by certain and immutable deduction. These and other opinions of the Protestants no one can prove from the sacred writings, the traditionary word of God being laid aside. This request has often been made, but no one has made it good. Scripture itself would, in many places, have seemed to exhibit the opposite doctrine, unless the Church had taught us otherwise." Masenius, Apud Sandium, pp. 9-11.

To the same purport I might quote many other Roman tholic authorities. "It is also a remarkable fact, that the