•,^' 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 i'i 
 
 BX 
 
 98A8 
 
 .P6 
 
 1834a 
 
 ^-' 
 
I THEOLOGICAL ^^iffll^ARY, 
 
 # 
 
 Princeton, N. J 
 
 BX 9848 .P6 1834a 
 Porter, John Scott, 180 
 
 1880. 
 Authentic report of the 
 discuss.ion on_the Unit 
 
 1- 
 
 ariar 
 
AUTHENTIC REPORT 
 
 DISCUSSION 
 
 UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY 
 
 DETWEES TIIR 
 
 REV. JOHN SCOTT PORTER 
 
 AND 
 
 THE REV. DANIEL BAGOT, M. A. 
 
 i^cltr 0n^ijra 14, 1834, anH tttxec lanaiains SBniig ; 
 
 IN THE MEETING-HOUSE 
 
 OF Tllli FIRST PRESHYTEKIAN CONGREGATION, BELFAST. 
 
 BELFAST: 
 ARCHER AND SONS, WHOLESALE STATIONERS; 
 
 LONDON, HUNTER; DUBLIN, BURNSIDE, SHAW, (BROTHERS); KDIN- 
 BURC4H, BELL AND BRADFUTR; MANCHESTER, FORREST; BFRMING- 
 HAM, ALLEN; LIVERPOOL, ROBINSON; GLASGOW, GRIFFIN & CO. 
 
 Belfast :-Printed by T. MAIRS, Joy's Entry. 
 
 1834. 
 
UNITARIAN DISCUSSION. 
 
 This Discussion, which has excited so much public interest for some 
 time back, commenced on Monday, the 14th April, 1834, at half- 
 past 10 o'clock. Michael Andrews, Esq. of Ardoyne, and Con- 
 way Richard Dobbs, Esq. of Acton, were chairmen on the occasion. 
 The following is a statement of the Propositions which constitu- 
 ted the Subject of Discussion on each side, of the Standard of Refer- 
 ence, and the Rules by which the business was conducted. 
 
 STANDARD OF REFERENCE. 
 
 The Word of God contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, which are 
 received into the Authorised Version, admitting them all to be canonical. The cor- 
 rectness or incorrectness of passages marked as spurious in Griesbach's last edition, 
 and the translation or signification of any particular words or passages, to be open to 
 question and legitimate criticism. The divine authority of Scripture to be admitted on 
 both sides. And all quotations to be given in chapter and verse, according to the 
 divisions of the Authorised Translation in common use. 
 
 Mr. J. S. Porter's Propositions : ' 
 
 1. There is one self-existent God, the Father : 
 who is God alone ; to the entire exclusion of 
 the alleged Proper Deity of the Word. 
 
 2. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is 
 (even in his highest capacity, nature, or condi- 
 tion) a Created Being, deriving his existence, 
 wisdom, power, and authority from the Fa- 
 ther ; and inferior to him in these and all 
 other attributes. 
 
 Mr. Bagot-8 Propositions : 
 1. There is one God, Jehovah, who is God 
 only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged 
 godhead of every creature. 
 " 2. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is 
 the Word made flesh, perfect God and perfect 
 man j possessing, as the Word, the same eter- 
 nity, knowledge, power, authority, preroga. 
 tives, and godhead with the Father, and one 
 with him in all attributes. 
 
 REGULATIONS. 
 
 1. The discussion to commence on Monday, the 14th of April, and to continue for 
 that and the three following days. 
 
 2. The discussion to continue for four hours each day : — the time, on the first day, 
 to be divided into two equal portions, and each to give a statement and proof of the 
 affirmative propositions on his side. 
 
 3. It is to be determined, by lot, on the first day of discussion, who is to open 
 the debate. 
 
IV 
 
 4. On each of the two following days, the speakers are to address the meeting forty 
 minutes alternately', a pause often minutes being allowed between each address, during 
 which any question may be asked in explanation of what the last speaker had said. 
 'I'he person who doses one day's discussion is to commence on the following. 
 
 o. The discussion to be held in Belfast, in the most suitable place that can be 
 obtained. 
 
 6. Two Chairmen to preside each day, one chosen by each party, with power to put a 
 peremptory stop to any thing disorderly, and of excluding from the place of meeting 
 any one who transgresses the rules. 
 
 7. Each day's meeting to commence at eleven o'clock, except the first, which is to 
 commence at half-past ten, to allow the Chairmen to make any necessary explanations; 
 and any time lost during any day's discussion, to be added to the regular period of 
 closing the business of the day. 
 
 8. Admission to be by tickets, for which the sum of 4s. each shall be charged, and 
 which shall admit to the entire discussion. In case of any room remaining, tickets 
 for one day's discussion, at Is. 6«Z. each shall be sold ; but not before the Saturday 
 preceding. The money received to be expended in defraying the necessary expense ; 
 and, if not sufficient for that purpose, each shall be liable for one half the sura 
 deficient. 
 
 9. No signs of approbation or disapprobation to be allowed ; and no person whatever 
 to be permitted to addiess the meeting, except the speakers or the Chairmen, to a 
 point of order ; and no person to interrupt, in any way, the speakers ; but each may 
 have a friend to assist him in looking for references and marking them. 
 
 10. One Reporter to be employed, who shall be admonished and expected to do 
 equal justice to both parties in the discussion, and his expenses to be defrayed out of 
 the produce of the sale of tickets. Each speaker to write out a full report of his owu 
 speeches from the Reporter's notes ; which, when approved by the other party, shall 
 be jointly published j but neither to be allowed to introduce any new matter, nor to 
 suppress any argument actually adduced, nor any statement actually advanced ; and 
 each to consider himself pledged not to sanction the publication of a report of any one 
 side of the discussion unaccompanied by the other. 
 
 11. On the fourth day of discussion each speakSV* to make one speech of forty 
 minutes' length ; an adjournment for half an hour then to take place, after which 
 each shall be allowed to make a closing speech of one hour, the report of which shall 
 supersede the appendix formerly proposed. 
 
 12. The tickets to be equally divided between Mr. Dagot and Mr. Porteh, and 
 to be sold at the price above stated ; each to account for the number of tickets re- 
 ceived, but to be at liberty to give away twenty tickets for the entire meeting to his 
 personal friends. 
 
 13. The execution of the above arrangements, and of all minor regulations, to be 
 intrusted to Messrs. John Campbell and John Marshall, who may call in a third party, 
 by mutual agreement, in case of any difference of opinion. 
 
 We agree to the foregoing. 
 
 DANIEL BAGOT. 
 J. SCOTT PORTER. 
 
FIRST DAY. 
 
 Mr. porter, — Ladies and Gentle, .^^ " It has fallen lo my 
 lot to address you first on this occasion; ..j*^ without any formal 
 preface, I proceed at once to the husiness uhiiu has brought us to- 
 gether this day. 
 
 You are aware that the present controve has arisen in conse- 
 quence of a notice which my reverend oppoii^.it caused to be inserted 
 in the N'ortliern Whig of IMonday, January 26, 1834 ; vvliich was to 
 this effect : 
 
 TnEOLOGiCAL CoNTROVEBsy. — Tlic Rcv. Daniel Ba^ot, it will be seen, by 
 an advertisement, has published an abstract of controversial sermons, lately- 
 preached by him in this town. lie has requested us to suggest to the Unita- 
 rians, that they should publish a sir-ular tract, in the same form, containing, 
 concisely, their arguments in reply to his abstract. We readily do this; and 
 we would have added, had Mr. Bagot not got so soon before the public, that 
 both tracts should have been stitched together, and sold at a very low price. 
 As journalists., we have nothing to do with either party ; but, as we wish that 
 truth shoultl predominate, on whatever side it may be, we would readily con- 
 cur in any fair proposition which might tend to settle the great questions at 
 issue. 
 
 Having the honour and happiness to be a Minister of the Gospel 
 of that persuasion to which this invitation was publicly addressed, 
 it appear d to me that I could not, with propriety, omit taking notice 
 of the cb'^llenge in some way or other. Had I allowed it to pass 
 disrega u, I should not only have treated with disrespect an inti- 
 mation p. "eeding from a gentleman, whose bland deportment and 
 controverp 1 candour I have always most readily acknowledged; 
 but she kewise have given occasion to any who might be so 
 
 dispost inuate that the Unitarian Ministers of this town — 
 
 though su..iciently open and sufficiently eager to propound their 
 doctrines, w hen no direct attack upon them was to be apprehended — 
 shrunk away from avowing and defending their opinions, when they 
 would necessarily be contrasted withtenets of an opposite description ; 
 and I have no doubt whatever, the inference woulcl have been drawn, 
 and pointedly stated, that this reluctance proceeded from a secret 
 consciousness that our principles would not bear the light of open 
 discussion. I could not, in conscience and in honour, give ground 
 for these suspicions. Convinced, as I am most firmly, that the 
 tenets which I have embraced, are the solemn truths of the Gospel, 
 firmly built on the solid foundation of Prophets and Apostles, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, — 1 dare not allow them, 
 by any remissness or indolence on my part, to receive a wound. 
 This would have been to abandon my post in the time of danger — to 
 turn my back upon the standard of Christ, at the moment when 
 the tide of battle rolled on directly against it. Convinced, besides, 
 as I am, by the study of history, and by what little I have learned 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 of mental chanf;;es, that in an enlightened age, and with increasinfj 
 facilities for public instruction, free, open discussion cannot but con- 
 duce to the discovery and extension of truth, I felt myself bound to 
 accept the proposal of Mr. Bagot in some form or other; for I can- 
 not doubt that the means of religious information are so plentifully 
 diffused by a benignant Providence, that if men could only be in- 
 duced to employ tliem, the result must be the progress of truth: and 
 it is as a means of rousing men to think, to inquire, to weigh evi- 
 dence, and judge for |,;.emselves, that I deem discussion and contro- 
 versy mainly valuable. 
 
 But while, for these reasons, I thought myself bound to take some 
 notice of Mr. Bagot's proposal, other considerations, of no small 
 weight, as they seemed to me, rendered it expedient to accept his 
 invitation in the precise terms in which it was conveyed. Had I 
 simply accepted his challenge, and published a pamphlet in reply 
 to his Abstract, it did appear to me, as it has appeared to all of every 
 side of the c[uestion with whom I have since conversed, that I should 
 have done so at a decided disadvantage. For, you must all be per- 
 fectly aware, that while persons of Unitarian sentiments feel, in gene- 
 ral, little or no objection to read productions in which their tenets 
 are impugned, there exists in the minds of a considerable number of 
 the opposite persuasion a very great reluctance to peruse tracts in 
 opposition to their own views. Had Mr. Bagot, indeed, delayed the 
 publication of his tract until it could have been issued in conjunction 
 with a reply of the kind suggested, so that both might have been 
 circulated together, and so that every person who obtained the one 
 must, of necessity, have procured the other at the same time, I should 
 have been most happy to embrace the opportunity of carrying on the 
 controversy with one whose temper and candour, as displayed in the 
 only discourse I had ever heard him preach, had made upon me a 
 most favourable impression. But, this opportunity not being allowed 
 me, I thought it would have been a mere waste of lime and trouble 
 to publish a separate tract ; which I very well knew would never 
 make its way into the hands of those, whose opinions and views I 
 was, as will readily be conceived, most desirous of combating. Act- 
 ing under this impression, which every thing that has since occurred 
 has only tended to deepen, I published a letter in the Northern 
 Whig of Thursday, January 23 ; in which, after stating the reasons 
 which induced me to decline taking the step which he suggested, I 
 went on to say — 
 
 If, , however, Mr. Bagot is desirous of circulating the facts and arguments, 
 on both sides of (he question, fairly among the public, both Unitarian and 
 Trinitarian, — I, as an individual, propose to him two methods of doing so, either 
 of which will answer the purpose. 
 
 I am ready to publish a series of Essays on the Doctrine of the Trinity, 
 from his pen, in the new series of The Bible Christian ; inserting, at the same 
 time, illustrative comments ; and subjecting both him and his antagonist, who- 
 ever he may be, to the conditions specified by the former conductors in reply to 
 his note. — Ur, if he prefer it, I am willing to meet him in Belfast, in an ami- 
 cable discussion on the subject ; time, place, and other preliminaries, to be 
 settled by friends mutually chosen : the only stipulation on which I insist 
 being, that an authentic report of the entire debate shall be prepared, and 
 published at our joint expense. 
 
3 
 
 Mr. Bagot declined asseoting; to my first proposal, — tlie publica- 
 lion of a series of essays in the Bible Christian; but accepted my 
 second, — a viva voce debate: and terms and preliminaries liaving been 
 subsequently settled, we appear before you this day, to urge the 
 leading arguments for our respective views of the Christian Doctrine. 
 And I can salely say, for myself, that while I come forward with a 
 heartfelt sense, both of the truth and the importance of that doctrine 
 which I stand here this day to advocate,— I come forward, likewise, 
 with perfect charity, nay, with real cordiality, not only for the bulk 
 of those persons wiio dift'er from my views, but for my reverend op. 
 ponent in particular ; and giving him entire credit for the same feel- 
 ings that actuate myself, 1 shall endeavour, and I hope successfully, 
 to avoid every expression that could possibly give him offence, or 
 sound unkindly in his ears. Il is needless to say, that I shall en- 
 deavour to discuss tlie serious and important question on which we 
 are at issue, with calmness and seriousness of mind. I shall not 
 certainly consider myself j)recluded from expressing warmly, what I 
 I'eel strongly, respecting the unscriptural character and tendency of 
 the doctrine which I impugn; for I will not sacrifice my paramount 
 regard to the interests of divine truth out of deference to him, or af- 
 fected complaisance to any one. But ridicule, misrepresentation, 
 and invective, I shall studiously avoid. The subject is too weighty 
 to be made the groundwork of a jest, even when it is most completely 
 misunderstood ; and the religious convictions of an honest mind, 
 even when most erroneous, are with me a matter too sacred to he 
 treated with levity. 
 
 After these introductory remarks, I proceed to make my obser- 
 vations upon the Standard of Reference and upon the Propositions, 
 which you will find given at large in the handbill, that has been 
 widely circulated. 
 
 You will observe, that we have agreed to argue on the basis of 
 the "■ Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and J\^ew 
 Testaments, tvhich are received into the Authorised Version, admitting 
 them all to be canonical." In the propriety of adopting this stand- 
 ard, I beg it may be distinctly understood by all persons and par- 
 ties, that I do most entirely and cordially concur. Indeed no Uni- 
 tarian could consistently or conscientiously argue the question upon 
 any other basis. Let it be understood with the same distinctness, 
 that if I had presumed to defend our common doctrines with any 
 other weapons, my fellow Unitarians would have disowned my proce- 
 dure, and exclaimed against me, as guilty of betraying the good 
 cause which I have undertaken to maintain, into the hands of the 
 opponents. For it is on Scriptural grounds that we have embraced 
 our characteristic doctrine. We are Unitarians solely and simply 
 because we can tind no doctrine but Unitarianism in the Bible ; which 
 is our rule of faith and only accredited standard. So far from re- 
 jecting the testimony of divine revelation on this or any subject, we 
 bow to il with entire reverence; and are ready at any moment to 
 repudiate our present views, if they can be shown to be inconsistent 
 with the divine record. Nor was there ever a more unfounded accu- 
 sation, than that which was frequently preferred against us in former 
 
4 
 
 times, — and is sometimes even yet covertly insinuated, — tliat we under- 
 value the weight, or despise the authority of the Sacred Volume. We 
 rank it in our estimation far above the imaginations of the human 
 understanding, whether as floating idle in the careless mind, or as 
 embodied in creeds and articles and doctrinal liturgies of human 
 device. Nor have any writers been more successful in vindicating 
 revelation from the objections, and defending it against the assaults 
 of infidels, than those of the Unitarian school : witness the venerable 
 names of Lardner and of Priestley ; not to mention many others, 
 of great and deserved though inferior celebrity. 
 
 Again. My reverend antagonist and myself have agreed to avail 
 ourselves of all the aid that can be furnished to us, \>y " legitimale 
 rriticism." Criticism is the art or science which teaches how an 
 author's real meaning may be gathered from the expressions which 
 he employs. The term, therefore, though harsh to the ears of many, 
 as conveying the notion of too close an approach to the employment 
 of human reason, denotes nothing but that which must be employed 
 by any person who, in any way whatsoever, attempts to understand 
 the Sacred Writings. "Legitimate" criticism is criticism of a fair 
 and lawful kind : not rash, nor fanciful, nor arbitrary; but based on 
 sound principles, and conducted with caution and circumspection. 
 Surely the man who refuses to investigate the meaning of the Word 
 of God in this manner, is unworthy of the treasures of grace and wis- 
 dom which they contain. We may safely pronounce, that unless it 
 te by accident, he never will attain to them. 
 
 It will be in the recollection of such among you as paid atten- 
 tion to the newspaper correspondence which took place between Mr. 
 Bagot and myself, before preliminaries were finally agreed on, pre- 
 vious to the present discussion, that, in one of his letters, he stated 
 that the only standard on which he proposed to carry on the discus- 
 sion, is " the Authorised Version of the Scriptures, admitting the genu- 
 ineness, authenticity, and dir^ine axithoriiy of all and every part of the 
 books; allowing, however, criticisms upon the phraseology, considered 
 as a translation of a book compiled from the best maniiscripts." And 
 he made it a condition that I should publicly state, before any far- 
 ther arrangements were made, " tvheiher any particular passages, and 
 what, were excepted by me from the above description." You will re- 
 collect that I demurred to the first part of this proposition ; i. e. the 
 admission of the genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of 
 all and every part of \.\\e books contained in the Authorised Version. 
 I did so under an imperious sense of duty; and I am satisfied there 
 is not a regularly educated clergyman, of any sect or church in Chris- 
 tendom, who would not have refused to make the admission thus re- 
 quired of me. For common purposes, the Authorised Version serves 
 well enough. I am not acquainted with any version of the Scrip- 
 tures, in any la- guage, which does not contain enough of the divine 
 spirit of the original, to make the docile reader wise unto salvation ; 
 and for this reason, and because it is the translation to which our 
 ears have been accustomed from childhood, and with which our reli- 
 gious impressions are most strongly associated, I am in the habit of 
 using the Authorised Version in public ; and generally, but not ex- 
 
5 
 
 tlusively, in |)rivate. Ikit to liold it up as a. cri I ical edilion — to em- 
 ploy it in i\ discussion of tliis kind, where minute accuracy is above 
 all desirable, as a standard of reference, either with respect to text or 
 rendering — would be to employ it for a purpose for which it is ill 
 adapted. I have given in one of my letters to Mr. Bagot the opi- 
 nions of two most eminent Trinitarian writers, who fully justify my 
 reluctance to admit the infallible accuracy of King James's Transla- 
 tors, in the rendering of every part of the original. I allude to 
 Bishop LowTii and Dr. John Pye Smith; the former an eminent 
 critic and scholar, as is proved by his Translation of Isaiah, with an 
 instructive preface and learned Notes; and the latter, the author of 
 the Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, in 3 vols. 8vo. — unquestionably 
 the most elaborate deience of the Proper Deity of the Word, in the 
 English language. The former, while he expresses his approbation 
 — in which I entirely agree with him — of the style and phraseology 
 of the Authorised Version, yet declares that " in respect of the sense 
 and accuracy of the interpretation, the improvements of which it ad- 
 mits are great and numberless !" The latter, who, be it observed, 
 is theological tutor in the Calvinistic College of Homerton, thus 
 expresses himself, when writing of the errors and faults in the mode 
 of arguing the present question, with which the "orthodox" are espe- 
 c ially chargeable : 
 
 " It would seem truly superfluous, to express a caution against arguinp; from 
 any translation of the Scripture, as if it were the original. But, il must be 
 confessed, that not only unlearned Christians, but some men of respectable 
 education, have fallen into this egregious error. Nor is this fault chargeable 
 on the orthodox alone: their opponents are not perfectly clear from it. Re- 
 spectable and excellent as our common version is, considering the time and 
 circumstances in which it was made, no person will contend that it is incapa- 
 ble of important amendment. A temperate, impartial, and careful revision, 
 would be an invaluable benefit to the cause of Christianity: and the veiy 
 laudable exertions which are now made, to circulate the Bible, render such a 
 revision, at the present time, a matter of still more pressing necessity." Vol. I. 
 p. 57, &c. 
 
 In perfect accordance with these sentiments, this distinguished 
 writer, almost uniformly, gives his own translation of the passages 
 upon which he comments. It would be easy to adduce a great va- 
 riety of passages of similar import, from men of undoubted orthodoxy, 
 — understanding that term in the common acceptation, — and even 
 from persons who have signalised their zeal by writing in defence of 
 the Proper Deity of the Word. But I have not taken the trouble to 
 transcribe any more of them ; because it appears to me, that those 
 already given are sufficient to justify me iu refusing to tie myself 
 down to this particular translation of the Scriptures. How could I 
 reasonably or conscientiously agree to argue on the basis of a ver- 
 sion which, according to Bishop Lowth, gives the sense and inter- 
 pretation so imperfectly, that the improvements of which it admits in 
 this respect are " great and numberless !" How could I, with 
 any degree of consistency, descend from the vantage-ground of truth 
 and sound knowledge, to adopt the very error which the most illus- 
 trious champion of orthodoxy deplores in his brethren; not only the 
 unlearned among them, but, as he asserts, in some persons of respect- 
 
6 
 
 able education? Would not this be laying aside the panoply of 
 divine truth, to clothe myself in ill-tempered armour, which my op- 
 ponents themselves are beginning to throw from them, as insufficient 
 to defend them in the hour of danger ? 
 
 But I had another reason for declining to receive the Authorised 
 Version of the Scriptures, as a full and sufficient guide. Not only 
 is the translation, in many places, susceptible of great improvement ; 
 but the copy of the original from which it was made, is known and 
 is acknowledged by scholars of all sects and parties, to have been in 
 many places corrupted, mutilated, and interpolated, in a vvay which 
 renders several of its statements, on this very subject, liable to strong 
 suspicion, or entirely unworthy of notice. For the last one hundred 
 and fifty years, learned men, of the greatest industry, and of unques- 
 tionable integrity, have been laboriously engaged in endeavouring to 
 detect these corruptions, wherever they could be found. Bishop Wal- 
 ton, by his Polyglot Bible, containing the original of the Scriptures, 
 with -several of the most ancient Versions, and a selection of various 
 readings, may be said to have given the first impulse to this most inte- 
 restingand important branch of criticissm. He was succeeded by Mill, 
 who published an edition of the New Testament with various readings 
 from a great number of M.SS. which he either collated himself, or 
 procured to be collated, for the purpose of his edition. His work 
 was published in Holland, by Kuster, with additions and correc- 
 tions. Wetstein followed, who still farther enlarged the field by a 
 prodigious number of various readings, collected from M.SS. which 
 were unknown to INIill and Kuster, or only partially inspected. 
 MATTHiEi, Alter, and Birch, have lent material aid :— the first 
 by accurate collations of Greek M.SS. contained in the public libra- 
 ries of Russia ; the second by a similar collation of the Vienna M.SS.; 
 the last by his ample details of the M.S. treasures of the Vatican 
 and other libraries of Italy, which he travelled to inspect, at the ex- 
 pense of the King of Denmark. Numerous important accessions 
 have been made to the science by MiCHiELis, and his annotator. 
 Bishop Marsh ; who, whatever may be thought of him in other re- 
 spects, has honourably distinguished himself as a promoter of a liberal 
 and enlightened criticism, on the text and exegesis or explanation 
 of the Sacred Volume. The results of all these labours and re- 
 searches, (labours and researches, be it observed, which have all 
 taken place since the received translation was compiled, and of which 
 therefore it was impossible for King James's Translators to avail 
 themselves, — had they been, as doubtless they would have been, so 
 disposed,) are considered to be embodied in an edition of the Greek 
 Testament by Professor Griesbach ; which, on account of its accu- 
 racy, fidelity, and impartiality, has deservedly obtained a high rank 
 in the estimation of theologians and scholars of all sects and parties. 
 In particular, it is spoken of with great deference by Dr. J. P\e 
 Smith ; by Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover ; and by Dr. 
 Wardlaw, of Glasgow : — and I am sure that my reverend opponent 
 will agree with me, that men more distinguished for learning have not 
 stepped forth of late years as champions of the Trinitarian doctrine. 
 Indeed, so high is the reputation that this edition has accpaired, that 
 
it is now tacitly assumed asi llie standard i)f reference among theo- 
 lon;ical writers : insomuch tliat no person of character or standings 
 umon^ them would think it fair to build an argument on any of the 
 readings which Professor Griesbach has rejected, — at least without 
 giving notice of that circumstance, — and stating the ground ot his 
 dissent from the learned Professor's decision. Such is the Edition 
 of the New Testament writings, which I mean to assume as my 
 standard of reference : but let it be observed, that I do not seek and 
 never did seek, to tie down my reverend opponent, to this or any 
 other edition of the Sacred Volume. I may take this opportunity of 
 mentioning that GRtESBACH was himself a conscientious believer in 
 the Trinity : I do not appeal to his Edition, because it is the produc- 
 tion of a partizan of my own, for such is not the fact ; but simply 
 because it is the most accurate I can find. If Mr. Bagot agrees with 
 him in the reading of any text, he is at liberty to follow him : if he 
 dissents from the opinions of that critic, he is equally at liberty to 
 do so. I do not mean to tie up his hands, nor fetter his feet. I give 
 him a clear stage and fair play. Let him make the best of his cause. 
 — I should not have mentioned the name of Griesbacu at all in these 
 preliminaries, had not my reverend opponent pressed me to send him 
 a list of texts, in which I thouglit the received English Version of the 
 Scriptures erroneous. In answer to this demand, 1 referred him to 
 the work of the learned and orthodox critic, as a standard by which I 
 was and am willing to abide. 
 
 But my friends before me, and around me, may perhaps ask, 
 Why make this a point of importance ? AVhy insist so strenuously 
 on introducing this Edition to your notice, when T admit the Com- 
 mon Version to be sufficient for ordinary purposes ? — To this inquiry 
 I answer, that Dr. Griesbach has clearly and satisfactorily shown 
 that several of those texts which are most confidently relied on as 
 proofs of the " Proper Deity of the Word," are spurious interpolations, 
 or false and corrupted readings. If I admitted these to be genuine, 
 I should not only enter into this contest with my hands tied up, but 
 — which I regard as a much more serious evil — I should indirectly 
 lend my countenance and sanction to fraud and imposture; if, indeed, 
 I could iu that case be said to do so only indirectly. 
 
 That it was of importance to me to urge this point, I am firmly 
 convinced; and I am confirmed fn this conviction, when I look at 
 the first page of that pamphlet of INIr. Bagot, which gave rise to the 
 present controversy. I find there, — at the close of the very first 
 paragraph, and in the very first line which contains quotations of 
 Scripture, — reference to a certain text, which is usually called 1 John 
 V. 7, and which in the common versioii reads thus ; 
 
 There are three that bear recoid in heaven ; the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Ghost : and these three ai'e one. 
 
 This passage is usually quoted as 1 John v. 7; but, so far as author- 
 ship is concerned, the Father of lies may dispute claim to it with the 
 venerable Apostle, and must be allowed to have a preferable title ; 
 for, if knowingly introduced, a more gross, impudent, and baseless 
 forgery was never executed or attempted. At lirst when I saw this 
 
8 
 
 passage in Mr. Bagol's pamphlet, T was, I confess, struck with the 
 ignorance of perhaps the most remarkable and clearly ascertained 
 fact in the criticism of thesacred text, which the quotation displayed. 
 It afterwards, however, occurred to me, that the reference might 
 have been introduced to justify his own employment of the term 
 Word, in the statement of his doctrine, by the example of the person 
 who forged this verse, whoever he might be. But this opinion I felt 
 myself afterwards obliged to abandon, by two considerations : The 
 first is, that the authority of a convicted imposture could hardly be 
 reckoned respectable ; and the second, that the very next reference 
 is to a verse in which the term Word does not occur at all, and 
 which in that point of view could lend him no aid. And I may here 
 remark, that of three verses, which are all that Mr. Bagot has 
 adduced to justify the statement of his doctrine as the " Proper Deity 
 of the Word," one is a manifest and acknowledged forgery ; another 
 does not contain the term Word at all, but a different phrase, which 
 he himself passes over as not sufficiently expressing the subject ; 
 and the remaining one is to the only other place in the whole Bible 
 where the phrase Word is employed, or can be alleged to be em- 
 ployed, to denote a person. 
 
 But 1 John v. 7 is not the only one of the texts which are relied 
 on by some as proofs of the Trinity, that are proved by Professor 
 Griesbach to be spurious. I may refer, among others, to Acts 
 XX. 28; where the Common Version reads, in the address of the 
 Apostle Paul to the elders at Ephesus, 
 
 Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 
 
 Here there is an unquestionable reference to the death of Christ ; 
 and in this allusion, his blood is expressly called the blood of God; 
 a phraseology which, to say the least, — though objectionable, in 
 other respects, to Protestant ears, — lends some countenance to Mr. 
 Bagot's doctrine of the "Proper Deity of the Word." But the learned 
 and orthodox Griesbach, after a laborious examination of the ori- 
 ginal manuscripts and other authorities, leaves it almost beyond a 
 doubt that this is a false reading; and that the words really spoken 
 by Paul, and recorded by Luke, were, "Feed the church of the Ijord, 
 which he hath purchased with his own blood;" an expression which 
 involves no doctrine but what Unitarians most gladly and gratefully 
 receive. 
 
 There is another passage which is greatly relied on by the 
 orthodox, and which this great critic, though himself of orthodox 
 sentiments, felt himself compelled, by the weight of testimony and 
 authority, to take out of the text. I allude to 1 Tim. iii. 16. — There 
 is no phrase which popular preachers and speakers are in general 
 more fond of applying to our Lord and Saviour, than God manifest 
 in the flesh. This forms the beginning, middle, and end of every 
 harangue on the subject of his alleged Divinity, or — speaking under 
 the correction of my reverend opponent — his " proper Deity." One 
 would think, by the frequency with which this phrase is repeated in 
 their mouths, in conjunction with solemn appeals to the testimony 
 of the Word of God, and cautions to form our doctrinal opinions 
 
y 
 
 according to its testimony, that tliis is the common and usual name 
 by wliich our Saviour is designated in the Sacred Vokune. We 
 might su])pose, from the huiguage of popular preachers, (what would 
 be natural enough, I confess, if the doctrine in question were true,) 
 that, in all the accounts of all the Evangelists, and in all the epistles 
 of all the Apostles, our Saviour was customarily and usually desig- 
 nated by no other title. \V'e might imagine, that, in the account of 
 his nativity, it was declared that the babe born in Bethlehem was 
 God manifest in the Jlesh; — we might imagine, that, when ihe doc- 
 tors and teachers were surprised at the intelligence and answers of 
 the child Jesus when twelve years old, it was declared that this child 
 was no other than God mcmifest in the Jlesh ; — we might conclude, 
 that, when at his bapli«m in Jordan a voice from Heaven gave attes- 
 tation to his divine mission, he was proclaimed, by the celestial 
 herald, to be God manifest in the flesh ; — and so through his mira- 
 cles, and labours, and dangers, and sufferings, and resurrection, and 
 ascension, we might expect to lind the Sacred Historians every where 
 reminding us, that they recorded the eventful history of God manifest 
 in the flesh. But all such expectations are vain — all such imagina- 
 tions deceitful. Our blessed Lord is nowhere called God maiiifest 
 in the flesh, except in 1 Tim. iii. 16; and there, as Griesbach 
 informs us, he is so called only by those who are ignorant of the 
 true reading; — which is not that God was manifest in the flesh, but 
 simply this. 
 
 Great is the mystery of godliness : he who was manifest in the flesh, was 
 justified in the spirit, was seen of angels, was preached unto the Gentiles, was be- 
 lieved on in the world, was received up into glory ! 
 
 And well did a state of glory and bliss in the world above, suit 
 the character and conduct of the meek, the gentle, the benevolent 
 Jesus of Nazareth — the Lamb of God, without blemish and with- 
 out spot! 
 
 It is needless for me to enumerate, at present, any more of those 
 texts which ihis learned and candid critic has shown to be spurious 
 or corrupt. Sutfice it to say, that some of those most confidently 
 relied on, and most prominently put forward by orthodox advocates, 
 are in his opinion interpolations ; and that learned and impartial 
 men, on every side of the c|uestion, are, in general, fully satisfied 
 ot the accuracy of his decisions. If, however, any person is disposed 
 to dissent from his conclusions, Professor Griesbach allows full 
 opportunity to every reader of his books to form his own judgment; 
 for he gives the eviilence on both sides, against as well as in favour 
 of his own conclusions. 
 
 This, then, is the standard to which I appeal : the Scriptures of 
 the Old Testament, as they appear in the common text, interpreted 
 by the aid of legitimate crilicism ; and the Books of the New Testa- 
 ment, as they are found in that edition which is universally allowed 
 to make the nearest approach to the original autographs, as prepared 
 by the Evangelists and Apostles; — an edition, I repeat again, not 
 published by one whose opinions lay on my side of the question, but 
 all whose feelings and views pointed the other way. 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 I now come to state the doctrine whicli I propose to maintain. 1 
 have, in compliance with the request of Mr. 13agot, embodied the 
 doctrine which 1 am about to maintain respecting the Supreme 
 Being, and respecting the person of our blessed Lord, in answers to 
 two queries propounded by him, and to which he insisted on a public 
 and direct reply. The queries, as they were originally proposed, 
 (for to the second edition of them I do not wish unnecessarily to 
 rel"er,) were. Whom do you consider to be the One God of the Bible? 
 Jlnd what positive views do you hold in reference to the person of the 
 Word lohich was made flesh ? 
 
 To these questions I gave my answers in the columns of the 
 Northern Whig : 
 
 1. There is one self-existent God, the Father: who is God alone; to the 
 entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every other person, being, subsist- 
 ence, or distinction. 
 
 2. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, deriving (even in his highest 
 capacity, nature, or condition) his existence, wisdom, power, and authority, 
 from the Father, and subordinate to him in all attributes. 
 
 I had purposely drawn up these propositions in a form which I 
 thought directly impugned the doctrine advanced in the Abstractor 
 Mr. Bagot, and in the Articles of the Church of which he is a mem- 
 ber j but as at our conference soon afterwards, held for the purpose 
 of settling the preliminaries, he thought the contradiction not strong 
 enough, I afterwards modified them, at his desire, into the form iu 
 which they appear in the printed handbill : 
 
 1. There is one self-existent God, the Father: who is God alone; to the 
 entire exclusion of the alleged Proper Deity of the Word. 
 
 2. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is (even in his highest capacity, 
 nature, or condition,) a created being, deriving his existence, wisdom, power, 
 and authority, from the Father ; and inferior to him in these and all other 
 attributes. 
 
 At the same time that I made these modifications in my printed 
 propositions, I declared to him, — and now repeat publicly, for the 
 information of all to whom the opinions of so humble an individual 
 are matter of concern, — that I am not one of those Christians who 
 believe our blessed Lord and Saviour to be a simple, mere man, 
 miraculously inspired and directed by the Supreme Being, or by his 
 energy the Holy Spirit. I receive his own words as literally true, 
 when he declares that he came down from heaven. I acknowledge, 
 according to his own most solemn declaration in that most affecting 
 prayer that ever was uttered or recorded, that he had glory with the 
 Father before the world was ; and T regard the state of glory into 
 which he was removed by his ascension as only a resumption of that 
 dignified state in which he existed before he appeared among men, 
 with an augmentation of rank and felicity, conferred upon him as a 
 reward for the benevolence, the patience, and the piety, evinced in 
 the midst of the most cruel privations and sufferings here below. 
 These are my views of the person of the Redeemer of men ; and I 
 think they are borne out by the tenor of the Sacred Volume; 
 though not unattended with difficult and perplexing circumstances, 
 which sometimes occur to my own mind with a force that disposes 
 me to look with great charity on those who differ from me. Still I 
 
11 
 
 think them (o be founded on, and agreeable to ihe Word of God. 
 But I refused to insert tbem in my replies to Mr. J3agot's queries', 
 because they do not relate to the subject of controversy l)etween him 
 and me. Our discussion relates to the " Proper JDeitij of (he Word.'' 
 On that subject my propositions are, I will venture to affirm, as full 
 and explicit as he could himself desire ; and on points that may be 
 agitated between myself and my Unitarian brethren, I will not enter 
 into controversy with him. Let him first become a Unitarian, and 
 then it will be time enough for him and me to discuss the pre-exist- 
 ence or humanity of Christ. And if I were to judge from tlie first of 
 the propositions which he has put before the public, I miglit conclude 
 that he is already almost, and is on the high road to become alto- 
 gether, such as I am myself. For, behold, in the very front appears 
 a statement, which contains no doctrine from which the most deter- 
 mined Unitarian that ever lived, would or could express his dissent. 
 His first proposition is : 
 
 1. There is one God,' Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of 
 the alleged godhead of every creature. 
 
 Shade of the injured Emlyn ! be at rest. Your principles are 
 espoused by the advocate of that church whose prelates countenanced 
 your odious persecution ! Peace to your manes ! — your mantle has 
 fallen where you least expected it to light. " There is one God, 
 Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged 
 godhead of every creature." Where — where in all the world did Mr. 
 Bagot light upon this heterodox truth ? Not, certainly, in the creeds 
 which he habitually recites in public worship ; and which, whether 
 -Nicene or Athanasian, contain no doctrine so pure, so clear, so beauti- 
 ful, so scriptural, so divine, respecting the Godhead of the Almighty ! 
 No, nor in the tomes of ponderous divinity that have been elaborately 
 composed in cloisters, colleges, or halls — and have been preached in 
 pulpits, or unfeignedly assented and consented to by the clergy of 
 his church. It was not there that Mr. Bagot lighted upon the pure 
 and beautiful truth, which his own first proposition enunciates, that 
 " there is one God, Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of 
 the alleged godhead of every creature !" No: some stray leaf of 
 Lardner or of Belsham must have wandered into his study, like 
 the Sibyl's verses borne upon the flitting breeze ; some fragment of 
 Priestly or of Price, of Channing or of Bruce, must have found 
 its way into his retirement ; and having causfht his eye, has 
 presented to his mind the idea of this simple and admirable truth, 
 that Jehovah is one ! which, so soon as seen, captivated his imagi- 
 nation by its loveliness, and won him by its charms to do it this 
 public homage ! 
 
 It cannot be said, with truth, that Mr. Bagot adopted this divine 
 and scriptural and most Unitarian proposition, without due warning. 
 The act was not done inadvertently. I told him, at the time when 
 we exchanged our statements, that his amounted to a departure 
 from his own doctrines. I told him that it would be considered by 
 those of that theological party of which he was regarded as the cham- 
 pion, — as a dereliction of their principles. I told him it would not by 
 
12 
 
 considered by any party as a satisfactory reply to his own question, 
 which he had of his own mere motion put to me, and which he had 
 insisted on my answering explicitly, and in the public prints, before 
 he would even consent to make arrangements for the present meeting. 
 I put the question to him in his own words,—" Who7n do you consider 
 to he the One God of the Bible?'' I fully expected to hear him answer, 
 " God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ;" — or, in the 
 language of the Litany, the " Holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three 
 persons and one God.''' Such an answer would have comported with 
 his office as a clergyman in a Trinitarian church, and with his cha- 
 racter as a man zealous for that doctrine, and who had previously 
 Sublished a Treatise on the subject ; but all such ideas were vain. 
 Iv. Bagothadjin his sermon at St. Anne's, avowed himself " a Uni- 
 tarian ;" and so much was he in love with his newfangled designation, 
 that nothing would content him but to advance this Unitarian propo- 
 sition to the front of his arrayed battalion ! — The name of Unitarian 
 has been held up as a term of invective and severe reproach. Its 
 synonymes, in popular addresses, have been infidel, atheist, reviler of 
 the Saviour ! The Unitarian doctrine has been held up to public scorn 
 and execration, as a God-denying heresy — a soul-destroying leprosy, 
 — a dilution, and a upas tree! It is to be hoped that none of these 
 epithets will ever again be employed: for now our name is assumed 
 as a term of honour, by the very leader of our opponents ; and our 
 right to its exclusive possession is contested with us, as a thing of 
 value ; and he who steps forward to impugn our faith in fact, pays it 
 the compliment of assuming it in name : insomuch that when he might, 
 and in my opinion was bound in fairness to putdown in his first pro- 
 position a statement of the Trinitarian doctrine, he feels himself in- 
 duced or obliged to content himself with the assertion of ours. 
 
 I say again,~I distinctly say, that Mr, Bagot, by this statement, 
 shrinks from the defence of the Trinity. I say again, that he renders 
 up the battlements of his own ecclesiastical creed. I say again, that 
 he has not given a clear, an open, and explicit answer, in accordance 
 with the principles which he is supposed to maintain, to the very 
 question which he perseveringly and pertinaciously urged on me ! 
 
 But while I allow, — and not only allow, but in the course of this 
 discussion shall strenuously maintain, that the Jirst proposition of 
 Mr. Bagot contains nothing but a principle of eternal truth, against 
 which the gates of hell shall not prevail,— I am very far from be- 
 stowing the same praise upon the second, which he has linked with it 
 in an ungrateful and unholy alliance. His first proposition we have 
 seen. The second is to this effect : 
 
 2. The Lorr! Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is the Word made flesh, perfect God and 
 perfect man ; possessing, as the Word, the same eternity, knowledge, power, au- 
 thority, prerogatives, and godhead with the Father, and one with him in all attri- 
 butes. 
 
 The match is ill assorted ; the parties are not agreed ; and I for- 
 bid the banns ! 
 
 The first proposition is rational — scriptural— intelligible ; the 
 second is irrational, unscriptural, and unintelligible. The first pro- 
 position asserts, that " there is one God Jehovah only;"—Si proposition 
 
13 
 
 which is in accordance with the soundest dictates of the human 
 understanding ; — a proposition which is in complete harmony with 
 that primary reveUition, the revelation of nature, on which the reve- 
 lation of the Bible is founded : for if the heavens declare the glory 
 of God, they declare the glory of One God only; if the firmament 
 showeth forth his handy-work, it certainly reveals the handy-work of 
 none besides. Whereas the second of these mutually-destructive 
 propositions announces a second person in the character of Deity, of 
 whom reason says nothing, and of whom, in this capacity, Scripture 
 is silent. The first proposition declares, that " there is one God, 
 Jehovah, tcho is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged god- 
 head of every creature;'' — a proposition which is distinctly stated over 
 and over again, as I shall abundantly prove, in every part of the 
 Sacred Volume, with every copious variety of phrase, of emphasis, 
 and connexion, that can give it weight. The latter announces, that 
 *' the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is 'perfect God and perfect 
 man;" — a statement which I defy him to produce any one passage of 
 Scripture to prove ; — to prove, not by inference, nor deduction, nor 
 wire-drawn conclusion, nor by arbitrary meaning placed upon words 
 contrary to their known tenor and signification in other places ; but 
 by plain, downright, unequivocal assertion, such as I shall bring for- 
 ward, if he does not, to establish his first proposition. liet him name 
 to us one single text in which it is plainly declared, that " the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the .Mediator, is the Word made flesh, perfect God and 
 perfect man," — or words to that effect, — and the controversy between 
 us is at an end. The first proposition declares a truth which all can 
 understand, and all cao heartily embrace, that "there is one God, 
 •Jehovah, who is God only; — a truth which is no mystery and no 
 contradiction. But the latter, which asserts that the same being is 
 perfect God and perfect man, asserts what Mr. Bagot may and will 
 and must affirm to be a mystery ; but which, I do declare, appears 
 to me to be nothing but a contradiction and an absurdity. To say 
 that the same being and the same person is perfect God and perfect 
 man, — what is this but to affirm, that he is almighty, at the same 
 time that he is toeak ; that he is omniscient, at the same time that 
 he is ignorant ; that he is omnipresent, at the same time that he is 
 limited in extent ; that he is eternal, at the same time that he is 
 limited in duration; that he is supreme and independant, at the same 
 time that he is inferior and dependant P — Call this a mystery ! — say 
 that it is above human reason ! It is not above human reason ! I 
 know the meaning of every term in the proposition. I know the force 
 of every connecting particle or phrase employed. I see and know 
 that the two sets of attributes, the divine and human, are perfectly 
 incortipatible ; — that the proposition which asserts they both belong 
 to the same person, is irreconcilable with itself, and is self-destruc- 
 tory. — No such proposition is contained in Scripture ! 
 
 I am aware that those who argue on this hypothesis tell us, they are 
 compelled to resort to it, in order to get rid of a contradiction. They 
 say that one set oi qualities appear to be ascribed to our Lord Jesus 
 Christ in one set of passages, and another in other places ; and thus 
 they are obliged to have recourse to the supposition of two natures 
 
II, 
 
 as united in one person, in order to get rid of a contradiction ! And 
 how do they get rid of this contradiction ? How does their theory 
 help them out of the difficulty ? Verily, it leaves them just where it 
 found them ! It gets rid of the contradiction, by leaving it still sta- 
 ring them broadly in the face ! Asserting the union of two natures, 
 the divine and the human, in one person, is just asserting the same 
 proposition in other words, which is allowed by the argument itself, 
 to be contradictory and absurd ! I shall prove, when these supposed 
 •contradictory texts come before me in the discussion, that it is by no 
 means necessary to have recourse to this extravagant and unheard- 
 of supposition, in order to understand the passages referred to. I 
 shall show, if I have time, that there is not one of them which may 
 not be explained on the supposition, that our blessed Lord is what 
 he always spoke of himself as being, one separate and distinct person 
 and being ; like other created intelligences. In the mean time I 
 would just beg to state or to repeat to you, what is the nature and 
 kind of that evidence, which, if this doctrine be the doctrine of 
 Scripture, must be required to support it. 
 
 For this purpose, let us place ourselves in the situation of one of 
 the Evangelists; Matthew, for instance, who had known, and 
 personally accompanied our Lord. He knew that this illustrious 
 teacher was not only the long-expected Messiah, for whom the nation 
 of the Jews anxiously looked, but a personage infinitely more exalted 
 than the race of Abraham had ever exalted in their most ardent 
 moods of anticipation ; he was no less than the Eternal and 
 Omnipotent Jehovah, who created, sustains, and governs the wide 
 universe of nature, clothed with the attributes of humanity. LTnder 
 the veil of human infirmity was concealed the awful majesty of the 
 Eternal King ! With this sublime and mysterious being, Matthew 
 had himself lived in habits of intimacy and familiarity. He had 
 been invited to become his follower, and had accepted the call ; he 
 had entertained him in his house — had accompanied him on his 
 journeys through the land of Judea — had witnessed his dangers, 
 and shared his privations; and had seen him weep over the grave of 
 Lazarus ; and had heard him affectingly deplore the blindness and 
 infatuation of the Jews in obstinately rejecting him ; and had beheld 
 him shed tears over the city of Jerusalem, while he foretold the ruin 
 and desolation which the perverseness of its inhabitants was bringing 
 down upon it. Nay, more, he had beheld him seized like a male- 
 factor by a band of infuriate zealots; dragged before a bigoted high- 
 priest and a cruel magistrate; condemned to death by a sentence 
 extorted by threats from an unwilling but guilty judge ; and, at last, 
 crucified on Golgotha, with every circumstance of insult and aggra- 
 vated cruelty : and knowing all this, and knowing that this being, 
 thus treated, was no less a being than the dread and awful 
 Majesty of Heaven, — that Great and Eternal Being, whose very 
 name was deemed by the Jews too sacred ever to be pronounced, 
 save once in each year, by the high priest when alone, in the holy 
 of the holies ; — Matthew, knowing all this, sits down to write a 
 history of his life and labours for the instruction of his countrymen. 
 He begins with the commencement of bis earthly existence; he con- 
 
15 
 
 tinues his narrative througlj the intermediate stages of his life and 
 ministry ; he ends with his resurrection from the tomb. He seems 
 to have taken particular pains to make his narrative as full and 
 minute as possible ; yet, wondrous to relate ! the one circumstance, 
 which, if true, formed the most astonishing and wonderful of all the 
 wonders connected with our Saviour's character — the miracle of 
 miracles, which, if true, eclipsed all other miracles that ever were 
 wrought — the doctrine of doctrines, which, if true, threw all other 
 facts and doctrines completely into the shade — the transcendant fact, 
 at which, as a modern believer in its reality has declared, " reason 
 stands aghast, and faith itself is half confounded," — this tremen- 
 dous DOCTRINE, which, had it been true, and had it been known to 
 the Apostle Matthew, would have engrossed all his thoughts, con- 
 centrated all his feelings in itself, and its own mysterious awfulness, 
 and put all his faculties into requisition, in order to express, in a 
 worthy manner, the overwhelming truth, — this all-engrossing, all- 
 concentrating, and all-mysterious fact, is passed over by Matthew, 
 without being once mentioned by him in his history ! He had lived 
 in habits of intimacy and familiarity with Almighty God. He writes, 
 for the instruction of his countrymen, the history of his incarnation ; 
 and, strange to say ! not one word does the historian drop, as from 
 himself, on the subject of the real nature of that being whose history 
 he records. Read over the Gospel of Matthew from beginning to 
 end ; you will find many facts recorded which are, to say the least, 
 very hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of the "Proper Deity of 
 the Word." But of the "Proper Deity of the Word" itself, the his- 
 torian says not a single syllable; nay, the term Word — which we are 
 row told is the accurate and descriptive phrase to denote the Divine 
 Being who thus lived, laboured, and died among men — is not found 
 in this sense in the whole Gospel of Matthew, And the only two 
 passages in the book which are supposed to have any reference to 
 the doctrine, are the name " Emmanuel" applied to Christ in the 
 same sense as it was given to a child born in the lifetime of Isaiah ; 
 not by the historian, but by an angel : and a clause in the baptismal 
 commission, which no more proves the "Proper Deity of Christ," 
 than a precisely similar phrase in the Epistles of St. Paul proves 
 that Moses had also a Supreme and Proper Deity of his own. I 
 have looked into the writings of several Trinitarian divines and ex- 
 positors, both before the present discussion was talked of and since ; 
 and I have not found, that any other passage in the Gospel of Mat- 
 thew that is supposed to contain any thing like a direct assertion 
 of the " Proper Deiiy of Christ." We have seen that neither of these 
 assertions, or supposed assertions, is direct ; and neither of them is 
 given in the words of the historian himself. How are we to account 
 for this wonderful silence of the holy Apostle ? Are we to suppose 
 with Athanasius, — that renowned champion of orthodoxy, — that 
 the venerable Evangelist wilfully concealed the truth, lest it might 
 offend the prejudices of his countrymen, as well as of the Gentiles? 
 If so, we give to his discretion what we take from his veracity and 
 historical credit. 
 But our astonishment is increased, when we find that Mark — 
 
16 
 
 who made Matthew's Gospel the foundation of an independent 
 narrative — observes an equal silence ; that Luke, who evidently had 
 the works of his predecessors before his eye, when composing his 
 narrative, is equally reserved ; and that John only mentions, or is 
 supposed to mention, the doctrine in his own words, in one passage 
 of his Gospel, — the commencement of it, — to which Mr. Bagot's se- 
 cond Proposition obviously refers, and to which I shall probably 
 address myself in some remark, before this discussion closes. 
 
 Now, my Christian friends and brethren, I ask you is this proba- 
 ble? Is this the way you would have conveyed a knowledge of this 
 unspeakably important and interesting truth, had you been in the 
 situation of the evangelists ? Put yourselves for a moment in the 
 place of these illustrious disciples. Assume to yourselves the feel- 
 ings of warm, affectionate, and grateful attachment to your Saviour, 
 with which his personal friends must have been animated. Add to 
 their veneration for his character, and their respect for his authority, 
 and their regret for his sorrows, their exultation and transport at 
 witnessing his resurrection and ascension. Add (o all these the 
 sentiments which they must have cherished for their Lord and Mas- 
 ter, if they knew the statement in Mr. Bagot's proposition to be true. 
 Suppose all these feelings yours ; and that, with all these feelings 
 strong upon you you sat down to write his history. Would you, I 
 ask, — would you have passed over this wonderful and awful event as 
 they have done ? I fearlessly pronounce, that you would not, and 
 could not have done so. It is not in human nature. The doctrine, 
 therefore, unless it be supported by testimonies far more numerous 
 in quantity and far more explicit in kind than these usually adduced 
 out of the evangelical records, cannot be true. If it had been true, 
 it would not have been left to be gathered, or inferred, or collected, 
 from hints, inuendoes, allusions, — from minute criticism, and the 
 doctrine of the Greek article. If it had been true, it would have 
 shone forth in every page ; it would have adorned every paragraph ; 
 it would have illuminated every line. But so far is this from being 
 the case, that I am willing to rest the whole cause on an examina- 
 tion of any one of the Evangelists. Let us begin with the beginning, 
 — go through every passage fromthecommencementto the close; let 
 us consider seriatim the different statements made respecting our 
 Saviour in the order in which they occur ; and it will then be speed- 
 ily seen, on which side the weight of scriptural testimony lies. I 
 venture to affirm, that Mr. Bagot will not have adduced three hints 
 or allusions to the doctrine of the Supreme Deity and Perfect Man- 
 hood of Christ as united in one person, until I shall have quoted 
 three hundred direct proofs to the contrary. On such a regular and 
 orderly examination of any one Evangelist throughout, I am willing 
 to rest the cause. 
 
 The arguments which it will be my duty to bring forward, will 
 be very different from those which have hitherto been adduced on 
 the other side. In place of the hints, allusions, and forged texts 
 which are so often paraded as proofs of the Trinity, I will bring for- 
 ward a class of texts, plain, direct, and unimpeachable, directly 
 affirming the doctrine which I defend, and from which I take my 
 
IT 
 
 desio^nrxtion as a Unitarian — namely, the Divine Unity : affirming; it 
 not with exception and reservation of a threefold distinction of per- 
 sons, subsistences, or hypostases ; but plainly, directly, absolutely, 
 and unreservedly. And I shall, for this purpose, (|Uote such texts 
 as — 
 
 Delt. vi. 4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our GoJ, is One Lord [«. e. Jeiio- 
 TAH our God is One Jehovah]. 
 
 IsA. xxxvii. 16. O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, thou art the God, even 
 thou alone of all the kingdoms of the earth. [20.] 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. 
 
 Zecii. xiv. 9. Jehovah shall be king over all the earth. In that day there 
 shall be one Jehovah, and his name one. 
 
 Nehem. ix. 6. Thou, even thou, art Jehovah alone : thou hast made 
 heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host; • • • and thou preservest them 
 alL 
 
 Mark xii. 29. Jesus answered him, The first of all the eommandments is. 
 Hear, O Israel, the Loud our God is one Lord ! [30.] And thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. • * • •■ 
 [32.] And the scribe (with whom he had been conversing) said unto him. 
 Well, Master! thou hast said the truth: for there is one God, and there i« 
 none other but He. ** • [3t.] And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, 
 he said. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God ! 
 
 Gal. iii. 20. • * • God is one ! 
 I shall next brin",' forward plain, downright, and intellijjible asser- 
 tions, that the "Father" alone is the one Being, who is asserted to 
 be God alone, to the entire exclusion of all others. I challeng-e 
 ]VIr. Bagot to bring forward any similar declarations respecting God 
 the Son, or God the Word, if the phrase pleases him better; — to say 
 nothing of God the Holy Ghost ; — whom, indeed, it is quite custom- 
 ary to pass over in silence, in the present argument : why this is the 
 case I do not know ; for if he be God as much as either of the other 
 two, he has surely as good a right to he put prominently forward as 
 they. Under this division of my subject, I shall adduce such au- 
 thorities as — 
 
 Matt, xxiii. 9. One is your Father who is in heaven. 
 
 \. Cor. viii. 4 — 6. • • ♦ There is none other God but One: for though there 
 be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many 
 and Lords many,) yet to us ttiere is but One God, the Father, of whom are all 
 things, and we in him, &e. 
 
 Eph. iv. 6.. There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, and 
 through all, and in you all. 
 
 Matt. x. 29 — 31. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing.' And one of 
 them shall not fall on the ground without your Father ! 
 
 Luke x. 21. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O 
 Father, Lord of heaven and earth. * • • Even so. Father, &c.— See Matt. 
 xi. 25. 
 
 I shall then advert to a number of passages in which our Lord 
 Jesus Christ is expressly distinguished from the one God, in such a 
 manner, as to prove that his alleged Deity is entirely excluded by 
 those passages which assert the sole Supremacy of the Father. With 
 this view I shall refer to such texts as — 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 Mahk X. 18. Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? There is 
 none good but one ; that is, God ! 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is One God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 John xvii. 3. This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only 
 TRUE God, — and — Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ! 
 
 Mark xiii. 32. Of that day, and that hour, knowetb no man ; no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, — but the father ! 
 
 Matt. xii. 50. Whosoever shall do the will of iny Father who is in heaven, 
 the same is my brother, &c. 
 
 I shall then advert to the passages which contain the doctrine 
 of the New Testament, respecting religious worship ; which show 
 that, according- to the example and precepts of Christ, and the prac- 
 tice of his disciples, the Father is the only being to whom it can be 
 presented ; and, accordingly, that he is the only true God, to whom 
 all homage and veneration are due. The passages which I shall 
 adduce under this head are such as the following : 
 
 Matt. vi. 6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet; and when 
 thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father who is in secret ; and thy Father, 
 who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. 
 
 Matt. vi. 9, After this manner therefore pray ye : Our Father, who art 
 in heaven, &c. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 19. Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on 
 earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of 
 MY Father who is in heaven. 
 
 Luke x, 21. At that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, 
 
 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the 
 wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes ; even so, Father, for so it 
 seemed good in thy sight. ^ 
 
 This verse not only marks a plain line of distinction between our Sa- 
 viour and the Father, but proves that our Lord addressed his prayers 
 only to the Father ; which is confirmed, among other texts, by — 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 39, And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, 
 saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless 
 not as I will, but as thou wilt ! 
 
 After bringing forward these proofs in support — I might say in 
 demonstration — of the doctrine contained in my first proposition, I 
 shall advert in support of my second, to the names, titles, and desig- 
 nationSj commonly bestowed upon our Lord Jesus Christ in Scrip- 
 ture ; and I shall be able to prove, that these are a// such as we 
 know, either from their own nature, or from the express assertions 
 of the Sacred Writers, to be expressive of inferiority. Of these 
 
 1 may now enumerate the terms, " Word," — " Son of Ged,'^ — "Child 
 of God," — " the Son," — " the Son of Man," — " Man," — " Christ," — 
 '"' Prophet,"—" Apostle,"—" the Sent," — " the Mediator,"—" the 
 Anointed." 
 
 I shall next bring forward a numerous array of passages, in which 
 it is expressly declared, that Christ was created by the Father; and 
 that he received from him existence, wisdom, power, authority, and 
 dignity — that he is in all things subordinate and inferior to the 
 Father ; and expressly disclaimed a participation of the divine attri- 
 
19 
 
 butes in lhi\t unlimited sense in which they helonfj to God. Now, 
 you will observe, that for all these thin-^s I shall adduce, not hints, 
 or innucndos, or inferences, but plain, direct, and explicit assertions : 
 and I challenge Mr. Bagot to bring forward, either any assertions of 
 the same kind, respecting God, the Father ; or any assertions, equally 
 plain and palpable, respecting the dignity which he assigns to our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. On the contrary, I shall prove before you, by 
 quotations of Scripture, that those expressions which are commonly 
 brought forward as proofs on this side, are freely ascribed to other 
 persons whose Supreme Deity nobody dreams of asserting ; and that, 
 when the Sacred Writers celebrate, in the highest strains, the glory 
 and dignity of the Saviour, they do, at the same time, couple with 
 their praises expressions which plainly intimate, that, whatever Christ 
 is, how high so ever his titles, and how exalted so ever his rank, he 
 is, and has all, of and from the Father ; and whatever the respect and 
 honour which is his due, it is to redound ultimately to the glory of 
 the Father. Now, this is exactly the pure Unitarian doctrine j and 
 if I prove these things, I prove my point. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT.— I shall not occupy either your time or my own 
 with a Jong introduction. I appear before you this day in conse- 
 quence of what I consider a challenge from Mr. Porter, to discuss 
 with him one of the most important doctrines of Christianity — the 
 True Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 • I enter upon this solemn undertaking with the most perfect per- 
 suasion, that the progress of the glorious Gospel of the ever-blessed 
 God cannot be impeded, however it might be the Lord's pleasure, 
 in some way to advance it, by the result of this controversy. He 
 to whom the shields of the earth belong has infinite resources at 
 command, and can easily over-rule every circumstance to the pro- 
 motion of his glory. AVhatever may be the sentiments of individuals 
 as to the propriety of such a discussion, I must take the liberty to 
 insist, that, when the challenge had once appeared, I had but one 
 course to follow, namely, to accept it ; and I trust that, in so doing, 
 I have been solely influenced by a sense of duty. There are, I am 
 aware, two classes of persons in this assembly. To those who agree 
 with me in sentiment, I would earnestly say. Let me have your fer- 
 vent prayers, that he who was with Paul when no man stood beside 
 him — who said to him in the hour of trial, " My grace is sufficient 
 for thee;;my strength is perfected in weakness ; and who promised 
 to his Apostles a mouth and a wisdom which none of their adver- 
 saries could gainsay or resist, — would grant me a spirit of humility, 
 energy, and judgment, and enable me to speak the truth in love, so 
 as to glorify his holy name, And to those who differ from me I 
 would affectionately say, I do not come here as your enemy, but as 
 your friend. I am influenced, I trust, neither by bigotry, prejudice, 
 nor sectarian animosity ; but simply by a desire to proclaim and en- 
 force what I consider to be the very essence and vitality of the 
 Christian religion. I would earnestly disclaim the entertainment of 
 
any personal antipathy towards those who differ from me in religious 
 opinion ; and am at all times ready to concede to others that full 
 credit for disinterested sincerity which I claim for myself ; though I 
 should be sorry to compromise for one moment the importance 
 which I believe the Word of God attaches to the sentiments I hold, 
 by not plainly declaring my impression, that those who reject them 
 are in a state of dangerous error. I do, then, expect that we shall 
 both be heard with candour and indulgence by those who differ 
 from our respective views ; and I shall be much disappointed if this 
 discussion will not excite a greater spirit of religious inquiry, and a 
 greater disposition to search the Scriptures with studiousand prayer- 
 ful investigation, and circulate a greater feeling of courtesy and 
 social kindness amongst persons of opposite religious opinions, than, 
 I am sorry to say, has hitherto prevailed. 
 
 I shall proceed, without any further introduction, to demonstrate 
 the truth of the propositions! have proposed to defend, according to 
 Scripture. 
 
 My FIRST proposition asserts, that there is but one God, 
 Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged 
 godhead of every creature. For this I advance the following proofs: 
 
 Deut. vi. 4, Hear,'0 Israel ! the Lord our God is one Lord. 
 
 John xvii. 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. 
 
 1 Cob. viii. 4 — 6. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that 
 are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, 
 and that there is none other God but one : for though there be that are called 
 Gods, whether in heaven or earth, (as there be Gods many and Lords many,) 
 but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we Jn 
 him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 
 
 Eph. iv. 6. One God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, 
 and in you all. 
 
 To these I might add many more passages ; but these are amply 
 sufficient to prove, that there is but One God, to the entire exclusion 
 of the alleged godhead of every real or fictitious creature. I would 
 here request every one to draw a clear distinction between the ex- 
 clusion of all independent beings from the Godhead, and the inclusion 
 of three Divine Persons in that One Godhead. Whilst I not only ad- 
 mit, but maintain, that the texts above quoted, and others of a 
 similar form, are quite satisfactory in proving the exclusion of every 
 created being from Deity, I maintain that they do not contradict 
 the doctrine which teaches the inclusion of Three Persons in the 
 One Deity of the Bible. This leads me to state and prove my 
 SECOND proposition, viz. : 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is the Word made flesh, 
 perfect God and perfect man ; possessing, as the Word, the same 
 eternity, knowledge, power, authority, prerogatives, and Godhead 
 with the Father, and one with him in all attributes. 
 
 This proposition refers to the Lord Jesus Christ in three points 
 of view ; as being the Mediator ; as being perfect man ; and as being 
 perfect God, one God with the Father. 
 
21 
 
 1. That he is Mediator is asserted in the following, amongst 
 other passages: 
 
 1. Tim. ii. 5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Heb. viii. 6. By how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant. 
 
 Heb. ix. 15. For tliis cause he is the Mediator of the new testament. 
 
 I would here remark, that a mediator is one who assumes (he 
 office of interposition between two parlies who are at variance, in 
 order to eft'ect a reconciliation. This defination will not, at least in 
 a general point of view, be questioned. What I wish principally to 
 remark, in reference to it, is, that a mediator must necessarily be, as 
 long as he sustains the office, subordinate to one of the parties : 
 therefore the Lord Jesus Christ, as Mediator, is, in ihat capacity, 
 subordinate to God the Father ; and, consequently, wherever he is 
 spoken of in Scripture in that capacity, we naturally expect to find 
 clear evidences of his subordination ; and as the New Testament 
 professes to be a history of his mediatorial work, we naturally find 
 it full of evidences of his mediatorial subordination. Upon this prin- 
 ciple, therefore, it is quite natural to find the Mediator asserting 
 that his doctrine is not his own, but his that sent him (John vii. 16); 
 that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world 
 (John x. 86) ; that he came to do his Father's will (John v. 30) ; 
 that, during the period of his continuing on earth, as Mediator, his 
 "Father was greater than he" (John xiv. 28); and that as his medi- 
 atorial kingdom had a beginning, so when the purposes for which it 
 was instituted shall be accomplished, it shall have a termination 
 Avhen he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the 
 Father (1 Cor. xv. 24 to 28). 
 
 2. The proposition asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect 
 man ; by which I mean that he possessed a true human soul and 
 body. Of this I submit the following proofs : 
 
 (1.) He is called a man in several passages of Scripture, and 
 without any qualifying expression which would lead us to attach to 
 the word any other than the ordinary signification ; as in Acts ii. 22. 
 " A man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and 
 signs, which God did by him;" and 1 Tim. ii. 5. "There is one 
 Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
 
 (2.) lie displayed, during his continuance on earth, every cha- 
 racteristic of a complete, but sinless humanity. 
 
 (3.) His mind, as man, possessed the same characteristics as a 
 proper human mind should possess. It w^as capable of acquirinoi- 
 knowledge progressively, as his human body was only capable of 
 increasing in stature progressively (I;UKE ii. 52) ; and after all its 
 acquisitions, it was capable only of a limited knowledge; for there 
 were some things which the man Christ Jesus was ignorant of (as of 
 the hour of judgment, Mark xiii. 32). An omniscient human mind 
 is a contradiction, in terms. 
 
 But on the subject of our Saviour's humanity, it will be sufficient 
 
to refer to two comprehensive passap^es in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews: the former in IIeb. ii. 14. "Forasmuch then as the children 
 are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the 
 same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power 
 of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of 
 death were all their lifetime subject to bondage :" — the latter is in 
 Heb. ii. 17, 18. *' Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made 
 like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high, 
 priest in things pertaining to God." From these passages it appears 
 that Christ's human nature was assumed, in order that he might 
 become capable of dying, so as thereby to effect our deliverance; 
 and also in order that, by a personal experience in our infirmities, he 
 might feel such a sympathy with us, as would give us a confidence 
 in his faithfulness and mercy. And when we consider how much of 
 our sinfulness and misery results from our ignorance, it is manifest 
 that in order to lay the foundation for a perfect sympathy, he must 
 have assumed the ignorance of human nature. He was, in fact, "in 
 all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. iv. 15. 
 
 I would here remark, that in his human nature the Lord Jesus 
 ■Christ was dependent upon, and inferior to Deity, Hence, as the 
 four Gospels profess to be a history of the " days of his flesh," we 
 naturally find them containing copious proofs of his dependence and 
 inferiority. But such proofs have nothing to do with the distinct 
 and independent question of his Deity. 
 
 3. The proposition asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect 
 God ; possessing the same eternity, knowledge, power, authority, 
 prerogatives, and godhead with the Father, and one with him in all 
 attributes. 
 
 I shall simply rest this doctrine upon the testimony of our mu- 
 tually acknowledged standard, the word of God. And, as the Bible 
 professes to be a revelation of facts, and not of the explanations 
 of facts or of mysteries, — I shall, throughout the entire discussion, 
 consider this doctrine entirely as a question of fact, to be affirmed 
 or denied by testimony, and shall not enter into any metaphysical 
 disquisitions which would involve any inquiry into its possibility. 
 
 The simple argument by which it appears to me that this doc- 
 trine is to be proved, may be thus stated : 
 
 The only way by which we can ascertain the God of the Bible, 
 is, by allowing our minds to be guided by that revelation of the 
 peculiar attributes and prerogatives of Deity, which the Bible pre- 
 sents, so as to admit and recognize the Deity of whatever person 
 these attributes and prerogatives " of Deity are associated with. 
 Now upon this principle, if I found that the attributes and preroga- 
 tives of Deity were ascribed to a person, whom, at the same time, 
 I found to be designated by the name of Isaiah or Peter, 1 would, 
 of course, argue for the Deity of Isaiah or Peter, and maintain that 
 they were manifestations of the Godhead in human nature. But 
 this I do not find to be the case. I find, however, that the peculiar 
 attributes and prerogatives of true and perfect Godhead are in 
 Scripture associated with him who is, at the same time, designated 
 
23 
 
 the Lord Jesus Christ; that he is represented to our view as pos- 
 sessintj the same characteristics and divine privileges with the Father 
 (^whose Deity I here assumej. — And, therefore, whilst I fully main- 
 tain that there is but one God, I at the same time, submit to the 
 force uf all these scriptural proofs, by maintain injjj that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is in a sense distinct from, but consistent with, his 
 assumed condition as Man and Mediator; One God with the Father. 
 This is a statement of the general argument, the logical validity 
 of which will not be questioned, because it is based upon the same 
 principles by which our opponents prove the Deity of the Father. 
 I shall now proceed to adduce, in detail, the scriptural proofs by 
 which I substantiate this general argument. 
 
 L I SHALL. BRINK FORWARD PROOFS OP THE NAME3, ATTRI- 
 BUTES, AND PREROGATIVES OF DeITY BEING ASCRIBED TO ChRIST ; 
 
 viz. 
 
 In Isaiah vii. 14, we read the following passage : " Behold a 
 virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Imma- 
 nuel ;" which is asserted by Matthew to be a prophecy of the 
 nativity of Christ, containing a descriptive designation of his person : 
 " Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, 
 and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which, being interpreted, 
 is God with us." JMatth. i. 23. 
 
 In IsA. ix. 6, 7, the prophet, having spoken of Christ in refer- 
 ence to his human nature as " the child born," immediately describes 
 him in contrast to this, as the " mighty God," or strong God," and 
 as invested with everlasting dominion : "For unto us a child is born, 
 unto us a son is given ; and the government shall be upon his shoul- 
 der ; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty 
 God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of 
 his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of 
 David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with 
 judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever: the zeal 
 of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this." The reference of this 
 prophecy to Christ is evident : 1st, from its connexion with Isa. vii, 
 14, of which the application to him is confirmed by Matthew; 
 2dly, from the application of the 1st and second verses to Christ, in 
 Matt. iv. 14 to IG; and from the virtual application of the passage 
 itself to him, in Luke i. 32 and 33 ; and, 3dly, from the fact that the 
 description of person and character contained in this prophecy will 
 not comport with any other person. 
 
 In Jeremiah xxiii. 5 and 6, the personal glory and mediatorial 
 value of Christ are described by the complex title of "Jehovah our 
 righteousness." — " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I 
 will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and 
 prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; in his 
 days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is 
 his name whereby he shall be called. The Lord our righteousness." 
 
 In Mic. v. 2, the prophet, having foretold Christ's coming forth 
 from Bethlehem, immediately adduces, in contrast with this, a de- 
 
24 
 
 scription which asserts his strict eternity : "But thou, Bethlehem 
 Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet 
 out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Is- 
 rael ; ivhose goings forth have been from of old, of everlasting. The 
 application of this passage to Christ is proved by reference to Matth. 
 ii. 16, and John vii. 42. 
 
 In Mal. iii. 1, the prophet speaks of Christ by a distinct refer- 
 ence to his Deity and to his mediatorial office : "Behold I will send 
 ray Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me ; and the 
 Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple; even the 
 Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold he shall 
 come, saith the Lord of Hosts." The application of this passage to 
 Christ is clearly asserted in Mark i. 2. And as it describes the 
 temple in Jerusalem as being "his temple," it is evident that he was 
 the God of the temple, or else it was consecrated to idolatry. 
 
 In liUKE i. 17, we find Christ designated as the "Lord the God of 
 Israel." — " And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the 
 Lord their God, and he shall go before him in the spirit and power 
 of Elias," &c. That Christ is here intended there can be no ques- 
 tion, especially when we read the words of the Baptist in John iii. 
 28. " I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him." 
 
 In JoHN^ i. 1, Christ's Deity is expressly asserted, under the desig- 
 nation of the Word : " In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
 
 In John i. 3, the Apostle shows that he understands Christ, as the 
 Word, to be God in the strict and true sense, by ascribing to him, 
 both positively and negatively, the creation of all things : " All 
 things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made 
 that was made." 
 
 Also, in verse 10, he ascribes to him the creation of the world in 
 which he was : " He was in the world, and the world was made by 
 him, and the world knew him not." 
 
 In John iii. 13, we learn that Christ was in heaven (which he 
 could only be in his divine nature), whilst he was in his human 
 nature conversing with Nicodemus, "And no man hath ascended 
 up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of 
 man, which is in heaven." 
 
 Christ permitted his disciples to ascribe to him the faculty of 
 omniscience, without rejecting it, in John xvi. 30 : " Now we are 
 sure that thou knowest all "things, &c.; and in John xxi. 17 : "Lord, 
 thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." 
 
 In John xx. 28, two titles of Deity are ascribed to the Saviour, 
 with his full approbation : " And Thomas answered and said unto 
 him. My Lord and my God." 
 
 In Rom. ix. 5, we read, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, 
 as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for 
 ever." In this passage there are four distinct attributes of true 
 Deity referred to Christ, in respect of that nature of his which is not 
 
85 
 
 " according to the flesh," viz. the title " God ;" the attrihute of 
 supremacy and eternity ; and the title " blessed," which, of itself, 
 without any adjunct, implies true Deity, as is evident from Mark 
 xiv, 61. " Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ?" 
 
 Phil. ii. 5 — 8. " Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ 
 Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God : but made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
 him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; 
 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be- 
 came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ; wherefore 
 God also hath highly exalted him," &c. In this passage Christ is 
 spoken of in three respects; — 1st, as to his pre-existent state, in the 
 form of God ; 2dly, as to his humiliation in the flesh ; and 3dly, as 
 to his subsequent mediatorial exaltation by the Father. — The first 
 view is that upon which I rest the argument for his Deity. 
 
 The independent and unlimited power of Christ is asserted iu 
 Phil. iii. 21. " Who shall change our vile body, that it may be 
 fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working (or 
 energy) whereby he is able even to subdue all things nnto himself." 
 
 The priority of Christ to a/^ created things, and the creation and 
 preservation of all things by him, is asserted in Col. i. Id — 17 : 
 " Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every 
 creature : 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 
 bim, and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all things 
 consist." — This last clause, also, necessarily implies his possession 
 of an existence coextended with his works. 
 
 The Deity of Christ is asserted in Col. ii. 9. " For in him dwell- 
 eth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
 
 In I Tim. iii. 16, we have a proof that he who was manifest in 
 the flesh, was God : whether we read the passage as it stands in 
 our English translation, and as Griesbach sanctioned in his first 
 edition, " And, without controversy, great is the mystery of godli- 
 ness ; God was manifest in the flesh," &c. or, thus, according to 
 Griesbach's second edition, " But, if I tarry long, that thou mayest 
 know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God (which 
 is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth ; and 
 without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness) ; who was 
 manifest in the flesh," &c. — For, in this case, the last masculine 
 antecedent, which could agree with the relative " who," is " God." 
 
 In TiTCS ii. 13, we read, "Looking for that blessed hope, and 
 the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." — As the glorious appearing here spoken of refers to Christ's 
 coming to judgment, the application of the title " great God" to 
 him is apparent. 
 
 In Heb. i. 2, Christ is spoken of as the Heir and Creator of all 
 things : " Whom he (i. e. the Father) hath appointed heir of all 
 things, by whom also he made the worlds." 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 In Heb. i. 3, we read, "Who being the brightness of his glory, 
 and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the 
 word of his power," &c. — In these words two remarkable epithets are 
 given to Christ, which imply his perfect oneness in glory and sub- 
 sistence with the Father; and also the work of Providence is ex- 
 pressly referred to him. 
 
 In Heb. i, 6, he is represented as the proper object of worship to 
 the angels : " When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the 
 world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." 
 
 In Heb. i. 8, the Father is represented as addressing the Son in 
 language which necessarily implies his possession of Deity and of 
 everlasting dominion : " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," 
 &c. — These words being a quotation from the 45th Psalm, show 
 that we are to understand the description of Deity which that Psalm 
 contains as relating to Christ. 
 
 In Heb. i, 10, the Father is represented as addressing to the Son 
 a quotation from the 102d Psalm: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning 
 hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works 
 of thine hands : they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all 
 shall wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold 
 them up, and they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy 
 years shall not fail." In this passage, Christ is addressed as the 
 Creator, the beginning and the end of all things, and as invested 
 with the eternity and immutability of Deity. 
 
 N. B. The first chapter of Hebrews, from which the last five proofs have 
 been extracted, also contains passages of an independent nature, in which the 
 mediatorial character and subordination of the Son is mentioned, in contrast 
 with these ascriptions of the peculiarities of Deity. 
 
 In Hebrews xiii. 8, immutability is ascribed to Christ by the 
 same Greek expression (o auroi) as in chap. i. 12, and with an ad- 
 dition similar to that which is connected with that term in the latter 
 passage : " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;" — 
 a declaration parallel to, but more emphatic than the other, "Thou 
 art the same, and thy years shall not fail." 
 
 In 1 John v. 20, Christ is styled the true God, as is evident not 
 merely from the grammatical construction of the passage, but also 
 from the connexion of that title with the title of " eternal life," 
 which is used as a designation of Christ, as distinguished from the 
 Father, in the 2d verse of the 1st chapter of this Epistle : " And 
 we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under- 
 standing, that we may know liim that is true ; and we are in him 
 that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, 
 and eternal life." 
 
 In Rev. i. 8, we read, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning 
 and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, which was, and which is to 
 come, the Almighty." — Upon this passage we remark, that although 
 we believe it to be the language of Christ, yet our argument is as 
 strong, if not stronger, by submitting to the interpretation which 
 refers it to God the Father ; for, according to this view, the passage 
 
2T 
 
 characterizes the Father by the very same divine titles which are 
 assumed by Christ in the 17th and ]8th verses of the same chapter; 
 and consistency requires that we should not give a difTerent inter- 
 pretation to the very same terms in the two cases. 
 
 In Rev. i. 17, the title of First and Last is assumed by Christ : 
 "Fear not, I am the first and the last;" also in chap. ii. 8, "These 
 things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive;" and 
 in Rev. xxii. 13, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the 
 end, the first and the last." 
 
 In Rev. xvii. 14, two titles of Deity are ascribed to Christ : 
 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall over- 
 come them ; for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords;" and also 
 in chap. xix. 16, "And he hath on his vesture, and on his thigh, a 
 name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords." 
 
 In the following passages the title "God" is applied to Christ: 
 EpHES. v. 5, " In the kingdom of Christ and of God," which, ac- 
 cording to the Greek, might be more distinctly rendered, " In the 
 kingdom of him who is Christ and God." — 2 Thess. i. 12, "Accord- 
 ing to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ,'' or "of our 
 God and Lord Jesus Christ."— 2 Pet. i. 1, "Through the righteous- 
 ness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," or " of our God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 In 1 John iii. 2 and 5, Christ is spoken of under the title of 
 " God :" — " Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet 
 appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, 
 we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is." "And ye know 
 that/te was manifested to take away our sins." — It is evident that the 
 person designated in these two verses by the pronoun " he" is the 
 Lord Jesus Christ; but, grammatically speaking, this pronoun must 
 refer to the word " God" in the second verse; therefore Christ is here 
 styled God. 
 
 We advance the following proofs of Christ's having received and 
 recognised, whilst upon earth, many acts of homage and petition, 
 which, if he were a merely created being, he should have rejected 
 upon a principle of piety, and because such honours were of too high 
 a nature to be paid to any but one -invested with true and proper 
 Deity. — Matth. viii. 2. "There came a leper, and worshipped him, 
 saying, Lord, ij" thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Mark 
 describes the circumstance thus, chap. i. 40. "There came a leper, 
 beseeching him, and kneeling down to him;'' and Luke v. 12. "fell 
 on his face, and besought him, saying," &c. The answer of our 
 Saviour completely recognised, and therefore justified, as correct the 
 ascription of personal ability which the entreaty contained, "/ loill: 
 be thou clean." — IMatth- ix. 18. "There came a certain ruler, and 
 worshipped him." Luke expresses it, chap. viii. 41. "He fell down 
 at Jesus' feet." — Matth. xiv. 33. "They that were in the ship came 
 and worshipped him, saying, " Of a truth thou art the Son of God." 
 — Matth. xv. 25. "Then came she and worshipjied him, saying. 
 Lord, help me." Mark says, chap. vii. 25. " She fell at his feet."— 
 
28 
 
 Upon these instances we remark, that they are as express and posi- 
 tive acts of devotion, as that which Peter is described as refusing 
 from Cornelius, in Acts x. 25. " As Peter was coming in, Cornelius 
 met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him; but Peter 
 took him up, saying, Stand up, I myself also am a man :" and that — 
 as the apostle Paul defines idolatry, in Rom. i. 25. to consist in 
 worshipping and serving the creature besides the Creator" (for so 
 'Tra^a, in the Greek, should be translated) our Saviour would have 
 displayed an equal concern for maintaining the exclusive preroga- 
 tives of God, if God had been an infinitely superior being to him, to 
 ■whom he was indebted for existence, and whom he ought therefore 
 to have worshipped himself. 
 
 In the 45th Psalm, the application of which to Christ is proved 
 in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read this 
 command in the 11th verse, addressed to the Church: "He is thy 
 Lord, and worship thou him.'' 
 
 In Luke xxiv. 51, 52, the Apostles are described as having wor- 
 shipped him immediately after his ascension : " And it came to pass, 
 while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into 
 heaven, and they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with 
 great joy." 
 
 In Acts i. 24, the Apostles are represented as thus praying to 
 liim, and at the same time ascribing to him a knowledge peculiar to 
 Deity : " And they prayed and said. Thou, Lord, who knowest the 
 hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen." — It 
 is evident that the Lord here addressed was the Lord Jesus, as he 
 had originally chosen the twelve Apostles, as they were to be his 
 Apostles, and as the election of a successor to Judas properly be- 
 longed to Christ's mediatorial office as " head over all things to his 
 Church." 
 
 In Acts xiv. 23, we read, "And when they had prayed (or, pray- 
 ing to) with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom 
 they believed." — The Lord on whom they believed was manifestly 
 Christ. 
 
 In Acts vii. 59, 60, we read, "And they stoned Stephen, invoking 
 and saying. Lord Jesus receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, 
 and cried with a loud voice. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." — 
 Here the dying martyr is represented, in the most solemn manner, as 
 addressing to Christ two prayers, the very same as those which the 
 Saviour, " in the days of his flesh," offered up to his Father on the 
 cross, and also as ascribing to Christ the very same divine powers 
 and prerogatives as Christ ascribed to his Father; and, at the same 
 time, we are told that Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and there- 
 fore incapable of an act of idolatry. 
 
 In 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9, we read, " For this cause I besought the 
 Lord thrice that it (the thorn in the flesh) might depart from me. 
 And he said unto me, "My grace is sufficient for thee: my strength 
 is made perfect in weakness." — The Lord to whom the Apostle 
 prayed is then said to be Christ: "Most gladly therefore will I ra- 
 
29 
 
 iher glory in my infirmities, that the power (or strength) of Christ 
 may rest upon me." Now here we have an instance of repeated prayer 
 to the Saviour, by an apostle who has elsewhere said : " In every 
 thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests 
 be made known unto God." Phil. iv. 6. 
 
 In Rev. iv. 17, we read this command : "Worship him that made 
 heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ;" which 
 is equivalent to an express and direct command to worship Christ ; 
 for " by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are 
 in earth." Col. i. 16. 
 
 So frequent was the practice of praying to Christ in the Apostolic 
 Church, that its members were characterised and known by a title 
 derived from the custom ; as in the language of Ananias, in Acts 
 ix. 14. " And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind 
 all that call on thy name ;'' and of Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 2. "And unto 
 all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 In Rev. v. 14, Christ is represented as the object of worship to 
 the inmates of heaven : " And the four beasts said. Amen ; and the 
 four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for 
 ever and ever ;" for this description of the person whom they wor- 
 shipped, is identically the same as that by which Christ designates 
 himself, in ch. i. 18. " I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold 
 I am alive for evermore." In the Greek the expressions are precisely 
 the same in the two passages ; or, if we exclude the words " him that 
 liveth for ever and ever" from the text of Rev. v. 14, as Griesbach 
 does, we have then a more rfirec^ argument; for the passage will read 
 thus : " The elders fell down and worshipped ;" i. e. they worshipped 
 " him that sitteth upon the throne and the Lamb," mentioned in the 
 preceding verse. 
 
 The book of the Revelation closes with a solemn prayer to Christ, 
 chap. xxii. 20 : " Even so come. Lord Jesus." 
 
 II. I shall now produce another class of proofs; namely, 
 
 PASSAGES IN WHICH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OR PREROGATIVES ARE AS- 
 CRIBED IN COMMON TO ChRIST, AND JeHOVAH, OR GOD. 
 
 The kingdom of God is represented as the kingdom of Christ, 
 Eph. v. 5: "No whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous 
 man which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of 
 Christ and of God." 
 
 The Apostles are the servants of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 in the same sense, as in James i. 1 : " James, a servant of God and 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ;" for there is not any expression here which 
 could convey the idea of any distinction. 
 
 Christ, under the designation of the Lamb, is associated with 
 "him that sitteth upon the throne," as the object of worship and 
 adoration to the inhabitants of heaven; as in Rev. v. 1 1 — 13 : "And 
 I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the 
 
30 
 
 throne, and the beasts and the elders : and the number of them was 
 ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands; saying 
 with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive 
 power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, 
 and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
 earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that 
 are in them, heard I saying. Blessing, and honour, and glory, and 
 power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, 
 for ever and ever." — Now upon the principle asserted by Isaiah, chap, 
 xlviii. 11, " that God will not give his glory to another," and also as 
 there could not be idolatry or creature-worship in heaven, "the Lamb 
 that was slain" must have been invested with the One Godhead with 
 the Father, in order to justify his being thus associated with the 
 Father, as the object of the most sublime, ample, and emphatic as- 
 cription of homage which the Bible contains. 
 
 In Rev. xx. 6, we read that they who have part in the first resur- 
 rection, " shall be priests of God and of Christ." Now, as a priest 
 is the servant of Deity, this passage either inculcates idolatry, or the 
 doctrine of the Deity of Christ. 
 
 By comparing Rev, xxii. 6 with Rev. xxii. 16, we have a strong 
 proof by Christ's Deity. The former passage is, " The Lord God of 
 the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things 
 which must shortly be done." The latter passage is, "I Jesus have 
 sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the church." 
 Now the angel sent is, in both these verses, asserted to be the angel 
 of the Sender, who is called in one passage, " the Lord God of the 
 holy prophets," and in the other " Jesus." The inference is una- 
 voidable, that these are two designations of Christ. 
 
 In the Epistle of Paul to Titus, the Apostle, in speaking upon • 
 the redemption by Christ, uses indifferently the expressions "God our 
 Saviour," and " Christ our Saviour," in such a form as to identify 
 God and Christ. As, for instance, Titus i. 3, "According to the 
 commandment of God our Saviour;" chap. i. 4, " Grace, mercy, and 
 peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour ;" 
 chap. ii. 10, " That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour 
 in all things ;'' chap. ii. 13, " The glorious appearing of the great 
 God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ; " chap. iii. 4, "The kindness and 
 love of God our Saviour towards man ;" chap. iii. 6, "Which he shed 
 on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." — Now upon 
 these verses, I remark, that it is to salvation in the highest sense of 
 the word to which the apostle alludes ; but Jehovah has said (Isa. 
 xliii. 11), "I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no 
 Saviour:" it therefore follows, unavoidably, that the names "Christ" 
 and " God," which are interchanged in the above passages and in 
 many others, are common designations of the one Saviour. Or if 
 we even admit that the title "God our Saviour" refers to the Father, 
 still as Christ is also called our Saviour in the same sense, the same 
 conclusion must follow, that he is One God with the Father, since it 
 is the universal doctrine of the Bible, that there is but one Saviour 
 in the sense spoken of in these passages. 
 
31 
 
 III. I SriALL NOW ADTANCE A THIRD CLASS OF PROOFS ; NAMELY, 
 OF INSTANCES IN WHICH DECLARATIONS AND ASCRIPTIONS PECU- 
 LIARLY REFERRING TO DEITY IN ONE PART OF ScRIPTURE, ARE REFERRED 
 
 TO Christ in another. 
 
 In IsA. cli. vi. we have an account of the Prophet receivins; his 
 commission from abeinfj who is described as " the Lord/' the " Lord 
 of hosts," sitting upon the throne of supreme and universal empire, 
 before whom the angels worshipped, and whose glory is described as 
 filling the whole earth ; or who, in one word, is the true God. But 
 according to the testimony of John, ch. xii, 41, it was Christ in his 
 pre-existent Deity whom the Prophet saw ; for the Apostle having 
 just quoted from the 9lh and lOth verses of this chapter of Isaiah the 
 commission which the Prophet received, immediately adds, in refer- 
 ence to the vision which accompanied the delivery of this commis- 
 sion: " These things, said Esaias, when he saw his glory {/. e. Christ's 
 glory), and spake of him." 
 
 In IsA. xliii. II, Jehovah is represented as saying: "I, even I, am 
 the Lord, and beside Me there is no Saviour." — But in 2 Pet. iii. 18, 
 these titles, which are described as the exclusive attributes of Deity, 
 are given to Christ : " Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 In IsA. xlv. 22, 23, Jehovah is represented assaying: "Look 
 unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, 
 and there is none else. I have sworn by myself; the word is gone 
 out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return ; that unto 
 me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." But the Apos- 
 tle Paul, in RoM. xiv. 10, 11, expressly quotes these words with a 
 direct application to Christ : "For we shall all stand before the judg- 
 ment-seat of Christ. For it is written. As I live, saith the Lord, 
 every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." 
 
 In IsA. viii. 13, 14, 15, Jehovah is thus described: "Sanctify 
 Jehovah of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be 
 your dread : and he shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stum- 
 bling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel ; for a gin 
 and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among 
 them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be 
 taken." — But this description is, in 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8, referred to Christ: 
 " Unto you therefore which believe he is precious; but unto them 
 which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the 
 same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and 
 a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being 
 disobedient." 
 
 In IsA. xl. 3, it is prophesied, that John the Baptist should be 
 " the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the 
 Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." — But in 
 Luke iii. 4, this prophecy is said to be fulfilled by John's appearing 
 to prepare the way of Christ; as it is written in the book of Esaias 
 the prophet, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 
 
34 
 
 tion of Christ exclusively : " For I neither received it of man, neither 
 was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
 The efficient source of the miracles by which the Apostles' 
 preaching was attested, is referred indifferently to Christ and God, 
 as in Mark xvi. 20 : "They went forth, and preached everywhere, 
 the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs 
 following." — Compared with Heb. ii. 3, 4 : " How shall we escape, if 
 we neglect such great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken 
 by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ; 
 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with 
 divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own 
 will." 
 
 In Jer. xvii. 5 and 7, it is said by Jehovah, " Cursed be the man 
 that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart de- 
 parteth from the Lord. * * * Blessed is the man who trusteth in the 
 Lord, whose hope the Lord is." — But this blessedness is associated 
 with trusting in Christ, in the declaration of the Psalmist, Psalm 
 ii. 12, " Blessed are ail they that put their trust in him;" and in the 
 experience and anticipations of the Apostle Paul, "I know in whom 
 I have trusted (for so the word means), and am persuaded that he is 
 able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that 
 day." 2 Tim. i. 12. 
 
 In Psalm xxxvi. 6, Jehovah is thus addressed : "OLord! thou 
 preserves! man and beast;" and in Col. i, 17, the same work of 
 providence is ascribed to Christ : "For by him all things consist." 
 
 Christ is Jehovah, the Shepherd of the Jewish Church; and, also, 
 the one common Shepherd of the extended and united Church of 
 Jews and Gentiles; for we read in John x. 16, these remarkable 
 words : " Other sheep I have which are not of this fold : them 
 also I MUST BRING, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall 
 be ONE FOLD, and one Shepherd ;" and the rank of this Shepherd 
 is determined by the Psalmist, in Psalm xxiii. " Jehovah is my 
 Shepherd, I shall not want : he maketh me to lie down in green 
 pastures ; he leadeth me beside the still waters." — This argument 
 will also appear more striking by a reference to John x. 14, where 
 he calls himself the " good Shepherd;" to Heb. xiii. 20, where he 
 is styled the "great Shepherd of the sheep;" to Peter v. 4, 
 where he is styled the "chief Shepherd ;" and to Rev. vii. 17, where 
 the care and kindness of Jehovah the Shepherd is distinctly referred 
 to Christ: "The Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall 
 feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters; and 
 God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." 
 
 The Church also stand in the very same relationship to Christ 
 and Jehovah, as sheep ; for we read in Psalm Ixxiv. 1, " O God, 
 why hast thou cast us off for ever ? why doth thine anger smoke 
 against the sheep of thy pasture ?" and Christ says, in John x. 27, 
 " My sheep hear my voice ;" and in John xxi. 17, " Feed my sheep." 
 
 In 1 Kings viii. 39, Solomon thus addresses Jehovah : " For thou, 
 even thou, only knowest the hearts of all the children of men." — But, 
 
35 
 
 in John vi. 64, a knowledge equivalent to this is ascribed to Christ : 
 "For Jesus knew, from the beginning, who they were that believed 
 not, and who should betray him ;'' and in Acts i. 24, the Apostles 
 addressed Christ, thus: "thou. Lord, which knowesl the hearts of 
 all men;" and in Matt. xii. 25, we read, "Jesus knew their 
 thouo-hts;" and also in Luke vi. 8; and again in John vi. 61, it is 
 said,''"That Jesus knew in himself (?. e. not by communication, that 
 his disciples murmured) ; and in John ii. 24, it is still more empha- 
 tically asserted, that he did not obtain his knowledge by communi- 
 cation or derivation of any kind: "But Jesus did not commit himself 
 unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should 
 testify of man : for he knew what was in man." 
 
 The forgiveness of sins is'ascribed indifferently to Christ and God ; 
 as in Eph. iv. 32, "Be kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving 
 one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you;" and 
 in Col. iii. 13, the exercise of the same divine prerogative is ascribed 
 to Christ in terms which are evidently a paraphrase of the above: 
 " Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have 
 a quarrel against any : even as Christ forgave you, so also, do ye." 
 
 In Mal. iii. 6, immutability is represented as an attribute of 
 Jehovah: "I am the Lord, I change not."— But in Heb. i. 12, the 
 same attribute is ascribed to Christ: " But thou art the same;'' and 
 in Heb. xiii. 8: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for 
 ever." 
 
 In Rev. xx. 12, the dead are described as standing before God 
 for judgment: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
 " God ; and the books were opened, and another book was opened, 
 which is the book of life : and the dead were judged out of those 
 things which were written in the books, according to.their works." — 
 But^in 2 Cor. v. 10, he who is called God in Revelation, is called 
 Christ : " For'we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, 
 that every one' may receive the things done in his body, according to 
 that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 
 
 There are also several other passages in which the judgment of 
 the world is referred to Jehovah, which, when taken in contrast with 
 others in which Christ is spoken of in the same direct and emphatic 
 terms as the Judge, must necessarily prove his true and proper Deity. 
 This argument will appear evident from a comparison of the two 
 following classes of texts ; viz. 
 Texts describina God or Jehovah as \ Texts describing Christ as Judge. 
 
 Judge. 
 
 ' But Jehovah shall endure for ever : 
 he hath prepared his throne for judge- 
 ment; and he shall judge the world 
 ia righteousness. — Psalm ix. 7, 8. 
 
 WhcD the Son of Man shall come 
 in his glory, and all the holy angels 
 with him, then shall he sit upon the 
 throne of his glory : and before hiui 
 shall be gathered all nations. — Matt. 
 . XXV. 31,32. 
 
 Our God shall call to the heavens For the Lord himself shall descend 
 
 from above, and to the earth, that he from heaven with a shout, with the 
 
 may judge his people. Gather my i voice of the archangel, and with the 
 sainU together unto me ; those that | trump of God ; aud the dead in Christ 
 
have made a covenant with me by 
 sacrifice. And the heavens shall de- 
 clare his righteousness : for God is 
 judge himself. — Psalm 1. 4—6. 
 
 For God will bring every work into 
 judgment, with every secret thing, whe- 
 ther it be good, or whether it be evil. 
 — EccL. xii. 14. 
 
 And I saw the dead, small and great, 
 stand before God ; * * and the dead were 
 judged out of those things which were 
 written in the books, according to 
 their works. — Rev. xx. 12. 
 
 shall rise first : then we which are 
 alive and remain shall be caught up 
 together with them in the clouds, to 
 meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall 
 we ever be with the Lord. — 1 Thess. 
 iv, 16, 17. 
 
 Judge nothing before the time, un- 
 til the Lord come, who both will 
 bring to light the hidden things of 
 darkness, and will make manifest the 
 counsels of the hearts. — 1 Con. iv. 5. 
 
 We must all appear before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ, that every 
 one may receive the things done in 
 his body, according to that he hath 
 done, whether it be good or bad — 
 2CoR. V. 10.^ 
 
 The inference from the comparison of these passages in support 
 of the true Deity of Christ, receives, if possible, additional strength 
 from the consideration that "the Father judgeth no man, but hath 
 committed all judgment unto the Son." John v. 22. It is therefore 
 evident, that the Jehovah or God who is described as Judge, is not 
 to be understood of the Father, but of the Son; who, because he has 
 assumed human nature and become the Son of man, possesses, in 
 addition to the necessary qualifications with which he is endowed as 
 God, the advantages of visibility, which neither the Father nor the 
 Son possess in reference to their essential Godhead. And we may 
 legitimately infer from the mere fact of Christ's being exhibited as the 
 destined Judge of all men, that he must in some sense possess the 
 knowledge, the power, the authority, and judicial prerogatives of 
 true Deity, in order to justify his being represented as sustaining so 
 high and arduous an office. 
 
 Christ occupies the very same position in relation to the Chris- 
 tian Church, which Jehovah occupied inrelation to the Jewish Church. 
 For example : The Jewish Church assembled in the name of Jehovah 
 (ExOD. XX. 24): the Christian Church assemble in the name of 
 Christ (Matt, xviii. 20). The Passover is called the Lord's pass- 
 over (ExoD xii. 11); which Christ abolished (Eph. ii. 15), and sub- 
 stituted a supper of communion in remembrance of himself (Luke 
 xxii. 19)4 The Sabbath, the day of rest to the Jewish Church, is 
 called the Sabbath of the Ijord their God (Exod. xx. 10); which 
 Christ, through his Apostles, abolished (Col. ii. 16), and instituted 
 in its stead the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day 
 (Rev, i. 10). Moses and the Prophets, the ministers of the Jewish 
 Church, performed their miraclts through the power of Jehovah 
 (Ps. Ixxviii. 43) : the Apostles, the ministers of the Christian Church, 
 performed their miracles in the name and by the power of Christ 
 (Mark xvi. 20. Acts iii. 6; ix. 34). And the Jewish Church are descri- 
 bed as those whom the Lord God had chosen to be a peculiar people 
 unto himself (Deut. xiv. 2); and the Christian Church are described 
 as those for whom Christ gave himself, that he might purify unto 
 himself a peculiar people (TiT. ii. 14). From these examples, it must 
 follow that Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament; as we could 
 
37 
 
 not suppose that an inferior and created minister of God would have 
 thus placed himself in the exact relative position of that God who 
 sent him. And this argument receives additional force — if possible 
 — when we consider that the introduction of Christianity was, in one 
 sense, a breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jews 
 and Gentiles ; so that he who is now the God of Jews and Gentiles 
 in the Christian Church, is the one being who was in a special sense 
 the God of the Jews only. Rom. iii. 29. 
 
 I would here remark, that there are two methods of argument by 
 which we may arrive at the conclusion in support of the Deity of 
 Christ, from the comparison of passages in which Jehovah or God is 
 spoken of, with others in which either the same passages are referred 
 to Christ; or in which divine attributes which the former speak of, 
 are in the same sense ascribed to him. 1st, This comparison either 
 identifies Christ with the Jehovah or God who is spoken of in the 
 one passage, and thus directly proves his Deity ; — or, 2dly, If we 
 admit that, in the passages in which the name of Jehovah or God 
 occurs, the person of the Father is meant ; then the parallel texts 
 which speak of Christ in the same sense, ascribing to him the same 
 divine characteristics and attributes with the Father, prove him to 
 be the one God with the Father, and so indirectly, but as validly, 
 demonstrate his true Deity. Thus, for instance, it is said, in Psalm 
 Ixxxiii. 18, that the Israelites tempted the Most High God in the 
 desert ; but, in 1 Cor. x. 9, Paul asserts, in reference to the same 
 circumstance, that it was Christ whom they tempted. Now, I can 
 arrive at a valid conclusion, substantiating the true Deity of Christ, 
 from a comparison of these passages; by either at once inferring, 
 that Christ, in his pre-existent Deity, was the Most High God, whom 
 the Israelites tempted ; or, admitting the Most High God to be 
 meant by the Psalmist of the Father, I have an instance of Christ's 
 being associated with the Father as the one object against whom the 
 Israelites sinned ; and therefore I necessarily infer, that Christ was 
 the Most High God with the Father. 
 
 IV. I SHALT, NOW ADVANCE ANOTHER CLASS OF PROOFS ; NAMELY, 
 INSTANCES OF ChRIST'S ASSUMING OR APPLYING TO HIMSELF DECLARA- 
 TIONS OF Scripture, or attributes elsewhere referring to 
 Jehovah or God. 
 
 In ExoD. XX. 24, God is represented as making this promise to 
 the Jewish Church : " In all places where I record my name, I will 
 come unto thee, and I will bless thee." — But Christ, in the New Tes- 
 tament, represents himself as sustaining the very same relationship 
 to the Christian Church, by recording two precisely similar promises; 
 in Matt, xviii. 20 : " For where two or three are gathered together 
 in my name, there am I in the midst of them;" and in Matt, xxviii. 
 20 : " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." — 
 Upon this comparison, I remark ; 1st, It must obviously require the 
 divine faculty of being omnipresent, in order to enable a person who 
 made these promises to fulfil them ; and,2dly, if Christ were acreature 
 infinitely inferior to the true God, a promise of his perpetual presence 
 would have been of no value. A promise of the presence and protcc- 
 
38 
 
 tion of God, delivered authoritatively by Jesus his Messenger, would 
 have been alone serviceable, and could alone have prevented the 
 Jewish Church from possessing an infinitely higher advantage than 
 the Christian, by enjoying the presence and protection of Jehovah 
 himself. 
 
 In Matt. v. 21, and throughout his entire sermon, Christ con- 
 trasts his own instructions with the commandments of Jehovah to 
 the Jews, so as to assume to himself the very same legislative prero- 
 gatives and authority : " Ye have heard that it was said to them of 
 old time" (for so it is in the Greek); " but I say unto you." — What 
 creature could presume to improve upon the language of a command- 
 ment of Jehovah ? 
 
 In IsA. xl. 10, we read, "Behold, the Lord God will come with 
 strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold, his reward is 
 with him, and his work before him." — But in Rev. xxii. 12, Christ 
 applies the very same language to himself, and assumes to himself 
 the same divine prerogative of rewarding : " And behold, I come 
 quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as 
 his work shall be." 
 
 In 1 Cor. vi. 14, it is said, "God hath both raised up the Lord." — 
 But in John ii. 19, Christ asserts, in reference to his resurrection : 
 " Destroy this temple, and I ivill raise it up in three days." — Upon 
 which comparison I remark, that Christ must have been possessed of 
 a divine nature, distinct from his human body, which divine nature 
 raised up that body ; and which was so connected with it at the time 
 be made this declaration, as to justify his speaking in the first person 
 singular — " I will raise it up :" and that this was true, is evident 
 from his calling his body a temple, on seeing the temple of Jerusa- 
 lem. That temple was the house of Jehovah ; and his body is so 
 styled, because "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily." 
 
 In 1 Cor. vi. 14, it is also said, " God will raise up us by his 
 own power." — But in John vi. 39, 40,44, 54, Christ says, four times, 
 in reference to his people, " I will raise him up at the last day :" 
 therefore, Christ is either that God who will raise the dead, or he is 
 one with the Father in the exercise of that divine prerogative and 
 power. 
 
 In IsA. xliv. 6, we read, "Thus saith the Lord, the King of 
 Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts ; I am the first, and I 
 am the last ; and beside me there is no god." — But in Rev. i. 17 ; 
 ii. 8; xxii. 13, Christ assumes this title to himself by saying, "lam 
 the first and the last ;" upon which I remark, 1st, If we understand 
 this title as designating eternal existence, then it is evident that 
 Christ must be the one true and everlasting God with Jehovah, as no 
 two perfectly distinct beings could say of themselves with truth, " I 
 am the first and the last ;" or, 2dly, If we understand the words as 
 denoting the first cause and final object of all things, it equally 
 proves his true Deity. 
 
 Christ promises to give to his disciples that wisdom which the 
 
39 
 
 Apostle directs them to pray to God for. Luke xxi. 15, "Fori 
 WILL GIVE you a mouth iind wisdom, which all your adversaries 
 shall not be' able to -gainsay nor resist."— Compared with James i. 5, 
 *' If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that givelli to all 
 liberally," &c. 
 
 In Psalm vii. 0, it is said, " The riijhteous God trieth the hearts 
 and reins ;" and in Jer. xvii. 10, "I Jehovah search the heart; I try 
 the reins, even to -jive every man accordinf:^ to his ways, and accord- 
 in-? to the fruit of "his doings."— But in Rev. ii. 23, Christ not only 
 assumes to himself these two divine prerofjativcs of searching the 
 reins and the heart, and of exercising retributive justice — but ex- 
 pressly identifies hiinsctf with Jehovah, who speaks in. (his passage, by 
 quoting it in direct application to himself: "And all the Churches 
 shall know that I am he tvhich searcheth the reins and hearts; and 
 I will give unto every one of you according to your works." — Here, 
 I simply ask. Can any one have the hardihood to maintain, or even 
 to insinuate, that Christ might have made an unjustifiable quotation, 
 and incorrect application to himself, of the words of the Prophet? 
 
 From the language which Christ adopts in his addresses to the 
 seven churches in Asia, in Rev. ii. and iii. we infer his possession 
 of the attributes and prerogatives of Deity. He does not use that 
 style of address which a created being, acting as the inferior agent 
 of God, would naturally employ, and always did employ, by saying, 
 " Thus saith Jehovah."— But he says, " I know thy works," &c. ; "I 
 have somewhat against thee :" " To him that overcometh, ivill Igice 
 to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of 
 God ;" " Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly ;" " He that 
 overcometh, and keepth my words unto the end, to him loill I give 
 power over the nations ;" " / will not blot his name out of the book 
 of life ;" " He that openeth, and no man (or " no one") shutteth, he 
 that shutteth, and no one openeth ;" " Thou hast kept my word, and 
 hast not denied w?/name;" "I will keep thee from the hour of temp- 
 tation, which shall come upon all the world ;" " Him that overcometh, 
 will 1 make a pillar in the temple of my God ;" " As many as I love, 
 I rebuke and chasten ;" "To him that overcometh, will /grant to sit 
 with me on my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down 
 with my Father in his throne."— Upon these passages it is obvious 
 to remark, that the assumption of independent and underived know- 
 ledge—of authority to dispense the blessedness and the dignities of 
 heaven — of power to exercise retributive justice — of the possession 
 of irresistible dominion over the condition of men— and of preserving, 
 correcting, punishing, and rewarding the members of his churches, 
 which they contain,— is totally unaccountable upon any principle, 
 but that which admits and recognises him as the one God with the 
 Father. And, as the threats denounced against the Asiatic churches 
 have been fulfdled by rendering the ordinary arrangements of pro- 
 vidence the instruments of their accomplishment, it is evident, that 
 Christ has, in these passages, represented himself as the God of 
 providence, who can alone order all things for the accomplishment 
 of his purposes. 
 
40 
 
 In Matt, xxiii. 37, Christ assumes tlie language, and places him- 
 self in the position of the God of Israel : " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
 thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto 
 thee, how often would /have gathered thy children together, even as 
 a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" 
 — How easy is it here to apply the principle by which the identity 
 of Peter was ascertained, " Thy speech bewrayeth thee !" (Matt. 
 xxvi. 73) ; for this is precisely an appropriation to himself, on the 
 part of Christ, of the office of president and protector of the Jewish 
 people which Jehovah sustained, as is manifest from comparing it 
 with the similar descriptions of Jehovah in the Old Testament; as in 
 Deut. xxxii. 11. "As an eagle stirreth up her nest, flutlereth over 
 her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, laketh them, beareth them 
 on her wings ; so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no 
 strange god with him.'' — And in Psalm xci. 4. " lie shall cover thee 
 with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust." — And in 
 Jer. xxix. 19. "Because they have not hearkened unto my words, 
 saith the Lord, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, 
 rising up early, and sending ; but ye ivould not hear, saith the Lord" 
 — And in Psalm Ixxxi. 11 — 14. " But my people twom/J wof hear- 
 ken to my voice ; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up 
 unto their own hearts' lust ; and they walked in their own counsels. 
 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked 
 in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and iurned 
 my hand against their adversaries." 
 
 V. I SHALL NOW ADVANCE PROOFS OF THAT PART OF MY SECOND 
 PROPOSITION WHICH ASSERTS, THAT ChRIST POSSESSES, AS TO HIS 
 DIVINE NATURE, THE SAME ETERNITY, KNOWLEDGE, POWER, AUTHO- 
 RITY, PREROGATIVES, AND GODHEAD, WITH THE FATHER, AND IS ONE 
 
 WITH HIM IN ALL ATTRIBUTES. And this I shall do by advancing 
 passages in which divine attributes and prerogatives are referred in 
 common to Christ and the Father. [I should, however, premise, 
 that in some of the passages which I shall advance, it might be 
 questioned whether it be the person of the Father who is exclusively 
 referred to, and not the Divine Being in a general sense ; but it is evi- 
 dent that, according to the principles of those who differ from us, I 
 have a right to assume, though I would not admit, that wherever the 
 word God occurs in Scripture, the person of the Father is meant.] 
 
 The Apostle Paul, at the commencement of most of his Epistles* 
 associates the Lord Jesus Christ with the Father, as the person to 
 whom he prays for a dispensation of the highest spiritual blessings; 
 as, for instance, in Rom. i. 7, " Grace to you, and peace from God 
 our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." — In other places he 
 represents Christ, without mentioning the Father, as the dispenser of 
 the same blessings: aa in 1 CoR. xvi. 23, "The grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ be with you ;" and 2 Tim. i. 16, "The Lord give mercy 
 unto the house of Onesiphorus;" and ver. 18, "The Lord grant unto 
 him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day." 
 
 In 1 Thess. iii. 11 — 13, he also associates Christ with the Father 
 as the object of prayer, and as having the same power with him to 
 
41 
 
 control the atTairs of providence : " Now God himself and our Fa- 
 ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you ;" and then 
 he continues his petition to Christ, under the title Lord, for spiritual 
 blessings : "And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love 
 one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you; 
 to the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness 
 before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 with all his saints." — There isasimilar prayer in 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17, 
 in which Christ, in order of address, is placed before the Father : 
 " Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, 
 which hath loved us, and hath ^iven us everlasting consolation, and 
 good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in 
 every good word and work." 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ and the Father are represented in Scrip- 
 ture as equally entitled to the worship of all created beings ; as is 
 proved by the fact, that doxologies, of precisely siiBilar form, and 
 containing the same ascriptions, are offered to both ; as in 2 Pet. iii. 
 18 : " Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ : to whom be glory both now and for ever. Amen." — 
 Compared with that in 1 Pet. v. 11, offered up to the God of all 
 grace, whom we assume to be the Father : " To him be glory and 
 dominion for ever and ever.'' 
 
 In Heb. i. 1, God the Father is represented as the person who 
 spake by the prophets: "God, who at sundry times, and in divers 
 manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in 
 these last days spoken unto us by his Son." — But in 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, 
 it is asserted that Christ, in his pre-existent Deity, was the author of 
 the inspiration of the prophets : " Of which salvation the prophets have 
 inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that 
 should come unto you ; searching what, or what manner of time the 
 Spirit of Christ ivhich was in them did signify, when it testified be- 
 forehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow ;" 
 and also in 1 Pet. iii. 19, Christ is represented as having inspired 
 Noah, the preacher of righteousness to the antedeluvian world : " For 
 Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the Just for the unjust, that he 
 might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened 
 by the Spirit : by which also he went and preached unto the spirits 
 in prison," &c. 
 
 Christ, as Lord, is one with the Father, as proprietor of the tem- 
 ple at Jerusalem ; for we read, in John ii. 16, " Make not my Father's 
 house an house of merchandise ;" and in Mal. iii. 1, we read of 
 Christ, "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his 
 temple." 
 
 Christ is associated with the Father, as the person to whom be- 
 lievers are solemnly dedicated at baptism, as in Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 " Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 It is said, in I John ii. 22 — 24, that it is of equal importance 
 that the Christian should have faith, and continue in the faith of 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 both the Son and the Father: " He is antichrist that denieth the 
 Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath 
 not the Father. * * Ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the 
 Father." Also, in 1 John i. 3, Christians are represented as having 
 fellowship equally with both persons : "And truly our fellowship is 
 with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 
 
 VI. I SHALL NOW ADVANCE PASSAGES IN WHICH ChRIST ASCRIBES 
 TO HIMSELF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND PREROGATIVES IN COMMON WITH 
 
 THE Father (whose Deity I assume), or elsewhere ascribed 
 TO the Father. 
 
 In Matt. xi. 27, Christ says, " All things are delivered unto me 
 of my Father;" and it is an obvi®us principle, that the receiver must 
 have a capacity of receiving coextensive with the nature of the 
 things received. 
 
 In the same verse he declares, that his nature is equally inscru- 
 table and incomprehensible as the Father's : " And no man knoweth 
 the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save 
 the Son ; and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.'* 
 
 In John, chap. v. there are several declarations made by the 
 Saviour, asserting his perfect oneness in attributes and prerogatives 
 with the Father, interspersed, according to Scripture, with declara- 
 tions which refer to his mediatorial office and subordination ; as, for 
 instance. 
 
 In verse 17, he says, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I 
 work ;" which implies, as is evident from the context, " My Father 
 has been engaged upon the Sabbath-day, and every day alike, up to 
 the present moment, in sustaining the office of providence, and I 
 have been doing the same ;" or, " I work miracles upon the Sabbath- 
 day by the very same right by which my Father works upon the 
 Sabbath-day." 
 
 In verse 18, we find the Jews understanding him as representing 
 himself equal to the Father : "Therefore the Jews sought the more 
 to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said 
 that God was his Father, making himself equal to God ;" or, rather, 
 " said that God was in such a peculiar sense his Father, as to re- 
 present himself to be equal to God." — It is not, however, from the 
 view in which the Jews understood him that I argue, but from Christ's 
 proceeding in the sequel to sanction and confirm their view. 
 
 In verse 19 : " Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what 
 he seeth the Father do ;" that is, " The Son and the Father are so 
 closely and intimately one in power and operation, that the Son can 
 do nothing of himself (or distinct from the Father), but what he seeth 
 the Father do ;" as is evident from the most remarkable words which 
 follow, as the reason of this declaration, and which would be blas- 
 phemy in the mouth of a created and finite being: "For what things 
 soever he doeih, these (or rather " the same") also doeth the Son 
 likewise" (or, "in the same manner.") 
 
48 
 
 In verse 21, " As the Father raiseih up the dead, and quickenelh 
 them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.'* 
 
 In verse 22, " For the Father judfjeth no man, but hath com. 
 milled all judgment unto the Son." — The receivinu^ such a commis- 
 sion implies, necessarily, his antecedent possession of every divine 
 quality to enable him to perform ihe work: and I would also remark, 
 thai as the Father judgeth no man, consequently, in arguing for the 
 Deity of the Father and the Son, from ihe divine works performed 
 by them, we have more evidence for the Deity of the Son than we 
 have for the Deity of the Father; for though it is true that " what- 
 soever things the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise," 
 yet the proposition cannot be converted so as to say, "Whatsoever 
 things the Son doeth, the same doeth the Father likewise." 
 
 Verse 23, "That all men should honour the Son even as ihey 
 honour the Father. He that honoureih not the Son, honoureth not 
 the Father,'^which hath sent him." 
 
 In John x. 27 — 38, he asserts the possession of tlie same power 
 with the Father to protect his people against all their spiritual ad- 
 versaries : " JNIy sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
 follow me ; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never 
 perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, 
 which gave them me, is greater than all ; and none is able lo |)luck 
 them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." — By the 
 latter declaration, in which he sums up into one comprehensive as. 
 sertion the substance of the two preceding verses for the consolation 
 and security of his people, he evidently must mean, one in power 
 and superiority to all their enemies, and in affection towards his 
 people. It was in this sense that the Jews understood him; for they 
 immediately took up stones to stone him, as a blasphemer ; upon 
 which Christ proceeds with his discourse, from verse 32 to 38, which 
 consists of two parts : 1st, a justification of his words, from the 32d 
 to the 36th verses ; and 2dly, an explanation of their meaning, in 
 verses 37 and 38 : " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
 not ; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works, that 
 ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.'' 
 Now it is evident that this latter declaration is even stronger than 
 the former (" I and my Father are one"); for it denotes not a mere 
 simple unity of connexion, but a unity of reciprocity and of mutual 
 indwelling ; and it had the very same effect upon the Jews, of lead- 
 ing them to regard him as a blasphemer, upon which he took no 
 further trouble to do away their impressions, but worked a miracle 
 to release himself from their malignity: "Therefore, they sought 
 again to take him ; but he escaped out of their hands," — evidently 
 leaving them, as we must argue, upon every principle of duty and 
 piety, in possession of the correct meaning of his two declarations 
 in the 30lh and 38th verses. 
 
 In John x. 15, he asserts his possession of a knowledge of the 
 Father, equal to the knowledge which the Father has of him : "As 
 the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father." Now, although 
 
44 
 
 we may say that God knows every creature to perfection, yet we 
 may truly address every created being in the universe in the lan- 
 guage of Zophar : " Canst thou by searching find out God ? canst 
 thou find out the Almighty unto perfection ?" Surely a created and 
 finite intelligence, which knows his Creator even as the scrutinizing 
 omniscience of his Creator knows him, is an anomaly which neither 
 can nor does exist ! 
 
 In John xiv. 9, 10, he asserts his oneness with the Father to be 
 so complete and perfect, that he who hath seen him hath seen the 
 Father: "Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it 
 sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him. Have I been so long time with 
 you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath seen 
 me, hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then. Show us the 
 Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father 
 in me ?" And then he proceeds still further to give evidence of the 
 perfect oneness that subsists between them ; a oneness so perfect and 
 so close, as to admit of no distinctness or independence of power, au- 
 thority, or operation whatsoever, on the part of the Son, in his divine 
 nature, from the Father : " The words that I speak unto you, I speak 
 not of myself (that is, as a separate being from the Father, as Philip 
 supposed); but the Father that dvvelleth in me, he doeth the 
 works." 
 
 On comparing John xiv. 14 with xvi. 23, we find that Christ and 
 the Father are equally employed in answering the prayers of the 
 Church. The former passage is, " If ye shall ask any thing in my 
 name, I will do it ;" and the latter, " Whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name, he will give it you." And I would here remark, 
 that the same Apostle — John — who has recorded these two declara- 
 tions, enlarges upon the former, in his first Epistle, v. 14, 15, in a 
 manner which shows that he recognised the correctness of directing 
 our petitions to the Son of God, as well as to the Father: "And this 
 is the confidence that we have in him (the Son of God), that if we 
 ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us ; and if we know 
 that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the peti- 
 tions that we desired of him." 
 
 In John xiv. 23, Christ asserts his possession of the same faculty 
 of being universally and permanently present with his people, as the 
 Father possessed ; and represents the promise of his presence as 
 equally valuable to his people, as that of his Father : " If a man love 
 me, he will keep my words ; and my Father will love him, and we 
 will come unto him, and make our abode with him." — We may also 
 remark, upon this passage, that it connects the promise of God's 
 presence with the love of Christ, and not of the Father ; so that, if 
 Christ is not one God with the Father, we have here an instance of 
 God surrendering his glory and prerogatives to a creature ! 
 
 In John xvi. 15, we read this declaration of the Saviour: "All 
 things that the Father hath, are mine ;" and, in John xvii. 10, a 
 similar one : " And all mine are thine, and thine are mine." — Here 
 are two explicit assertions of a common proprietorship with the Fa- 
 
45 
 
 ther, in all that belongs to (he Father, from one " who did not sin, 
 neither was any guile found in his mouth." 
 
 In John xvii. 5, he represents himself as having enjoyed glory 
 with the Father's own s^//' before the world was: "And now, () Fa- 
 ther! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I 
 had with thee before the world was." — And in this prayer, which he 
 otlers up during the season in which that glory was suspended, he 
 plainly represents his glory, both retrospectively and prospectively, 
 to be the one and the same glory with the Father's. 
 
 He represents himself as being one with the Father, in the im- 
 portant work of setting himself apart to his mediatorial office ; as in 
 John x. 36 : " Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and 
 sent into the world ;" compared with John xvii. 19 : "And for this 
 purpose / sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified by the 
 truth." 
 
 He represents himself as possessing an independent and personal 
 power, not only to lay down his life, but to resume it again ; as in 
 John x. 18: "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power 
 to take it again ;" and yet it is asserted, in Rom. vi. 4, that Christ 
 was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. The power, 
 therefore, which was displayed in this instance, must have been a 
 power mutually possessed, and mutually exerted ; or, in other words, 
 the Father and the Son were one in the possession of that exceeding 
 great and mighty power, which the apostle says was displayed in the 
 resurrection of Christ from the dead. 
 
 . He declares himself to be one with the Father in the exercise of 
 the divine prerogative of reivarding, as is evident from a comparison 
 of Matt. vi. 4, "Thy Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall re- 
 ward thee openly," — with Matt. xvi. 27, "For the Son of man shall 
 come in the glory of his Father, with his angels ; and then he shall 
 reward every man according to his works ;" and also, on referring 
 to Rom. ii. 6, we find that this is the province of " God, who will 
 reward every one according to his works." 
 
 He represents himself as possessing the same ability with the 
 Father to work the miracles which he performed ; as his question to 
 the blind men, in which there is not the slightest reference to a 
 superior or more efficient power, clearly implies : "Believe ye that 
 I am able to do this?" Matt. ix. 28; — and as his exact recognition 
 of the ascription of an ability which could be exerted at will, con- 
 tained in his reply to the leper's supplication, in Matt. viii. 2, also 
 shows: "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean;'' — upon 
 which Jesus said, / will, be thou clean'' — language as precisely indi- 
 cative of his possession of an irresistible power, independent of all 
 distinct or higher controul, as the statement in Gen. i. 3. " God said. 
 Let there be light, and there was light." Elsewhere, however, he 
 says, " The Father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works'' 
 (John xiv. 10) ; thereby implying, that though his ability to perform 
 his miracles was uncontrolled by any superior power, yet it was equal 
 to, or rather one and the same power with the Father's. 
 
46 
 
 Christ was one with the Father, in sending the Holy Ghost to 
 the Apostles, as is evident from John xvi. 7: "If I ^o not away, 
 the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, ] will send 
 him unto you;" compared wilh John xiv. 2G, "The Comforter, 
 which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name," &c. 
 
 Christ assumes to himself the same prerogative of rebuking and 
 chastening with the Father, as is manifest from his declaration in 
 Rev. iii. 19 : "As many as I love, / rebuke and chasten;" com- 
 pared with Heb. xii. 6, 7: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasten- 
 eth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chas- 
 tening, God dealeth with you as with sons ; for what son is he whom 
 the Father chasteneth not V 
 
 In Rev. xxi. 6, 7, Christ distinctly assumes to himself the title of 
 God, and the prerogatives of Deity : " And he said unto me. It is 
 done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will 
 give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life 
 freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things ; and I will be 
 his God, and he shall be my son." 
 
 These passages which I have now advanced, constitute a portion 
 of the scriptural material, upon the ground of which I argue for the 
 true Deity of Christ. From this induction of scripture testimony, I 
 derive this conclusion : That the Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared 
 in the flesh in order to become a mediator between God and man, 
 possessed a nature distinct from that humanity in which he taber- 
 nacled — that, in reference to his superior nature, he is described as 
 bearing the titles, possessing the characteristics, performing the 
 works, exercising the prerogatives, and receiving the honours of 
 Deity — that he represents himself, and is represented by others, as 
 being one with the Father in the possession of all the essential attri- 
 butes which are ascribed to the Father. I therefore conclude, that 
 in his superior nature, Christ is true God, possessing the same eter- 
 nity, power, authority, and Godhead, with the Father, and one with 
 bim in all attributes. 
 
47 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — It falls to my lot, in consequence of the arrang:e- 
 ments which have been adopted, to commence the discussion on this 
 day. You are aware, that, according to the printed regulations, no 
 reply to the arguments of the first speaker could have been permitted 
 on yesterday ; but eacli was engaged to give a statement of the posi- 
 tive sentiments which he entertained, in reference to the subject of 
 discussion, and to illustrate that statement by positive and affirma- 
 tive proofs. I feel obliged to Mr. Porter for ihe plan he has already 
 pursued ; for he has saved me a vast degree of trouble. We may be 
 compared to two architects, who were employed to build a temple ; 
 and I trust that on yesterday I adhered closely to this object. I 
 endeavoured to lay Jesus Christ as the foundation-stone ; I called to 
 my assistance the Apostles and Prophets as fellow-workers in rearing 
 the superstructure ; and I completed my work, by exhibiting Christ 
 Jesus as the topstone. But what did Mr. Porter do? — 1st, He 
 occupied one hour at least in clearing away the obstructions to my 
 building, by detailing the origin of this discussion, and the progress 
 of our correspondence, of which it was quite sufficient to know the 
 result, as stated in the printed prospectus of the rules. — 2dly, He 
 erected a very small edifice for himself, which, however, he immedi- 
 ately overthrew. — And, 3dly, He came over to me, and for the 
 remainder of his time assisted me in building my house. I had ex- 
 pected that he would have advanced affirmative proofs for the strong 
 affirmative doctrines which he has embodied in his two propositions. 
 I had expected him to have advanced positive arguments in support 
 of his first proposition, that the Father only is the only true God; 
 and of his second proposition, that the Lord Jesus Christ is (even in 
 his highest capacity) a created being: but for neither of these tenets 
 did he advance any thing like satisfactory proof. I must advert, 
 however, to the remarks which he did unequivocally advance. He 
 occupied our time wit'i censures upon the Scriptures, both in the 
 translation and in the original. He described the translation inordi- 
 nary use as being incrusted with numerous imperfections and defects. 
 I ask in reply, if he really believes this description to be correct, how 
 does he maintain his own consistency as a minister of religion, in 
 standing up in this place of worship. Sabbath after Sabbath, to read 
 to his congregation a translation of the Bible which he represents 
 as so erroneous and defective ? He is not fettered by any ecclesias- 
 tical canons or regulations, which would restrict him to the exclusive 
 use of King James's translation ; and he may adopt what is termed 
 the "Improved Version of the New Testament," which might per- 
 haps come nearer to his ideas of perfection as a translation, than the 
 ordinary version. But the character which Mr. Porter has given of 
 the common translation is, I hesitate not to say, unjustifiable and 
 unwarranted. I argue not for the infallibility or inspiration of the 
 translators, or for the perfect integrity of the work they have pro- 
 
48 
 
 duced. I admit that there are defects in that work ; but they are 
 not connected with any point of doctrine, or rule of practice, so as 
 to impair the distinctness of the one, or to blunt the moral cogency of 
 the other. But, just as the astronomer discerns spots on the sun, which 
 do not prevent the inhabitants of our world from receiving all that illu- 
 mination and guidance which his brightness is calculated to afford; 
 so, although the critical student of the Bible may discern some defects 
 in its translation, yet still the commonly received version is sufficiently 
 accurate to answer that important object for which a revelation has 
 been imparted — to be " a guide to our feet, and a lantern to our 
 paths." And if anew translation were faithfully executed, I have no 
 hesitation to assert, that it would be far more favourable to the in- 
 culcation of the Deity of Christ than the present. 
 
 But Mr. Porter next alluded to the original text of Scripture ; 
 which he described — I hope I commit no mistake in quoting his 
 words — as " mutilated, interpolated, and otherwise grossly corrupted; 
 and so as to render many passages, especially those connected with 
 this discussion, unworthy of notice." I beg to say to him, in the 
 presence of this assembly, that, if he entertains such an opinion in 
 reference to Scripture, he should, in consistency, become either an 
 Infidel or a Roman Catholic : — an Infidel, in order, on the one hand, 
 to free himself from the perplexity of building his faith upon such a 
 sandy foundation ; or a Roman Catholic, on the other hand, in order 
 that his creed may rest upon a basis which is apparently ^oYid to the 
 mind of every sincere member of that communion ; namely, the au- 
 thority and infallibility of the Church of Rome. But, let me ask, 
 what description o^ faith must that man have, who considers his 
 only rule of faith to be be "mutilated, interpolated, and otherwise 
 grossly corrupted ?" The natural tendency of preaching up such a 
 statement as this, would be to promote universal religious scepticism. 
 But is Mr. Porter, and are this auditory, aware of the laborious re- 
 search which Dr. Kennicott underwent, in order to ascertain the 
 integrity of the Original Scriptures ? He spent about thirty years 
 in reviewing, collating, and comparing the different manuscripts of 
 the Bible, to which he could have access. And when this long 
 period had brought his work to a close, he strongly lamented that he 
 had spent his labour in vain ; as he had found no important devia- 
 tions from the received text. But though Dr. Kennicott may 
 have imagined that his labour was in vain, yet this meeting will, on 
 the slightest reflection, perceive that he arrived at the most desirable 
 and important conclusion, and one which demonstrated incontro- 
 vertibly the general and minute integrity of the original text of 
 Scripture. 
 
 I shall now allude to the commentary pronounced by Mr. Porter 
 upon some of the texts connected with the discussion. He first 
 adverted to Acts xx. 28: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
 and to all the flock over the v/hich the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with 
 his own blood." Mr. Porter argued, upon Griesbach's authority, 
 that the word ©sou, in the original of this passage, is spurious. For 
 
11) 
 
 my present object I neilher arjjiie for nor afjainsl the penuin€no!«s 
 of Qzoj; but I would just remark, that this reacling is well supported, 
 and that the Vatican JNI.S., one of the very highest authority, ^bicb 
 Griesbach never saw, i^ivcs countenance to this reading;. I make 
 him, however, a present of this text, but shall first make some use of 
 it before I part with it. I do not require it as a jiroof for my doc- 
 trine, nor did I quote it in my enumeration of ari^uments yesterday. 
 I ask Mr. Porter, then, why is he so anxious to prove that Oiou, in 
 this passage, is not genuine ? Is not this desire to remove this word 
 from the text necessarily based upon a tacit, and, of course, uncon- 
 scious admission, that if &;ov were in the ])assage, it would su|)ply 
 me and my cause with a valid argument for the Deity of Christ ? 
 On no other principle can Mr. Porter be exonerated from the charge 
 of introducing totally irrelevant matter into this discussion. If, then, 
 be admits — which he must, upon every principle of consistency and 
 f5traight-forward reasoning — that Qcou, if in this text, would prove the 
 Deity of Christ, I hope his mind is prepared to admit the force of 
 the application of the very same title to the Saviour in passages, 
 about the genuineness and authenticity of which, there is neither 
 question nor insinuation; such as John i. 1; Rom. ix. 5; Titus 
 ii. 13; 1 John v. 20, &c. to which I yesterday referred. 
 
 Mr. Porter next adverted to I Tim. iii. 15, 16: "But if I tarry 
 long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in 
 the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar 
 and ground of the truth. And, without controversy, great is the 
 mystery of godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh," &c. — Now, ia 
 quoting this jjassage yesterday, I showed you that it was of no con- 
 sequence whether we read Q-h^ Ipav^'Sj^r,, or 6j s^avsgw^jj ; as in the 
 latter case we must naturally understand og to be a relative pronoun, 
 having for its antecedent the noun substantive ©sou, in the sentence, 
 " which is the church of the living God ;" and we must read the 
 intervening sentence as a parenthesis: thus," But if I tarry long, that 
 thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of 
 God, which is the church of the living God, (the pillar and ground 
 of truth, and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness,) 
 who was manifest in the flesh," &c. Mr. Porter has suggested an- 
 other translation of this passage : thus, " He who was manifest in the 
 flesh was justified in the Spirit," &c. ; by which rendering he tran- 
 slates I; as an adjective; but I simply reply to this, that it is con- 
 trary to every rule and principle of Greek syntax to translate 6; in 
 this manner, unless where we cannot possibly find an antecedent in 
 the preceding context, which is not the case in this passage. But 
 these remarks are based upon the supposition of rejecting Qihg from 
 the text, which I would not for a moment assent to — because 1 have 
 evidence internal and external to support the received reading. 
 1st, I ask any man of plain sense, what becomes of " the mystery," 
 if the word "God" be taken away? If you extract the one, yt>u 
 necessarily remove the other ; for in what could the " mystery," of 
 which ihe Apostle speaks, refer to but to this, that God was manifest 
 in the flesh ? — 2dly, Mr. Porter has said much about the purity of 
 Griesbach's text ; but, with respect to this pas.sage, how did 
 
 G 
 
50 
 
 Griesbach act ? He inserted Qihg in his first editiori ; but in his 
 second edition he acted in opposition to even his oivn authority 
 (which we are required to follow), in addition to every other evi- 
 dence, by the omission of (dm, and the insertion of o;. Whether he 
 acted correctly or not maybe easily ascertained from a comparison 
 of the following summary of authorities for the two readings, viz. — 
 
 Authorities for og. 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 Augian and Boernerian (F and G a 
 
 single authority), possiblif. 
 Two small letter manuscripts (17 and 
 
 73), certainly. 
 
 None, 
 
 FATHERS. 
 
 Cyril Alexand. A. D. 412, in parte, ■pro- 
 bably. 
 
 Epiphanius, A.D. 390, probably. 
 
 Theodore Mopsuest. A.D. 400, clearly. 
 
 Also some persons in the sixth century, 
 as appears from a story told by 
 liberatus and Hinckmarus. 
 
 Authorities for ©eog. 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 Augian and Boernerian (F and G a 
 
 single authority), probably. 
 The Alexandrine and Epbrem (A and 
 
 C), almost certainly. 
 All collated small letter manuscripts 
 
 of every class (except 17 and 73), 
 
 certainly. 
 
 Arabic Polyg, 
 certainly. 
 
 and M. S. Slavonic, 
 
 Ignatius, A.D. lOO. Clemens Alex- 
 and. A.D. 194, and others, probably. 
 
 Dionysius Alex. A.D. 264, (if genuine, 
 as is probable), pretty clearly. 
 
 Athanasius, A.D. 326, (if genuine, as 
 is probable), certainly. 
 
 Cyril Alex. A.D, 412, in parte, proba- 
 bly. 
 
 Basil, A.D. 
 
 Gregory Nyssen, A.D, 
 
 Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, . . 
 Euthalius, . . 
 Damascenus, 
 Epiphanius, 
 Photius, . . , . 
 (Ecumenius, 
 Theophylact, 
 
 A.D, 
 A.D. 
 A.D. 
 A.D, 
 A.D, 
 A.D. 
 A.D, 
 A.D, 
 
 370, probably, 
 370, clearly. 
 386, do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 423, 
 462, 
 730, 
 
 787, 
 
 858, 
 
 900, 
 
 1077, 
 
 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 sup- 
 ply of other te.\ts, 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 tvith some difficulty 
 dnd perplexing circumstances to my own mind, which lead me to look 
 upon those toho 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 diflSculties 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 
 
51 
 
 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 state- 
 ments of revelation, in consistency with the opinions 1 hold, as satis- 
 factorily 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 lang^uage was, "I know in whom I have believed;" 
 and if JNIr. 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 vanish 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 par- 
 lour, 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 in- 
 stance, the book of the Revelation; would I be justified in reject- 
 ing 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 nol, 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 ac- 
 counted 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, withoutcom- 
 promising their faithfulness as biographers, have adhered inflexibly to 
 the subject they proposed ; whilst the Holy Spirit, under whose gui- 
 dance they wrote, reserved the revelation of the Saviour's Deity for 
 some subsequent portion of his work ? How would Mr. Porter re- 
 fute 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 iaform me, what precise amount of 
 
52 
 
 evidence will satisfy his judgjment 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 oblio^ation to believe in the doctrine of the resur- 
 rection, although there mitrht have been no other evidence for it than 
 what the languatje of God to Moses^-" J am the God of Abraham, 
 the God of Isaac, and of. Jacob" — conveyed; in which that doctrine 
 is only taught infer entially, 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 con- 
 signed 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 lan- 
 guage of encouragement to Moses, "I am their God." Here, then, 
 is one instance of our being under obligation to believe a most impor- 
 tant doctrine, although taught only by inference. Alas! alas 1 this 
 feeling of dissatisfaction at the amount of evidence which it has 
 pleased the Holy Spirit to give in support of the Deily of Christ, too 
 much resembles the spirit of those who, when the Saviour hung upon 
 thecross, surrounded by every symptom of dereliction and dismay, ex- 
 claimed, " 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 Evange- 
 lists, 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. 
 
 I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon the passages of 
 Scripture to which Mr. Porter referred yesterday. I have already 
 said, that when he threw down his own building by the strange ad- 
 mission 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 1 shall show, are positive and affirmative proofs of the doc- 
 trines 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. 
 
53 
 
 He next referred to Isa. xxxvli. 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 passao^e are ascribed to Jehovah, are elsewhere ascribed to 
 Christ; which I do by the following comparison; viz. 
 
 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.— JonM 
 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 Zecii. xiv. 9» 
 which also proves 7?iy fljst proposition directly, and my second indi- 
 rectly ; which will also be evident from the following comparison : 
 
 IsAtAH 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 Goil, save us 
 from his hand, that all the kingdoms 
 of the earth may know that thou art 
 the Lord, even thou only. 
 
 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 — 
 Rkv. 1. 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 
 that 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 nnj first pro- 
 position 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 declaratioiis 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 prin- 
 cipalities, 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. 
 
54 
 
 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 (Kug/oj s/g). 
 
 A similar declaration made inre/erence toChrist. 
 But to us there is but one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things, and 
 we in him and one Lord (e/j Kvpiog) 
 Jesus Christ, by whom 'are all things, 
 and we by him. — I Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 He next adverted to Gal. iii. 20, " Now a mediator is not a media- 
 tor 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 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 Scripfures 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 1 John iii. 13, " No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
 but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, ivhich 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 
 
55 
 
 your Father." — But here, also, the term Father is evidently used in 
 the sense of preserver, as a designation of the Divine Being. Mr. 
 Porter, in the course of hia remarks upon this text, challenged me 
 to produce a similar declaration, in reference to the Son : I readily 
 accept the challenge, and shall refer him to a far stronger, and more 
 emphatic delarationof the providential superintendence of Christ; 
 in which he is described as preserving, not merely two sparrows, 
 but all created things ; for " he upholds all things by the word of 
 his power," Heb. i. 3. 
 
 The next passage to which Mr. Porter referred was Luke x. 21 : 
 " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast 
 hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them 
 unto babes." — This text distinctly proves the Deity of the Father; 
 for it ascribes to him the title of " Lord of heaven and earth," — 
 represents him as the object of worship, and as the author of revela- 
 tion. But in Gal. i. 12, the same divine work is ascribed to the 
 Son : " For I neither received it (i. e. the gospel) of man, neither was 
 I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'' — So that, as the 
 same divine work, which in Luke x. 21 is ascribed to the Father, is 
 in Gal. i. 12 ascribed to the Son, I infer that Father and Son are 
 one God. 
 
 The next quotation was from 1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6 : " As concerning, 
 therefore, the eating of those things which are offered in sacrifice 
 unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that 
 there is none other God but one : for though there be that are called 
 gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and 
 lords many) ; but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom 
 are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom 
 are all things, and we by him." — Upon this passage, I beg to make 
 the following remarks : 
 
 (1.) The God of the Christian is here placed in direct and ex- 
 pressed contrast, not to a plurality of persons in his own nature, but 
 to a plurality of false gods, whom the heathen worshipped. 
 
 (2.) The " one God," in ver. 6, is not placed in opposition to the 
 Godship of Christ, who is elsewhere frequently styled God (as in 
 Rom. ix. 5), any more than the expression "one Lord" is placed in 
 opposition to the Lordship of the Father, who is elsewhere frequently 
 styled Lord (as in Mark xii. 29). The Father and the Son are 
 " one God," as the Son and the Father are " one Lord ;" or else 
 there are tioo Lords and hvo Gods. 
 
 (3.) It is asserted of both the " one God," and the "one Lord," 
 in this passage, that they are equally the Creator and Preserver of 
 all things : of the former it is said, "of whom are all things, and we 
 in him;" and, of the latter, "by whom are all things, and we by 
 him." 
 
 (4.) As the Apostle speaks of the objects of idolatrous wor- 
 ship, under the general designation of " those that are called gods," 
 and then subdivides them into two species, of " gods many, and 
 lords many ;" it is evident that the " lords many" are, equally with 
 the " gods many," included in the more general designation of 
 
56 
 
 those that are "called gods.'' But there is a perfect parallelism 
 between the fifth and sixth verses, from which I infer that the " one 
 Lord Jesus Christ" is, equally with the "one God the Father," 
 included in the more general declaration at the commencement of 
 the 6th verse : " But to us there is but one God." 
 
 (5.) The last remark is based upon the supposition that the "one 
 God the Father" refers to the Father -personally (or the first person 
 of the Trinity); but I am rather disposed to think, that the vvord 
 " Father" is used in this passage in a more extended sense, as a 
 general designation of the Divine Being, in the sense of Creator and 
 Preserver of all things. And this I argue, from the explanation of 
 the term which is immediately added, " the Father, of tvhom are alt 
 things." In this view, therefore, of the passage, the " one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things," includes Christ in his divine nature, 
 by whom all things were created, and by whom all things consist ; 
 and the " one Lord Jesus Christ," in that case, involves a reference 
 to him in another capacity, as Mediator, and Head over all things 
 to his church. 
 
 (6.) Those who deny the Deity of Christ, and argue for the 
 Deity of the Father only, are bound to account for the Apostle's con- 
 trasting the Lord Jesus Christ with the false Deities of the Heathen ; 
 for why do so, unless he possessed true Deity ? On their principles, 
 the person contrasted with the gods many and lords many of the 
 Heathen, should have been the Father only; for why mention an- 
 other person, if the Father only possessed true Deity ? 
 
 (7.) This passage is valuable to my cause, as giving a meaning 
 to the term Kv^iog, so frequently applied to Christ. The Apostle 
 undoubtedly uses Kvswi (in ver. 5) as a classification or species of 
 0£w in the preceding part of the verse. Kv^iog (in English, Lord) 
 implies dominion or authority, and is given to Christ about a thousand 
 times in the New Testament. Throughout the Septuagint it is used 
 as the translation of the Hebrew vvord mm (Jehovah.) Kv^ioi 
 
 T : 
 
 exactly corresponds with the Baalim of the Phoenicians. It is a 
 word, however, which admits of great latitude in its application ; 
 but in this passage, as well as in others, we have plain evidence of 
 its being applied to Christ in the highest sense, not merely from the 
 reasons before stated, but also from the declaration, " by whom are 
 all things," being connected with it; for this phrase is used in Rom. 
 xi. 36, and in Heb. ii. 10, to designate God as the originating cause 
 of all things, as is evident from a reference to the original of the 
 three passages, in all of which the same preposition, dia, occurs. 
 
 The next passage to which Mr. Porter alluded was 1 Tim. ii. 5 : 
 "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus." — Upon this text I remark, that the former clause 
 proves my first proposition ; and the latter clause proves that part of 
 my second proposition, which asserts that Christ is Mediator: but 
 it has no reference to " his highest capacity, nature, or condition ;" 
 for it contains internal evidence of its referring to him in reference 
 to his official person. But why should Mr. Porter have quoted this 
 text, unless he Acknowledges himself to be a Humanitarian ? for it 
 
57 
 
 says nothing of Cluial as an angelic or superangelic being, but simply 
 speaks of hira as " the man Christ Jesus." 
 
 JNIr. Porter then referred to 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." — I shall, however, decline 
 replying to his argument from this text, until he shall answer a ques- 
 tion which I shall propose to him ; for I wish to imitate the plan 
 vvliich our Saviour adopted, in order to meet the captious questions 
 which were proposed to him in the days of his flesh. The question 
 I propose to him is this. How does he reconcile with the omniscience 
 of the Father the declaration, in reference to Christ, contained ia 
 Rev. xix. 12 : " He had a name written that no man (or, in the 
 Greek, no one, o-jdilg) knew, but he himself?" Here, it is expressly- 
 asserted, that no one knew the name which Christ bore, but Christ 
 himself. Now, I should be glad to know how Mr. Porter will recon- 
 cile this strong declaration w ith the omniscience of the Father. I 
 leave the question with him, in order to obtain from him a solution 
 of the difficulty it presents ; and as soon as he shall give it, I shall 
 then reconcile the declaration contained in ]Mark xiii, 32, with the 
 omniscience of the Son. 
 
 I find that my time is nearly expired. I call upon Mr. Porter, 
 then, to state distinctly and explicitly to this meeting, what are his 
 positive and affirmative views in reference to the person of Christ ; 
 I call upon him to state, whether he considers him to be a mere 
 man, or an angelic or superangelic being, manifested in a human 
 form ; I call upon him to state to what precise grade and classifica- 
 .tion of created beings he considers him to belong ; and I call upon 
 him to give his direct and positive arguments for what he has asserted 
 in his second proposition, that Christ, in his highest capacity, nature, 
 or condition, is a created being. I again call upon Mr. Porter to 
 produce the text or texts in which he considers that Christ is, in 
 reference to his highest capacity, nature, or condition, designated a 
 creature. 
 
 Mr. porter.— Mr. Bagot has spoken of the support which I 
 have lent to the first of his propositions ; which is, that " There is one 
 God, Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged 
 godhead of every creature." I now beg leave to ask him— as, by the 
 regulations of this discussion, I am authorized to do— what he under- 
 stands by the " One God, Jehovah, who is God only?" Does he 
 mean " God the Father P" or does he mean, " God, the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost?" 
 
 Mk. bagot.— I mean to express by the term Jehovah, as used 
 in my first proposition, precisely the Jehovah who is revealed to us 
 in the Bible. 
 
 Mr. porter.— ]\Iy friends, you will be able, from the answer 
 I have just received to a plain and simple question put to Mr. 
 Bagot,— a question which, as a scholar and a clergyman, he ought 
 
 H 
 
58 
 
 to be able to answer without doubt, hesitation, or difficulty, — a 
 question, however, to which he gave no answer at all ; for he ex- 
 plained nothing — he defined nothing ; but left the suVjject exactly 
 as it stood before the question was put ; — you will be able, I 
 say, to judge from the answer which he gave to a plain question, 
 whether the charge which I yesterday advanced against him, of 
 shrinking from the defence of the Trinity, be correct or not. I say, 
 that in that answer, he shrunk again from the avowal of his principles 
 as a Trinitarian ; and, like the persons of whom the poet speaks, 
 " he paltered with us in a double sense." 
 
 He kept the word of promise to the ear. 
 But broke it to our Lope ! 
 
 For my own part, I should be ashamed of myself, and of the 
 situation which I occupy in the church of Christ, and I should blush 
 for those persons who have put me into the station which I hold, if 
 I were capable of giving an answer such as that given in reply to 
 my question concerning the person of the Deity who is the object 
 of my worship. You will be able to judge, from the specimen now 
 presented, whether it is Mr. Bagot or myself that speaks openly, 
 plainly, directly, and intelligibly ! You will be able to judge which 
 of us advocates those principles which dread not investigation. You 
 will be able to judge which of us advocates a cause that is plain and 
 intelligible — a cause such that the more it is examined, the more 
 clearly its beauty and its excellence are seen ; and the more its evi- 
 dences are weighed, the more convincing, palpable, and satisfactory, 
 they appear. 
 
 I shall now take notice of some remarks which Mr. Bagot has 
 made upon my address of yesterday; and I must express my regret that, 
 as a foundation for those remarks, he has adduced expressions, and 
 attributed them to me, which I never used — which I absolutely dis- 
 claim — which, in the presence of upwards of two hundred witnesses, 
 I absolutely disavow. He attributed to me expressions which, had 
 I really uttered them, would have proved me to be equally destitute 
 of integrity and discretion, both as a minister and as a man. He 
 attributed to me the expression, that the original Scriptures are 
 mutilated, interpolated, and grossly corrupted. I never made use of 
 any such expression ! I said that the copy of the original from 
 which King James' version was made, was mutilated, interpolated, 
 and grossly corrupted. I say this again, and can prove it: but to 
 gay, that the original Scriptures are so, is a thing of which I never 
 dreamed ; and the reason is, that I consider the original from which 
 King James' version was executed, so far as it was mutilated and 
 interpolated, is not Scripture, but a gross imposture foisted in upon 
 us in the place of Scripture. 
 
 But it well becomes Mr. Bagot to stand up for the perfect in- 
 tegrity of the text from which King James' translation was made. 
 He knows how to turn its defects to good account. He did not 
 think it beneath him to bring forward, in support of the statement 
 of his doctrine, a text to which every word that I uttered is appli- 
 cable ; — I mean 1 John v. 7. Let Mr. Bagot, after this, talk about 
 
59 
 
 the mutilation, interpolation, and corruption of the Scriptures, as he 
 pleases ; but depend upon it, the less he says upon the subject, the 
 better for liimself. 
 
 You will remember the exclamation of ]\Ir. Bagot, when he asked, 
 "What sort of faith must that man have, who describes the original 
 of the Scriptures, as mutilated, interpolated, and grossly corrupted !" 
 I can only say, — if the question refers to me, — mine is not the faith, 
 which would induce me to attribute to another, expressions which 
 were never used! Mine is not the faith, which would induce me to 
 quote, as an authority, a gross interpolation of Sacred Scripture! 
 Mine is not the faith, which depends on secrecy and silence, when a 
 declaration is required respecting an important doctrine ! 
 
 I might now proceed to analyse those quibbling arguments, and 
 petty sophisms, to which Mr. Bagot has had recourse, in order to obvi- 
 ate the plain meaning of those strong texts which I yesterday advanced. 
 I put it to you, as persons of intelligence and education, — as may be 
 presumed from the station in life which you appear to occupy; — I 
 put it to you, as persons whose presence here shows that you are in 
 some degree concerned for the progress of religious truth ;~I put it 
 to you, as persons who frequent those places in which th^ word of 
 God is dispensed, and who are in the habit of reading those works 
 in which statements in support of peculiar doctrines are brought for- 
 ward : — I put it to you all, if you ever heard of a specimen of sophis- 
 try so perfect, as that just afforded by Mr. Bagot's comment on 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. I never, in all my life,witnessed such faring doivnoi 
 Scripture ; or such quibbling, in order to get rid of the plain mean- 
 ing of a plain text, 
 
 • To follow Mr. Bagot in all his quotations and explanations, 
 would occupy a considerable portion of that time, which, in justice 
 to my cause, I feel bound to employ in setting forth the direct testi- 
 mony in its favour. I will not, then, be led away by Mr. Bagot. I 
 will not follow him in all the wanderings of his tortuous labyrinth. 
 I will go on in the path of Scripture ; — that plain road, in which the 
 wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err. 
 
 Mr. Bagot has paid me some compliments, for the pains I have ta- 
 ken in proving for him his first proposition. I accept them willingly. 
 I feel that I have deserved them. I did take some pains to prove his 
 first proposition. And why ? Just because his first proposition is 
 also mine I Just because it is plain and simple Unitarianism ! — I 
 shall now proceed to strengthen it by other proofs; and I shall first 
 adduce some — 
 
 TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, DIRECTLY PROVING THE UNITY OF OOD, TO 
 THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BEINGS. 
 
 These I shall state in such a manner, that, if you have your Bibles 
 here, as you ought to have, and as I hope you have, you will be able 
 to follow me in my references, and to judge whether the conclusions 
 which I draw, are well-founded or not. In this, I am not exactly 
 following Mr. Bagot's example : but I prefer taking my own course. 
 I refer you, then, to — 
 
60 
 
 ExoD. ix. I'l. I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and 
 upon thy servants, and upon thy people ; that thou mayest know there is 
 NONE LiKB ME in all the earth. 
 
 And if there be none in all the earth, then is there none in all the 
 universe, like unto Jehovah. Again, — 
 
 ExoD. XV. 11. Who is like unto thee, O Lord (Jehovah), among the gods? 
 Who xs like thee, glorious in holiness, tearful in praises, doing wonders ? 
 
 There are that are called gods, in an inferior sense; but Moses and 
 the children of Israel ask. Who is, as Jehovah is, in the highest and 
 all-perfect sense, "glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing won- 
 ders ?'' 
 
 Deut. iii. 24. O Lord God, • * what god is there in heaven or in earth 
 that can do according to thy works ? 
 
 The word Lord is, in the original, Jehovah. The words which I 
 have omitted, will be found not to be necessary to the connexion, in 
 reference to this subject. 
 
 Psalm Ixxxix. 6. Who in the heavens can be compared unto the Lord ? who 
 among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? • * [8.] O Lord 
 God of holts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee, or to thy faithfulness round 
 about thee ? 
 
 This particularity may appear tedious ; but it is necessary, in order 
 to do justice to ray cause, not only that I should bring before you 
 some plain texts, but that I should show that the Scriptures abound 
 with them. It is on the quantity, as well as the directness of the tes- 
 timony that I rely ; the force of which cannot be done away with by 
 any wire-drawn deductions, or fine-spun inferences. I do not deal 
 in such arguments. I am supporting plain doctrines, by plain texts. 
 My next class of proofs consists of — 
 
 PASSAGES WHICH EVINCE THAT THE FATHER IS THE ONE BEING 
 WHO IS ASSERTED TO BE GOD ALONE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL 
 OTHERS. 
 
 I turn to— 
 
 Jer. xxxi. 7, Thus saith the Lord, * * [9.] • * I am a Father to Israel, 
 and Ephraim is my first-born. 
 
 Mal. ii. 10. Have we not all one Father ? hath not one God created us ? 
 
 John viii. 41. We are not born of fornication. We have one Father, 
 even God ! 
 
 I bring this passage forward, to prove that the Jewish people con- 
 sidered the Father to be the only true Deity ;— an idea which Christ 
 himself never corrected. Where, I ask, did our Lord, in his public 
 teaching, correct the impression, if erroneous? and why, if it were 
 erroneous, did he sanction the mistake ? The words of the Jews to 
 our Lord were, as we have seen : " IVe are not born of fornication : 
 we have One Father, even God. Christ, as I have stated, never con- 
 tradicted the opinion of the Jewish people. On the contrary, in that 
 beautiful address, commonly called the Sermon on the Mount, as 
 contained in the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew's Gospel, he 
 says, as a motive to the forgiveness of injuries. 
 
61 
 
 Matt. y. 4o. That yc may be the children of your Father who is in heaven ; 
 for he maketli liis.sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the 
 just and upon the unjust. 
 
 Another proof, that our Saviour represented the Father alone as true 
 God, occurs in the same address, as recorded in — 
 
 Matt. vi. '2(^. Behold the fowls of the air : for they sow not, neither do they 
 reap, nor gather into barns ; yet youk irEAVENLY Father feedeth them. Are 
 ye not much better than they ? • • [28.] And why take ye thought for raiment ? 
 Consider the lilies of the field how they grow. • • Wherefore, if God so clothe 
 the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, will he 
 not much more clothe you .■' 
 
 Here, again, he identifies the terms God and Father; intimating 
 clearly, that they express exactly the same thing, and are coexten- 
 sive in signification. 
 
 Luke xii. 30 — 32. These things do the nations of the world seek after, and 
 your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But seek ye the kingdom 
 of God, and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock ; for it 
 is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom ! 
 
 Observe, again, the manner in which the two terms, God and Father, 
 are used as interchangeable, and as having precisely the same mean- 
 ing. I am endeavouring, on purpose, to read these texts as slowly 
 as I can. I have nothing to hope from concealment ; nor am I de- 
 sirous of running away from you, fiova my opponent, or from my 
 argument. Look again to — 
 
 John iv. 23, 24. The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and 
 in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit j and they 
 that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
 
 It vexelh me to know, that such is the perversity of the human 
 mind, that, in despite of the plainest declarations of Christ himself, 
 contained in the word of God, the vast majority of his professing 
 followers continue to offer up adoration to beings whose worship he 
 never sanctioned, in direct violation of his own positive and repeated 
 mandates. 1 find no where in Scripture, the worship of " God the 
 Son, Redeemer of the uwrld." I find no where in Scripture, that I 
 am to worship " God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and 
 the Son.'' I find no where in Scripture, directions to worship what is 
 called the " Holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons, and One 
 God!" But I find plain and repeated injunctions, to worship One 
 God and Father of all ; and not least plain in the passage to 
 which I now refer. Others may worship those whom they may think 
 worthy of adoration ; but " the true worshippers shall worship the 
 Father in spirit and in truth ; for such the Father seeketh to 
 worship him." 
 
 John vi. 45, 46. It is written in the prophets. And they shall be all taught of 
 God. Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh 
 unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God j he 
 hath seen the Father. 
 
 This quotation proves, that our Lord applies the term God and 
 Father indiscriminately, to express exactly the same idea ; and that, 
 in his language, the two nouns are perfectly coextensive. And this 
 is also intimated by the Apostle James in — 
 
62 
 
 James i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled, before God, even the Father, is 
 this J— and also in James i. 17 : Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above ; 
 and Cometh down from the Father of lights ; with-whom is no variableness, 
 neither shadow of turning. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, I hope, is satisfied with the farther aid which I am 
 lending hi^m to establish his first proposition. 1 venture to affirm, 
 that I liave placed it on an immoveable basis ; whence he himself, 
 with all his quibbles, and all his sophistry, will not be able to shake 
 it down ! 
 
 I shall now direct you to some — 
 
 PASSAGES WHEREIN THE ONE GOD IS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM 
 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, IN SUCH A MANNER, THAT THE ALLEGED 
 DEITY OF THE LATTER IS ENTIRELY EXCLUDED. 
 
 I yesterday quoted Mark x. 18, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, with some other 
 texts, in support of this position. I shall now give you a few more 
 passages, which doubtless Mr. Bagotwill find as much to his 'purpose 
 as those already referred to. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 36. Of that day and hour knoweth no man : no, not the angels of 
 heaven ; but my Father only. 
 
 The phrase, " my Father on/t/"— showing that the person to whom 
 the knowledge of the day alluded to was confined, was the Father of 
 our Lord Jesus C/ms«— would, of itself, be sufficient to establish his 
 exclusion from that knowledge, and consequently from Deity. But, 
 to make assurance doubly sure, we read in the parallel passage : 
 
 Mark xiii. 32. Of that day and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven : neither the Son; bot the Father ! 
 Great, then, as was the knowledge vouchsafed to Christ, for the 
 purposes of Divine Providence,— and abundantly as he was qualified 
 for the objects of his mission, by the wisdom and the grace which 
 were bestowed upon him,— there were, it appears, some things which 
 he did not know ; as he elsewhere expressly says, there were some 
 things which he could not do. Whether this deficiency in wisdom and 
 power is consistent with his supposed proper Deity, I leave it to the 
 judgment of candid minds to determine. I put it to every one of 
 you,— I put it to every honest and unprejudiced understanding, 
 that is capable of forming an opinion on the subject,— whether this 
 deficiency in knowledge be not proved by the passage in Mark 
 
 xiii. 32. , , r 1 . 
 
 It is of no consequence whether the day here spoken of, be the 
 day of judgment, or that of his coming to destroy Jerusalem. It is 
 no matter what the particular day and hour may have been : Christ 
 says, there was a day and an hour of which he was ignorant. The 
 inference against his proper Deity is plain and obvious. 
 
 This text has long puzzled the asserlors of the doctrine of the *' Pro- 
 per Deity of the Word ;" and many have been the quibbles, and many 
 the sophisms, and abundant the wire-drawn deductions, to which they 
 have had recourse, in order to evade the force of this plain declara- 
 tion. Some have told us, that our Lord spoke these words, not m 
 
63 
 
 his divine, but in his human nature ; and that the time of this event, 
 though unknown lo him as man, was perfectly well known to him as 
 God. Other Trinitarians — among whom is Dr. Wardi.aw — have 
 perceived that this supposition is perfectly inconsistent with the lan- 
 guage of Christ himself, — who does not once allude to any distinction 
 between his divine and human natures; but, as reported by Matthew, 
 uses the phrase, " the Father on/y,'' which tacitly e.xcludes himself 
 from the knowledge, as the words in Mark do expressly, — and who 
 positively confines the possession of it solely to the Father. How, 
 then, does Dr. Wardlaw get over the difficulty ? He says, that 
 Christ, as God, knew the time (as undoubtedly he must have known 
 it, if he were really God) ; but that he was ignorant of it in his me- 
 diatorial capacity : that is to say, it was not one of those things 
 which, as Mediator, he was commissioned to teach. Let us see how 
 this criticism applies to the text. " Of that day and that hour know- 
 eth no man," says our Saviour ; that is to say, according to this hy- 
 pothesis, — no man has been commissioned to reveal it. "No," adds 
 our Lord, " not the angels which are in heaven ;" that is, the angels 
 have not been commissioned to teach it. "Neither the Son,'' conti- 
 iiues our Saviour ; which means that the Son has not been commis- 
 sioned to reveal it. "But the Father ;" which, on the explanation 
 of Dr. Wardlaw, can only mean, that the Father has been com- 
 missioned to declare that day ! And by whom was he commissioned ? 
 Who gave his commission to the Father of all ? Let this question 
 be answered. But it will not; for it cannot! — Others again tell us, 
 that the word " know" is to be taken in a peculiar sense — that it 
 means " to make known.'' Let us try this explanation also: "Of 
 that day and hour knoweth no man;" that is, no man maketh it 
 known; no, nor do " the angels in heaven'' make it known; nor 
 does "the Son" make it known; "but the Father'' makes it known — 
 And where has he given any information on the subject ? Let that 
 question be answered. It will not ; for it cannot ! Besides, as Pro- 
 fessor Stuart of Andover observes, although the verb y/yvwcxw some- 
 times has the signification of declaring as well as of knowing; yet, in 
 this passage, the verb is o'lh, a derivative from i'lboi, a distinct verb, 
 which never occurs in this sense. Now, Mr. Stuart is professor in 
 a Calvinistic seminary, and his tract on the Deity of Christ was re- 
 published in this town in 1825; so that it can readily be determined 
 whether I am correct or not in the statement of his opinion. To 
 state these quibbles, is to refute them. 
 
 The last passage which I shall adduce on this occasion, is — 
 
 Acts iv. 24. And when [the Apostles] heard that, they lifted up their voice to God 
 with one accord, and said : Lord, thou art God ! • * [29.] And now. Lord, * * 
 grant • • [30] that signs and wonders may be done by the nanae of thy holy 
 child Jesus, 
 
 The God to whom they prayed was the being, of whom Jesus was 
 the holy child; that is to say, God the Father. 
 
 I have now but a short time unexpired, and I shall employ it to 
 make one remark upon an allusion of Mr. Bagot's, which I intended 
 to notice before this; but, my mind being more occupied with the 
 
64 
 
 language of Scripture than with his, it escaped my memory at the 
 time. He asked, "How can I reconcile it to my conscience, to em- 
 ploy and read in public worship, a version of the Scriptures, which" 
 not "I" alone— but also Bishop Lowth and Dr. J. Pve Smith — • 
 "have stated, abounds with gross and numberless errors?" To this 
 question I answer — that when any of those errors occur in the course of 
 the lessons which I read, I correct them as I go on. I cannot help 
 thanking Mr. Bagot, for his allusion to the situation which I hold as 
 minister of a church in which I am not fettered by any ecclesiastical 
 regulations, to prevent me from using any version that I may prefer, 
 or making any alterations in it that may be necessary, in order to 
 make the translation agree with the divine original. This was a 
 most unfortunate allusion for Mr. Bagot; for it reminds us, that he 
 belongs to a church, according to whose rules, he must not presume 
 to refuse to read the version which is enjoined by superior authority, 
 no matter what may be his opinion of its merit. Though it appear 
 to his own mind ever so mistaken, — though it be, in fact, ever so 
 erroneous, he must not take it upon him to alter one word. Litera 
 scripta manet ! He must read it ! 
 
 Mr. bagot. — Before I proceed with my regular course of ar- 
 gument, I am anxious, with feelings of the purest courtesy and kind- 
 ness, to make a remark, in reference to some expressions which 
 Mr. Porter has repeatedly used since the commencement of this 
 discussion. He has been pleased to designate my arguments as 
 wire-drawn quibbles and petty sophistries : I beg simply to state to 
 Mr. Porter, and to this meeting, that I, at least, do not hold his 
 intellectual powers in such supreme contempt, as to describe the 
 arguments which he has advanced, by the epithets of "wire-drawn 
 quibbles and petty sophistries." 
 
 Mr. Porter has found fault with the observations which I felt it 
 my duty to make, in reference to the terms in which he described 
 the original manuscripts of Scripture. He has told you diat he 
 only alluded to M. SS. from which King James's translation was 
 made, and not to the original of Scripture itself. But are not this 
 audience aware, that Mr. Porter has not the original of Scripture 
 within his reach ; that the autographs of the Sacred writers are in 
 the possession of none ; and that we must, therefore, be satisfied with 
 the best copy which we can obtain, by a careful revision and collation 
 of the several manuscripts to which we have access ? And Mr. Porter 
 has failed to prove that the original, from which King James's trans- 
 lation was made, " was mutilated, interpolated, and otherwise grossly 
 corrupted.'' 
 
 My commentary and remarks upon 1 Cor. viii. 4—6, have been 
 met by a vague and general assertion, that I have been dealing in 
 petty sophistries and quibbles. Let Mr. Porter substantiate the cor- 
 rectness of what he asserts. 
 
 Before I proceed further, I wish to produce a iew more proofs in 
 support of my first proposition, which says, "There is one God, 
 
65 
 
 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 Ixxxix. G, 8 ; Mal. 
 ii. 10; John viii. 41. In his remarks upon this last passage, Mr. 
 Porter ar«rued, 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, 1 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 ar<ifument, 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 inlimations 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 intel- 
 ligent mind could draw the conclusion, that whilst he was perfect 
 man, he was also perfect God. He did not, I say, on all occasions, 
 operily 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 coun- 
 cils 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 council 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 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 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 lowls of the air," with the 30lh 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 yester- 
 day, in proving the Deity of the Son. I quoted many passages in 
 which divine works and prerogatives are ascribed to God, and com- 
 pared 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 ofMr. Porter, givinga 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 Kather. I again say, that P 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 SonP 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 
 lo 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 injinitely 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 com- 
 mand, in reference to the Son, in Heb. i. 6, "Let all the angels of 
 God worship him" {rrgogKuvy]irdTugav ahrCi). 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 ivhole 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 im- 
 press of blasphemous idolatry upon the very angels themselves ; for 
 they are represented in Scripture, as worshipping Christ ; as is evi- 
 dent from IsA. vi. 1 — 3, compared with John xii. 41, which proves 
 
6T 
 
 that the Prophet spoke of Christ ; and if any more proof be desired, 
 I refer to Kev. v. 14, where the four and twenty elders are repre- 
 sented as worshippini]^ 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 distlnclhj from Christ, as 
 necessarily to prove the Deity of the Father exclusively, and to con- 
 tradict altogether the Deity of the Son. Now, in reply to this argu- 
 ment, 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" i^roZ ©sou 
 v.ai Uarfog 7ifj.cijv) ; in Phil. iv. 20, "Now unto God and our Father" 
 (rui ds QiQ xat Uar^i tj/mv) ; in CoL. iii. 17, "Giving thanks to God 
 and the Father" {i-j'/aoigrovvng rtjj QiuJ xai Jlaroi); in 1 Thess. i. 3. 
 " in the sight of God and our Father" [iiMT^oadiv rou &iou y.al Uar^hg 
 iljbojv) ; in 1 Thess. iii. 11, "Now God himself anc? our Father" [ahrhg 
 hs 6 0£oc xa/ Uarr.p '^/xwi') ; and in James i. 27, " Before God and the 
 Father" {rrapo, rw ©sw -/.al Hargl). — 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, — thai I can produce 
 arguments against the Deity of the Father, equally 'plausible ivith 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. Waudlaw, 
 and Mr. Stuart, of Andover, have given of Maric xiii. 32 ; but 1 
 consider all that he said as totally irrelevant, as he tvas impugning 
 explanations ivhich 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 interpreta- 
 tion .'' He is not my bishop ; nor am I bound to identify my judg- 
 ment with his. If, however, Mr. Porter wishes for a lew 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 
 ]\Ir. Porter shall have explained for me Kev. xix. 12, which asserts, 
 that Christ "had a name written, which no one {ovcug.) know but he 
 himself.*' What I wish to know is, how will he reconcile this dccla- 
 
m 
 
 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 ; nei- 
 ther 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 Acts 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 to- 
 gether.'' — 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 princi-r 
 pie 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 com- 
 mon translation, and explains the passages in which they occur, ac- 
 cording 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 correc- 
 tion 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 de- 
 scribed 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 repre- 
 sents Christ as " upholding all things by the word of hisoion 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 
 like Mr. Porter to exert his intellectual powers of calculation, in 
 order to ascertain the height and depth, and length and breadth of 
 
69 
 
 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 otvn 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 refer- 
 ring to the printed definition of the standard. 
 
 As I do not wish to leave any argument of Mr. Porter's unan- 
 swered, 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, whe- 
 ther subsisting in one or in three persons. And to prove this, I do 
 not require the advantage of apelitio 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.'' 
 
 (2.) Even admitting that the term " Father," in this text, is to be 
 understood of the Fa.iher 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 ex- 
 clusive 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 attri- 
 bute which, in that view of the passage, is ascribed to the Father, is 
 elsewhere ascribed to the Soti ; as, in John iii. 31, it is said of Christ, 
 "He that Cometh from above, is above all;" in Rom. ix. 5, he is 
 styled, God over all, blessed for evermore;'' in Col. i. 17, it is as- 
 serted 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 yesterda}', in opposition 
 to the Deity of Christ, occurs in INIatt. xix. 16, 17 : " And behold 
 ■ one came, and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I 
 do, that T 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 ; 
 
70 
 
 and for this reason he proposed the question, " Why coWest thou me 
 good ?" &c. And, in fact, there is no denial of his Deity here, on 
 Ihe part of Christ, unless an ellipsis be inserted in the text, so as to 
 read it thus: "Why callest thou me good ? I am not good: there 
 is none good but one, that is God ;'' — or thus : " Why callest thou 
 me good ? there is none good but one, that is God, and I am not 
 God." But I do not want to add to the W^ord of God. I am satis- 
 fied with that revelation which God has imparted, and which is all 
 that now remains of his ancient converse with man. I am satisfied 
 to rest my faith upon that Book, the origin of which I do not attri- 
 bute to the unaided intellects of Prophets, Evangelists, and Apos- 
 tles ; but which I believe to be one compact composition, which has 
 <jrod for its author, truth for its subject matter, and the salvation of 
 man for its great and sublime consummation — a salvation which it 
 was not unworthy of Deity to stoop to accomplish. The object of 
 Christ, then, in proposing this question, was, as I said, to ascertain 
 what views the inquirer held regarding him ; whether he really be- 
 lieved that he was entitled to the designation " good ;" or whether 
 the young man had accosted him merely in the language of flattery 
 and compliment, with which the Jews in general were accustomed 
 to address the doctors of the law. But this passage is alleged to prove 
 that Christ is not God. As well might we argue, that, when Christ 
 proposes the question, " If David then call him Lord, how is he his 
 Son," it was the Saviour's object to disclaim the apellation of 
 "David's Lord" (for both these passages begin with the same in- 
 terrogatory form), whilst the Scriptures assert, that he is the root 
 and offspring of David. 
 
 But as T have referred to the declaration of Christ, " I am the 
 root and offspring of David," I would wish to know how a created 
 being could be the " rooV from which David sprung ? — and how, at 
 the same time, he could be the " offspring^' which sprung from 
 David ? Surely Christ must have been the root of David by virtue 
 of his Godhead, by which he gave birth not merely to David, but to 
 all that walk upon the surface of the earth ; and he must have been 
 the offspring of David, by virtue of that humanity w\\\c\\ he assumed 
 in order to enable him to make his soul an offering for sin. 
 
 Mr. Porter also referred to John xvii. 3, as a proof of the ex- 
 clusive Deity of the Father exclusively : " And this is life eternal, 
 that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom 
 thou hast sent." In reply to feis argument from this passage, I make 
 the following remarks : 
 
 ■ (I.) God is frequently styled the "true God," in opposition to 
 gods falsely so called (as in 1 Chron. xv. 3, 8; Jer. x. 10; 
 1 Thess. i. 9) ; and as the Father is God, he is, of course, the true 
 God, and the only true God ; for surely Mr. Porter does not ask me 
 to deny the true Deity of the Father, as a preliminary to proving the 
 Deity of the Son. That, indeed, would be curious logic. 
 
 (2.) It is manifest also from the construction of the passage, 
 that the Father is called " God," not in opposition to a plurality of 
 persons, but in opposition to a plurality of gods; for the words are 
 
Tl 
 
 not 6i i^mv rlv (tkndtvh 05W (thee only the true God), but <r= rh fi6vov 
 dXtjlhiov Qiov (thee the only true God), the exclusive particle /mCvov 
 (only) not beinij connected with the word a- (thee), but with the 
 adjective dXr,iimv (true) ; which construction shows, that the Deity of 
 the Father is the "only true" Deity, Just as I believe that the Deity 
 of the Son is the " only true" Deity, for he is the true God and eter- 
 nal life; 1 John v. 20. 
 
 (3.) The Son is not distinguished from the Father, in this pas- 
 sasj^e, in reference to his higher nature, but in reference to his medi- 
 alorial office, as is evident from the structure of the sentence ; 
 "Jesus Christ, tvhom thou liasl sent ;'' and also from this, that this 
 passage is part of a prayer which Christ offered up as the IIi</h 
 Priest of our profession. 
 
 (4.) Altiiough Christ speaks of himself here in his official cha- 
 racter, still there is an index in the passage, directing our minds to 
 a higher contemplation of his nature ; for the knowledge of him is 
 placed on a perfect eqaality with tlie knowledge of the Father, as 
 the germ and principle of eternal life; and the same Apostle else- 
 where defines what this higher nAlure is, where he says of Christ, 
 "This is the true God and eternal life.'' 
 
 This passage, therefore, only goes far enough to prove the ex- 
 clusion from Deity of all false gods, but not far enough to contra- 
 dict the inclusion of the Son in the one Deity of the Bible. 
 
 He next quoted Matt. xii. 50, in order to prove the exclusive 
 Deity of the Father exclusively : "For whosoever shall do the will 
 of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, 
 and mo'her." — But, iu order to show that there is nothing referred, 
 to the Father here, which is peculiar to him to the exclusion of the 
 Son, I refer to John iii. 13, in which Christ asserts that he was "in 
 heaven,'' while he was conversing with Nicodemus upon earth ; and 
 to John xiv. 15, in which he directs his disciples to do bis will, by 
 saying, " Keep imj commandments." 
 
 That our Saviour directed his disciples to pray to the Father, 
 when he prescribed for their use that form which is called the Lord's 
 Prayer, is a fact which I readily concede; but I maintain, that he 
 did not direct them to pray to the Father only. What is the mean- 
 ing of the word " Father" in this prayer ? I consider it to be a de- 
 signation of the Divine Being, as o?ir Father, Creator, and Preserver. 
 But does not Mr. Porter pray to the Father, through the mediation 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ? Let him look, then, to the Lord's Prayer, 
 and will he find the slightest direction to pray through a mediator ? 
 Therefore, his argument derived from this prayer, against praying to 
 Christ, would equally contradict the doctrine of praying through 
 Christ as Mediator ; since, as I said, there is no allusion whatever in 
 the Lord's Prayer to a mediator. But it is very easy to show, that 
 every clause in the Lord's Prayer is applicable to Christ. For in- 
 stance : He is " our Father," in the sense of Creator and Preserver 
 (Col. i. 16, 17); he was '-'in heaven" as to his divine nature, at tiie 
 time when he prescribed this form (John iii. 13); his name is to be 
 "hallowed," for "at the name of Jesus every kuee should bow" 
 
72 
 
 (Phil. ii. 10). His kingdom is spoken of repeatedly in the New 
 Testament, as the object of hope and expectation to his people ; and, 
 if Me examine the other parts of this prayer, we can easily arrive at 
 the conclusion, that every clause of it is as applicable to the Son as 
 to the Father. 
 
 Mr. Porter quoted Matt, xviii. 19 : " If two of you shall agree 
 on earth touching any thing they shall ask, it shall be done for them 
 of my Father which is in heaven ;" and he challenged me to produce 
 a similar declaration in reference to the Son. I willingly accept the 
 challenge; and refer him to John xiv. 14, in which Christ says, "If 
 ye shall ask any thing in my name, / tvill do it." And I would here 
 remark this general observation, that whatever principle Mr. Porter 
 advances, in opposition to the Deity of the Son, equally militates 
 against the Deity of the Father ; and that I can advance equally de- 
 cisive proofs for the Deity of the Son, as those which he brings for- 
 ward in support of the Deity of the Father. And I would also 
 remark, that Mr. Porter's arguments have been founded upon an 
 assumption, that I believe in the existence of tioo Gods; whereas, my 
 second proposition asserts, that Christ " possesses the same eternity, 
 knowledge, power, authority, prerogatives, and Godhead with the 
 Father, and is one with him in all attributes." Let Mr. Porter, then, 
 admit the Deity of the Son, or let him deny the Deity of the Father. 
 Upon his principles of reasoning, there is no other alternative. He 
 has but this option : let him at once represent the Bible as a system 
 of Atheism, or let him admit the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. 
 
 His next quotation was the prayer of our Saviour, recorded in 
 Matt. xxvi. 39: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass 
 from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." But this 
 petition, which Christ offered up in the " days of his flesh" affords 
 no objection against his Deity; but is simply a proof of the pure, 
 unspotted, and immaculate holiness of his character. Every person 
 will recoil from sufferings which are the consequence of sin, in pro- 
 portion to the holiness of character which he possesses. On this 
 principle, when Christ was approaching the hour of his enduring that 
 chastisement which was rendered necessary by the sins of his people, 
 the moral purity of his nature naturally shrunk back from the awful 
 and tremendous infliction. And could we imagine the Father to 
 have been manifest in the flesh in the same sense as the Son was, 
 he would, upon this principle, have shrunk back from the same suf- 
 ferings, considered as the consequence of sin. Nor has the Son less 
 holiness of nature than the Father; for the angels in glory veil their 
 faces in obsequious homage before the throne of the immaculate 
 Jesus, whilst they cry one to another, " Holy, holy, hoi}', is the Lord 
 of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — Many of the present auditory are too well ac- 
 quainted with myself and my sentiments, to require that I should 
 vindicate myself from the supposition of knowingly or willingly 
 either doing or saying any thing that could by possibility bring the 
 Scriptures of truth into contempt, or diminish their authority, as a 
 
73 
 
 rule of faith and a pniile of conduct. lUit there are others, to whom 
 I may not be so well known ; and who may perhaps require, in 
 order to remove misconception from their minds, that I should thus 
 publicly and explicitly declare, that in those opinions which Mr. 
 Bagot has pronounced respectinj;^ the excellence and value of thu 
 Sacred Scriptures, I entirely and cordially concur. Neither is this 
 principle peculiar to myself, as a member of the sect or party to 
 which it is my honour and happiness to belong : my fellow Unita- 
 rians, without exception, so far as they are known to me, share in 
 the same sentiments. Let me remind such of you as know it, and 
 inform such of you as know it not, that the very words in which Mr. 
 Basfot has expressed his admiration of the Scriptures, are taken from 
 a Unitarian writer. In the presence of so many illustrious persons, 
 so highly distinguished not only for rank, but for intellectual attain- 
 ments, it is possible that Mr. Bagot may have forgotten the source 
 from which this quotation was drawn : but I will remind him of the 
 person ; a man of some distinction in his day, though, we may well 
 suppose, not of so much consequence, that his name should dwell in 
 Mr.Bagot's memory. It was a certain John Locke, a Unitarian, 
 who said, that the Bible had " God for ifs author, salvation for its 
 end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter.''' Those 
 who concur with Locke in other points, agree with him also in 
 this. 
 
 There are some other observations of Mr. Bagot'.i, to which I shall 
 allude. And, first, I shall answer the question which he proposed to 
 me, in askinghow I explain thai passage which occurs in Rev. xix. 12 : 
 " He had a name written that no man knew, hut he himself." I reply, 
 that I explain the verse exactly in the same way as King James' 
 translators, who were all orthodox men — strenuous 'J'rinitarians every 
 one — I believe most of them decided Calvinists. How did they un- 
 derstand the passage ? Did they interpret it in INTr. Bagot's sense ? 
 No; for they translated it differently from him, and in a way which 
 every Greek scholar will agree that it readily admits. 
 
 Mr. Bagot says, that he is not one of those who wish to add to the 
 word of God. I am happy to hear it; for I think I remember one in- 
 stance, in which he showed a disposition to do so :— I allude to his un- 
 happy reference to 1 John v. 7. It is well for Mr Bagot that he was 
 not some unfortunate Unitarian, who'quoted such a passage as this. 
 Had he belonged to that sect every where spoken against, and had 
 he put forward in that cause, to prove his positions or to support his 
 statements, texts which are gross, and manifest, and acknowledged 
 forgeries, — oh how the tones of astonishment would have thundered 
 from the pulpit, and resounded on the platform ; and how the notes 
 of exclamation would have bristled in the printed page ! We should 
 then have heard a great deal about adding to the word of God ; and 
 we should have been reminded of a passage in that book of Revela- 
 tions, of which Mr. Bagot is so fond, where it is written, in chap. 
 xxii. 18— 
 
 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,— 
 if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are 
 written in this book ! 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 I appeal to those who know the state of the controversy, and 
 the manner in which it has hitherto been carried on, if the results I 
 have here stated would not, in the case supposed, have been fully- 
 realized. 
 
 But Mr. Bagot has not only come forward as a theologian : he 
 must also try his hand at criticism ; and the first-fruits of his efforts 
 are, that the word " Father," when applied to the Supreme Being, 
 means Creator. The criticism, however, will scarcely answer his 
 purpose; for there is mention in Scripture of the " Goc? anof Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ." You will remember that he has put it to 
 me, to produce Scripture proofs that Christ has a Creator ; — proofs 
 which 1 shall furnish in their due time. Meanwhile, it is manifest, 
 on his own showing, that if there is a God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, there must be one who is his Creator. What opinion 
 Mr. Bagot has formed of the understanding of his auditory, I know 
 not ; but I should think myself guilty of not only treating the word 
 of God with disrespect, but your intellects with contempt, if I came 
 forward to tell you that every word of the Lord's Prayer applies to 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a prayer, which Christ himself 
 taught his disciples ; — this was a prayer which he with his own lips 
 dictated to his disciples, and addressed expressly to the Father: 
 and yet Mr. Bagot says, that every word of that prayer applies to 
 himself ! 
 
 I shall not further follow Mr. Bagot into those criticisms to 
 which he had recourse; for indeed it is unnecessary. You have had 
 different specimens of this sort from him ; but I mean not further to 
 expose them. If there be a mind so constituted, as to imagine 
 that Scripture ought to be explained in this way, — a way which 
 would make its declarations mean any thing, or nothing, — that mind 
 is of such a nature, that I should address myself to it in vain. With 
 that mind, I have no common principle ; and my most strenuous 
 exertions would fail to produce conviction. I hope, however, you 
 do not suppose that I pass over the remarks of Mr. Bagot, because 
 I cannot answer them. I pass them over for a different reason : 
 because I am not afraid of their result on any reflecting mind. And 
 now I turn from criticism, so called ; now I turn from explanations of 
 the Lord's Prayer, such as you have heard; and from interpretations 
 which make Christ's words, " if you ask any thing in my name,'' mean, 
 " you shall ask me," — to the plain teaching of God's word, by which 
 alone this question must be decided. I was quoting some texts, 
 toherein ithe one God is expressly distinguished from the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, in such a manner, that the alleged Deity of the latter is entirely 
 excluded. In addition to the proofs already brought forward, I shall 
 now refer you to — 
 
 Rom. XV. 5, 6. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded 
 one toward another, according to Christ Jesus; that ye may, with one mind and one 
 mouth, glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 I do not care whether you adopt Mr. Bagot's criticism, and call 
 it " God, even the Creator of our Lord Jesus Christ," or allow the 
 
T5 
 
 words to stand as they are : there is a plain distinction between " God" 
 and our Saviour, to the entire exclusion of the latter from Deity. 
 Again I shall refer you to — 
 
 2 Con. i. 3. Blessed be God, kven the Father 0/ our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. 
 
 And 2 Cob. xi. 31. The God and Father 0/ our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
 blessed for evermore, knoweth that 1 lie not. 
 
 These sentiments are mine. I bow my knee, with the Apostle, to the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I own, with the Apostle, 
 that he had a God and Father. I believe the express testimony of 
 Scripture on the subject. I receive 4t in its plain, simple, obvious 
 sense^and meaning. I leave it to others who believe in creeds, to 
 puzzle themselves with essences, subsistences, hypostases, and plu- 
 rality of persons, distinctions, or somewhats ! My creed requires 
 no such aids. It is that indicated by the Scripture phraseology 
 in — 
 
 Eph. i. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ. 
 
 And in Eph. i. 17. [In my prayers] that the God of our Lord Jesus Christy 
 the Father of glort, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the 
 knowledge of him. 
 
 Surely no distinction can be more marked in itself, or more consis- 
 tently preserved, than that which these passages make, between our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and that Supreme Being who is called his " God," 
 and his " Father." To the same effect is — 
 
 Col. i. 3. We give tlianks to God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 pi-aying always for you. 
 
 Where it is to be observed, that instead of " even/' the received ver- 
 sion reads "and:" — to give a plausible ground for prayer to the 
 Trinity. But this makes perfect nonsense of the passage. I say, 
 this makes nonsense of the passage; for suppose the term God to 
 mean the three persons of the Trinity, the verse will read thus: " We 
 give thanks to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,— 
 AND TO THE Father ! — which would be absurd. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by 
 the resurrection of Jeeus Christ from the dead. 
 
 1 Thess. i. 3. Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of 
 love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God, even our 
 Father. 
 
 These last two texts plainly show, that the distinction between Christ 
 and God, which it was my object to prove, is carefully preserved by 
 the Sacred Writers. 
 
 I TiiESS. i. 0, 10. * • Ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true 
 God ; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even 
 Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come. 
 
 I shall now turn your attention to — 
 
T0 
 
 SOME PASSAGES IN WHICH CHRIST TEACHES THAT GOD THE FATHER IS 
 THE ONLY OBJECT OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 
 
 Matt. vi. 16. Let your light so shine before men, that tliey may see your good 
 works, and glorify youk Father who is in heaven. 
 
 Matt. vi. 8. Your Father knowcth what things ye have need of before ye asli 
 him. 
 
 I also refer to that prayer, commonly called the Lord's Prayer, 
 (Matt. vi. 9, &c.) which, I do think, is an address to "the Father" 
 exclusively, notwithstanding the authority of Mr. Bagot's assertion 
 to the contrary. Again we read in — 
 
 Matt. rii. 11. If ye then, being evil, kno-w. how to give good gifts unto your 
 children, how much more shall your heavenly Fath&r give good things unto them 
 that ask him ? 
 
 Here it is plainly taken for granted, that our heavenly Father is 
 the person to whom prayer ought to be addressed. I do not agree 
 with Mr. Bagot, that the word Father is equivalent to Creator. If 
 indeed that criticism be admitted, it would be destructive to his own 
 theory. 
 
 The same principle, that the Father alone is the object of reli-- 
 gious worship, is assumed in — 
 
 Mark. xi. 2o, 26. When ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have onght against any; 
 that your Father who ie in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 
 
 Our Lord does not say, Forgive your brethren, that "God the 
 Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," may forgive you 
 your trespasses ; but " the Father" — "your Father who is in heaven." 
 The Father, therefore, is the object of worship. To the same con. 
 elusion we are led by — 
 
 Luke xi. 1, 2. As he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of 
 his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 
 And he said unto them, " When ye pray, say. Our Father who art in heaven !" 
 
 This is the same mode of address which occurs in the Lord's prayer, 
 but taught on another occasion ; for it appears from the circum- 
 stances related in the context, that this could not be the form 
 delivered in connexion with the Sermon on the Mount. This prayer 
 sanctions the principle which I before laid down, that, according to 
 our Saviour's instruction, prayer is to be addressed specifically to 
 the Father. This was the form which our Saviour taught, " Our 
 Father who art in heaven ;" but who, I would ask, taught that form 
 of prayer which is offered up by orthodox congregations, and which 
 forms a part of established Liturgies ; and which is addressed to "God 
 the Son," and " God the Holy Ghost," and to "the glorious Trinity, 
 three persons and one God ?" Who taught it I know not; but I am 
 sure it was never taught by our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 John xv. 16. I have chosen you, * * that whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name, he may give it you. 
 
 I presume this passage sufficiently explains the text upon which 
 Mr. Bagot laid so much stress, "If ye ask any thing in my name, I 
 will give it you." If Scripture be explained by Scripture, and pas- 
 
TT 
 
 sage by passage, those places in which ambiguities may be found by 
 those which are direct and plain, idl 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 strength- 
 ening Mr. Bagot's first proposition against himself; but I now 
 j)roceed 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 seat 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 h« 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 I the hour is come : glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee f 
 
 John xvii. 5. And now, O Father ! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
 glory which I had with tbcc before the world was. . 
 
T8 
 
 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 viay be one in us : that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
 
 This text affords a sufficient answer to the argument brought for- 
 ward 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 ivhich 
 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 
 name. Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying,] I have both glorified it, and 
 will glorify it again. 
 
 These affecting words were spoken at a time when a cruel fate was 
 about to overtake the Saviour, and his end was drawing near.- Ob- 
 serve 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 he 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 Al- 
 mighty God ! 
 
 Again, when his disciples seemed disposed to resist the officers who 
 were sent to apprehend him, he said to one of them — 
 
79 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 53. Thinkcst thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he 
 will give vie more tbou 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 
 tliey 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 bast thou forsaken me ! 
 
 Still farther, as we find it recorded in — 
 
 LcKE xxii. 46. When Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said. Father ! into 
 Ihy hands I commend my spirit. And having thus said, he gave up the ghost. 
 
 And now, my friends — fellow Christians — fellow Protestants — 
 you 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 ia 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 Father — 
 to 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 forever? 
 This is a point which would well bear to be dilated on; but I spare 
 you. It is an argument vrhich 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 my- 
 self 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. — IVIr. 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 
 
80 
 
 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 Uni- 
 tarian. 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 re- 
 conciled 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 {ouBeig) 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 diflnculty 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 ovdug in a restricted sense, as denoting " no man ;" so 
 that, instead of translating the word ovdsig in its plain and obvious 
 sense, as denoting " no one," whether created or uncreated, he un- 
 derstands it in a more limited sense, as it occurs in the English ver- 
 sion 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 de. 
 claration 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 a/^ 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, tvhich asserts that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is perfect man. It is an essential attribute of a " perfect 
 man" to possess a faculty oi progressively Sicqmving 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 
 
it 
 
 the latter by reference to the passa^je 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 tlie 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 sub- 
 mit to be placed on the defensive, in reference to this text, as I re- 
 gard it as 7L necessary ajfirmative proof of part of my second proposition. 
 As to the passage Ibrown 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 1 yesterday referred ? 
 Certainly not: and surely Mr. Porter had no right to criticise any 
 passage as an arfTument on my side, unless what I have actually ad- 
 vanced. 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. 
 
 INIr. 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 
 
 Li 
 
82 
 
 ''Father** is used, in Scripture, in two senses: it is applied to the 
 Father of Christians, and to the Father of Christ. 
 
 As to the wise declaration which Mr. Porter made in his last 
 speech, that " he would not answer Mr. Bagol's criticisms, because 
 his most strenuous exertions would fail to produce conviction;" this 
 was a very good reason, indeed ; and I beg to express my obligations 
 to him for it, and to assure him that I perfectly concur with him in 
 recognising the validity of the reason which it assigns ! 
 
 I stated yesterday, that the Scriptures speak of Christ in three 
 points of view; as Mediator — as perfect man — and as perfect God. 
 As Mediator, I believe that he is subordinate to the Father, who 
 sustains the higher office ; and I now wish to advance a few addi. 
 tional proofs of his mediatorial subordination. These you will find 
 in Rom. xv. 5, 6; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; Col. i. 3; 
 1 Thess. i. 3 — 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 3. On examining these passages at your 
 leisure, you will find that they all prove satisfactorily the mediatorial 
 subordination of Christ to the Father. I wish, however, to make a 
 remark upon one or two of them. 
 
 In 1 Thess. i. 9, we read of Christians "turning to God from 
 idols, to serve the living and true God." Now it is easy to show, 
 from a comparison of this text with other parts of Scripture, that 
 Christ is " the living and true God ;'* for the eternal employment of 
 the glorified saints is represented in Rev. xxii. 3, as " serving God 
 and the Lamb ;" and the Father has given this command, in refe- 
 rence to Christ, which is recorded in Heb. i. 6, "Let all the angels 
 of God worship him." Now, unless Mr. Pr>rfp- allow, that Chris- 
 tianity has done nothing more than turn men from one system of 
 idolatry to another, it must follow, from these texts, that Christ is the 
 living and true God. 
 
 Again : I would remark, in reference to 2 Cor. i. 3, — " Blessed 
 be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," — that it proves 
 the Deity of the Holy Ghost ; for we read, in Luke i. 35, " The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 
 shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy thing which shall be 
 torn of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Hence it is evident 
 that the Holy Ghost is the Father of, the Son of God; and, conse- 
 quently, is God. 
 
 Mr. Porter has again referred to the Lord's Prayer, upon which 
 I have already commented ; and must now revert to it, in order to cor- 
 rect a misapprehension into which he has fallen. He seemed to think 
 that I spoke of that prayer as if it was to be exclusively offered up 
 to Christ. I certainly hold no such opinion. I believe, that the 
 words " Our Father" are a general designation of the Divine Being 
 — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And I beg leave again to say, 
 that I do not consider it necessary to deny the true Deity of the 
 Father, as a preliminary to proving the true Deity of Christ. 
 
 In reference to Matt. vi. 14, — "For if ye forgive men their 
 trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you," — which Mr. 
 Porter quoted in order to prove the Deity of the Father, I beg to 
 remark, that it establishes a principle by which the Deity of the Son 
 necessarily follows, as the Son also exercises the same divine prero- 
 
83 
 
 gative of forgivinp; sins, as is asserted in Col. iii. 13 : " Forbearing 
 one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel 
 against any ; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." 
 
 I must now refer to the mode by which Mr. Porter endeavoured 
 to obviate the argument for the Deity of Christ, which I derived 
 from John xiv. 14 : " If ye shall ask any thing in my name, / will 
 Jo it." — He produced the declaration of Christ, in John xvi. 23: 
 " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you ;" 
 and he told us with the most perfect composure, that the latter passage 
 explains the former, so as to bring it into consistency with his views ! 
 I should be anxious to know on what principle the latter text ex- 
 plains the former ? Does Mr. Porter apply to the interpretation of 
 Scripture, some principle of criticism similar to that by which posi- 
 tive and negative quantities in algebraic computations destroy and 
 neutralize each other ? Does he place the sign of plus before one 
 passage, and of minus before another; and then, by an algebraic 
 calculation, neutralize the one by the other? For my part, I believe 
 the two declarations contained in these two portions of the word of 
 God. I believe that the Father will give what the Christian prays 
 for in tbe name of Christ; and I also believe that Christ will give 
 what the Christian prays for : for I believe that " what things soever 
 the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise.'' John v. 19. 
 And I would not wish to apply the principle which Mr. Porter has 
 adopted, of neutralizing Scripture, by a rule similar to that by which 
 positive and negative quantities in algebra destroy each other. 
 
 Mr. Porter has laid great stress upon the fact, that Christ prayed 
 to the Father only, whilst he was upon earth. I answer. Is there 
 not a sufficiency of Scripture evidence, to demonstrate the duty of 
 praying to Christ? did not Stephen pray to him in his dying hour? 
 did not the Apostle Paul pray to him thrice, to be delivered from 
 the thorn in the flesh ? and were not Christians designated as those 
 who called upon the name of Christ ?— Does Mr. Porter require of 
 me to produce evidence of Christ's praying to himself! Surely this 
 is manifestly one of those duties, in support of which he could not 
 leave his own example. In many points, the example of Christ, 
 considered as a model for our moral imitation, was defective : he did 
 not leave the example of being a good husband or a good father ; 
 and, from the nature of the thing, he could not leave us an example 
 of praying to himself: it were absurd to expect it. We must ob- 
 viously look to the conduct of the apostles and disciples, as recorded 
 in the rest of Scripture, for practical evidence in support of this 
 duty. 
 
 The next passage' which Mr. Porter quoted, was John xi. 41 : 
 "Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said. Father, I thank thee that thou 
 hast heard me." — But this, however, is not a prayer for ability, to 
 perform the miracle of rcfising Lazarus ; and the words which follow 
 in the 42d verse explain the object of the Saviour in this address: 
 " And I knew that thou hearest me always : but because of the people 
 which stand by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent 
 me." Mr. Porter has asked the^foUowing question, upon which he 
 seemed to lay considerable stress: "If Christ be God, why should 
 
84 
 
 he have prayed at all ?" — I answer this question by simply proposing 
 another: "If Christ was man, why should he have lived without 
 prayer?" 
 
 He next referred to John xv. 26, in which Christ says to his 
 disciples, "I will pray the Father, and he will send you another 
 Comforter." — But this passage only supplies me with part of the 
 argument, by which I prove, that the Father and the Son are one, 
 in the act of sending the Spirit to the church : the remainder of the 
 argument, which attributes the exercise of the same prerogative to 
 Christ, occurs in John xv. 26, " When the Comforter is come, whom 
 I will send unto you from the Father." 
 
 I shall now direct your attention to the prayer of our Saviour, 
 which is recorded in the 17th chapter of John, which Mr. Porter 
 evidently regards as supplying him with irrefragable arguments 
 against the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. This prayer, however, 
 was presented to the Father in " the days of his flesh," and is easily 
 accounted for by the official station which the Redeemer occupied 
 as the great High Priest of his people's profession. It was customary 
 for the High Priest, immediately before the great day of atonement, 
 to offer up a solemn prayer to God — first, for himself; secondly, for 
 the sons of Aaron, who were joined with him in the priesthood ; 
 and, thirdly, for the entire congregation of the people. If you examine 
 this prayer of Christ's, you will find an exact correspondence with 
 this arrangement. From verse 1 to 5, he prays for himself; from 
 verse 6 to 19, he prays for the Apostles, who were, in a subordinate 
 sense, united with him in the great office of preaching the Gospel ; 
 and from verse 20 to the end, he prays for his whole church : and 
 the time when he offered up this prayer was immediately before that 
 solemn hour, in which he offered himself without spot to God, and 
 it was uttered by him in his official character as our great High 
 Priest. 
 
 I shall now refer to some parts of this prayer, in order to show 
 that the language it contains is totally inconsistent with the condi- 
 tion of a creature. In the first verse, he prays in these remarkable 
 words : " Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify 
 thee." Now, imagine a creature presenting such a prayer as this — 
 asking his Creator to glorify him, in order that he might glorify his 
 Creator! Imagine, for instance, Gabriel himself, who stands upon 
 a lofty elevation within the sunshine of the eternal throne, adopting 
 such language in prayer to that Being who imparts to him all that 
 seraphic intelligence which gives emphasis and vigour to the anthem 
 in which he celebrates the matchless glory of his Creator ! Nor is the 
 language which occurs in the fifth verse more consistent with the 
 character and condition of a creature: "And now, O Father, glorify 
 thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee 
 before the world was." In this passage, Christ takes a retrospective 
 view of the glory which he had with the Father before the creation 
 of the world, in terms which prove that his glory was preciseh/ the 
 same as the glory of the Father ; and he takes a prospective view of 
 the glory which he should resume when the period of his official 
 subordination had expired. Now, I ask, does this verse contain 
 
85 
 
 tlie lanfjua^e of a creature ? Could a creature pray to his Creator 
 to glorify him in (his way P Alas ! alas ! Surely, if we calculate 
 the distanca which.exists between the lowest and the highest created 
 beintj, that distance is but a speck when contrasted with the unmea- 
 sured interval which there is between the highest created beings and 
 the Lord of hosts ! — and surely an humbler style of address would 
 suit the dependence and inferiority of any created intelligence, no 
 matter how exalted ! 
 
 I now direct your attention to the 10th verse: "And all mine 
 are thine, and thine are mine." — Mark the emphasis of this declara- 
 tion : all that belongs to the Father, belongs also to the Son > and 
 ail which belongs to the Son, belongs also to the Father. Now, 
 again, imagine a created being adopting such an assertion as this, in 
 prayer to Jehovah — " All mine are thine, and thine are mine;" — an 
 assertion which implies that there is a reciprocity of interest, and a 
 mutual possession of property, between the Father and the Son ; and 
 this necessarily results from the fact, that the Father and the Son 
 are one God, inconsequence of which there is this mutual proprie- 
 torship between them. And here I lay down this general position, 
 that although the New Testament contains abundant proofs of the 
 official subordination of Christ to the Father; yet these proofs are 
 intermixed with statements which leads us up to a recognition of his 
 Deity, like so many bright and lucid spots emanating from the 
 eclipsed splendour of his Divinity, and bursting through the opposing 
 vail of that humanity in which he tabernacled amongst men. This 
 chapter contains several of these lucid points, which serve as indices 
 to conduct us to a contemplation of a higher glory than the Saviour 
 manifested here below. Look, for further example, to the 24th verse, 
 in which he does not say, " Father, I pray," or " Father, I entreat ;" 
 but he says, in language which simply contains a declaration of his 
 purpose and intention: "Father, I will that they also whom thou 
 hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold the 
 glory which thou hast given me." Surely such a style of address as 
 this would be blasphemy and presumption of the blackest dye, in 
 the mouth of a merely created being, and such as would excite the 
 astonishment of even Satan himself! And how could Christ have 
 adopted this language, if he did not po.ssess an authority and a power 
 which was one with the Father's, and independent of all superior 
 control? This allusion of Mr. Porter's to the 17lh of John was 
 most unfortunate for his cause. I admit that Christ did pray, and 
 I admit that this proves his inferiority, so far as his humanity is 
 concerned; yet, even in this prayer, there are several intimations 
 interspersed, which, as I have already shown, leads us up to a con- 
 templation of a higher glory. 
 
 But, in connexion with this chapter which I have been consider- 
 ing, Mr. Porter has asked, Why did Christ pray to the Father to give 
 him glory, since, if he was God, he could not acquire more glory 
 than he already possessed ? I ask, in reply, What does the Psalm- 
 ist mean, when he says, in Psalm xix. " The heavens declare the 
 glory of God ?'' I ask, If the Father is God, possessing an immense 
 and immeasurable expanse of glorv — a glory commensurate with 
 
86 
 
 infinity and everlasting as eternity, how could creation add to the 
 glory of the supreme and everlasting God ? And yet creation does 
 give glory to God. The glory, therefore, for which the Saviour 
 prayed was this — that the glory of being the Saviour and Redeemer 
 might be superadded to his previous glory of being the Creator and 
 Preserver of men ; so that now all glory, moral and natural, might 
 be concentrated into one great mass, so as to form an amplitude of 
 splendour, which would command the homage of the intelligent 
 cneation of God ! 
 
 Mr. Porter next referred to John xii. 27 : " Now is my soul 
 troubled, and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour : 
 but for this cause, came I unto this hour." — I see no difficulty w^hat- 
 ever in this lext, when I recollect what Isaiah said, that Christ 
 showld make his soul an offering for sin ; for when we speak of the 
 atonement of the Saviour, we should not restrict our views to the 
 offering of his body upon Calvary, but should take into account the 
 agonies of his soul, which he endured in the garden of Gethsemane. 
 But does it militate against his Deity, to say that his soul was trou- 
 bled ? Do we not read in Scripture, that God is grieved and angry 
 with the wicked every day ? and is it not as difficult to reconcile 
 these statements with the Deity of the Father, as to reconcile the 
 passage under consideration with the Deity of the Son ? But if 
 Christ be the highest superangelic being, I ask, How could his soul 
 be troubled ? And whatever answer Mr. Porter will give to this, 
 will supply me with a solution of whatever difficulty he thinks is 
 connected with the Deity of Christ by this text, 
 
 Mr. Porter referred to the fact of an angel's having strengthened 
 Christ in the garden. I reply, that, if he argues that this circum- 
 stance proves him to be inferior to the Father, it also proves him to be 
 inferior to the angel who strengthened him ; for how could a super- 
 angelic being be strengthened by a being inferior to himself ? 
 
 Mr. Porter informed us yesterday, that he did not believe in the 
 mere humanity of Christ ; and he also argued against the Deity of 
 Christ, on the ground that Matthew, who was associated with 
 him during his public ministry, never once mentioned his Deity. I 
 beg to remark, in reply to this, that Matthew never once asserted, 
 or gave the slightest intimation of Christ's having been a superan- 
 gelic being ; so that, if Matthew's asserting one thing or the other 
 be of consequence to the argument, we must admit that he taught 
 the lowest Humanitarianism ; for, even after the most remarkable of 
 all the miracles which Christ performed, the exclamation of the dis- 
 ciples was, "What manner of man is this', that even the winds and 
 the sea obey him ?" And, in short, if we admit that any of the 
 Evangelists are silent in reference to the Deity of Christ, and deduce 
 an argument from their silence, it must be in favour of that doctrine 
 which teaches that Christ was a mere man. 
 
 Mr. Porter has adduced the prayers which Christ offered up to 
 his Father on the cross, as evidences of the Deity of the Father 
 exclusively. These prayers are recorded in Luke xxiii. 34 : " Fa- 
 ther, forgive them, for they know not what they do;" and in ver. 46 : 
 " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." But I beg to refer 
 
87 
 
 him to two similar prayers, offered up by Stephen to the Saviour 
 himself; in AcTSvii.59: "LordJesus, receive my spirit;" and ver.GO: 
 " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." And I argue, that Christ 
 must have possessed the same ability to forgive sins, and to receive 
 the soul of Stephen, as he himself attributed to the Father. We 
 should consider also that Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, when 
 he ascribed to Christ the very same prerogatives, offered up the very 
 same prayers, in the very same language, as Christ ascribed and ad- 
 dressed to his Father on the cross. Let Mr. Porter now take his 
 choice, whether to believe that Stephen or Christ was the idolater 
 on these occasions. 
 
 Mr. Porter has presented before our view a beautiful description 
 of the Saviour's conduct whilst on earth, and has asked, whether it 
 was such as the eternal and blessed God would adopt ? To this 
 question I reply, that the line of conduct which the Saviour pursued, 
 the phraseology which he employed, and the manner in which he 
 appeared before the view of men, were such as a man should adopt, 
 and as a human creature would naturally assume. I believe that, 
 when God was manifest in the flesh, and assumed the body of a man, 
 he naturally acted so far according to the faculties of a man. It is 
 wretched to be obliged to advert to such arguments as these, which 
 prove nothing; unless that they give me an opportunity to illustrate 
 my positive and affirmative sentiments, in reference to the humanity 
 and mediatorial character of Christ. 
 
 Mr. Porter has asserted in argument, that Christ taught his dis- 
 ciples to confine their worship to the Father. This I deny; because 
 he. taught no such thing. He taught them to pray to the Father ; 
 but he did not teach them to direct their worship to the Father onhj. 
 If worship should be confined to the Father, to the exclusion of the 
 Son, Stephen must have died in an act of idolatry ; the angels in 
 heaven are guilty of the same sin; and also the Apostle Paul; for he 
 prayed, not only once, but three times, to Christ ; and, if he had not 
 been well persuaded of his Divinity, surely, when he had received 
 no answer to the first or second petition, he would not have prayed 
 a second or a third time ; but would have had recourse to a higher 
 power. But Paul prayed to Christ three times, and at length re- 
 ceived this gracious reply : " My grace is sufficient for thee, my 
 strength is perfected in weakness." From all this I infer, that Christ 
 did not direct his disciples to pray to the Father ow/y. But it is not 
 my object to prove, that Christians should not worship or pray to the 
 Father : my doctrine is, " that all men should honour the Son, even 
 as they honour the Father." In heaven, as we are told in Rev. v. 
 12 to 14, the saints and angels worship the Saviour. And I would 
 say to Mr. Porter, in conclusion, If you do not acknowledge the Lord 
 Jesus Christ now, as the object of worship and adoration, — and if 
 you do not make him the object of your prayers now, you will be 
 constrained to acknowledge the glory and Deity of his person in the 
 world of spirits hereafter. And, oh ! what an intense gratification 
 would it be to my mind, were I jiermitted to look forward, with pro- 
 phetic eye, to that great and joyful day, when Christ shall have lifted 
 up his elect to blessedness and immortality, and to contemplate 
 
88 
 
 myself as standing side by side with Mr. Porter, joining with him, in 
 hallowed and grateful competition, in singing the anthem of the 
 redeemed : " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in 
 his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and 
 our Father, to him be glory and dominion, for ever and ever. Amen !" 
 
 Mb. porter. — Before 1 commence my concluding observa- 
 tions, 1 wish to put Mr. Bagot a question, which I have a right 
 to ask according to the rules, and to which I expect to receive an 
 answer. In the course of my addresses this day and yesterday, I 
 repeatedly characterized 1 John v. 7 — the text concerning " the three 
 heavenly ivitnesses," as they are designated — as an interpolation, a 
 forgery and an imposture. Mr. Bagot has called on me to give in de- 
 tail my proofs for that assertion. I now ask him. Does he deny it? 
 
 Mr. bagot. — I am not bound to answer that, because I did not 
 quote that text on my side of the question, in this discussion. If I 
 quoted that text in my classification of proofs, I would then consider 
 myself bound to answer the question. But, as Mr. Porter has brought 
 that text before the meeting, declaring it to be an interpolation, I 
 have a right still to challenge him to the production of the proofs 
 in detail, by which he justifies his opinion of the text in question. 
 
 Mr. porter. — Mr. Bagot having answered my question with 
 his usual explicitness, I shall merely say, that I brought that text 
 forward so pointedly, because this discussion arose out of a challenge 
 given by Mr. Bagot to all Unitarians, to answer his (in his opinion) 
 unanswerable pamphlet. This challenge I took up ; or rather for 
 reasons already assigned, I declined to take up in his way, perform- 
 ing a different mode. It was out of that " Abstract," that the 
 present discussion originated. In this " Abstract," which I hold in 
 my hand, I find a reference to 1 John v. 7, in the very first para- 
 graph of the first page, and in the first line which contains scriptural 
 r|uotations. After this plain statement, which it is impossible to deny, 
 — for the correspondence is in print before the public, — Heave it for 
 you to decide, whether I asked an improper or irrelevant question. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, in his last speech, has had recourse to his usual mode 
 of interpreting Scripture. He tells you that in the Lord's Prayer, 
 the word our Father means the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Re- 
 specting which, I shall only say, if such were the meaning that our 
 Lord intended to convey, it would have been well had Mr. Bagot 
 been present to assist him in mending his phraseology. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, in the course of some strong observations concerning 
 that text, "Father ! I ivill that they may be ivith me," has introduced 
 the name of Satan in connexion with that of Christ, in a way which 
 I shall not characterize, as I shall certainly not imitate. It must be 
 obvious to any person who reads that prayer, even with common 
 attention, that the phrase "I zvill" means, in this passage, the same 
 as I wish, desire, or pray ; and from the connexion in which the words 
 occur, they can have no other meaning. — I turn, however, from such 
 
89 
 
 particular instance?, to make some general remarks on Mr. Bagol'b 
 mode of conducting his argument. 
 
 I am not a prophet, nor the sou of a prophet ; but a Dissenting 
 Minister, the son of a Dissenting Minister: yet having been, at one 
 time of my life, addicted to the study of theology, I have made my- 
 self, in some degree, acquainted with the general outline of the 
 reasonings that are put forward in defence of their respective doc- 
 trines, by the leading sects of the Christian world ; and therefore I 
 was able to foresee with tolerable distinctness, and to foretel with 
 some degree of accuracy, the line of argument which my reverend 
 opponent would of necessity feel himself obliged to adopt. I was able 
 to tell you beforehand, that the scriptural passages to which he would 
 refer you for proof of the Proper Deity of the Word, would not be plain, 
 downright assertions of the tact, or declarations of two natures, ex- 
 isting in one person; and thus composing, or compounding, or in 
 some way making up, what he has elsewhere most unscripturally de- 
 nominated the complex person of the Mediator. I knew well enough 
 such declarations were not to be had ; and therefore I knew, that 
 Mr. Bagot would be obliged to hunt out his doctrine by innuendos 
 and inferences, and bits and scraps, and far-fetched allusions, and 
 unnatural juxtapositions. And I now repeat, what I yesterday ar- 
 gued in form, that these deductions, or inductions, or conclusions, 
 are insufUcient proofs of a doctrine, which, if true, would have been 
 revealed ; and, if revealed, would not have been left to be sought 
 after and hunted out in the manner described. If true, it would 
 have been plainly stated in Scripture, and especially by the writers 
 of the New Testament; for, that they who knew our Lord, and loved 
 him while he was on the earth, should have observed a mysterious 
 silence respecting his supposed Deity, is to me inconceivable and 
 incredible. 
 
 The manner in which Mr. Bagot repeated, or rather parrotled, 
 the texts which he quoted in his speech of yesterday, (with a rapidity 
 and volubility which, as they are not his usual style of delivery, 
 struck me as being neither particularly fair towards his opponent, 
 nor respectful to his auditory, nor reverent to the very serious and 
 important subject before him,) as it renders it difficult for me to fol- 
 low him through the whole detail of his arguments, so it happily 
 renders the task less necessary. It is not likely that statements re- 
 peated, or rather parrotted, so fast, that the mind could scarcely fol- 
 low them, even when strained to the utmost intensity of exertion, — 
 it is not likely that they can have tended much to strengthen con- 
 viction in those who were before convinced, or to produce it in 
 quarters where doubt or hesitation prevailed. Such a mode of get- 
 ting through the discussion may, indeed, enable him to parade a for- 
 midable array of texts before the eye in the printed report ; but it is 
 utterly useless as a means of producing any impression upon the 
 persons who have come hither in the hope of hearing a serious ques- 
 tion seriously debated, in a calm and ra^iono^ manner. I venture to 
 affirm, that, for all the purposes of discussion and debate, he might 
 as well have given the greater part of the texts adduced in the last 
 hour of his harangue in the original Hebrew or Greek. Such an 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 artifice, I must beg leave to tell him, is unworthy of him. He ought 
 to be above it. 
 
 Some of his statements, however, were of such a nature, that they 
 demand a short notice in reply. 
 
 Mr. Bagot laid it down as a principle, that a mediator between 
 two parties who are at variance, must of necessity be inferior to one 
 of them. Hence, in his whole mediatorial undertaking, he admits 
 that Christ the Son was inferior to the Father. But this inferiority, 
 he maintains, was only official; that is, while he acted in this 
 capacity as subordinate to the Father, he was at the same time on an 
 exact equality with him in natural and inherent dignity. Now, I 
 stop not to inquire where he has learned this distinction between 
 natural and official dignity. I wish to turn your attention to an in- 
 ference which Mr. Bagot deduced from this fanciful distinction. He 
 told us that, as the New Testament contained the history of our 
 Lord's mediatorial undertaking, it was natural that it should abound 
 with declarations of his inferiority to the Father. Now, to my mind, 
 the inference would be precisely the reverse. In writing the history of 
 any illustrious personage, who for a time travelled incognito, and in 
 that state was exposed to various accidents, injuries, and insults, 
 which would never otherwise have befallen him, — and especially if 
 any doubt had been entertained whether he were really the important 
 personage whom some alleged that he was, — the historian, as a matter 
 of course, would be led, at every turn of his narrative, to make strong 
 and pointed allusions to the dignity of his hero, and to excite our 
 admiration of the patience with which the sovereign endured the ill 
 treatment that was heaped upon him by his subjects, who were un- 
 acquainted with him in his assumed disguise. For proof of this, I 
 could refer you to every narrative of a similar adventure; — from the 
 11 Bondocani of the Arabian Tales, to the travels of Charles I. and 
 Buckingham to the court of Madrid. Now, my friends, as the ar- 
 gument of Mr. Bagot assumes, that these allusions to the inherent 
 dignity of Jesus do not abound in the New Testament, while asser- 
 tions and affirmations of his absolute inferiority do abound, I say, 
 that simple fact proves that our Lord's followers knew nothing of him 
 in that higher natural character which Mr. Bagot claims for him. 
 I thank him, therefore, for the admission, that such is the state of 
 the evidence to be gathered from the Evangelists ; and I make him 
 a present of the argument which he has built upon it. 
 
 But, after all, where has Mr. Bagot learned this assumed distinc- 
 tion between the mediatorial and the personal character of our Lord ? 
 Where is it written in the New Testament, that Christ, as God, is 
 equal to the Father ; as Man, he is inferior to the Father ; as God 
 and Man united in his mediatorial character, he is officially subor- 
 dinate, but personally equal to him ? No where is it thus written. 
 It is an idea which never entered into the minds of the Writers of 
 the Sacred Volume, and of which they have not given the slightest 
 hint. It is an idea full of absurdity and self-contradiction ; for how 
 could the unchangeable Being, who presides over the world, divest 
 himself of his inherent glory, and become, for a time, inferior to an- 
 other person, to whom, it is supposed, he was in all respects equal 
 
91 
 
 and identical ? This would be to suppose a being to preside over 
 the universe, whose nature is mutable, and in whom, by consequence, 
 his creatures could repose no confidence. 
 
 It would be an idle task to attempt to pursue Mr. Bagot through 
 that mazy labyrinth in which he entangled himself, his subject, and 
 his auditors. I feel perfectly assured, that, so far as the mere eflect 
 of his spoken address is concerned, it would be a waste of time and 
 breath to answer arguments scriadm, which could not be individually 
 effective, because they could not be individually understood. I 
 shall, therefore, classify them into groups, and deal with them col- 
 lectively. 
 
 In the front were paraded some passages, in which, as Mr. Bagot 
 asserted, the names and titles of the Supreme Being are ascribed to 
 Christ. 
 
 The first argument was drawn from the term Immanuel, found in 
 ISA. vii. 14, and applied to our Saviour in Matt. i. 23. To under- 
 stand the perfect emptiness of this argument, it is only necessary to 
 read the passage in Isaiah with its context; which I shall do from 
 the version of Bishop Lowth, as being much more accurate than 
 that contained in King James' translation. 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 
 1. In the days ofAliaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judali, 
 Retsin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came 
 
 2. up against Jcrasalem to besiege it: but they could not overcome it. And 
 when it was told to the house of David, that Syria was supported by Eph- 
 raim, the heart of the king and the heart of his people was moved, as the 
 
 3. trees of the forest are moved before the wind. And Jehovah said to Isaiah, 
 "Go out now to meet Ahazj tLou, and Shearjashub, thy son, at the end of the 
 
 4. aqueduct of the upper pool, at the causeway of the Fuller's field. And thou 
 Shalt say unto him, 
 
 Take heed, and be still : fear not, neither let thy heart be faint. 
 
 Because of the two tails of these smoking firebrands ; 
 
 For the fierce wrath of Retsin, and of the son of Remaliah ; 
 
 5. Because Syria hatb devised evil against thee, 
 Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, saying, 
 
 6. "Let us go up against Judah, and harrass it ; 
 And let us rend off a part of it for ourselves ; 
 And let us set a king to reign in the midst of it. 
 Even the son of Tabeal !" • 
 
 7. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah : 
 
 It shall not stand, neither shall it be. 
 
 8. Though the head of Syria be Damascus, 
 And the head of Damascus Retsin, 
 Yet within threescore and five years 
 
 Ephraim shall be broken, that he be no more a people : 
 
 9. Though the head of Ephraim be Samaria, 
 And the head of Samaria Remaliah's son ; 
 
 If ye believe not in me, ye shall not be established. 
 
 10. And Jehovah spake yet again to Ahaz, saying, 
 
 11. Ask thee a sign from Jehovah thy God; 
 
 Go deep to the grave ! or high to the heaven above ! 
 
 12. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah. And he said, 
 
 13. Hear ye now, O house of David : 
 
 Is it a small thing for you to weaiy men. 
 That ye should weary my God also ? 
 
92 
 
 14. Therefore Jehovah himself shall give you a sign: 
 Behold, the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son, 
 And she shall call his name Immanutl. 
 
 15. Butter and honey shall he eat. 
 
 When he shall know to refuse what is evil, and choose what is good ; 
 
 16. For before this child shall know 
 
 To refuse the evil, and to choose the good. 
 
 The land shall become desolate 
 
 By whose two kings thou art distressed. • 
 
 Now, my friends, is it not manifest, that the birth of Tmmanuel was 
 to be a sign to Ahaz of returning prosperity, which was to occur, 
 and did occur, in his own day F It was for this reason, that the 
 child thus promised, and given as a token of divine protection, was 
 named Immanuel (" God zpith us,") because his birth was an earnest 
 and pledge that Jehovah was with his people. But the name no 
 more implies the Deity of the promised infant, than Mr. Bagot's 
 name of Daniel proves him to be " God my Judge," which is its 
 literal English ; or than mine of John proves me to be "the merciful 
 Jehovah [" It is manifest from the passages themselves, that the 
 name is applied to our Lord by the evangelist, in the same sense in 
 which it was previously given to the child Immanuel, who was born 
 in the reign of Ahaz, because our Saviour's birth also was a pledge 
 and sign of the favour of God to his people. 
 
 It is unnecessary for me to enter into any detailed examination 
 of IsA. ix, 6, because Mr. Bagot himself admitted — what his par- 
 tizans are generally very reluctant to allow — that this passage is 
 connected in the narrative with that in the 7th chapter, and applies 
 to the same person. Now, as the former indubitably refers, in the book 
 of Isaiah, to the child whose birth was a sign to Ahaz, and took 
 place in his reign ; it follows that the latter, viz. Isaiah ix. 6, does 
 not apply to our Saviour. In perfect accordance with this statement, 
 it will be found, that this passage is never quoted as a prophecy, 
 nor even in any way applied to our Lord in the New Testament. 
 It would be easy to show, that titles and names (for the verse of Isa. 
 ix. 6, is nothing but a name,) just as lofty as any which here occur, 
 are bestowed in the Old Testament, on various personages of dis- 
 tinction. But this is rendered unnecessary by Mr. Bagot's ad- 
 mission, that the two passages in Isa. vii. 14, and Isa. ix. 6, refer 
 to the same individual. 
 
 Another passage on which Mr. Bagot laid much stress, on this 
 as on former occasions, is John i. 1, "In the beffinning was the word, 
 and the word was with God, and the word was Gsd. The same was 
 in the beginnir^g tcHh God. All things ivere made by him, and with- 
 out him was not any thing made that teas made." — My Rev. opponent 
 acts wisely in putting this passage prominently forward in defence 
 of his proposition ; for this passage, and ils continuation in die 14th 
 verse, afford the only instances in which the term " Word," which he 
 imagines to be the proper name ot the divine nature of Christ, is 
 supposed to be applied to our Lord at all. For you may observe, 
 — if you could attend to the voluble muster-roll of texts that were 
 yesterday poured forth like a torrent into our ears, — in not one of 
 them, save these now before us, did the phrase occur, on which Mr. 
 
08 
 
 Biifi[Ot lays so much stress. Strange that the only correct phraseo- 
 logy for describing the most important and fundamental doctrine of 
 the Bilde, should be found but in one solitary context, from Genesis 
 to liEVKLATioN ! Strange that the Sacred Writers knew so little 
 about the language which they ought to employ, for expressing their 
 own doctrines, or, rather, the heaven-taught doctrines which they 
 were commissioned to record ! Pity that some champion of modern 
 orthodoxy had not been at their elbow as they wrote, to correct the 
 inaccuracies of their style, and to instruct them in the phraseology 
 which it was proper lo employ ! 
 
 On this passage of Scripture, however, now before us, it is worthy 
 of remark, that several learned men have been of opinion, that by 
 the " Word," we are not here to understand the ^«rso« of Christ, but 
 the wisdom of God which dwelt in him. 
 
 But, leaving this observation out of view altogether, and allowing 
 the common translation to stand unaltered, the phrase, " The Word 
 uas God," no more proves his Supreme Deity than the language, 
 " This is my body, this is my blood," proves the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation : and as all Protestants think themselves justified in ex- 
 plaining the latter phrase to mean, "This represents my body and 
 my blood," because the sense of the passage and the nature of 
 things require it; so are we bound to explain the last clause of this 
 1st verse of John in a similar sense, if we would avoid fastening on 
 them a contradiction and an absurdity. Let it be observed, that 
 although the same word, God, occurs twice in this verse, the phrase 
 is not the same in the original. In the first instance, the noun has 
 Jhe emphatic article which limits its signification, so that it can 
 denote no other than the Supreme Being. In the latter instance, it 
 stands alone ; and, of course, may be construed in a tvider sense — in 
 a sense similar to that in which it is so often applied to Judges, 
 Prophets, and Magistrates ; — as in ExoD. vii. 1, where it is given to 
 Moses; in Exod. xxi. 6, where, in the original, it is given to the 
 ordinary civil Judges ; in 1 Sam. ii. 25, " If one man si7i against 
 another, the Judge (Heb. \heGodJ shall judge him;" 1 Sam. xxviii. 
 13, " 1 saiv Gods (literally, a god J coming up out of the earth." It 
 is freely allowed, that in all these instances the context and circum- 
 stances of the case suflSciently show.tbat the Supreme Deity is not 
 meant : and the same, I do contend, is the case in the verse before 
 us; for when it is affirmed in the clause preceding, that the Word 
 was unth the true God, — and the same declaration is repeated in the 
 clause which follows, — how can we, without violating the first prin- 
 ciples of criticism, for one moment imagine, that the Word is the 
 same God ivilh whom he is ? — the more especially, when the suppres- 
 sion of the article in the second clause manifestly marks the transi- 
 tion from the particular to the more general signification of the term 
 God! And this conclusion is rendered still more imperative when 
 we read, in the 3d verse, that the creation eflfected by Christ (whe- 
 ther moral or material, is nothing to the purpose) was eft'ected by him 
 as an instrument in the hands of the Most High ; for here, as else- 
 where, and in all the passages where creation is ascribed to Christ, 
 it is said to have been effected by him, i, e. through or by means of 
 
94 
 
 him ; such being the proper meaning of the phrase, di6i with a geni- 
 tive, not uTo. 
 
 I know it will be said, as it has been said, in opposition to this 
 view of John i. 1, that it is incorrect to argue for any distinction 
 between the meaning of the word God in the two clauses, founded on 
 the absence of the article in the second instance ; since, in the latter 
 clause, the term occurs in the predicate of a proposition, of which the 
 subject has the article ; and, therefore, as we are told, according to 
 the Greek idiom, does not admit of its insertion. To show, however, 
 that the Greek language does admit of the construction in question, 
 I adduce the following passage from the writings of Eusebius, a 
 Greek himself, who spoke the Greek language vernacularly, and 
 wrote for those who spoke it — who was a man of high rank in the 
 court and confidence of the Emperor Constantine, and was also 
 Bishop of Nicomedia; one of the prelates who sat at the Council of 
 Nice, and one of the most learned of all the ancient Fathers. This 
 eminent individual says, upon the passage now before us : " The 
 Evangelist clearly indicates the nature of the Word, by subjoining 
 xa/ khg ^v 6 Aoyog, [and the Word was a god,] although he might 
 have said, xa/ 6 @dg riv 6 Aoyog, [and the Word was the God,] with 
 the addition of the article, [before ©soc, in the Greek,] if he had 
 thought that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and that 
 the Son is God over all." 
 
 Such is the opinion of the learned Eusebius. Let those who 
 think Bishop Middleton a better Greek scholar, adhere to his au- 
 thority ! 
 
 Another text on which Mr. Bagot seemed to lay considerable 
 stress, is Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, where he says our Lord is called, " Jehovah 
 our righteousness ;" and this being a divine title, our Saviour must 
 be God. Grant the inference ; and turn to Jer. xxxiii. 16, where we 
 read : " In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell 
 safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah 
 OUR righteousness." Here, then, if there be any soundness in Mr. 
 Bagot's logic in the former case, the city of Jerusalem is proved to 
 be the Supreme Being. 
 
 And here I cannot help recalling to your minds Mr. Bagot's decla- 
 ration, that on this principle he would be ready to maintain the proper 
 Deity of Isaiah and of Peter, if he found the same terms were 
 applied to them in common with God, as he thinks is the case with 
 respect to Christ and the Father. Now I hold him to the spirit of 
 this declaration ; and I do so the more readilj% because it will serve 
 to show the force and cogency of those ingenious inferences which 
 have been so much relied on in this discussion. 
 
 In the passage from Isaiah which I read to you a few minutes 
 since, we find (ver. 4) that it was Isaiah who spoke to Ahaz. But 
 in a subsequent verse (10), it appears that it must have been God 
 himself who uttered the words ; for we read there, that " Jehovah 
 spake yet again to Ahaz," clearly implying that it was he who had 
 spoken before. Here then the performance of the same act is ascribed 
 to Isaiah and to Jehovah ; consequently, on Mr. Bagot's principle, 
 Isaiah is Jehovah ! and he is bound to maintain his proper Deity ! 
 
95 
 
 You will remember that Mr. Baffol, after showing that the term 
 Saviour is applied to Christ in Scripture, referred to Isa. xliii. 11, 
 " / am the Lord, and beside me (here is no Saviour." The inference, 
 — or deduction, — or conclusion is, that Christ is Jehovtih : of course 
 he has a proper Deity. But in Nehem. ix. 27, we read— 
 
 And in the time of their trouble, when they (the children of Israel) cried unto thee, 
 thou heardest them from heaven ; and, according to thy manifold mercies, thou gavest 
 them Saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies. 
 
 If there be any force or cogency in the former argument, all the per- 
 sons who were Saviours to the children of Israel, must have been 
 divine incarnations, and each possessed of a proper Deity of his oivn ! 
 
 Again, in Gen. xlviii. 21, Joseph says, " God will bring you out 
 of this land." — But in Exod. xxxii. 7, " The Lord said unto Moses, 
 Go ! get thee down ! for thy people which thou broughtest out of 
 the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves." The same work is 
 thus ascribed to Moses and to God ; and therefore Moses is perfect 
 God and perfect man. 
 
 The same inference follows much more strongly from Exod. 
 XV. 26 ; — a passage which, I fearlessly assert, is more conclusive of 
 the Divinity of Moses, than any that has been adduced in proof of 
 the proper Deity of the Word : 
 
 And HE [t. e. Moses] said. If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the 
 Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his 
 commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee 
 which I have brought upon the Egyptians : for I am the Lord thy God !, 
 
 Had such a declaration as this proceeded from the lips of Christ, 
 how convincing a proof of his Supreme Deity it would have been 
 held to be ! Again we read in — 
 
 Matt. xix. 4, .5. He who made them in the beginning, made them male and 
 female ; and said, " For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall 
 cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be one flesh." 
 
 " JFe who made them in the beginning" undoubtedly was God ; and to 
 him most distinctly is the sentiment ascribed by our Saviour. But 
 we find in — 
 
 Gen. ii. 23, 24. And Adam said, • • Therefore shall a man leave his father 
 and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife-j and they shall be one flesh. 
 
 In this passage, the words are with equal distinctness attributed to 
 Adam. Hence, by this " syllogism," as Mr. Bagot would call it, 
 Adam is identified with the Supreme Being ! I leave it to your- 
 selves to decide, whether this argument does not prove the p-oper 
 Deity of Adam, as forcibly as many of those passages adduced by 
 Mr. Bagot prove the proper Deity of the Word. 
 
 In Exod. iii. 14, God said unto Moses, "I am that I am !" and 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 10, the Apostle Paul says of himself, " By the grace 
 of God, I AM THAT I AM." Thus the same thing is asserted of Paul, 
 which is elsewhere spoken of Deity ; the clear inference being, that 
 he is God, if Mr. Bagol's mode of making out doctrines be correct. 
 
 "All power is given unto me" says Christ: and this we are required 
 to receive as a proof of his omnipotence. " / can do all things through 
 
96 
 
 Christ which strengtheneth me," says St. Paul, in Phil. iv. 13; — 
 a manifest confirmation of the former arg'ument. 
 
 "Thou knowest all things: thou knowest that 1 love thee!" 
 said Peter to our Saviour ; thus, as Mr. Bagot tells us, ascribing to 
 him omniscience. And the Apostle John says, in his general Epistle 
 to all Christians, " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know 
 ALL things" (1 John ii. 20); so that all the members of the Church 
 of Christ in the time of the Apostle, were incarnations of the Deity. 
 
 Christ will judge the world : therefore, says Mr. Bagot, he is God. 
 But the twelve Apostles are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, ac- 
 cording to our Saviour's own words in Matt. xix. 28. And the 
 Apostle Paul declares, with express reference to the Church at 
 Corinth, "The saints shall judge the world:" therefore they have also 
 a proper Deity of their own ! 
 
 Thus by Mr. Bagot's sublime logic, we find that the city of Jeru- 
 salem is God, — and Adam is God, — and Moses is God, — and the 
 Prophet Isaiah is God, — and the many Saviours of the people of 
 Israel are God, — and the twelve Apostles are God, — and the mem- 
 bers of the Church at Corinth are God, — and all the Christians in 
 the days of the Apostle John are God ! Mr. Bagot will, no doubt, 
 be greatly obliged to me, for supplying whatever desire he might feel 
 for additional persons in the Godhead. If I have not found out the 
 two whom he named in that capacity, I have discovered one of them; 
 and I hope he will allow, that I have done my best to furnish him 
 with a respectable number of substitutes for the other. Let Mr. 
 Bagot go on : let him produce some more of his wire-drawn infer- 
 ences ; increase the number of these most logical deductions ad 
 infinitum; and then either admit, that all the persons referred to 
 have each a proper Deity of his own ; — or else — have the openness 
 and manliness to avow, that all his scriptural allusions, and inferences, 
 and fine-spun deductions, are but empty, flimsy sophisms, — NOT worth 
 A RUSH ! 
 
 Mr. bagot. — I wish to put to Mr. Porter two questions. 
 
 Mr. porter. — The rules only allow the privilege of asking one, 
 and I will answer no more. 
 
 Mr. bagot. — Then I will propose my two questions in the form 
 of one. 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — If so, I shall answer only one of them. 
 
 Mr. bagot. — I wish to ask Mr. Porter, whether I did not yester- 
 day, at the close of the meeting, offer him a list of all the texts quoted 
 in my address, which he declined/' 
 
 Mr. porter. — Most unquestionably you did : and I declined 
 your offer, simply because it would have taken all the time between 
 the close of yesterday's proceedings, and the commencement of to- 
 day's, to hunt out and compare so many references ; even without 
 deducting any portion for sleep, and other necessary refreshment. 
 
 Mr. bagot. — You may have them still, if you please. 
 
 Mr. porter.— I thank vou ; but I can do without them. 
 
or 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 Mr. porter.— My friends, such of you as were present yester- 
 day, will recollect that I brought forward several texts, embodying- 
 the main points of the Scripture doctrine of religious worship. 
 
 The first class of texts to which I adverted, as supporting my 
 views on the subject, were those in which God, the Father, is 
 represented by Jesus Christ as the only object ofreligiaus adoration. 
 
 After adducing a number of examples containing the express 
 declarations of our Saviour to tbis effect, 1 next adverted to a class 
 of passages which proved that our Saviour addressed his own prayers 
 io God, the Father, only. 
 
 From the influence which the precept and example of Christ 
 ought always to have upon every person who is a member of his 
 church, and professes to be his disciple, I argued that we are also 
 bound to address our worship to God, the Father, only ; since we over- 
 step his express command, and go beyond his repeated and intelli- 
 gible example, when we offer up prayers to any other person or 
 being than God, the Father. When we do so, we deviate from our 
 adherence to that authority with which, as ChrisUans, we are bound to 
 comply. Upon these two classes of texts, therefore, I might rest the 
 whole of my argument relative to the proper object of religious wor- 
 ship under the Christian dispensation. I am quite sure, that, to any 
 well-regulated mind, the reasons already adduced would be decisive on 
 the subject. If men were not unfortunately under the influence of 
 feelings imbibed in early education ; if they were not imbued from 
 their childhood with prejudices and prepossessions which have grown 
 with their growth, and strengthened with their strength, until they 
 have become part and parcel of their mental constitution ; if it were 
 not that, in many cases, they regard those opinions which they have 
 long cherished as so sacred and venerable, that even to question them, 
 and to bring them to the test of the declarations of Scripture, is often 
 contemplated as something that is impious and awful; — I am satis- 
 fied, that the express teaching of Clirist — the doctrine of our liord 
 and Saviour, sanctioned by his uniform example, would be, as it 
 ought to be, decisive on the point. 
 
 But I have not yet done with my argument on this part of the 
 subject. It is now my duty to lay before you a number of texts 
 which will show what was the influence of Christ's language and 
 uniform example upon those persons with whom that teaching and 
 example would carry the most religious weight. I allude \ohisoum 
 immediate disciples, who were inspired by the Spirit of God ; and 
 who were raised up and qualified for the situation of teachers and 
 expounders of that Gospel which Christ came to promulgate. 1 
 shall now, therefore, advert to a number of — 
 
 N 
 
98 
 
 PASSAGES WHICH PROVE THAT THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST ADDRESSED 
 RELIGIOUS WORSHIP TO GOD, THE FATHER, ONLY. 
 
 In reading those passages, I shall, in order to save your time and 
 my own, omit words that are not necessary to the connexion. If, 
 however, I leave out any expression which may appear to militate, 
 in any degree, against the sense which I attribute to the phrase, or 
 to give a different signification to the context, my reverend opponent 
 will, doubtless, afford you the means of correcting any erroneous 
 impression that may be thus made. This general observation I make 
 now, once for all : The words which I omit, I leave out solely because 
 they do not bear directly on the precise point which I have in view. 
 
 Acts iv. 24 — 30. They lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said. 
 Lord, thou art God ! * * And now • • grant * * that signs and wonders may be 
 done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. 
 
 The Apostles therefore prayed •' to God," that signs and wonders 
 might he done through the name " of his holy child Jesus." Words 
 could not more expressly prove, that Jesus, the holy child, is not 
 himself included in that address with which the prayer commences. 
 In this solemn act of devotion, he is expressly distinguished from 
 God. 
 
 Rom. i. 8, 9. 1 thank my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all ; that your 
 faith is spoken of through the whole world : for GoD is my -witness, whom I serve 
 with my spirit, in the Gospel of his Son, that, without ceasing, I make mention of you 
 always in my prayers. 
 
 In these words also there is a manifest distinction drawn between 
 God and Jesus Christ ; and a proof afforded that God was not that 
 very Christ, through whom God was thanked. The Apostle does 
 not say one word of thanking Christ by prayer. He thanks God, 
 through Jesus Christ. He does not call the Son to witness his asse- 
 verations ; but the God whom he serves, in the Gospel of his Son. 
 The whole connexion shows, that Paul addressed his prayer to God 
 alone, whom he expressly distinguishes from the Son of God. 
 
 RoM. XV. 6. • • That ye may with one mind and one voice glorify God, even 
 THE Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 What God were the Roman Christians exhorted to glorify by mind 
 and mouth P Let the words of Paul himself answer the question : 
 " God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ !" 
 
 Eph. i. 16, 17. I cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my 
 prayers ; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may 
 give unto you the spirit of wisdom. 
 
 Observe in this passage likewise, how the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 THE Father of glory, and not our Lord Jesus Christ himself, is 
 represented as the being addressed, and to be addressed, in prayer. 
 
 Eph. iii. 15, 16. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that 
 he would grant you, &c. 
 
 Phil. iv. 6, 7. Be careful for nothing : but in every thing, by prayer and suppli- 
 cation with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God : and the peace 
 of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds, through 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
99 
 
 The mere reading of these passages is sufficient to prove the doctrine 
 concernino- the object of primitive Christian worship, uliich I am 
 now engaged in establishing. 
 
 1 Thess. i. 2, 3. We give thanks to God • • for you, making mention of you 
 in our prayers ; remembering without ceasing your work of faith • • in our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, in the sight of our God and Father. 
 
 In this text the same distinction is carefully preserved, which we 
 have so often shown to exist, between "God tde Father," who 
 was the object of prayer, and " our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed the 
 Apostles never fell into the absurdity of praying to any other than 
 the one God. 
 
 2 Tim. i. 2, 3. Grace, mercy, and peace, from God, the Father, and Christ 
 Jesus our Lord. I thank God, [yjn^iv 'iyoi, I am grateful to God,] that without 
 ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers, night and day. 
 
 Here also Paul makes and marks the same distinction between the 
 Supreme Being, to whom his gratitude was expressed, and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 JOHK iii. 22. Whatsoever we ash, wo receive of him (God), because we keep 
 his commandments. • • [23.] And this is his commandment, that we should believe 
 on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us command- 
 ment. 
 
 Upon this passage we might repeat the observation so frequently 
 made before, that no distinction can be more clear than that which 
 the early disciples uniformly drew between the God whom alone 
 they worshipped, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 As Mr. Bagot has relied so much on the honours paid to Christ, — 
 which he has, in perfect consistency with one part of his theory, and 
 in perfect opposition to another portion of it, represented as Divine 
 Worship,— it seems to me, that I may usefully occupy a little of your 
 time in giving a very brief outline of the doctrine of Scripture on 
 that subject. 
 
 It is, I believe, admitted by divines and scholars of all sects and 
 parties, that the term " worship,'' ^hoih in Scripture and in other 
 compositions, is susceptible of various meanings. 
 
 In the first place, it indicates the presentation, by rational beings, 
 of their adoration and homage to the Most High God. That the 
 word has this sense, admits of no doubt, nor is it denied by any one. 
 It is needless, therefore, to adduce passages in support of it. 
 
 But there is another sense, in some respects analogous, though 
 in other respects distinct, in which the term is frequently employed 
 in the Sacred Volume. It often means the outward manifestation 
 of respect and deference to a fellow-creature, who is superior in rank, 
 station, or endowments, to the parly offering it. 
 
 Though this sense of the word is fully admitted among divines 
 and theologians of every class, yet,— as Mr. Bagot has throughout 
 this discussion shown a tendency to admit nothing, how plain soever, 
 and how freely soever allowed elsewhere, that can by possibility 
 militate against his second proposition— I shall adduce a few argu- 
 ments in proof. I find such in 
 
 Joshua v. 14. * • "As captain of the host of the Loud am I now come." 
 And Joshua fell on his faco to the earth, and did wobshif ; and said unto him, 
 
100 
 
 " What saith my Lord unto hie servants [15.] And the captain of (Ive Lord's 
 
 host said, &c. 
 
 Daniel ii. 46. Then the king, Nebuchadnezzar, fell on his face, and worship- 
 ped Daniel, and said unto him, &c. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 26. The servant, therefore, fell down, and worshipped him (the 
 king), saying, "Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all !" 
 
 Luke xiv, 10. Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at 
 meat with thee. 
 
 This verse shows that King James' translators understood the 
 term "worship'* with the latitude for which I contend. In the ori- 
 ginal, the word is still stronger: it is "glory," 86^a ; the same which 
 is used in the song of the angels at the nativity, "Glory to God in 
 the highest." 
 
 Rev. iii. 7. And to the angel of the Church in Philadelphia write, • • • * 
 [9.] "Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews, 
 and are not, but do lie: behold, 1 will make them to come, and worship before thy 
 feet." 
 
 By the angel of the church, most commentators agree that the pastor 
 or bishop is designated. 
 
 1 Chron, xxix, 20. And David said to all the congregation. Now bless the 
 Lord your God ; and all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their 
 fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king 
 (Tgotrsxui/jjcav, LXX.) 
 
 If this had been said of Christ, it would have been supposed to 
 furnish an irrefragable proof of his proper Deity. 
 
 Gen. xxiii. 7. And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself (crgOffSXUi'Tjo'f, 
 LXX. worshipped) to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth. 
 
 Gen. xxiii. 12. And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land 
 (Tgoo'fXui'jjtJSi', LXX. worshipped.) 
 
 Gen. xlix. 8. Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; « • • thy 
 father's children shall bow down before thee ('TrPOCXDV^ffouo'/, LXX. shall worship.) 
 
 I think I have now established, by these examples, the secondary 
 meaning of the term tcorship. If Mr. Bagot deny that it has this 
 secondary meaning, he will have an opportunity of urging his objec- 
 tions in his reply. Now, the question is, Whether the worship which 
 was several times paid to Christ, as we read in the New Testament, 
 is of this secondary kind, or whether it is of that distinctly religious 
 nature which is due only to the Supreme Being. 
 
 And upon this subject, I shall quote to you the opinion of Dr. 
 Wardi.aw, whose name, I suspect, will carry as much weight with it, 
 in the minds of most Trinitarians, as that of Mr. Bagot's bishop. 
 It is most true, as Mr. Bagot stated yesterday, that Dr. Ward- 
 law is not Lord Bisho^t of Dromore ; but, simply, an Independent 
 Minister in Glasgow ; a Dissenter from a Presbyterian establishment ; 
 and, therefore, two degrees below the humblest member in the 
 lowest rank of an episcopal hierarchy. Yet I imagine, that he is 
 not less distinguished as a writer, than the Right Rev. Dr. Saurin ; 
 who, I believe, is my reverend opponent's diocesan ; but of whose 
 contributions to science, theology, or literature, not being a universal 
 reader, I confess, I have yet to learn. Dr. Wardlaw admits, that. 
 
 I 
 
101 
 
 in tha instances of worship paid to Christ while on eartli, " (he kind 
 and degree of the intended homage cannot with certainty be ascer- 
 tained." If it cannot with certainty be ascertained, it cannot be 
 made the foundation of an argument. 
 
 The passages which remain are those in Heb, i. 6 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8; 
 and several in the book of Revelations. — But be it observed, all 
 these are instances of homage rendered when Christ was personally 
 prcsen t. 
 
 In Heb. i. 6, God is represented as introducing the Son into the 
 world, and saying, " Let all the angels worship him." — Here the 
 !Son is manifestly supposed to be one of the parties present. In 
 2 Cor. xii, 8, the Apostle says, that *• he besought the Lord thrice" 
 that the thorn might depart from him; and the context (verse 9) 
 renders it highly probable, that the Lord Jesus Christ is intended ; 
 but it also gives us strong reason to believe, (verses, 2, 3, 4,) that 
 the supplication was presented when the Apostle was caught up into 
 the third heaven or " paradise," and when he had the Lord Jesus 
 standing manifest before him. It is perfectly plain, that the homage 
 presented to the Lamb in the bf-uk of Revelations, was presented 
 in his presence. These incirK-iits, therefore, come precisely under 
 the description of those thf Dr. Wardlaw designates as " of such 
 a nature, that the kind and degree of the intended homage cannot 
 with certainty be ascertained ;" because, when he was personally pre- 
 sent, worship such as that referred to in the texts I have quoted, 
 — the outward testimony of respect and reverence — would naturally 
 and properly be presented to him. Nor is there any Unitarian who 
 would feel the least disinclination — nay, there is none who would not 
 experience the most heart-felt delight and transport — in rendering to 
 him this homage of their gratitude and reverence. And this, let me 
 tell Mr. Bagot, and others who entertain Trinitarian views, is one of 
 those sublime delights which we hope to enjoy in that heaven to 
 which we humbly aspire, in firm reliance on God's mercy through 
 Christ, and in total defiance of the denunciations of the Athana- 
 sian creed. 
 
 IMr. Bagot has adduced the expression applied to Christians in 
 the received translation of several of the Apostolic Epistles, as "call- 
 ing upon the name of tlie Lord," in proof that they were in the habit 
 of worshipping Christ. But I pledge my reputation as a scholar, 
 that the grammatical structure will just as readily admit of rendering 
 these passages differently from the common version ; which, being 
 made by Trinitarians, naturally favours their doctrines in most 
 doubtful cases. They may be translated so that they will read as 
 follows ; and thus, I think, they ought to be rendered : 
 
 Acts ix. 14. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that 
 are called by thy name. Ver. 21. Is not this he who destroyed them that are called 
 by this name in Jerusalem ? 
 
 Acts xxii. IG. Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, toning tipon thyself 
 his name. 
 
 1 Con. i. 2. Unto the C'liurch of God at Corinth, — with all that in every place 
 are called by ike name of Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 I need not advert to Acts ii. 21 ; because it is sufficiently clear 
 
102 
 
 lo the attentive reader, that the word "Lord" is there a synonyme 
 for " God ;" and Mr. Bagot cannot assign it lo Christ, without as- 
 suming the very point in question between him and me in this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The only other passage to which I think it necessary to refer at 
 length, is the circumstance recorded respecting the martyrdom of 
 Stephen : 
 
 Acts vii. 59, 60. And they stoned Stephen, invoking [that is, invoking Jesus, 
 ^vhom he had just before beheld in a glorious vision, standing on the right hand of 
 God, and whom he had thus ascertained to be within hearing of his prayer] and say- 
 ing, O Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud 
 voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. 
 
 Upon this last clause, Mr. Bagot seems disposed to ask, as the Jews 
 had done before, Who can forgive sins, but God only ? To which I 
 answer, — as our Saviour did, — that his miracles attested that " the 
 Son of man has (l^wCitav) a commission, or delegated authority, to 
 forgive sins." I may mention, moreover, that some have rendered 
 the terms Ki^/j IjjcoD, not " O Lord Jesus," but "O Lord of Jesus;" 
 and that there is nothing in the grammatical structure of the phrase 
 to militate against that translation. 
 
 The Benedictions wherein the name of Christ is introduced, have 
 been adduced as prayers presented to him by the Apostles. But 
 they are not prayers at all. They are not addressed to him, nor to 
 any one. They are spoken in the third person, and are merely pious 
 and Christian wishes, expressed on behalf of the persons to whom 
 the writings are addressed. That this is the case, is perfectly plain 
 from 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be 
 with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus ;'' — and from 
 Rev. i. 4, 5 : " John, to the seven churches which are in Asia : 
 Grace be unto you, and peace from him who is, and who was, and 
 who is to come ; and from the seven spirits, which are before his 
 throne ; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the 
 first- begotten from the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the 
 earth. If, then, the benedictions in which the name of Christ 
 occurs, are to be regarded as proofs of his proper Deity, — most un- 
 questionably this last quoted passage will prove that the seven minis- 
 tering spirits, which wait before the throne of God, are likewise to be 
 regarded as persons of the Godhead. In fact, I have not the slight- 
 est doubt, that, had the writer of this book mentioned " the Holy 
 Spirit," in place of " the seven spirits which are before the throne," 
 the passage would have been adduced as a triumphant proof of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. — I have not time to enter upon a new argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT.— I will not refer to the notes which I have taken 
 of Mr. Porter's last speech, until I have brought up my arrears, by 
 answering the remainder of the arguments which he yesterday ad- 
 vanced. And I shall first allude to three or four points which I 
 consider of little weight, but upon which some persons are frequently 
 inclined to lay considerable stress. He alluded to a long catalogue 
 
108 
 
 of words which have been associated with this controversy ; such as 
 "persons," '• hypostases,'' "distinctions," &c.; and lie founded an ar- 
 gument u|)on the adoption of these terras by Trinitarians, against the 
 Deity of Christ. Now, I beg to say, that these words are just as 
 good as the words "omniscience,'' "omnipotence," and " omnipre- 
 sence," which Mr. Porter frequently employs, to describe the know- 
 ledge, power, and presence of the Deity ; and that the latter are as 
 unscriptural as the former. But I did not come here to argue about 
 words. It has been well remarked, that " Logomachy is unworthy 
 of a lover of truth ;" and to enter upon a discussion about mere 
 words, would be a ludicrous occupation of our time. I did not come 
 here to argue about the meaning of such terms ; but about the doc- 
 trines contained in the propositions printed in the placard of the 
 subject of discussion, and of the regulations, which have been mutu- 
 ally assented to; and I shall not sutler myself to be drawn beyond 
 the confines of these propositions. 
 
 In another remark of Mr. Porter's, he produced a list of brother 
 Unitarians, which I do not think there was any necessity to bring 
 forward. He spoke of Price and Priestley — of Belsham and of 
 Bruce. Now, I wish to ask whether, when Mr. Porter introduced 
 the names of these individuals before this auditory, he was aware of 
 all the sentiments which they entertained and published. Was he 
 aware that Dr. Priestley, in the Theological Repository, Vol. IV. 
 p. 435, under the signature of" Pamphilus," published the following 
 doctrine ? 
 
 When Christ is said to have had no sin, we must restrict the meaning of the ex- 
 pression to his being free from overt acts of iniquity, something that all the world 
 would condemn as base and wrong. 
 
 Was he aware that Belsham, in his Calm Enquiry, p. 190, has pro- 
 mulgated the following sentiment ? 
 
 Whether this peifeetion of character in public life, combined with the general 
 declarations of his freedom from sin, established, or were intended to establish, the 
 fact, that Jesus, through the whole course of his private life, was completely exempt 
 from all the errors and failings of human nature, is a question of no great intrinsic 
 moment, and concerning which we have no sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory 
 conclusion. 
 
 O Christ I is it possible, that intellects such as these should have 
 arisen in the eighteenth century after thy crucifixion, to give the lie 
 to that only problem, which Jehovah and the Devil are united in 
 substantiating by their concurring testimony ; for the everlasting 
 Father proclaimed, at the baptism of the Saviour, "This is my be- 
 loved Son, in whom I am well pleased ;" and Satan himself was 
 constrained to acknowledge tliat he found nothing in him, and to 
 recognise him as the holy and immaculate Son of God ! 
 
 I ask, also. Was Mr. Porter aware, when he mentioned the name 
 of Dr. Bruce, that respected individual, who is now in this assemtdy, 
 of the canon of interpreting Scripture which that writer has broached ? 
 Was he aware that Dr. Bruce lays it down as a principle, that no 
 doctrine of Scripture is of prirnari/ and essential importance, unless 
 it be revealed by all of the four Evangelists? Upon this principle, 
 how easily could I yesterday have replied to Mr. Porter's arguments 
 
101 
 
 from Mark xiii. 32, by simply saying, that the doctrine of the limited 
 knowledge of Christ is not essential, since this passage which teaches 
 that doctrine occurs in only two of the Evangelists ? But do I now 
 enjoy the privilege of lifting up my voice to the glory of Christ, 
 within these walls which have so frequently re-echoed to the eloquent 
 — would that I could add, the evangelical — discourses of that vener- 
 able and venerated individual ! Methinks it would now impart to 
 my soul the highest and most intense satisfaction, which, as a Chris- 
 tian, I could experience, if God would inform me, by the revelation 
 of his Spirit, that it was so ordained, in the arrangements of his pro* 
 vidence, that the respected man to whom I refer should have survived 
 the term of his ordinary ministerial activity, in order to have, as it 
 were, a respite time in which he might renounce his former principles, 
 so as to derive comfort from that sweet invitation of the Saviour, 
 which is mentioned by only one Evangelist, " Come unto me, all ye 
 that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest ;" and from 
 those glorious declarations of Christ, which are recorded in the lOih 
 of John, " I am the door'' — " I am the good shepherd : the good 
 shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" — " I am the good shepherd, 
 and know my sheep, and am known of mine ;" and those other pre- 
 cious "I AMS," which are recorded by the beloved disciple, and which 
 so often minister sweet consolation and encouragement to the meek 
 and humble follower of the Lamb ! 
 
 Mr. Porter has asserted over and over again, that the doctrine of 
 the Deity of Christ is so mysterious and awfully sublime in its na- 
 ture, that, if true, it ought to have been written in such visible charac- 
 ters, that he who runs may read ; and to have been revealed so con- 
 spicuously, as to produce immediate conviction. As to the doctrine 
 of the Deity of Christ illuminating every page of Scripture, I main- 
 tain that, in a general sense, it does : this I have already proved, and 
 will advance further proofs of the same. But I deny that the evidence 
 for the Deity of Christ is of such a kind, as irresistibly to produce 
 conviction ; for — mark what I say ! — there is a difference between 
 evidence which is sufficient to convince, and evidence which is so over- 
 whelming as that it must necessarily and unavoidably produce con- 
 viction. Were not, for instance, the miracles which Christ performed 
 sufficient to convince the Jews that he was the Messias ? Certainly 
 they were. But did they, in all cases, actually produce this con- 
 viction ? Certainly they did not ; for many of the Jews rejected the 
 testimony which he offered. So also the heavens sufficiently declare 
 the existence of a God ; yet the atheist refuses to submit to their 
 testimony. Hence, you perceive what a difference there is between 
 evidence being sufficient to prove a doctrine, and its actually produ- 
 cing conviction of the truth of that doctrine in the minds of those to 
 whom it is addressed. I might as well argue against the Messiaship 
 of Christ, as against his Deity ; because his miracles did not produce 
 conviction in the minds of all those who witnessed their performance. 
 So that the actual production of conviction, is not a necessary proof 
 of the validity of an argument ; or else Christ and his apostles were 
 bad reasoners. But let me illustrate the principle which I am now 
 considering, by a reference to natural things. For instance : the 
 
105 
 
 sun, which shines with majestic splendour in the expanse above, is 
 the great centre of the universe, around which tlie earth and all the 
 planets revolved ; but it has been ascertained only witliin the last few 
 centuries that this is the fact, and that the sun does not move round 
 the earth. Now, might not some person have argued, on Mr. Por- 
 ter's principles, that a doctrine such as this, which now constitutes the 
 elementary axiom of astronomy, ought to have been written with such 
 perspicuity and overpoweringsplendour upon the visible heavens, that, 
 when Adam first opened his eyes upon the glory of creation, he would 
 have imbibed an immediate conviction of this great and important 
 truth ; so that it would not have been left exposed for centuries to 
 the a priori objections of bad philosophy ? — But to return to the sub- 
 ject itself, I ask, when Mr. Porter speaks of statements respecting 
 the Deity of Christ necessarily and irresistibly producing conviction, 
 is he aware of what an evil heart of unbelief there is in man by na- 
 ture? Is he aware that as no man speaking by the Spirit of God 
 calleth Jesus accursed ; so no one can say that Jesus is the Lord 
 {K-jstov), but by the Holy Ghost? 
 
 I shall now make some remarks upon the texts which Mr. Porter 
 has advanced. The first 1 shall allude to is, Matt, xxvii. 46 : " My 
 God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" To his argument from 
 this passage I reply, that Christ became man, in order to be made a 
 curse for us. Now, part of the curse consisted in losing communion 
 with God ; as Adam, when he sinned, was driven from that state of 
 neighbourhood with God which he enjoyed in Paradise, As the 
 Deity of Christ could not be forsaken of the Father, or lose com- 
 munion with him, and could not be made a curse, — for, as God, he 
 is one with the Father, — he assumed our nature, in order to become 
 capable of being made a curse in this point of view. As to Christ's 
 using the address, "My God, my God," it is easy to reply, that, 
 ns we are told in Gal. iv. 4, he was inade under the law, it must 
 necessarily follow, he was made under the lawgiver. He became 
 man, in order to be made under the law. From eternity, he was 
 neither under the law, nor under the lawgiver : he came into a legal 
 relationship to his Father, only when he became incarnate ; for, 
 mark the force of the word "made.'' It is also evident from John 
 XX. 17, where Christ is represented as saying, "I ascend unto my 
 God, and your God," that the words " my God'' are assumed by 
 Christ as applicable to himself in a different sense from that in which 
 the words " your God'' are applicable to Christians. 
 
 In order to obviate tho force of our Saviour's declaration in John 
 X. 30, "I and my Father are one," Mr. Porter referred to the prayer 
 which he offered up in behalf of his people, in John xvii. 21, 23 : 
 "That they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
 that they also may be one in us. * * * I in them, and thou in me, 
 that they also may be made perfect in one ;" and he argued that the 
 unity or oneness of the Son with the Father, is precisely tlie same as 
 that which is spoken of in the latter passag(». To this argument I 
 reply, by requesting you to mark the force of the word " made," 
 when he prays that his people " may be made perfect in one ;" 
 whereas he says, in reference to himself, not " I and my Father are 
 
 O 
 
106 
 
 made one/' but " I and my Father are one ;" showing that the one is 
 a natural, the other a created union. I also reply, that it is a com- 
 mon principle of philosophy admitted by all, that similar causes 
 should produce similar results. If, therefore, the union between 
 believers and the Father and Son be the same as that which subsists 
 between the Father and the Son, they should be able to demonstrate 
 its sameness by a similar mode with Christ. He demonstrates the 
 nature of his union with the Father by doing the same things which 
 the Father does — by quickening whom he will, as the Father quick- 
 enelh whom he will — and by demanding that all men should honour 
 the Son even as they honour the Father. Can Christians, then, 
 quicken whom they will P Can Ihey claim to be honoured, even as 
 the Father is honoured ? — and can they do they same things which 
 the Father doth ? All these must be the natural consequences, if 
 the two unions are similar, as like causes must produce like results. 
 But as no one can have the hardihood to say, that all these powers 
 and prerogatives are possessed by every member of the church of 
 Christ, Mr. Porter's argument consequently goes for nothing. — 
 Would that he experienced something of that delightful fellowship 
 with the Father and the Son, which every humble believer enjoys; 
 and he would then have an experimental interpretation within his 
 own breast of what the Saviour means when he prays that his people 
 may be one in him and his Father, even as he and his Father 
 are one ! 
 
 In the last address which Mr. Porter delivered yesterday, he 
 proposed this question. How could the eternal God divest himself 
 of his inherent and essential glory, and corae down into a state of 
 humiliation upon the earth ? I ask, in reply. When did I teach such 
 a doctrine ? So far from delivering such an opinion, I hold that no 
 change can take place in the essential majesty and glory of Jehovah. 
 When an eclipse of the sun is produced by the intervention of the 
 opaque body of the moon, is the sun shorn of his brightness and 
 his splendour ? Does he not still continue elevated upon his throne 
 of glory, — the same bright monarch of the material universe, as when, 
 fresh from his Maker's hands, he disclosed, by his new-born lustre, 
 the engaging loveliness of creation ? And so it was when the God- 
 head of the Saviour tabernacled in the flesh : there took place, as it 
 were, an eclipse of his divinity ; the vail of his humanity was drawn 
 over the greatness of his essential glory ; and all this was done in 
 compliance with the infirmities of our nature; for had the Saviour 
 appeared with a full manifestation of his essential Godhead, as no 
 man can look upon the face of Deity and live, our vital spirits would 
 have been not merely absorbed, but annihilated, by a lustre they 
 never could have borne. And as to describing the Saviour's mani- 
 festation in the flesh by the phrase of "coming down from heaven,'' 
 I should wish to know what Mr. Porter understands by the declara- 
 tion contained in Gen. xi. 5 : " Jehovah came down to see the city 
 and the tower which the children of men builded ;" for is not this 
 passage as plausible an argument against the Deity of Jehovah as a 
 similar form of description can be against the Deity of Christ ? 
 I now proceed to consider the remarks which Mr. Porter has 
 
lor 
 
 made upon Is/V. vii. 14: "Therefore the Lord himself shiill give 
 you a sij^^n: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and 
 shall call his name Emmanuel." And how did Mv. Porter meet my 
 arujument for the Deity of Christ from this passage? He placed an 
 uninspired work, written by Bishop Lowth, in juxtaposition with 
 the authority of the inspired Evangelist Matthew, and actually 
 attributed a higher degree of authority to the former. In answer to 
 tliis, I refer you to Matt. i. 22, 23: "Now all this was done, that il 
 be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, 
 ]iehold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and 
 shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God 
 with us." Now, mark the mode in which Matthew introduces 
 this prophecy. He does not merely say, " Then ivas fuljilled" but 
 "All this was done that it might be fulfilled." Whether the former 
 phrase might or might not have been accounted for, as merely indi- 
 cating an allusion to the prophecy, upon the loose principles of 
 accommodation adopted by Unitarians, the latter phrase cannot be 
 so explained away. This introduction, therefore, "All this was 
 done that it might be fulfilled," clearly proves that the fact referred 
 to is the actual and precise accomplishment of the prophecy about 
 lo be quoted. But let me keep the Hebrew of Isaiah out of view 
 altogether, and argue from Matthew's interpretation of the name 
 Emmanuel. He explains this designation as implying, that Christ 
 is, " God with us" (/xs^' t^jj^uv 6 Qio;, in which the preposition //.sra 
 denotes personal presence), which explicitly asserts his Deity. And 
 whilst I am engaged with this passage, I would beg you to consider 
 it Ln contrast with Zech. xiii. 7: "Awake, O sword, against my 
 shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of 
 hosts." The words rendered, " the man that is my fellow," might 
 be rendered, " the man that is with me;" and I would add, that the 
 Hebrew term translated " fellow," is of the same root as the word 
 translated " Emmanuel," in Isa. vii. 14. And now, observe the con- 
 trast, — a human creature speaks of Christ (as in Isa, vii. 14 and 
 Matt. i. 23) as "God with us;" whereas, God the Father speaks of 
 Christ (as in Zech. xiii. 7) as "the man with him." So that we have 
 here, on the one hand, the testimony of an inspired Prophet and 
 Evangelist to the Deity of Christ, and, on the other hand, the testi- 
 mony of Jehovah the Father to the humanity of Christ. 
 
 The next passage to which Mr. Porter alluded was Isa. ix. 6 : 
 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a sou is given ; and the 
 government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, 
 the Prince of Peace." But in his remarks upon this text, he over- 
 looked the title, "Mighty God," altogether. I therefore beg to 
 remark, that this is a proper title of Jehovah, as distinguished from 
 all false gods; as is evident from the following passages: Deut. 
 X. 17, "The Lord your God is a mighty God," &c.; Isa. x. 21, 
 "The remnant shall return unto the Mighty God," &c.; Neh. ix. 32, 
 "Now, therefore, our God, the Great, the Mighty,'' &c.; Jkb. xxxii. 
 18, " The Great, the Mighty God, the Lord of hosts, is his name," &c. 
 So that, whatever principle Mr. Porter may adopt, in order to neu. 
 
108 
 
 tralize the force of this title when applied to Christ in Isa. ix. 6, will, 
 by a parity of reasoning-, dilute and neutralize its import when ap- 
 plied to Jehovah in these four passages to which I have referred. 
 But, however, he asserted that there is no authority for applying Isa. 
 ix. 6 to the Saviour. In reply to this, I beg to refer him to Matt. 
 iv. 14, 16, where the previous context of this passage (ver. 1 and 2) 
 are expressly quoted as having their fulfilment in the personal 
 ministry of Christ: "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephtha- 
 lim, by the way of the sea, beyond 'Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles : 
 the people which satin darkness saw great light ; and to them which 
 sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up." 
 
 But while I am occupied with this passage of Scripture, I wish 
 to make a remark which applies both to it, and to other passages 
 which contain a description of the Saviour's person. I hold that the 
 person of Christ, as Mediator, is a complex person, — God and man. 
 I therefore expect to find, when I open the Bible, that those pas- 
 sages which contain a description of his person should be of a complex 
 structure, corresponding with the complexity of the person described. 
 For instance : in Isa. ix. 6, I find this to he the case; for the first two 
 clauses of the passage, " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 
 given," describe his humanity; and the remainder of the verse de- 
 scribes his Deity. So also in Mal. iii. 1, he is first described, in 
 reference to his Deity, as "the Lord coming to his temple;" then he 
 is described, in reference to his mediatorial character, as "the Mes- 
 senger of the covenant;" and then these two references to the condi- 
 tion of the Saviour are combined into one personal reference, by the 
 use of the pronoun " he" in the concluding member of the verse, — 
 "even he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." — So also in Heb. i. 
 8, 9, we find another complex description of his complex person ; for 
 the 8th verse refers to his Deity, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 
 ever ;" and the 9th verse refers to his humanity, in reference to which, 
 it is said, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; there- 
 fore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness 
 above thy fellows." Now, when I read this portion of the word of 
 God, I do not apply to its interpretation Mr. Porter's principle, 
 which he has borrowed from the algebraic doctrine of positive and 
 negative quantities. I do not employ the 9th verse, in order to neu- 
 tralise the 8th. / believe both declarations to be true. 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday maintained, in order to weaken my argu- 
 ment from the application of the title "God" to Christ, that this 
 title is frequently given in Scripture to confessedly created beings. 
 In reply to this, I answer, thai, admitting it to be the fact, yet if it 
 weakens or dilutes the force of my arguments for the Deity of the 
 Son, from the application of this title to him, — -it must, on a similar 
 principle, weaken the force of the argument for the Deity of the 
 Father, derived from the application of the title "God'' to him. As 
 an instance of this subordinate use of the title God, Mr. Porter 
 referred to ExoD. vii. I : " And the Lord said unlo Moses, See, I 
 have made thee (or appointed thee) a God (or Elohim) to Pharaoh ; 
 and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all 
 that I command thee." But upon this text I remark, that it is quite 
 
109 
 
 absurd lo place it on a level with the instances of the application of 
 the title "God" to Christ, which I have adduced. Here the official 
 sense in which Moses was to be made " a God," is limited to Pharaoh, 
 and explained to mean that, in the same sense in which Aaron was to 
 be a prophet to Moses, so was Moses to be "a God" to Pharaoh. 
 And so far from the application of the term implj'ing the investiture 
 of Moses with any thinp^ like an independent authority, power, or 
 prerogative, it is expressly stated that Moses was " to speak all that 
 God commanded him." And on reverting to Exod. iv. 16, we find a 
 passasje precisely parallel to this, which gives it this explanation : 
 "And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he 
 shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt 
 be to him instead of God." But I ask, was Moses in the habit of act- 
 ing as if he were a Deity ? Surely not : and I may remark, that, 
 when on one solitary occasion he had spoken unadvisedly with his 
 lips, and had thereby abstracted from the glory of Jehovah, he be- 
 came the subject of the Divine displeasure, and was excluded from 
 the promised land, as a punishment of his presumption. The com- 
 mands of JNIoses were always prefaced by " thus saith Jehovah,'' and 
 " Jehovah hath commanded me" Christ, on the other hand, never 
 adopted this style of inferiority : he never says, " thus saith Jehovah :" 
 be always acts and speaks upon his own authority, and in all things 
 exhibits himself to his creatures as Lord of all. Observe, for instance, 
 the language which he adopted in the Sermon on the Mount : "Ye 
 have heard that it hath been said to them of old time (for so it is in 
 the Greek), thou shalt not steal : hut I say unto you." Here he con- 
 trasts his legislative authority with that of Jehovah, delivering the 
 ten commandments to the Israelites. 
 
 The next instances of an alleged application of the term " God" 
 to creatures, to which Mr. Porter referred, were in Exod. xxi 6 : 
 "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges" (in the Hebrew^ 
 it is "Elohim'') ; — and 1 Sam. ii. 25 : "If one man sin against an- 
 other, the judge (in Hebrew " Elohim") shall judge him." In both 
 of these passages, Mr. Porter asserted that the term "Elohim," or 
 " God,'' is applied to the judges of Israel. I deny this ; and I assert, 
 that no proper instance of the application of this title to the judges 
 can be adduced. Does not Mr. Potter know, that the Jewish gov- 
 ernment was a Theocracy,? — that God himself was Judge and 
 King ? and that he was ever regarded as presiding in the Jewish 
 courts of law ? And, if you look to Exod. xviii. 14 — 19, you will 
 find the judicial process explained upon this principle': "And when 
 Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said. What 
 is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself 
 alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto evening ? 
 And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come 
 unto me, to inquire of God. When they have a matter, they come 
 unto me, and I judge between one and another ; and I do make them 
 know the statutes of God, and his huvs.* * * Be ihou for the people 
 to Godward, that thou viayest bring the causes unto God}' — So that, 
 upon the principle that God was Judge and King, whenever an Is- 
 raelite brought his cause into the court, he was considered as bring- 
 
110 
 
 ing it before ihe great Judge and King, I would here add, that the 
 word "Elohim," in both the passages under consideration, is trans- 
 lated in the Septuagint as denoting the Supreme Being ; and the 
 Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions of 1 Sam. ii. 25, translate 
 " Elohim," not as " Judge," but as the " Supreme God." And these 
 authorities are at least as good as Mr. Porter's. 
 
 But let me a little farther examine this objection, derived from 
 the application of the title "God" to creatures, //"this title were 
 given by Manoah and his wife, when their feelings were over- 
 whelmed with fright and alarm, to a created angel, am I to set up 
 such authority as this against the authority of the Holy Ghost, who 
 applies the same title to Christ? Or, if I find the witch of Endor, 
 when terrified by an apparition, giving the title of "God" to a ficti- 
 tious or real being, am I to confront this fact with the instances of 
 the application of the same title by the Holy Spirit to our Saviour, 
 in John i. 1, and Heb. i. 8, and thus set up the authority of a witch 
 against the authority of the Holy Ghost ? Again : when I adduce 
 in argument the two instances of an application to Christ of the 
 titles "King of kings, and Lord of lords," which are recorded in 
 Rev. xvii. 14, and xix. 16, and which are the same as those applied 
 to the Father, upon Mr. Porter's principles, in 1 Tim. vi. 15 ; I am 
 answered, forsooth, as I have been answered, that the argument is 
 worth nothing, because Artaxerxes styled himself "King of kings.'' 
 But I answer. If Artaxerxes chose to give himself the nickname of 
 " King of kings," — if he chose, in the pride of his heart, to set up his 
 authority against the authority of God, — am 1 to admit this as a pa- 
 rallel case with the ascription of the title of "King of kings" by 
 the Holy Ghost to our Saviour ? Does the Holy Ghost, do you think, 
 apply the titles of " King of kings, and Lord of lords," as nicknames 
 to our Saviour ? But I am driven almost upon the very verge of 
 blasphemy, in endeavouring to answer such arguments as I am now 
 referring to ! I shall conclude this point, by reading a note upon 
 the subject, to the following effect: — The simple and correct way of 
 trying the value of the objections advanced against the Deity of 
 Christ, from the application of the name of " God" to confessedly 
 created beings, is to examine the alleged instances by a plain gram- 
 matical principle, which is this : That we are always to understand 
 words in that sense in which the speaker or writer employs them, and 
 then to decide upon the correctness of that sense according to the com- 
 petency of the judyments of those who so employ the words in ques- 
 tion. Now, apply this principle to Psalm Ixxxii. 6, 7 : "I have 
 said. Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High ; but 
 ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Here we at 
 once perceive, that the Psalmist has used the term in an ironical — 
 or, I might say, in a ludicrous — sense. Apply the principle also to 
 1 Cor. viii. 5 : " Though there be that are called gods, whether in 
 heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many)." Here 
 it is evident, that the Apostle is speaking of those who were gods in 
 the estimation of their worshippers ; and we know that the Heathen 
 were grossly incorrect in their use of the word "God." On the 
 OTHER hand, apply the same principle to John i. 1 : " The Word 
 
Ill 
 
 was God ;" or to HoM. ix. 5 : " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." In these in- 
 stances, we find the Holy Ghost, by the instrumentality of the Apos- 
 tles, givin^^ the title "God" to Christ; and we cannot suppose that 
 he i^ives the title to him in an ironical sense, or in a subordinate 
 sense (for in each passas^e there are concomitant expressions, which 
 show that the title is used in its strict and proper sense). Thus, the 
 question resolves itself into this : Are we to suppose that the Holy 
 Ghost was an incompetent judge as to the correct application of this 
 litle? Are we to reject his testimony as to the Deity of the person to 
 whom he thus gives the name of God, in the same manner as we 
 reject the testimony of the Heathen, as to the Deity of those real or 
 fictitious creatures to' whom they gave the title ? The answer is 
 easy; and this view of the subject places it in its proper light. 
 
 I would also remark, that the Greek word Qio; is not represented 
 in the New Testament as being applied, by any competent authority, 
 to any confessedly created being ; and also, that the contrast insti- 
 tuted by Unitarians between passages in which the title " God" is 
 applied to creatures, and those in which it is applied to Christ, 
 might as well be instituted between the same, and those passages in 
 which it is applied to the Father. Why should our opponents be 
 allowed the advantage of a tacit admission, that the title is applied, 
 in every case, in a strictly proper sense, to the Father ? We do not 
 deny the true Deity of the Father ; but we fairly argue, that every 
 objection advanced against the Deity of the Son, is an equally valid 
 objection against the Deity of the Father, 
 
 • Mr. Porter next referred to Jer. xxiii. 5, 6: "Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a 
 King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice 
 in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
 safely ; and this is his name whereby he shall be called. The Lord 
 (or Jehovah) our Righteousness." In order to evade the argu- 
 ment for the Deity of Christ, which I derived from the application 
 to him of the name, "Jehovah," in this passage, Mr. Porter argued, 
 that I might as well believe in the Deity of Jerusalem, because the 
 same title is applied to that city in Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16 : " In those 
 days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to 
 grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteous- 
 ness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem 
 shall dwell safely ; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, 
 The Lord (or Jehovah) our Righteousness." I would like to 
 know if Mr. Porter has forgotten his Hebrew? Is he not aware, that 
 the words, " she shall be called," in the latter passage, are a mis- 
 translation ? He said a good deal, in the course of this discussion, 
 upon the subject of bad translations ; but he has not hesitated to 
 argue from a mistranslation, when he considered it to be in his favour, 
 and suitable to the defence of his opinions. Allow me, now, to give 
 the true rendering of this passage. It may be either translated thus, 
 '•And He who shall call her is Jehovah our Righteousness; "or thu?, 
 " This is the name whereby He shall be called (or by which one shall 
 call him) Jehovah, our Righteousness." The latter translation is 
 
112 
 
 adopted by the Vulgate and the Syriac version, and is constructed 
 on the principle of understanding the personal pronoun rn, to be the 
 masculine in the Chaldaic form, which is of frequent occurrence in 
 the Old Testament. Dr. JPye Smith's translation of this passage is 
 as follows : 
 
 " And this is He who shall call to her, 
 Jehovah our Righteousness." 
 
 I may here remark, in addition to the above, that the passage 
 extending from verse 14 to 26, is wanting in the Aldine, Vatican, 
 and Alexandrine copies of the Septuagint ; but in two M.SS. it 
 stands thus — 
 
 1. Ka/ roZro rh oVo/xa a xXrjQyiciiTai, Kv^wg hxatoGhvri tiijmv : " This the 
 name which shall be called. The Lord our Righteousness." 
 
 2. Ka/ rovTo rh hofjja o PiaXsgei avrriv, Kug/og dixaiog (Jvv yjfj,Tv : " And 
 this the name which he shall call her, the righteous Lord with us ;" 
 understanding the last word, in this latter version, to be a commemo- 
 rative indication of the presence of the righteous Lord with his 
 Church. 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — I will exercise my privilege of putting a ques- 
 tion to Mr. Bagot, to which I hope to receive, what I have not yet 
 received on former occasions, a plain and direct answer. IMr. Bagot 
 has asserted, in the hearing of you all, that, in order to enable Christ 
 to exercise and execute the functions of his office, it was necessary 
 that he should lose communion with God ; and, therefore, that he 
 did lose communion with God. I now ask Mr. Bagot, How did 
 Christ lose communion with God, without being sinful ? 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — My words were simply these: Christ assumed hu- 
 man nature, in order that he might, in reference to that human nature, 
 become capable of losing communion with God ; for, in reference 
 to his divine nature, he could not lose communion with God. 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — My friends, if I was desirous to signalize my- 
 self as a master of declamation, I should be obliged to Mr. Bagot 
 for the speech now delivered ; for never was there a fairer opportunity 
 afforded to man of showing how completely an opponent's own 
 statements could be retorted on himself, than that which is now pre- 
 sented to me. What a display might I not now make, if I could 
 descend to the arts of vulgar oratory, in the advocacy of my cause ! 
 But to such means I never shall resort. 
 
 I must strongly object to Mr. Bagot's introduction of the name 
 of that venerable man before us (Dr. Bruce), my predecessor and 
 my friend, I object to this allusion as being personal, to one 
 who had no opportunity of speaking for himself, to correct what 
 might be a misrepresentation of his sentiments, or to set him. 
 self right before this assembly. It was unkind and uncourteous, 
 on the part of Mr. Bagot, to take advantage of the accidental 
 circumstance of our carrying on this discussion within these walls, 
 in order to make a clap-trap allusion to that venerable man. — 
 Such acts may have their effect on a few unthinking minds ; but 
 
118 
 
 every one of sense and understandinpf will disrecrard them, I miplit 
 have taken advantafreof the circumstances of my beinji^ the Minister 
 who usually addresses a conp:regation from this place, in order to 
 give efl'ect to my arguments; but 1 would not do so, because 1 dis- 
 dain such arts. I felt from the first that the allusion in question was 
 irrejjular; but I did not interrupt INIr. l3agot : for I would not have 
 it said, that I, or the venerable individual whom he has so unhand- 
 somely dragged before you, had any thing to fear from all that he 
 could say. 
 
 Mr. Bagot quoted two passages from Priestley and BelsHam, 
 in which these writers have expressed their opinions of the possibility 
 of the sinfulness of Christ's human nature; but after the answer which 
 he has given to my question, I leave it to yourselves to judge whether 
 such allusions are serviceable to his cause. Has not Mr. Bagot him- 
 self declared, that "Christ lost communion with God?" Never did I 
 hear from the lips of a Unitarian — never before did I hear — such an 
 aspersion cast upon the Lord Jesus ! Oh ! if such an expression had 
 proceeded from the lips of a Unitarian, or had been ushered into the 
 world by a Unitarian press, or by a Unitarian writer, how the apos- 
 tasy would have been trumpeted forth, and how its authors would 
 have been held up to execration, as persons utterly unworthy of 
 enjoying either part or lot in the advantages of Christian fellowship '. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, after very charitably imputing to me, and to those who 
 agree with me, "an evil heart of vnbelief," proceeded to offer up a 
 prayer similar to that which he presented on behalf of my venerable 
 friend — a prayer which I would characterize, as Robert Hall did 
 one by Bishop Horsely, as off"ered up to the throne of grace in the 
 spirit of an indictment. After this charitable prayer, he naturally 
 enough proceeded to misrepresent what I delivered in my address of 
 yesterday, in a way that I did not expect. In my closing address of 
 yesterday, the greater part of which I happily had previously written 
 down, so that I am able from the paper before me to read the exact 
 words which I employed, I made the following statement respecting 
 the reasoning of Mr. Bagot in support of the proper Deify of the 
 Word, from the supposed application of divine names and titles to 
 our Saviour. 
 
 "The first argument was drawn from tiie term laiMANUEt, found in Isa. vii, 14, 
 and applied to our Saviour in Matt. i. 23. To understand the perfect emptiness of 
 this argument, it is only necessary to read the passage in Isaiah, with its context; 
 v^hich I shall do from the version of Bishop Lowth, as being much more accurate 
 than that contained in King James' translation. 
 
 "Chap. VII. 
 " In the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of," &c. 
 
 These were my very words. Yet you have seen and heard how Mr. 
 Bagot asserted, that I poised the Bible in one hand, and Bishop 
 Lowth in the other ; and that I weighed the authority of Lowth 
 against the authority of Scripture, and gave the preponderance to 
 the former. Now, I ask, is tliis fair ? Did I not appeal to the authority 
 of Scripture, and of Scripture alone ? It is true I am above pinning 
 my faith on King James' translation as a critical standard. I took 
 Lowth's as being the best translation I could procure. It was to 
 
 P 
 
114 
 
 the Scriptures, however, that I appealed, and not to Lowth. I have 
 done so no more, in this instance, than he has done in a variety of 
 others, when he adduced other authorities against the renderings of 
 the (so called) authorized version of the Bible. In the present case. 
 It 18 quite manifest that I no more appealed to Lowth against the 
 authority of Scripture, than he appealed to King James' translators, 
 in opposition to the authority of Scripture; the two cases are per- 
 lectly parallel, ^ 
 
 Mr. Bagot has told us that the name which occurs in Isa. ix 6 
 and is there translated ''The mighty God," is in the original,' 
 *ii:i-*5K, (-hiii-GiBboRJ a title which elsewhere designates the Su- 
 preme Being. I know it is. And what does this circumstance prove ? 
 Ihe words, though arranged in a different order, are just the same 
 that make up the name of the angel GaBRi-EL, which has precisely 
 r^^^^T^ signification. Was this celestial messenger, then, really 
 trod Most High ? If so, he may be put down as another of the per- 
 sons in Mr. Bagot's multifarious divinity. 
 
 As I have already said, if I chose to signalise myself by argu- 
 mentative dexterity, Mr. Bagot has given me the opportunity : but I 
 am more anxious to explain to you the clear evidence for the truth, 
 as it IS found recorded in the page of revelation, than to obtain 
 lor myself the character of an adroit debater or a popular declaimer. 
 1 shall, therefore, leave several of the points on which he has touched, 
 tU) make whatever impression they may seem calculated to produce. 
 1 here IS one allusion, to which, as my reverend opponent has re- 
 peated it several times, he seems to attach considerable importance; 
 and which, for this reason, I shall now briefly examine. The allusion 
 IS to the passage which occurs in Heb. i. 8: which, in the common 
 version, reads thus : 
 
 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God ! is for ever and ever : a sceptre of 
 righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 
 
 Now, it is not to be denied, that according to this translation of 
 the passage, the term God is applied to Christ the Son. But I 
 would leave to any unprejudiced person, who should merely read over 
 the whole of the chapter with care, and should attend to the expres- 
 sions which accompany this verse, to determine whether the phrase 
 is or is not, applied to him in the highest sense, by the Sacred Writer 
 Ihe mere reading of the preceding and subsequent verse will suffice 
 to render this clear. 
 
 Heb. i. 7—9. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his 
 ministers a flame of fire. But unto [or of] the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God ! 
 IS for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou 
 hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 
 
 "God— even thy God— hath anointed thee;" therefore the per- 
 son who is addressed as God in the preceding verse, had a God 
 above him; and consequently could not be the Supreme Deity, nor 
 God in the strictest sense of the word. "God hath anointed thee 
 tvith the oil of gladness ;" therefore the person addressed in the 
 Sth verse could not be the Everlasting Divinity : for who could 
 
115 
 
 anoint the Supreme Being with the oil of gladness? Who could 
 increase that felicity which is at every moment, and has been from 
 all eternity, perfect and complete ? " God — even thy God — hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows ;" therefore 
 the person addressed in the 8th verse, could not be the Supreme 
 Being, who reigns without a rival and without an equal. This ar- 
 gument is so plain, that even Mr. Bagot, with all his ingenuity, will 
 not be able to turn it aside. But to make it still more obvious, I 
 refer you to— 
 
 Psalm xlv. 5, 6. Thy throne, O God ! is for ever and ever : the sceptre of thy 
 kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness j there- 
 fore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 
 
 Here we find the very words on which Mr. Bagot so much relies, as 
 proving the proper Deity of the Word, applied to a person who,' from 
 several expressions in the psalm, appears to be Solomon, in a com- 
 position which is entitled " A Song of Loves ;" that is, an epilhala- 
 vi'mm or amatory poem. I shall only state, that the commencing 
 clause in Heb. i. 8, and in Psalm xlv. 6, may, in both places, be 
 very properly translated " God is thy throne for ever and ever ;" 
 an expression which is similar to those wherein God is spoken of as 
 a toiver, ai fortress, and a shield ; and that it is probably applied both 
 to Solomon and to our Lord, simply to denote the stability and con- 
 tinuance of their respective kingdoms. 
 
 I shall now proceed to lay before you the remaining proofs that 
 
 the Scriptures uniformly represent the Son of God, as subordinate 
 
 .to God, the Father ; and in the first place I shall demonstrate that — 
 
 THE TITLES WHICH ARE GIVEN IN SCRIPTURE TO OUR LORD JESUS 
 CHRIST, ARE SUCH AS DECIDEDLY PROVE HIS INFERIORITY TO THE 
 FATHER. 
 
 (1.) He is called "the Word;'' and this term is believed, by thosfe 
 who suppose that in him two natures are united, to denote the high- 
 est of them. 
 
 John i. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,'and the 
 Word was God. 
 
 John i. 14. And tJie Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld 
 his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 
 
 These two verses, which occur, in the same context, afford the only 
 instance that I have been able to find, in which the term Word can, 
 even by possibility, be supposed to be applied to Christ in any sense. 
 On the former passage I have already commented at sufficient 
 length: I confine myself, on this occasion, to a very few remarks on 
 the latter. It asserts, that "the Word" was made flesh: and "the 
 Word," as Mr. Bagot intimates, is the proper and descriptive name 
 for Christ's divine nature. Was, then, the divine nature made ilesh? 
 Was the Deity converted into 7nanhood? — This the text affirms, if 
 the meaning attributed to the Word be correctly stated. But this is a 
 doctrine which even the orthodox repudiate : the term Word, there- 
 
116 
 
 fore, cannot in this passage admit of the signification supposed. 
 Was the Eternal Majesty of heaven made {syhiro) flesh ? Well did 
 Mr. Bagot declare, that it is difficult not to trespass beyond the pro- 
 per limits, when stating views such as those now adverted to. But, 
 in (ruth, not only does the term ^orrf not denote the Supreme Deity 
 of the person to whom it is applied ; but no term could be employed, 
 more clearly expressing the very contrary : for none can more dis- 
 tmctly proclaim, that one being is inferior to another, than when the 
 former is declared to be the word of the latter. You will observe, 
 that in John i. 14, it is not declared that the Supreme Being took 
 man's nature into union with his own ; but, simply, that the Word 
 was made or became flesh. Now that the Word is itself a name of 
 inferiority, I shall prove by simply reading to you the meanings of 
 the term Aoyog, (Word,) as given by the celebrated Trinitarian lexi- 
 cographer, Schleusner, in his Lexicon to the New Testament. They 
 are as follows : 
 
 A word spoken, a speech, an oration, (short or long,) a written discourse, a 
 writing-, a book, (more especially historical,) a narrative of a fact, a story, (true 
 or false,) a report, a rumour, a precept, a mandate, a testimony, an oracle, a 
 vaticination, a prophecy, a promise, a threat, a commination, a proverb, an 
 adage, a popular opinion or sentiment, a question, a controversy, a subject of 
 discussion, a suit at law, a" cause to come before a judge, a calumny, a reproach, 
 a blasphemy, a doctrine taught, an instruction, a mode or plan of teaching, 
 the power of speaking and teaching; a teacher, [N. B. To this meaning, 
 Schleusner refers John i. 1, John i. 14, and 1 John v. 7j] the profession of 
 the Christian religion, the subject of discourse, an account to be rendered of 
 any act or fact in words', an account rendered of any thing given and received ; 
 a cause; a reason ; the estimation in which any thing is held; an affair, a fact, a 
 business ; a trade, a commerce ; equity, justice, fairness ; the apparent and outward 
 seeming of any thing, as opposed to fact and truth. Sometimes it is superfluous ; 
 sometimes it is omitted. 
 
 Such is the signification of that term which Mr. Bagot tells us is the 
 proper name of the Supreme Deity of Christ. After reading the 
 list, am I not authorised to ask, whether any term could have been 
 found more inadequate to express the idea which his theory affixes 
 to it ? 
 
 2. Our Lord is called the " Child of God" in Scripture, three 
 times; the "Son of God," or "the Son," ninety-three times at least; 
 ''God's own Son, dear Son, beloved Son, or only-begotten Son," fifteen 
 times. The passages being so numerous, I refer you to Cruden's, 
 or any other good Concordance, for the places wherein they occur. 
 
 Now, I argue, that every instance wherein one of these names is 
 to be found, is a proof of the inferiority of the person to whom it is 
 applied. The phrases, " Son," " Son of God," &c. as applied lo our 
 Lord, are no doubt metaphorical ; but"^yet they clearly and strongly 
 express the priority of the Father— the origination of the Son, as 
 opposed to self-existence, and his inferiority to his Father in wisdom, 
 dignity, and authority. It appears, then, that Christ's filial relation 
 to God is expressed in Scripture about one hundred and ten times; 
 while he is not called God oftener than twice ox thrice; and, in every 
 instance, with marks which show that the name is given to him only 
 in a general or inferior sense. It is plain, that the Father must 
 
117 
 
 exist before the Son, and that (he Son derives his existence from the 
 l-ather; and both these circumstances are irreconcilable with the 
 alle-ed proper J)eily of the Son. If, indeed, the writers of Scripture 
 had known our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Supreme Bein"-, why 
 would they so repeatedly and habitually give him a name which so 
 uistinctly implies inferiority ? 
 
 Tlie terms Father and Son, as applied to God and our Saviour 
 denote, indeed, the mutual affection which subsists between them • 
 and bestowed, as the phrase Son of God is in Scripture, emphati! 
 cally on our Lord, it signifies, unquestionably, that he enjoyed a 
 distinguished degree of regard and affection on the part of the Su- 
 preme Being. But this is no more than every Unitarian believes: 
 and, certainly, no denomination could more inadequately denote the 
 Supreme Being. Yet this is the very word which is almost uniformly 
 employed in human creeds, catechisms, and liturgies, to express his 
 t.odhead. In such compositions, we read repeatedly of <' God the 
 ^on ; a phrase which cannot be pointed out in Scripture ; but which 
 occurs in that prayer which Mr. Bagot recites every Sunday—" O 
 God the Son, Redeemer of the toorld," &c. Let it be remembered 
 tliat the phrase "Son of God" is attributed to many other bein-s 
 whose Deity never was alleged. Thus, we read, that, on the com- 
 pletion of the material creation, "all the Sons of God" (L e the 
 angels) "shouted for joy." The Jews, under the Old Testament 
 disj)ensation, are called " children of the Most High." And, under 
 Uie ^ew Covenant, Christians are reminded of the love which the 
 leather hath showed unto us, that we should be called " the Sons of 
 UQd A phrase which can be so extensively applied, certainly 
 affords no intimation of the Supreme Deity of him to whom it is 
 applied. 
 
 3. Our blessed Lord is called an Apostle once: a Hi^rh Priest 
 eleven times ; a Prophet nineteen times. All these terms denote, of 
 themselves, Im inferiority to God. The manner in which these titles 
 are given to Christ in the New Testament, confirms this inference. 
 
 Heb. iii. 1. Consider the Apostle and HH,h Priest of our profession, Christ 
 Jesus ; who w^sJaUh/ul to h.m that appointed him, as also Moses rvas faithful 
 
 " A High rriesr can scarcely be regarded as denoting a divine per- 
 son. In this passage, our Saviour is represented as an Apostle, and 
 as a High Priest, who was appointed to those offices, in the same man- 
 ner and by the same authority, to which Moses owed his selection- 
 and who was, ike him, /ai7/;/«/ to his superior. Subordination could 
 not be more clearly expressed. For the other examples of the use 
 of these phrases, I must as before, refer to the Concordance, in 
 wlac^h they will readily be found. Among the instances wherein 
 our Lord is called a Prophet in the New Testament, I refer you to 
 his own words in — ^ 
 
 ^ Luke xiii. 33. It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem. 
 These words he spoke in anticipation of his death. He is also 
 callea by the same title in 
 
 .>efor:":d:tnd'aIi tt^co^'le'"'""''' ^^'^ "" ' ''"""^' "'^'''^ '" ^"^^-^°'' -'"^ 
 
118 
 
 And, if it be alleged that this expression fell from two of his disci- 
 ples,' before the communication of the Holy Ghost, I refer to— 
 
 Acts iii. 22, 23. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, " A Prophet shall the Lord 
 your God raise up unto you, of your brethren like unto me : him shall ye bear in all 
 things whatsoever he shall say unto you." 
 
 la these three passages, Christ is freely compared even to human 
 ao-enls; and is expressly called by a title that is frequently attributed 
 to certain of them— a Prophet; a most extraordinary name whereby 
 to designate the Supreme Being I 
 
 4. Our Lord is several times in Scripture called a Man ; and this 
 not by his enemies merely, nor by the Jewish people alone ; but 
 by himself, and by inspired prophets and faithful apostles. Nor is 
 the title given to him only in one branch or department of his sup- 
 posed compound nature ; but in such a way, as to show that it was 
 o-iven to him in his entire capacity. Indeed, the distinction between 
 the two natures of Christ, to which Mr. Bagot and other Trinitarians 
 so frequently have recourse, is perfectly gratuitous and unfounded ; 
 an assumption unknown to the inspired writers and early teachers of 
 the word of God. On this subject, I shall probably make a few 
 remarks before the close of this discussion. 
 
 IsA. liii. 3. He is despised and rejected of men ; a man of sorrows, and ac- 
 quainted with grief. 
 
 John i. 30, After me cometh o man who is preferred before me : for he was 
 before me. 
 
 These words of John the Baptist may be understood as referring 
 either to the superior authority of Christ, or simply to his pre-exist- 
 ence. To the latter mode of interpreting the verse, and to the doc- 
 trine which it involves, I am, as I have already stated, inclined ; 
 although I admit my theory is accompanied with some difficulties. 
 
 ' John iv. 29. Come, (said the woman of Samaria,) see a man who told me all 
 things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? 
 
 Luke xxiv. 19. Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, &c. 
 I quote this passage again, because the words of the original are, a 
 man prophet ; which may be translated, in accordance with a Greek 
 idiom of frequent occurrence, either a human prophet, or a prophetic 
 man. Our Saviour did not scruple to apply the same language to 
 himself on various occasions : as in — 
 
 John viii. 40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, 
 which I have heard of God. 
 Nor did his disciples, as in the words of Peter — 
 
 Acts ii. 22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth, a man ap- 
 proved among you, by signs and wonders, which God did in the midst of you, through 
 him, &c. 
 
 The reading of these words suggests a question, to which I should 
 gladly receive an answer. In what one of all the addresses of all the 
 Apostles to their countrymen and to the heathen, did any one of 
 them ever make the slightest mention of the supposed Deity of 
 Christ ? According to the popula-r representations, we might ima- 
 gine that the Apostles, when they went forth to publish salvation to 
 
119 
 
 the world, forgot the great object of their teachinpf. Certain it is, 
 that they dropped not one word on the subject of Christ's Divinity. 
 They hud not learned in the school of modern orthodoxy. Had they 
 pone forth in the spirit of modern preaching, they would have been 
 heard to speak loudly and largely of Jesus as " God and man," and 
 " the incarnate God," and " God-mau ;" and they might have been 
 heard to speak — in thelanguage'of Wesley's Hymn-Book, if I mistake 
 not — of the agonies of the Deity expiring on the cross! But none 
 of these things did or could the Apostles announce to their cotem- 
 poraries ; because they are modern discoveries, of which they them- 
 selves required to be informed. 
 
 Acts xvii. 30, 31. GoJ hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world 
 in righteousness, through that maw whom he hath ordained. 
 
 Mr. Bagot argued, that the'officeof executing judgment required all 
 the attributes of Deity : but here we find the office is assigned to 
 Christ, — and assigned to him, not in his divine, but in his human 
 nature. " God will judge the world through that man whom he hath 
 ordained." These are the words of Paul to the Athenians. Choose 
 ye now between his authority and that of my reverend opponent. 
 
 Our Lord is called a man in several other passages j among which 
 I shall now adduce only — 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. 
 
 (5.) He is called the "Son of man" — a designation which un- 
 questionably marks his inferiority to God — by others, at least five 
 times; by himself upwards of seventy times. For the particular 
 passages, 1 must again refer you to the Concordance. 
 
 (6.) He is called " the Sent" of God — or, which is the same thing 
 in effect, God is declared to have sent him — at least fifty-six times ; 
 a mode of speech which is perfectly inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 his supposed Deity. Fifty-six times God is declared in Scripture to 
 have sent him. If this does not mark his inferiority, I know not 
 what does. Remember his own words : "The servant is not greater 
 than his Lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him;" 
 a declaration which, in the Jewish idiom, means to affirm strongly 
 and pointedly, that the servant is less than his Lord, and the person 
 sent inferior to him by whom he is sent. Now our Lord is said to 
 have been sent by the Father in — 
 
 John iv. 14. We have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son to 
 be the Saviour of the world. 
 
 The Father therefore is superior to the Son. Our Lord even com- 
 pares his own mission, received from the Father, to that of his Apos- 
 tles, received from himself. 
 
 John xx. 21. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you. As my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you. 
 
 John xvii. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so send I them into the 
 world. 
 
 This last passage occurs in that solemn prayer on which Mr. Bagot 
 has commented so ingeniously, and several expressions of which he 
 
120 
 
 thinks must have been spoken by our Lord in his divine capacity. 
 Think of the Divinity offering up a prayer ! But to this the views 
 of Trinitarians necessarily lead. See farther — 
 
 John viii. 42. Neither came I of myself, but he (that is God) sent me. 
 
 (7.) He is called a Mediator four times; and the Christ, or the 
 Anointed, upwards of three hundred times. Now Mr. Bagot ex- 
 pressly allows, that the term Mediator does, in itself, imply inferiority 
 to one of the parties between whom he mediates. He has not there- 
 fore a divine Mediator, according to his own showing; but one who 
 is inferior to Divinity. Observe also that the term Mediator is not 
 confined to our Saviour in Scripture ; for Moses is called by that 
 title, by no less an authority than the Apostle Paul, in Gai.. iii. 19 : 
 [The law] " was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator ;" and 
 the expression is virtually repeated in the next verse, where, in refer- 
 ence to the foregoing declaration, it is added : "Now a Mediator is 
 not a mediator of one ; but God is one." And that the term Christ 
 (the Anointed) does in itself imply inferiority, is obvious from — 
 
 Acts x. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with 
 power. 
 
 Now as no person whatsoever could possibly anoint the Almighty with 
 the holy spirit and with power, it follows, that he who is the Anointed, 
 or the Christ, is inferior to God. And a passage which puts this 
 beyond all question, is — 
 
 Acts ii. 36. God hath made Jesus, both Lord and Christ.' 
 Our Saviour therefore derived his unction, or the appointment to his 
 office as the Christ, from God ; and this shows that wherever the term 
 Christ is found, it is to be considered as a declaration of his inferio- 
 rity to the Father. Now, as I have already stated, it is applied to 
 our Lord upwards of three hundred times. 
 
 I shall now adduce as many as my time will permit of a numer- 
 ous class of — 
 
 TEXTS IN WHICH IT IS EXPRESSLY DECLARED, THAT CHRIST WAS 
 CREATED BY THE FATHER, AND RECEIVED FROM HIM HIS EXIST- 
 ENCE, WISDOM, POWER, AUTHORITY, AND GLORY. 
 
 As connected with this subject, il may be observed, that when the 
 Apostle Paul speaks in the loftiest terms he ever employs, with refe- 
 rence to the dignity and pre-eminence of the Saviour of men, he not 
 only gives to him the title " Son," which in itself implies inferiority, 
 but he speaks of him as " the Jir si- born of all creation;" and since 
 the first-born of every family is always a member of that family, so 
 the first-horn of creation must be himself a creature — that is to say, 
 a created being. The passage to which I allude is to be found in — 
 
 Coi,. i. 12 — 20. Giving thanks unto the Father, who * * hath translated 
 us into the kingdom of his own dear Son; * * who is the image of the invisible 
 God, THE FIRST-BORN of evcry creature : [TraC^jj xt/Vhwc, of all creation ;] for by 
 [Jv, /«] him were created all things that are in heaven, and that are on earth, 
 visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, 
 or powers : all things were created through him, and for him. And he is before 
 
121 
 
 all things, and by [h, in] iiioi all things consist. And he is the head of the body, 
 the church : who ij the beginning, the firstborn from tht dvud ,■ that in all 
 things he might have tlie pre-eminence. For it pleased [him, j. e. the Father, M 
 appears from ver. 12,J that in him should all fulness dwell. 
 
 In this lofty description, Paul gives frequent intimations of the in- 
 feriority of Christ to the Father. Recalls him "the Son," — "the 
 dear Son of the Father;" — a phrase which excludes the ideas of iden- 
 tity and equality. He calls him, not "the invisible God," but " the 
 image of the invisible God," — the representation of the invisible 
 Deity. He calls him, not the author of all creation, but " the first- 
 born of all creation ; and thereby expressly affirms, that he was 
 himself created. He does not affirm, that he exercised any creative 
 power of his own, independent of the Father's will; but that the ere- 
 ation which he effected was accomplished " through him," as a sub- 
 ordinate agent, — such being the proper signification of the original 
 phrase, {61 ahrov, not 6t a\jro\J.) He not only declares him to be 
 "THE FIRST-BORN of all creation," and as such brought into exist- 
 ence by the power of the Father, but also that he owed to the same 
 Almighty Being, the distinction of being " the beginning," and 
 "FiRST-BOR^ from the dead;" " for it pleased him," says the Apostle, 
 (referring, beyond all question, to the Father, as the connexion of 
 the passage shows,) " that in him should all fulness dwell." In this 
 passage, therefore, the Apostle applies, as I have already stated, 
 high and lofty titles to our blessed Lord and Saviour, though not 
 more high and lofty than every Unitarian is most willing to bestow 
 upon him; but with these distinguished appellations, he gives, at the 
 same time, the clearest intimations, that in his highest state, office, 
 of capacity, he is inferior to the Father, derives his extensive powers 
 and endowments from the Father, and acts as his minister and agent. 
 Now this is downright Unitarianism. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — I never felt more forcibly how much I stand in 
 need of the prayers of every Christian in this assembly ; for unless I 
 am guided by a power from above, the malignity of the flesh, which 
 wars against the Spirit, would be likely, from the circumstances in 
 which I am placed, to raise my feelings into a stale of indignation, 
 unsuited to Christian principle and temper. Most sincerely do I 
 wish, that I could extend to Mr. Porter the right hand of Christian 
 fellowship, and join with him in expressing our mutual experience 
 by repeating those words which he has just referred to, in Col. i. 12 
 to 14 : "We give thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet 
 to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath 
 delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into 
 the kingdom of his dear Son ; in ivhom tve have redemption through 
 his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." 
 
 I have called on Mr. Porter two or three times during this dis- 
 cussion, to state what are the precise and definite sentiments which 
 he entertains in reference to the personal rank and dignity of the 
 Saviour. This question he has never answered. I have at length, 
 however, ascertained the reason. It is simply this — because he has 
 
 Q 
 
122 
 
 no definite or positive views whatever upon the subject. Yesterday, 
 tor instance, he told you that he believed in the pre-existence of 
 Christ ; but to-day he has said, that this doctrine, though he believes 
 in it, is encompassed with some difficulties. Again, he has referred 
 to Heb. i. 9, and has asked me this question. If Christ be God, how 
 can he be said to have "fellows?" But he has forgotten, that, if 
 he believes Christ to be a superangelic being, standing alone without 
 a compeer in creation, it devolves as much upon him to show what 
 is meant when the Apostle speaks of Christ having "fellows;" and 
 if he acknowledges that he has a fellow, and yet refuses, at the same 
 time, to admit the doctrine of two natures, he must then believe that 
 Christ was either an angel or a man, or an angelic nature united to 
 a human body ; although, indeed, in this last case, it would still be 
 difficult to show who were his " fellows." 
 
 I shall now endeavour to illustrate, by a simple application, a 
 principle of reasoning which Mr. Porter has employed in his last 
 speech, in order to show you its proper tendency. He produced one 
 part of Scripture in which Christ is called " God," and another in 
 which he is called a minister ; and inferred from a comparison of the 
 two, that he is not " God," because he is called "a minister !" He 
 might just as well have argued, that because he is styled a "Media- 
 tor" in one passage, he cannot be "the Son of God," which he is 
 styled in another ! — or that because he is called a " Prophet" in one 
 passage, he cannot be a "Mediator," which he is called in another! 
 — or that because he is called a " Man" in one passage, he cannot 
 be the " Lord of glory," which he is called in another. In fact, by 
 this mode of reasoning, he might prove that Christ is neither Man, 
 nor Mediator, nor Servant, nor Son of God, nor Prophet, nor 
 Minister, as well as that he is not God ; so that, if we work out this 
 principle of interpretation to its legitimate issue, we shall prove that 
 there is no such being as Christ revealed in Scripture at all — for 
 by this algebraic process of explanation, all the passages which 
 speak of Christ's personal character, may be represented as mutually 
 neutralizing and destroying each other ! But I, on the other hand, 
 am satisfied to take the Bible as it is ; and I give equal credit to all 
 the declarations which I find in it in reference to Christ. I believe 
 bim to be a " Minister" and a " Mediator." I assent to both decla- 
 rations. 
 
 I would here remark, that I have in no instance spoken of 
 Christ's mediatorial inferiority, but of his mediatorial subordination. 
 This distinction should be well observed. 
 
 If the terms, " Son of God," and " only-begotten Son of God," 
 be supposed to refer to the humanity of Christ, and not to his 
 divinity, then I admit that, in these respects, he is inferior to the 
 Father. But I wish to make a remark upon the name, " only-begot- 
 ten Son ;" and I shall do so by asking Mr. Porter, does he not 
 believe Christ to be a created being ? If so, why are there not 
 millions of Christs in existence? for the same power of Deity which 
 could create one, could create a million. It argues against the phy- 
 sical omnipotence of Deity to say, that he could not have created a 
 million of Christs, if Christ be a created being. 
 
123 
 
 Mr. Porter alluded to the use of the. terms, "Father" and " Son ;" 
 and argued that they necessarily imply superiority of nature, and 
 priority of existence, in the one over the other. To this I answer, 
 that so far from these terms implying superiority of nature, a Father 
 a.nd Son are always of the same nature ! — and as to their implying 
 priority of existence in one over the other, this may be in one 
 sense the case amongst men ; but the analogy cannot be applied to 
 the divine nature. The cause generally precedes the effect ; but we 
 should draw a distinction between a. necessary and an accidental con- 
 nexion between cause and effect. When the effect is only the acci- 
 dental result of the cause, as in the case of a man becoming a father, 
 the cause may be, and always is, antecedent in existence to the effect ; 
 but when the effect is the necessary result of the cause, they are 
 both coeval. Thus when the sun received that power of illumina- 
 tion which is the cause of light, the diffusion of light instantly fol- 
 lowed, and the effect was contemporaneous in existence with the 
 production of the cause. If, therefore, we believe that the relationship 
 between God the Father and the Son is of a necessary kind, we must 
 believe that the Father and Son are coeval and coeternal ; and, even 
 amongst men, a father, as a father, does not exist before his son, — 
 for no man is a father until he has a son. 
 
 Let me now apply these principles to the doctrines which Mr. 
 Porter professes to believe. Look to the printed statement of his 
 first proposition, in which he says, "There is one God, the Father, 
 who is God alone ; to the entire exclusion of the alleged proper 
 Deity of the Word." I ask him, does he believe in the eternity of 
 ".the One God, the Father ?" Does he believe that the Father ex- 
 isted from everlasting ? He must answer, of course, that he does. 
 But does not a relative term necessarily imply the existence of its 
 correlative? — consequently, the relative term, ''Father," must include 
 and wrap up in its very existence, the coexistence of its correlative, 
 " the Son." Therefore, the Son is coeternal with the Father; and 
 Mr. Porter, by admitting the eternity of the latter, necessarily ad- 
 mits theeternity of the former. If not, I ask him, who was God 
 before " the Father existed ? I refer, in this argument, to a simple 
 logical principle, that the relative and the correlative are coexistent. 
 And Mr. Porter must rub the word 5'Father'' out of the statement 
 of his first proposition, before he can answer the argument. 
 
 I shall now revert to some of the arguments advanced by Mr. 
 Porter yesterday ; and shall reply, in the first place, to his remark 
 on John i. 1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God." Yesterday, he told you, 
 that Aoyo; (translated " word") is intended to designate the wisdom 
 of God ; but to-day, when he wished to argue against his eternity, 
 he assumed that Aoyog is a titleof Christ. Now, whenever Mr. Por- 
 ter advances a principle of interpretation, I like to take, as it were, 
 a loan of it for a few moments, and return it to him again as soon as 
 I have done with it ! Yesterday, then, he told you, that Aoyog meant 
 the " wisdom of God." If so, of course the expression, "in the 
 beginning," must be understood to denote " from all eternity ;" as 
 there never could have been a time when God was without wisdom. 
 
124 
 
 And I would also remark, that, even allowing that this word is 
 intended to express the " wisdom of God," yet such an interpretation 
 removes the difficulty only one step ; as Christ is said, in 1 Cor. i. 24, 
 to be " the wisdom of God." 
 
 But I maintain, that Aoyog cannot signify the wisdom of God in 
 this passage ; and I do so for the following reasons : — 
 
 (I.) 2op/a is the correct Greek term for " wisdom ;'' not Acr/og. 
 
 (2.) Even supposing that Aoyog could denote "wisdom," then the 
 entire passage would be more correctly expressed thus : Ei/ d^xf^ ^^ 
 7] 2o^/a, xai t] 'Eofia rjv sv Qsu, xai rj lotpia rjv 0eoD. 
 
 (3.) Capacities of active power and intelligence, inconsistent 
 with the nature of an attribute, are ascribed to the Aoyog in ver. 3, 
 11, 14. 
 
 (4.) Is it said, in ver. 4, "In him was life ;" but I ask. Is there 
 life in an attribute ? Is not life itself an attribute of a person ? and 
 is not, therefore, the Aoyog a person ? 
 
 (5.) Is it not usual for the New Testament writers to describe 
 the attributes of God by a personification, or to begin a serious and 
 solemn narrative with the use of figures of speech. 
 
 (6.) No reason can be assigned for the omission of other attri- 
 butes, such as mercy, which were also involved in the incarnation of 
 Christ. 
 
 (7.) To assert, that an attribute of Deity was "with Deity," would 
 be an absurd truism ; for where else could the attributes of God be 
 supposed to be ? and to say, that one attribute of Deity was (without 
 reference to other attributes) Deity itself, would be representing the 
 divine nature as a kind of imperitim in imperio ! — a Deity in Deity! 
 — a part equal to the whole ! 
 
 (9.) The Aoyog is called, in ver. 14, "the only-begotten of the 
 Father.'' Now, admitting that an attribute might, in some figurative 
 sense, be said to have been " begotten ;'' yet I cannot understand 
 how it could be described as the "only begotten," unless God had only 
 one attribute. If this were true, what becomes of the other attri- 
 butes of Deity ? What, for instance, becomes of his mercy, his abstract 
 mercy, upon which Mr. Porter rests his hope of salvation, independ- 
 ently of the atonement ; forgetting that mercy cannot be displayed at 
 the expense of jMs//cg, nor can it be elevated above the justice of 
 God ? For does he know, that the algebraic principle of neutra- 
 lizing one quantity by another, cannot be applied to the attributes of 
 the Eternal, so as to represent one attribute as annihilating another? 
 Does he not know, that nothing but the atonement of Christ, — the 
 only work of supererogation which could have been performed on 
 behalf of sinners, and which receives an infinite value from the Deity 
 of him who oflFered it, — is the only solid basis upon which he can 
 rest his belief of pardon, and his hopes of everlasting glory ? 
 
 For these reasons, I maintain, that Aoyog, " the word," cannot be 
 understood in John i. 1, as designating " the wisdom of God." On 
 the other hand, I maintain, that this word is a title of Christ, for the 
 following reasons : 
 
125 
 
 (1.) It is evident, from verse 14, that it is the designation of a 
 person who "became flesh, and dwelt among us." 
 
 (2.) Because Christ is described, in Rev, xix. 13, under this title : 
 " He was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called 
 the Word of God.'' [INlr. Porter yesterday asserted, that John i. 1 
 is the only instance which can be produced of the application of the 
 title, Aoyoc, to the Saviour. Now, here is Rev. xix. 13, which 
 affords an additional instance ; and if that will not satisfy him, I refer 
 him to IIeb. iv. 12, 13 : "The Word of God is quick and power- 
 ful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the 
 dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, 
 and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; neither 
 is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight ; but all things 
 are naked, and opened unto the eyes of Him with ivhom we have to 
 do." Here, it is evident, from the latter verse, that the Apostle is 
 speaking of a person ; and I understand the former verse as a strong 
 figurative description of the scrutinizing and searching omniscience 
 of Christ, by which he explores the inmost arcana of the human 
 heart, with the same facility as that with which a sword penetrates 
 and divides the flesh.] 
 
 The next criticism which Mr. Porter advanced, in connexion with 
 John i. 1, was this, that I might as well prove the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation from the words of Christ, "This is my body," as prove 
 the Deity ofChrist from the declaration, "The Word wasGod." Now, 
 I beg to remark here, that, in advocating the doctrine of the Deity of 
 Christ, I have a common interest with my Roman Catholic fellow-coun- 
 trymen; and I shall not take advantage of this illustration to speak 
 against them upon the present occasion. At a proper time, and in a 
 suitable place, I am always ready to preach against what I consider to 
 be the errors of the Church of Rome ; and I trust I shall never shrink 
 back from being, in this sense, even considered their enemy, if they can 
 call me their enemy because I tell them the truth. I shall, therefore, 
 suggest to Mr. Porter another illustration, which will answer his 
 purpose quite as well ; and I will suppose him to have said to me. 
 You might as well prove that our bodies are made of grass, because 
 the Apostle says, " All flesh is grass,'' as prove the Deity of Christ 
 from the declaration, "The Word was God !" This illustration is 
 just as wise and sensible as the other. But, suppose 1 retort the 
 principle of reasoning which it involves, how will it then serve his 
 cause ? Suppose, for instance, Mr. Porter should advance a text to 
 this effect, "The Father is God," as an argument for the proper 
 Deity of the Father, what would he say to me if I should reject his 
 reasoning by saying to him. You might as well prove that our bodies 
 are made of grass, because the Apostle says, "AH flesh is grass," as 
 prove the Deity of the Father from the declaration, "The Father is 
 God !'' So that this principle which he has advanced tends to over- 
 turn the true Deity of the Father : it places in my hands a powerful 
 and irresistible lever, with which I can upturn and overthrow the very 
 doctrines which Mr. Porter himself maintains 1 
 
 Mr. Porter asserted yesterday and to-day, that the word Qiog, 
 " God," in the sentence, "The Word was God," is used in asubordi- 
 
1^6 
 
 nate sense. Let me suppose it is ; and as I am fond of retorting bis 
 principles of reasoning against himself, I naturally ask, Why should 
 the same word occur twice in the very same verse, and have a proper 
 meaning in one clause, ("The Word was with God") and a subordi- 
 nate meaning in the latter clause, ("The W^ord was God.") I argue, 
 that if the word " God," in the last clause, has a subordinate meaning, 
 the same word, in the second clause, must also have a subordinate 
 meaning ; and therefore the Father, with whom the Word was, is only 
 God in a subordinate sense ! On the other hand, 1 maintain, that 
 because the word Qeov, " God," in the second clause, is used in its 
 proper sense ; consequently, the same word, Qsog, " God," in the 
 third clause, is also used in a proper sense. 
 
 But Mr. Porter has advanced this criticism, that because Gsog, 
 in the sentence, xal Qihg ^v 6 ACyog, " and the Word was God,'' has 
 no article prefixed to it, it must, therefore, be understood in a sub- 
 ordinate sense, and cannot denote true Deity. But does not Mr. 
 Porter know the reason why there is no article before Qsog ? It is 
 this, because Giog is the predicate of the proposition in which it 
 occurs ; and also, if it had the article before it, it would be too much 
 identified (grammatically speaking) with Qshv in the preceding 
 clause, which has the article before it, and the phraseology would not 
 keep up the distinction of persons between the Father and the Son : 
 so that, in fact, if the two words were so identified, by the prefixing 
 of the article before both, this passage of Scripture would seem 
 TO GIVE COUNTENANCE TO Sabellianism. Further : Does Mr. Porter 
 mean to say, that Qsog, without the article, does not denote true 
 Deity — and that on the other hand, when used with the article, 
 it does denote true Deity ? Let me, then, try this principle of criticism 
 by the test of Scripture. Qeog occurs in verse 6 without the 
 article, " There was a man sent from God." Are we to understand 
 the word " God" in a subordinate sense there ? Again, it occurs in 
 verse 13 without the article, " which were born, not of blood, nor of 
 the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," Are we to 
 understand the word " God" in a subordinate sense there? Again, 
 it occurs in verse 18 without the article : " No man hath seen God at 
 any time." Are we, also, to understand the word " God" in a sub- 
 ordinate sense there ? On the other hand, if you look to 2 Cor. 
 iv. 4, you will find Qihg with the article applied to the Devil, who is 
 there styled " the God of this world :" so that this criticism of Mr. 
 Porter's is worth absolutely nothing ! 
 
 Now, as I am very fond of borrowing Mr. Porter's principles of 
 interpretation, and making use of them for a time, and when — to use 
 a vulgar expression — I have taken a turn out of them, give them 
 back to him again ; I shall now make some use of this principle of 
 reasoning which he laid down, when he stated, that the predicate of 
 a proposition may always have the article before it; and I shall 
 apply it to the interpretation of a passage upon which Mr. Porter no 
 doubt lays great stress, and which you will find in 1 Cor. xv. 24 to 
 28; " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
 kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all 
 rule, and all authority and power. (For he must reign, till he hath 
 
put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be de- 
 stroy'^d is death. For he hath put all ihinj^s under liis feet. But 
 when he saith, All thins;sare put under him, it is manifest, that he is 
 excepted which did put all things under him.) And when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject 
 to him that did put all things under him, that God may be all in all.'' 
 The last verse reads thus in the original : orav dh vTorayfi a-lrSJ rd 
 Tuvra, roVs xai avrhg 6 \j'iog \j'xorayr,Ci7ai rw vrrord^avri avrOj ra tocvto., 
 ha fi 6 Qibg ru, -ravra h rram. But, before I apply Mr. Porter's criti- 
 cism to this text, I must first give a general explanation of the entire 
 passage. The kingdom which is mentioned in it, cannot be under- 
 stood to refer to the general dominion of the universe which Christ 
 sustains as God ; for that kingdom shall continue for ever, as we 
 learn from IsA. ix. 7 : "Of the increase of his government and peace, 
 tliere shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his king- 
 dom, to order it, and to establish it, with judgment and with justice, 
 from henceforth even for ever ;" — and from Luke i. 33 : " He shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there 
 shall be no end;" — and from Heb. i. 8: "Thy throne, O God, is /or 
 ever and ever;" — and also from Heb. xii. 8, where it is described as 
 a " kingdom which cannot be moved." 
 
 The kingdom, therefore, which is referred to in the passage under 
 consideration, must be understood to refer to the 7nedlatorial kingdom 
 of Christ, which he undertook in subordination to the Father's will, 
 which he carries on in subordination to the Father's will, and which 
 he will surrender in subordination to the Father's tvill. And here I 
 would remark, that the fact of a person acting in subordination to 
 the will of another, for a limited time and for a specific object, can. 
 not prove an inferiority of nature in the person so acting; but only 
 proves a temporary official compliance with the other's tvill. 
 
 Now, this passage of Scripture merely asserts, that, when the ob- 
 jects for which Christ's mediatorial kingdom was instituted shall have 
 been attained, it shall be surrendered to the Father; and that, in the 
 act of surrendering his kingdom to the Father, Christ will be acting in 
 full compliance tvilh the Father's tvill. Now, I request you to attend 
 to this last remark ; because it is too generally assumed on one side, 
 and admitted on the other, that the clause, " then shall the Son also 
 himself be subject," &c. refers to that eternity which will succeed the 
 act of Christ's surrendering his kingdom. But the word ron (then) 
 never can be used in the sense of a continuing period, much less as 
 denoting a period which will never end. This word invariably refers 
 to a specific date ; and in this passage refers to the particular date of 
 Christ's surrendering his kingdom to the Father. It is evident, 
 therefore, that this passage may be thus paraphrased: "When all 
 things shall be subdued to the Son as Mediator, then, as the media- 
 torial kingdom will be no longer necessary, he will surrender that 
 kingdom to the Father, who sustains the higher office in the economy 
 of grace, in order that (not "God the Father,'' as in ver. 24, but in 
 order that) God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may be all in all ; so 
 that as the Mediator was all in all, during the continuance of his 
 kingdom (Col. iii. 11); so, after its termination, the Divine Being 
 
128 
 
 will be all in all, and carry on the government of the universe by a 
 direct and immediate administration. And, in surrendering his king- 
 dom, Christ will be acting in full compliance with the will of the 
 Father, whose good pleasure it is that he should surrender an official 
 state, which necessarily implies subordination, and should cease to be 
 subordinate. Or, in fact, he will be acting in subjection to the Father's 
 will, in ceasing to be subject." 
 
 I shall now apply Mr. Porter's principle of interpretation to this 
 passage. The principle to which I allude is this: That the predicate 
 of a proposition may always have the article before it. Upon this 
 principle, I see nothing to prevent me from translating the 28lh verse 
 thus : " When all things shall be subdued unto him, then ^i. e. in sur- 
 rendering his kingdom) shall the Son be subject to him that did put 
 all things under him, that he (I e. the Son) may be God all in all. 
 Mr. Porter's principle, that the predicate may have the article, re- 
 moves every objection to my regarding 6 Qilg, " God," as the predi- 
 cate of the proposition; and it is a very general rule of Greek Syntax, 
 that, where the adverb ha is im,mediately followed by a verb, we are 
 to look back to the preceding sentence for the nominative case to the 
 verb which follows ha. 
 
 [But, whilst I am engaged with this passage of Scripture, I would 
 wish to direct your attention to the distinction which the Apostle 
 makes, in ver. 24, between s^ovgiav, "authority," and 8uva/j,iv, "ability." 
 He evidently refers to these as two distinct things. The remark I 
 wish to make is this: That, though Christ says, in Matt, xxviii. 18, 
 sdodri fifOt irada s^oma, " all authority has been given to me," he never 
 said, idoSf] f^oi iraca b\jva[j,ig, " all ability has been given to me." Christ, 
 as Mediator, received i^ovaiav, " authority ;" but he did not receive 
 duvafiiv, " ability :" and his reception of the " authority" necessarily 
 implies his previous possession of the " ability ;" for it would have 
 been absurd to have given "authority" to one who did not possess 
 the "ability" required for its effectual exercise.] 
 
 And I would also call upon Mr. Porter to account for the phra- 
 ecology in the 24th verse, " God the Father." If the Father exclu- 
 sively be God, why use the words, "God the Father"? Would not 
 the word " God" have been sufficient ? and do not these words imply 
 the existence of another person beside " God the Father,'' who is God ? 
 
 Mr. Porter has asked me in reference to John i. 1, " How could 
 Christ be the same God with whom he was P" I answer, that he 
 could have been the same God with the Father, though not the same 
 person with the Father. And I would refer him to two passages of 
 Scripture, which prove that the clause, "the Word was with God," 
 means, that the Word was ivith the Father ; — to John xvii. 5, " And 
 now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory 
 which 1 had with thee before the world was;'' — and to 1 John i. 2, 
 " For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, 
 and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father." 
 
 Mr. Porter next adverted to John i. 3, "All things were made 
 by him," {'xdvra hi avTou symro;) and asserted, that Christ was a 
 created and finite instrument in the hands of the Creator, and was 
 
129 
 
 employed by him in creating all things. And how did he prove this? 
 —By a very " wire-drawn" criticism upon the Greek preposition 8ia. 
 {And here I may remark, that I am not in the habit of suspending 
 my creed on fine-spun criticisms upon Greek prepositions.] But 
 let me examine this criticism. He asserted that dia always denotes 
 the instrumental cause. Now, if this criticism be true, I should wish 
 to know how he will explain Rom. xi. 36, " For of him, (i. e. God) and 
 through him, {hi aliToZ,) and to him, are all things." Are we to under- 
 stand, from this passage, that God was only the instrumental cause 
 of all things P or how will he explain Heb. ii, 10, "For it became 
 him, (i. e. the Father,) for whom [bl hv) are all things, and by whom 
 {bi oD) are all things ?'' Are we to understand, from this passage, that 
 " the Father" was only the instrumental cause of all things ? Thus 
 his argument, that bia, in John i. 3, only denotes that Christ was 
 the instrumental cause of the creation, falls to the ground. And I 
 may remark, that the passage in Heb. ii. 10, to which I have just 
 referred, contains both bl iv, "for whom," and bl oZ, "by whom," and 
 illustrates this rule of Greek Syntax : That, when bia denotes the 
 yinal cause, it governs the accusative ; and, when it denotes the effi- 
 cient cause, it governs the genitive case. I argue, therefore, that bia. 
 denotes the efficient cause; and, even supposing it did denote the 
 instrument, still I can prove, by a reference to Hosea i. 7, that the 
 instrument is no less a person than Jehovah himself: "I will have 
 mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah their 
 God." 
 
 I shall close this address by alluding to an argument which Mr. 
 Porter advanced yesterday, against my reasoning for the Deity of 
 Christ, by comparing texts in which the same divine attributes are 
 referred to Christ and Jehovah or God. He quoted Isa. vii. 4, in 
 which the prophet is represented as speaking to Ahaz, and compared 
 it with the 10th verse, in which Jehovah is represented as speaking 
 to Ahaz; and he told you, that, upon my principles of reasoning, I 
 ought to argue for the Deity of Isaiah ! I ask him, in reply. Is 
 *' speaking'' a divine work? Cannot all creatures, who are endowed 
 with this faculty, speak? And I beg to remind him, that, when I 
 argue for the Deity of Christ from a comparison of texts in which 
 "Jehovah" or "God" is spoken of, with others in which "Christ'' is 
 spoken of, I confine myself exclusively to those in which the same 
 divine works or prerogatives are attributed in each, and do not refer 
 to texts in which actions are spoken of which might be performed by 
 creatures. Thus when I find it asserted, in Ps. Ixxviii. 56, that the 
 Israelites "tempted and provoked the Most High God ;'' and when, 
 again, in 1 Cor. x. 9, I find this very transaction referred to Christ in 
 these words, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also 
 tempted," — I naturally identify "Christ," in the latter passage, with 
 "the Most High God," in the former: just as — when I find an asser- 
 tion made in Acts vii. 58, that a person named " Saul" was standing 
 by at the martyrdom of Stephen, and " took charge of the clothes of 
 the witnesses;" and again, in Acts xxii. 20, I find a person named 
 "Paul" declaring, that "when the blood of the martyr Stephen 
 was shed, he also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, 
 
 K 
 
130 
 
 and kept the raiment of them that slew him," — I infer, from a com- 
 parison of these two passages, that " Saul" and " Paul" are common 
 designations of the same person. So, likewise, when I find the same 
 divine works and prerogatives, or the same identical facts, referred 
 to " God" in one passage, and to Christ in another, I infer that 
 Christ is God — one God with the Father, not one person with the 
 Father. 
 
 Mr, porter. — Mr. Bagot having, in the speech which you 
 have just heard, publicly explained how, in consistency with his 
 theory, the term "Father" is so often used in reference to the Su- 
 preme Being, and how, and why it is, that in Scripture the phrase, 
 " God the Father," occurs so frequently, — I beg to ask him to ex- 
 plain, on the same principle, how it is that the phrase, " God the 
 Son," never occurs P 
 
 This is a plain question, and / expect a direct answer. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — I have proved by innumerable passages, advanced 
 bcth yesterday and to-day, that Christ is God. It is said, for instance, 
 in John i. 1, " The Word was God ;" in Rom. ix. 5, that Christ is 
 " God over all, blessed for ever ;" and I John v. 20, that the Son of 
 God is " true God and eternal life." There is God the Son. 
 
 Mr. porter. — It is but seldom that 1 have had occasion to con- 
 gratulate myself on the exercise of caution and circumspection; but, 
 on the contrary, I have frequently been obliged to regret my not having 
 taken sufficient pains to guard myself against a contingent evil. For 
 once in my life, however^ I have been prudent. I am happy, exceedingly 
 happy, that the speech which I delivered at the close of yesterday's 
 proceedings, was accurately prepared and written down previously, 
 with the exception of a few extempore remarks, in reply to Mr. Bagot's 
 speech, just before pronounced. I am exceedingly happy that this 
 was the case ; because, from the manner in which Mr. Bagot has 
 treated my statements, attributing to me sentiments which I never 
 entertained, and language which I never uttered. I have reason to 
 fear, that, unless I could thus positively identify every syllable of what 
 I advanced, I should be in the hands of one, whose tender mercies to 
 my arguments would be cruel. It is not, of course, of his attempts to 
 answer my statements, that I complain. Could he do so convincingly, 
 it would please me well. Truly gratified should I be, when thus 
 convinced, to be able to embrace the popular tenets conscientiously, 
 and perhaps to become a member of that dominant hierarchy, with 
 which there is connected so much of worldly honour, emolument, 
 and respect; and in which I see individuals, not infinitely my supe- 
 riors in personal merit, advanced to elevated stations. Nothing 
 would give me greater pleasure, therefore, than to hear Mr. Bagot 
 refute my arguments, and demonstrate that my doctrines are wrong. 
 It is not, then, of his attempts to ansiver my arguments that I com- 
 plain : I complain that in his statement of them, he has mangled them 
 and murdered them. If he means to refute my positions, he ought 
 surely to state them correctly. To mis-state and distort them, and 
 
181 
 
 then to fjround an argument on his own misrepresentation?, is not 
 answering my arguments at all, but answering some supposed asser- 
 tions which i never made, and for^which I am not accountable : they 
 are not mine, any more than they are his own. 
 
 These remarks have been drawn from me by Mr. Bagot's lan- 
 guage with respect to my observations on John i. 1. In order that 
 you may see how very closely Mr. Bagot kept to the point of my 
 criticism, and Ao?^ m/Zmrt/t.'/;/ connected with the subject is all that 
 he advanced respecting the explanation of the Aoyoi as the wisdom 
 of the Deity, and concerning the personification of an attribute; and 
 indeed to prove how directly the whole of his argument on that text 
 bore on the subject of discussion, — I shall simply read to you, from 
 the paper now before me, what I actually did say, on the occasion 
 alluded to by my reverend opponent : — 
 
 «* Another passage on which Mr. Bagot laid much stress, on this as on former oc- 
 casions, is John i. 1 : In the beginning was the nord, and the word was with God, 
 and the word was God. • • All things were made by him ; and without him was 
 not any thing made that was made. * • On this passage of Scripture, however, now 
 before us, it is worthy of remark, that several learned men have been of opinion that 
 by the word we are not here to understand the jyerson of Christ, but the wisdom of 
 God which dwelt in him. 
 
 " But leaving this observation out of view altogether, and allowing the common 
 translation to stand unaltered, the phrase, ' the word was God' no more proves his 
 Supreme Deity, than the language ' this is my body, this is my blood,' proves the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation," &c. &c. &c. 
 
 And then I went on to explain the passage on a totally different 
 principle, from that on which Mr. Bagot has commented. He will 
 follow me in this debate ; and, as he has not yet answered my rea- 
 soning on John i. 1, I hope he will do so much justice to his cause, 
 to his opponent, and to this auditory, as to do so now ; and that, in 
 future, he will endeavour to be more accurate in his statement of my 
 arguments. I appeal to you, if I have dealt with his observations, 
 as he has dealt with mine. I appeal to himself, if he has once had 
 reason, since the commencement of this discussion, to complain of 
 me for having mis-stated a syllable of what he advanced. These 
 repeated inaccuracies on his part, (I should be loath to say, and I 
 do not say wilful inaccuracies,) certainly prove, that he has not been 
 paying that continued attention to my statements, which I felt my- 
 self bound, and which I endeavoured, to pay his. 
 
 Some of the statements which Mr. Bagot has laid before you, 
 might be made the subjects of most ludicrous animadversion, were 
 the subject of this controversy not of a nature too awful to be con- 
 templated in a ridiculous point of view. He has told you, that "the 
 cause generally precedes the effect 1" I ought, I suppose, to thank him 
 for so large and so generous an admission ! Mr. Bagot, then, admits 
 that — generally speaking — the cause precedes the effect ! and with this 
 important concession, I should have been well satisfied, had he not 
 subsequently neutralised its eflfect, by declaring that, in all cases, the 
 father is "coeval" with his own son ; that is to say, the son is, in all 
 cases, as old as his own father ! This was said, not with legard to 
 Deity alone, but with express reference to human beings and to 
 human nature. The father and the son "coeval ! !" The son as old as 
 
132 
 
 his own father ! ! ! What weight can be attached to an argument such 
 as this ? I feel that I do his position more than justice in calling 
 it an argument; but such is the reasoning he has brought forward 
 to prove the coeternity of Christ, the Son of God— with God, the 
 Father. It is not an argument: it is a mere quibbling sophism 
 upon an awful subject. I hope Mr. Bagot is sensible of the impor- 
 tance of the question in debate between us : but I am sorry to say, 
 that in a great many instances, whether through inattention or de- 
 sign, he has given us a number of examples, which would induce a 
 contrary impression. 
 
 Mr. Bagot went on further to tell us, that because the Israelites 
 are supposed to be represented as having tempted Christ, in a certain 
 passage of Scripture, Christ must be God over all : since, as he has 
 stated, "none but God can be the object of sin;" or, in other words, 
 sin can be committed against no being but God. As a short an- 
 swer to this argument, I would merely refer him to another passage 
 in the New Testament, in which the Apostle Paul declares to the 
 church of the Corinthians, that "he who committeth'' a certain of- 
 fence, which he specifies, " sinneth against his own body !" Did the 
 Apostle then mean to represent a man's body as possessed of a pro- 
 per Deity ? Is a man's own body his God ? After this simple re- 
 ference, I leave Mr. Bagot's argument to speak for itself. 
 
 Mr. Bagot referred to my observation on the preposition dicCf 
 which is uniformly employed in the New Testament, where the 
 creation is said to have been accomplished through or fcy Christ; 
 and affirmed, that the same preposition is frequently used in Scrip- 
 ture with reference to the Supreme Being; and, of course, in cir- 
 cumstances where it cannot denote the instrumental case. Now I 
 neither have time, nor should I exactly wish, to undertake the trouble 
 at present, to go over all the texts in the New Testament, in which 
 dta is found followed by a genitive case. I shall therefore content 
 myself with reading the following short extract from the writings of 
 a gentleman, in whose veracity and candour, I, in common with all 
 who know him, repose the fullest reliance, — I mean the Rev. James 
 Yates, now minister of Carter-Lane Chapel, in the city of Lon. 
 don, and author of a most satisfactory reply to Dr. Wardlaw's Dis- 
 courses ; a work which Mr. Bagot yesterday stated, had never been 
 answered. In the course of this reply, at page 84, Mr, Yates states :— 
 
 " The preposition 5/d, followed by a genitive or accusative case, occurs in the New 
 Testament about six hundred and thirty times. It is used to denote the efficient cause 
 of the production of an fffect, (of course governing in these instances the genitive,) 
 about two hundred and ninety times. I have examined all the passages where it is 
 found. I have observed that its general application, when used to point out an efficient 
 cause, is to represent not the ■primary, but the secondary, or instrumental cause.' 
 
 And in a note on this passage, Mr. Yates adds, — 
 
 "Against the universality of this rule, only one passage presents much difficulty : 
 1 Cor. i. 9. di ov iyCKriSriri, *^ through whom ye were called." But even here, there 
 is strong reason for considering v'XO as the true reading. — See Griesbach. Even allow- 
 ing hia to denote the original cause in two or three passages, still the probability that 
 it denoted the instrumental, would be, in any doub^ul case, as a hundred to one." 
 
133 
 
 I would £jladly lay before you the extracts which Mr. Yatbs iias 
 adduced from the Greek Fathers, Origen and Euseuius, — those 
 eminently learned and honest writers, — entirely confirmino; the view 
 of llie meaning of this preposition which has been now stated ; but 
 that T must go on to lay before you as much as I can of the positive 
 evidence in support of my two propositions, which remains yet to be 
 considered. 1 have scarcely time sufficient to bring it forward, con- 
 sistently with that intelligibility which I am anxious to preserve ; 
 and I fear I shall be obliged to omit a considerable number of very 
 important references. 
 
 1. In continuation of the proof that Christ is expressly declared 
 in Scripture to be a created being, 1 appeal to his own words, in — 
 
 ' Rev. iii. 14. These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the 
 beginning of the creation of God. 
 
 2. There are several texts which affirm that Christ derived his 
 Existence from the Father ; as for example — 
 
 Jobs v, 26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
 to have life in himself. 
 
 And this passage, which contains our Ijord's own words, affords a 
 sufficient answer to the argument for our Lord's self-existence, which 
 Mr. Bagot built on the words of the Evangelist, " In him was life ;" 
 for it shows, that the life which was in the Son was the gift of the 
 Father; — not an inherent or independent existence. To this I may 
 add another declaration of his own : 
 
 John vi, 57. The living Father hath sent me; and J live by the Father. 
 As; therefore, the former passage proves that he had received exist- 
 ence from the Father at the first; so does the latter expressly affirm, 
 that he continued to live " by the Father," and that his life depended 
 on the Father's will. 
 
 3. The following texts prove, by express and explicit declara- 
 tion, that the Knowledge which Christ possessed was derived from the 
 Father. 
 
 John v. 30. As I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just j because I seek not 
 mine onn will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me. 
 
 John v. 20. The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he 
 himself doeth.1 
 
 John vii. 16, 17. 'My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any 
 man will do his will, he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether 
 1 speak of myself. 
 
 From the manner in which our Saviour contrasts the two sources 
 whence his knowledge could be supposed to come, — (from God, and 
 from himself, J — it is evident that had it come from himself, it would 
 not have been of God : consequently, he denies his Deity, in this 
 passage ; besides affirming, what indeed amounts to the same thing-, 
 that his doctrine was communicated to him by the Father. The 
 same fact is stated in — • 
 
 John viii. 26. He that sent me is truej and / speak to the world those things 
 which I have heard of him. 
 
 John viii. 28. As my Father hath taught me, 1 speak these things. 
 
134 
 
 Strange that if he were the Supreme Being, he should require the 
 teaching of the Father to instruct him in the truth : 
 
 John xii. 49, 50. Z have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent 
 me, HE GAVE ME COMMANDMENT, whot J should Say, and what I should speak. 
 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting : whatsoever I speak, there- 
 fore, EVEN AS THE FATHER HATH SAID UNTO ME, SO I Speok. 
 
 Now, I ask, can words more expressly, more pointedly, convey 
 the idea of derived knowledge, than these of our blessed Lord ? — 
 and, if these are inadequate disclaimers of divine wisdom, I ask, 
 
 WHAT FORM OF LANGUAGE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE ? 
 
 I hope to hear these passages explained by Mr. Bagot ; and 
 I hope, also, that if he interprets these declarations, as spoken by 
 our Lord, in his human nature merely, he will inform us upon what 
 he grounds that distinction of natures in the person of Christ, which 
 is so necessary for the support of his theory, and what criterion he 
 applies by which it may be known when he speaks in one capacity, 
 and when he speaks in the other, — seeing that he himself never refers 
 to such a distinction, but uniformly speaks of himself as one. You 
 will observe, that in all these passages, (except one,) he designates 
 himself by the personal pronoun /, — a word which is^always em- 
 ployed to denote the whole and entire person of the speaker, in all 
 his capacities, offices, or relations ; and that our Lord gives no inti- 
 mation that he uses it in a peculiar or restricted sense, to point out 
 one of his [supposed] two natures only, and not the other. According 
 to Mr. Bagot, we gather from different passages that Christ was 
 possessed of two natures, a human and a divine. I would wish him, 
 then, to tell us, what neither Christ himself nor any of his disciples 
 has informed us, how we are to know when he speaks of the one, and 
 when of the other. 
 
 John xv. 13. All things that I have heard from my Father, I have made 
 known to you. 
 
 John xvii. 7, 8. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast 
 given me, are of thee. 
 
 These are plain, express, unequivocal proofs of my position, pro- 
 ceeding from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and therefore 
 coming to us with the highest authority. We cannot account for 
 his employment of such language, while he was possessed of perfect 
 omniscience, and himself the source of all truth and of all knowledge, 
 without at the same time asserting, that he wilfully employed Ian- 
 guage calculated to mislead his hearers, and those with whom he 
 conversed. Never has it been affirmed of any«Ja«, either in Scrip- 
 ture, or in any other composition, that his knowledge was derived 
 more distinctly than our Lord, in these texts, declares that all his 
 knowledge was derived from the Father. Let Mr. Bagot bring for- 
 ward a single text as plainly and as distinctly affirming, that the know- 
 ledge of Christ was underived, as these texts affirm the reverse, and 
 I am satisfied to give up the argument which they afford against his 
 proper Deity— but not till then. To the same effect as the foregoing 
 declarations of our Lord himself, recorded in the gospels, are several 
 very distinct assertions contained in the other books of Scripture. 
 
135 
 
 Heb. i. 1,2. God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, sjnihe in time 
 past unto the fathers Ay llie prophets, hatli in these last days spoken unto us by hit 
 Son, whom he halli appointed heir of ull things, by [through] wham also he made 
 the worlds. 
 
 The latter clause ought probably to be rendered, " made the ages;'' 
 but this is immaterial to our present purpose, since it is equally'ap- 
 parent, whatever translation be adopted, that the wisdom with which 
 Christ taught, and the power which he exercised, were both derived 
 from God, and not his own inherently. To the same effect, we read 
 in that book of Revelations to which Mr. Bagot is so remarkably 
 fond of referring : 
 
 Rev. i. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, wnicu God gave unto niM, to 
 
 show unto his servants thinj:s whieh must shortly come to passj and he sent and 
 signified by his angel unto his servant John. 
 
 On which I shall only ask how it would be possible for Christ to 
 receive from God a revelation, — that is, a discovery of things 
 previously unknown, — if he were, at the very time when he received 
 it, truly and properly God himself? 
 
 4. The places, wherein it clearly and pointedly stated that Christ 
 derived from the Father his Power, are so numerous, that 1 can only 
 bring forward a very meagre selection. The following, however, will 
 render this point perfectly obvious : 
 
 John x. 32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shown you from 
 tny Father. 
 
 In these words he undeniably refers to his Father, as the source of 
 that miraculous energy which he possessed. 
 
 fJoiiN V. 19, 20. Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, The Son can do 
 NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do ; for whatsoever things he 
 doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and show- 
 eth him all things that himself doeth : and greater works he will shew him than these, 
 that ye may marvel. 
 
 John v. 30. I can of mine own self do nothing. 
 
 John viii. 28. Then said Jesus unto them. When ye have lifted up the Son of 
 man, then shall ye know that I am [he,] and that / do nothing of myself. 
 
 Acts x. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with 
 power. 
 
 This verse 1 quoted before, to establish another point. The last 
 word, however, is so peculiarly applicable to that which I am now 
 engaged in illustrating, — viz. that our Lord's poioer was derived, not 
 inherent, — that I feel I need make no apology for again presenting 
 it to your notice. This same remark may be made on — 
 
 Acts ii. 22. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, 
 and wonders, and signs, which God did by [i. c. through} him. 
 
 No language can be more directly in favour of my argument, than 
 that of our Lord in — 
 
 John xiv. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 
 
 In farther proof of the same position, I now advert to the narrative 
 of a remarkable occasion, on which the miraculous power which our 
 Lord possessed was most conspicuously displayed : I mean the rais- 
 
136 
 
 ing of Lazarus from the dead ; in which our Saviour most clearly 
 acknowledges a derived power to work miracles : 
 
 John xi. 21 — 23. Martha said unto Jesus, *' Lord, if thou hadst been here, 
 ray brother had not died : but I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of 
 God, God will give it thee." Jesus saith unto her, " Thy brother shall rise 
 again!" [41 — 43.] And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, "Father! 1 thank 
 thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always : but 
 because of the people which stand by, 1 said it, that they may believe that thou 
 hast sent me." And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, 
 " Lazarus, come forth." 
 
 I may take this opportunity of adverting to a remark which Mr. 
 Bagot made, founded on the words which occur in this passage : 
 " Because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may 
 believe that thou hast sent me.'' From this expression he argued, 
 that all the various prayers which Christ presented to God, were 
 not offered up in the desire, or with the intention, to procure any 
 thing for himself; since he was himself the source and fountain of 
 every blessing : but were simply designed to produce an effect on 
 the people who surrounded him, and who witnessed his [apparent'} 
 devotion. Now, I pass by what appears to me a very irreverent 
 mode of dealing with the character of Christ ; which I think it is, to 
 assert, that he did any thing, not for the real purpose for which it 
 was professed to be done, but for the purpose of producing an effect 
 on the minds of spectators. I recur to another incident in our Sa- 
 viour's conduct, which will prove that Mr. Bagot's hypothesis is very 
 far from the truth. We are informed, that, on one occasion, he 
 retired to a mountain to pray, apart. Did he pray in this manner, 
 for the sake of effect on the minds of the by-standers ? There were 
 no by-standers. But, according to his own precept, he prayed to his 
 Father, whose eye seeth in secret, and who was the only witness to 
 his devotion. We read elsewhere, that our Saviour spent whole 
 nights in prayer — the prayer of solitude and retirement. But all 
 this was done, as Mr. Bagot informs us, because of those who stood 
 by ! This explanation will not suffice. It will not do to say, that 
 the human nature of Christ was then engaged in prayer to his proper 
 Deity, ybr the sake of effect ! Some other explanation of these pas- 
 sages must be sought. 
 
 6. 1 shall now prove to you, by precise and unequivocal declara- 
 tions of Scripture, that the Authority which Christ exercised was 
 derived from the Father. I begin with his own words in — 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 18. All authority [e^ovffia'] is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth. 
 
 Rev. ii. 26, 27. He that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to 
 him will I give authority over the nations : and he shall rule them with a rod of iron : 
 • • even as 1 have received of my Father. . 
 
 Now, let US suppose that these words — " I will give authority over 
 the nations, to rule them with a rod of iron'' — had been spoken by 
 our Saviour, without those other expressions which are found in the 
 context, what an admirable proof of Christ's Supreme Divinity they 
 would have furnished ! Who could give authority over the nations, 
 but God only ? it would have been asked in a triumphant tone. But 
 
18T 
 
 from (ho text ns it stands, it is evident that Christ himself had rc- 
 ceired this authority, and received xi from the Father ; which plainly 
 shows that his mediatorial authority, or kingdom, is also derived from 
 the Father. 
 
 John iii. 3j. The Father lovelh the Son, and hath given all things into hi$ 
 bands. 
 
 Our Lord does not say, that the Father had loved his human nature, 
 and given all things into its hands ; but that, in his whole and entire 
 nature, the Father loved him, and entrusted him with the authority 
 with which he was invested, I turn back to the prophecy in — 
 
 Like i. 32, 33. The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father 
 David : and he shall reign over the bouse of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom 
 there shall be no end. 
 
 John iii. 37 — 3!). All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him 
 that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out : for I came down from heaven, not to 
 do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me ; and this is the Father's will 
 that hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should love nothing, but 
 should raise it up again at the last day. 
 
 John x. 17, 18. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down ray 
 life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, [See xix. 11.] but 
 I lay it down of myself. / have authority [j^oixy/av] to lay it down, and I have 
 authority to take it again. This promise have I received of my Father, [^^ro>.^: 
 Promissio divina. — Schleusner.] 
 
 6. I am obliged, by want of time, to omit a great number of texts, 
 which I have marked down in the notes that lie before me ; and all 
 of which hare a direct reference to the point which I am now illus- 
 trating. Omitting them, as I conceive I may with perfect safety, 
 after the numbers which have been already adduced, I come to those 
 passages in which it is declared, that whatever Honour and Glory 
 our Saviour had, were bestowed upon him by the Father, and were 
 enjoyed in subordination to the Father. 
 
 Phil. ii. 11. [He became obedient unto death:] wherefore God also hath 
 highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name; — that in [?v] 
 the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and of [things] in 
 earth, and of [things] under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, — to the glory OF God, the Father! 
 
 Had this quotation been found without those words which occur in 
 the latter part and at the beginning of the sentence, what a splendid 
 proof it would have been supposed to afford of the inherent Deity of 
 our Saviour! and what a copious theme for declamation it would 
 have presented against any person who might have supposed that 
 the phrases which it contains could be explained, so as not to argue 
 the supremacy of the being to whom they are applied ! He would 
 have been cried down, as guilty of tampering with the word of God 
 and with the souls of men, by frittering away the express teaching of 
 Scripture ! Unfortunately, however, for those who might have made 
 this use of the passage, the Apostle himself declares, that " God" 
 elevated our Lord to his exalted station, and bestowed upon him 
 that majestic name, and invested him with that pre-eminence which 
 be enjoys; so that, even in his greatest state of dignity, this high 
 and lofty Lord is subordinate and inferior to God, the Father; in so 
 
138 
 
 much, that the horaaoc and honour paid him, are rendered "to ihe 
 glory of God, the Father !" 
 
 Heb. ii. 9, We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for 
 the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour. 
 
 Surely, in this passage, the glory and honour of Christ are declared 
 to be derived ! 
 
 And, lastly, there are numerous assertions in Scripture, which 
 prove that, 
 
 IN ALL THINGS, CHRIST WAS AND IS SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR TO 
 
 THE FATHER. 
 
 ftlATT XX. 20 — 23. Grant [said the mother of the sons of Zebedee to our 
 Saviour] that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other 
 on thy left, in thy kingdom. * * He saith, • * To sit on my right hand and on 
 my left hand, is not mine to grant, except to those for whom it; is pre- 
 pared OF MY Father. 
 
 Christ, then, declared that stations of pre-eminence in his kingdom, 
 he was not authorised to bestow. This was beyond his delegated 
 authority, and belonged to the peculiar prerogative of his Father! 
 I leave it to yourselves to determine, whether this declaration can 
 be reconciled with the doctrine of the proper Deity of Christ, by 
 any principle of interpretation which would not make him guilty of 
 equivocation, mental reservation, and not merely virtual, but actual 
 falsehood. Against all such interpretations, I will record my pro- 
 test. While I own myself a follower and disciple of Jesus, I will, in 
 consistency with my faith and my profession, vindicate his veracity 
 from all aspersions ! 
 
 John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I. 
 
 According to the orthodox interpretation, these words must signify, 
 " My Father is NOT greater than I." 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 3. The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the waman is the 
 man ; and the head of Christ is God. 
 
 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, 
 or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours j and ye are Christ's 
 AND Christ is God's. 
 
 Upon this text, I may repeat a supposition that I have already 
 applied to some others. Had we read, that the world, and life, and 
 death, and things present, and things to come, all tvere Christ's, — 
 what a convincing argument it would have afforded to believers in 
 his proper Deity I I am quite certain it would have been put for- 
 ward prominently among the fancied proofs of his omnipotence. We 
 find, however, that the assertion is made of Christians in general ! 
 Christians themselves are indeed declared, in the next clause, to be- 
 long to Christ ; but in that which follows, Christ is, in the same 
 terms, and therefore in the same sense, affirmed to belong to God ! 
 If this be not a proof of inferiority, I know not what proof would 
 suffice. 
 
 I shall only be able to advert to one passage more : 
 
139 
 
 1 Cor. XV. iM — 28. Then cometh the~enil, when [Christ] shall have dcli- 
 vereil up tlie kingdom to Cod, even the Father ; wlien he sliall have put down 
 all rule, and all authority, and all power j for he must reign till he hath put 
 all enemies under his feet. Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed ; for he 
 hath " put" all things under his feet. But when he saith, " All things are put 
 under him," it is manifest that He is excepted who did "put" all things 
 ynder him. And when all things shall be " put" under him, then shall the Son. 
 also be "put" under him that did "put" all things tinder him, — that God may 
 
 BE ALL IN ALL ! 
 
 Upon this context Mr. Bagot reasoned at lengtli ; but I have not 
 time to examine his statements minutely. It is unnecessary to dwell 
 upon his proposed emendation of the version in the last clause; viz. 
 " that he [i. e. Christ] inay be God, all in all ;" because, after proving/ 
 this must be the meanino; of the passag^e, he admitted that it is not ! 
 On this point, therefore, I need not delay. Neither shall I controvert 
 his view of the meaning of the particle toVe, as denoting a particular 
 point, rather than a continuous succession of time. I shall not con- 
 test this criticism, because I entirely concur in it. But Mr. Bagot, 
 in the remainder of his explanation, overlooked the fact, that the 
 %vord which in King James' translation is rendered "shall be subject,'' 
 is not an adjective in the original, but a verb in the future tense, 
 (i/Toray^Ccra/,) the same which is, in the other verses, translated "put 
 under ;" and that it ought here to be rendered by the same, or an 
 equivalent phrase. In fact, it means not "shall be subject," but 
 " shall be subjected ;" and to disprove it, I challenge the world. 
 
 I now leave my arguments in the hands of Mr. Bagot, with a 
 parting request, that, if he thinks them worth noticing at all, he will 
 stale them correctly, and answer them fairly. 
 
 Mr. bagot. — Mr. Porter has just called upon me to state the 
 objections which he considers himself to have advanced against my 
 doctrines, explicitly, and to answer them fairly. I beg to say, that 
 this is a strange request. It is rather odd that he should ask me to 
 argue against myself. There is not a single passage which Mr. 
 Porter has advanced, which is not a positive and affirmative proof on 
 my side, substantiating and illustrating my propositions. Look, for 
 instance, to the printed statement of my second proposition, and 
 you will find that I have undertaken to prove, that the Lord Jesus 
 Christ is Mediator and perfect Man, as well as perfect God. Now, 
 every passage advanced by Mr. Porter, in his last speech, has proved 
 for me, that Christ tvas a man. Why, then, should I argue against 
 myself, by controverting these arguments? If he has kindly assisted 
 me in building up my temple, why should I demolish the handiwork 
 which he has performed in my behalf? In fact, instead of three 
 speeches to-day, I shall have delivered six — three in my own person, 
 and three in the person of Mr. Porter, as my representative ! 
 
 I shall, therefore, refer to the arguments which Mr. Porter yes- 
 terday advanced, and to which I have not as yet replied. 
 
 He referred to Neu. ix. 27, "According to thy manifold mer- 
 cies, thou gavest them Saviours, who saved them out of the hand of 
 their enemies ;" and he argued that I might as well maintain th« 
 
140 
 
 Deity of all the Saviours spoken of in this text, as believe in the 
 Deity of Christ from the fact of his being called " Saviour 1" I 
 answer this by simply stating what my argument for the Deity of 
 Christ, from his being called " Saviour," really is. It is just this : 
 Jehovah is called " Saviour" in the highest sense of the word, and Christ 
 is called "Saviour" in the highest sense of the word: therefore, as 
 there is only one Saviour in the highest sense, Christ is Jehovah. 
 And on referring to 2 Pet. iii. 18, you will there find that Christ is 
 styled Saviour in the highest sense of the term : " Grow in grace, and 
 in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; to him be 
 glory both now and for ever. Amen." 
 
 He next referred to Exod. iii. 14, in which Jehovah says, "I am 
 that I am;" and then to 1 Cor. xv. 10, in which the Apostle says, 
 " By the grace of God I am what I am :" and he told me that I might 
 as well argue for, the Deity of Paul from a comparison of these two 
 passages, as for the Deity of Christ from the comparison of texts 
 which I instituted in the course of my address on Monday I I ask. Am 
 I to occupy your time by replying to such arguments as these ? Is 
 it necessary for me to show the difference between the language of 
 Paul, " By the grace of God I am what I am," and the ineffable and 
 incommunicable title of Jehovah, "I am that I am ?" 
 
 These two examples will be sufficient to refute any other objec- 
 tion of a similar description which Mr. Porter may have advanced. 
 And I would again define the nature of the argument I have based 
 upon a comparison of texts in which "Jehovah" or "God" is 
 spoken of, with others in which Christ is spoken of, by reminding 
 you that I have selected only those texts in which characteristics or 
 prerogatives peculiar to Deity are referred to " Jehovah" in one pas- 
 sage, and to " Christ" in the corresponding passage. Mr. Porter 
 himself has sanctioned this principle of reasoning, as I yesterday told 
 you, by adopting it as a mode of proving the Deity of the Father; 
 for he produced six or seven texts from the Gospel of John, in which 
 " God" is spoken of, and compared them with corresponding pas- 
 sages, in which the " Father" is spoken of under the very same cir- 
 cumstances, and thence inferred that the Father is God ; and, con- 
 sequently, by his use of this principle of reasoning, he has given to 
 it the impress of his sanction and approval. 
 
 The argument which I deduced from the words of Christ in 
 Matt, xxviii. 18, "All power (l^outr/a) is given unto me in heaven 
 and in earth," has been again and again objected against by Mr. 
 Porter : I therefore beg to illustrate it. It is an obvious principle, 
 that no vessel can hold more than what it is able to contain ! A 
 pint measure cannot contain a quart ! therefore, the receiver must 
 always have a capacity of retention commensurate with the dimen- 
 sions of the thing received. As all power, then, in heaven and in 
 earth is given to the Saviour, he must have a capacity commensu- 
 rate with the possession of " all power in heaven and in earth." Let 
 Mr. Porter answer what that capacity is. And I would again re- 
 mark the difference which there is between e^outf/a, " authority," 
 which occurs in this text, and 8uvafiig, " ability." The doctrine I 
 have laid down, in reference to these words, is this : That Christ, 
 
lU 
 
 as Mediator, received the "authority'* (i^ovaia) from the Father ; 
 whilst, as (Jod, he possessed in himself the "ability" {dmufjLig) by 
 wliicii he was enabled to exercise the authority. Let Mr. Porter 
 produce a passage in which it is said, that Christ, " in his highest 
 capacity, nature, or condition,'' received "ability" from a being infi- 
 nitely superior to himself, and the question is settled ! 
 
 He next produced the declaration of Paul, in Phil, iv. 13 : "I 
 can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me;" and he 
 argued, that I might as well believe in the omnipotence of the Apos- 
 tle Paul in consequence of this declaration, as in the omnipotence of 
 Christ, in consequence of those passages in which he is represented 
 as being able to do all things. But 1 remark, in reply to this objec- 
 tion, that the word "all" is used in Scripture with a varying latitude 
 of signification ; as it sometimes denotes all ihings absohitely, and 
 sometimes only all things of a jiarlicular class specified in the con- 
 text. If, then, we examine this passage with even ordinary atten- 
 tion, we shall find that the latter principle applies to it; and that 
 the Apostle simply means to say, that he " can do all things which 
 Christ's strengthening enabled him to do." So that this text presents 
 to our minds a glorious and animating declaration of the confidence 
 which Paul reposed in the omnipotence of Christ. 
 
 He also referred to 1 John ii. 20 : " Ye have an unction from the 
 Holy One, and ye know all things ;" and argued, that this declara- 
 tion would prove the omniscience of all christians as effectually, 
 as John xxi. 17 — "Lord, thou knowest all things" — can prove the 
 omniscience of Christ. But here, also, I remark, that the expres- 
 sion "all things" refers to a particular class defined in the passage 
 itself. In fact, this text may be thus paraphrased : "Ye have an 
 unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things, of ivhich that 
 nnction communicates the knoivledge." On the other hand, the decla- 
 ration in John xxi. 17 — "Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou know- 
 est that I love thee" — is, as I said before, a regular syllogism ; and, 
 unless we understand the word " all" in its full and unrestricted 
 sense, the inference drawn in the passage would be illogical and 
 inconclusive. 
 
 He next referred to the words [of Christ, in Matt. xix. 28: 
 " Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the 
 regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his 
 glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel;" and confronted this text with those which I advanced, 
 to prove that Christ is to be the final judge : and he argued, that 1 
 might as well prove the Deity of the twelve Apostles from this pas- 
 sage, as the Deity of Christ from those in which he is described as 
 judge. I simply answer this objection, by calling on Mr. Porter to 
 produce any one of those splendid descriptions oi the judicial process 
 of the last day \\h\ch the Bible contains, in which it is stated that 
 there will be thirteen judges! This demand contains a sufficient 
 answer to his argument. 
 
 Mr. Porter has advanced a good many observations, with reference 
 
 to the names of God entering into the composition of the names ol 
 
 ' confessedly created beings ; and remarked that, on my principles of 
 
142 
 
 reasoning, I ought to argue for the Deity of all such individuals. I 
 ask, in reply. How does he prove this ? Does he mean to say, that, if 
 I find the name of " Christ" entering into the composition of the 
 name of " Antichrist," I am consequently to believe that Antichrist 
 is Christ? or that, if I observe the letters I.H.S. on a tombstone, 
 1 am to believe that the tombstone is Jesus Hominum Salvator ? But 
 in no case, in which the name of God enters into the composition of 
 the name of a confessedly created being, could it ever be supposed, 
 that the name of God was given as a proper appellation to the per- 
 son so denominated. One of the great designs of the Jewish reli- 
 gion, was to form a standing memorial of the exclusive Deity of the 
 ONE God of Israel ; and one of the subordinate means by which this 
 object was effected, was by inserting the name of Jehovah in the 
 composition of the names of persons and places, so as thereby to 
 scatter monuments and proofs of his exclusive Godhead : so that, 
 when a Gentile came from his own country to the land of Judea, he 
 found, in every place so designated, a testimony against the Poly- 
 theism of his own people, and in favour of the Deity of the one God 
 of Israel. Or whenever a Jew, who bore a similarly constructed 
 name, travelled into another country, he carried with him, in that 
 very name, a similar proof that the God of Israel was the only true 
 God. But, further, let me examine the import of some of these 
 compound names, to which ^Mr. Porter has referred. Jacob was 
 called Israel, not because he was God, but because he had power 
 withGod, and prevailed. The designation of " Jehovah Jireh," which 
 Abraham gave to the place where he was about to offer up Isaac, 
 signifies, " Jehovah will provide ;" and was a short prophetic declara. 
 Hon, pointing to the atonement of the Saviour, whom " God hath 
 set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood ;'' and of 
 ■which atonement, the presentation of Isaac upon the altar was a 
 type. The name, " Jehovah Nissi," was not intended to deify the 
 altar to which it was given by Moses ; but was simply a short sen . 
 tence, equivalent to saying, "Jehovah is my banner." And the name 
 of Elijah was equivalent to this sentence : " Jehovah is my God." In 
 fact, all these compound names were short commemorative sentences, 
 not relating to the objects to which they were given ; but intended to 
 be descriptive of facts relating to Jehovah, and to reflect back upon 
 the mind of every person who heard these names pronounced, an 
 overwhelming testimony of his exclusive Deity. Just as if a ray of 
 light came down from the meridian sun, and forming an angle on a 
 surface against which it darted, sent back upon the eye of the ob- 
 server a reflected specimen of the brightness of that great orb from 
 which it originated ; so, an emanation of the glory of God coming 
 down from the eternal throne, and meeting as it were, in an angle 
 in the name of Elijah, carried back upon the minds of those who 
 heard that name pronounced, a reflected evidence of the Deity of 
 Jehovah, so as to lead them, by an irresistible influence, from a con- 
 templation of the creature, back to a recognition of the majesty and 
 glory of the great Creator. But the title of " Jehovah our righteous- 
 ness," which is given to Christ in Jer. xxiii. 6, is oi ^ different ndiiuni 
 from those to which I have just referred. In this case, the name 
 
143 
 
 ♦'.Tehovah" was actually j^iven to Christ, " tlio Branch:" whereas, 
 when Abraham called the place where he oft'cred Isaac, "Jehovah 
 Jireh," he did not mean to say that the place was Jehovah, or that 
 the place would provide; or, when Moses called the altar "Jehovah 
 Nissi," he did not mean to say that the altar was his banner, but 
 that Jehovah was his " banner." So that we here ascertain a j;ene- 
 ral principle by which to try the value of these compound words ; 
 viz. if we can substitute the name of the object in place of the word 
 "Jehovah," and read it in connexion with the other word which was 
 connected with Jehovah, then we may infer, that the name of " Je- 
 liovah'' is applicable to the object. Now, if we fipply this rule to 
 the cases above adduced, it will appear evident, that we cannot say 
 that " the altar is my banner," or " the place will provide ;" whereas, 
 if we apply the same rule to Jer. xxiii. 0, we shall find, that we mat/ 
 substitute the name "the Branch" for the name "Jehovah," so as to 
 say "the Branch is our righteousness;" for we read in 1 Cor, i. 30, 
 that "Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness;" and, in 
 Rom. X. 4, that " he is the end of the law for righteousness." Hence 
 it is manifest, that, in Jer. xxiii, 6, we may interchange the names 
 "Jehovah'' and " Christ," so as either to say, "Jehovah is our right- 
 eousness," or "Christ is our righteousness;" therefore, "Christ" is 
 "Jehovah," since there is only one righteousness by which we are 
 justified. And, further, on considering the nature of righteousness 
 as implying our standing clear and guiltless by the transferred moral 
 merit of another, we must infer, that no person less than Jehovah 
 could supply a righteousness to sinful man : for what creature could 
 perform a transferable work? 
 
 I shall now proceed to investigate the principle which Mr. Porter 
 has advanced in reference to subordinate agency in creation, and the 
 doctrine which he has based upon an assumption of that principle, 
 that Christ was nothing more than an instrument, employed by an 
 infinitely superior power, for the accomplishment of that great work. 
 This doctrine I oppose upon the following grounds: — 
 
 This opinion is manifestly inconsistent with the declaration in Gen. 
 i. 1, that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
 For here we have no revelation made of an instrument having been 
 employed. And, again, we read in the third verse, that "God said. 
 Let there be light :" but did a subordinate agent interpose, in order to 
 effect its production? Surely not; for "God said. Let there be light, 
 AND THERE WAS LIGHT." Who does not see, that the application of 
 Mr. Porter's principle to this passage is calculated to destroy the 
 evidence it contains of the omnipotent efficacy of the very fiat of the 
 Eternal, and to extract and obliterate those traces of majesty and 
 power, which even an Heathen author could recognise as a worthy 
 reflection of the glory of that great being of whom Moses wrote ! 
 The creation of ihe world is also described in Isa. xliv. 24, in the 
 following terms: "Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, and he that 
 formed thee from the womb : I am the Lord that maketh all things ; 
 that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the 
 earth by myself" — and in Isa. xlv. 12, in the following terms: "I 
 have made the earth, and created man upon it ; 1, even my hands. 
 
144 
 
 have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." 
 — In these passages there is no allusion vphatever to the interference 
 of an instrutnenlal cause. In fact, creation is represented in Scripture 
 as so peculiarly and exclusively the work of Deity, that it would be 
 the very same thing to imagine, that a creature has been changed 
 into God, as that a creature could have been the Creator ! 
 
 But this principle of a subordinate instrument in creation, would 
 at once contradict the argument which the Apostle institutes in Rom. 
 i. 20, This passage is as follows : " For the invisible things of him, 
 from the creation of the world, are clearly seen ; being understood 
 by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; 
 so that they are without excuse:" or we may paraphrase it thus : 
 "For the attributes of the Creator, which are in themselves invisible 
 — namely, his eternity, power, and Godhead — are discernible by an 
 obvious inference from a contemplation of those things which he has 
 created : so that the Heathen are without excuse." Here the Apostle 
 assumes, that creation is a demonstrative proof of the eternity, power, 
 and Godhead of the Creator ;, upon the same principle which the 
 Psalmist lays down in the nineteenth Psalm, where he says, " The 
 heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his 
 handiwork." — Now, I care not, as far as my argument from this 
 passage is concerned, whether you speak of a supreme agent or of 
 a subordinate instrument, or whether you institute a distinction be- 
 tween a primary and a secondary cause ; for most unquestionably 
 the argument of the apostle, in this passage, is plainly this: That 
 when we look abroad with an admiring eye, upon the splendid fa- 
 bric of the universe, and survey the complicated, yet simple principles, 
 by which the great architect has cemented and sustained the produce 
 of his power, — we necessarily see such outgoings of eternal power 
 and Godhead consolidated with his work, that we are irresistibly 
 convinced of the omnipotent supremacy 0/ the proximate worker: 
 mark — I say, of the worker ; ot the person who comes into ivimediate 
 contact and direct collision with the execution of the work. I'or the 
 argument of the Apostle implies, that it is of him the testimony is 
 made. And observe how it is declared in this text, that the visible 
 creation is a proof not merely of the eternal power, hut of the God. 
 head of the Creator ; and also that it does not merely speak of a 
 sufficiency of power, but of a power that is eternal, which must be a 
 power that cannot be controlled. 
 
 But, again, this doctrine of a subordinate and finite instrument 
 in creation, is contrary to the declaration of the Apostle, in Rom. i. 25 ; 
 where he speaks of the Heathen having " worshipped and served the 
 creature more than the Creator." Here there is no mention of a 
 person intervening between the creature and the Creator ; but all 
 beings in existence are, in this text, classed under two denomina- 
 tions — the creature and the Creator ; and both are mentioned with 
 such distinctness, aa to show that a creature could not have been the 
 Creator, nor could the Creator have been a creature. 
 
 Further : we read in Heb. iii. 4, "He that built all things is God ;" 
 and this declaration is made without any reference to a primary or 
 secondary cause. And I request you to observe, that the builder is 
 
145 
 
 the person who actxialhj executes the work ; therefore, whether you 
 represent Christ as the instrument or not, still there is a principle 
 propounded here which proves him to be "God." 
 
 I read the followinfj address to Jehovah, in 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 thini^s that are therein, 
 the seas, and all that is therein." Now, might I not as well maintain, 
 that the "Jehovah" who was here addressed was a subordinate agent 
 in the hands of some superior Deity, who did not manifest himself in 
 the work, but sat behind the curtain of the universe; as argue that, 
 though it is said of Christ in Col. i. 16, "by him were all things 
 created," yet he was not the Creator, except in this inferior sense? 
 
 But, in fact, creation was not a work in the sense in tvhich we un. 
 derstand the term. It was effected, not by " loorking," but by " com- 
 manding." This is proved by the passage to which I have already 
 referred, in Gen. i. 3 : " God said, Let there he light ; and there was 
 light;" also from Ps. xxxiii. 9 : "For he spake, and it was done; he 
 commanded, and it stood fast;" and Ps. cxlviii. 5: " He commanded, 
 and they were created;" and from Isa. xlv. 12: "All their host have 
 I commanded." 1 ask, then. What was the occasion for a subordi- 
 nate agent, if the work was achieved by the^a^ of the Creator? Does 
 not such a doctrine detract from the perfect efficiency of the com- 
 mand of the Eternal ? Surely there was nothing for a subordinate 
 agent to effect. And, to suppose the intervention of any secondary 
 instrumentality between the command of God and the effect pro- 
 duced, would destroy the omnipotence of God, by referring the more 
 difficult part of the work to a created and finite instrument, and the 
 easier department to the superior being; for, surely, it is far easier to 
 command, than to do ; it is far easier to say, " Let there be light," than 
 actually to generate and produce the light. And Mr. Porter would 
 do well to show, how a created agent could be of any avail, where 
 there was not any pre-existent matter upon which his limited facul- 
 ties could be brought to bear. For a finite instrument could not 
 create. For, what, let me ask, is creation ? Is it not an origination 
 from nothing? — a filling up, as it were, of that unmeasured vacuum 
 which exists by the inherent constitution of all things as ordained of 
 God, between a state of being and a state of nonentity ? And what 
 created being could conduct any thing through that infinite process 
 of origination ? Surely nothing but the unlimited and unrestricted 
 power of Jehovah could achieve so great a work. In fact, the doc- 
 trine which teaches that Christ, as a created and subordinate agent, 
 could create a world, amounts to this — That a finite power per- 
 forms EVERY THING, WHILST THE INFINITE POWER OF GoD PERFOR.MS 
 
 ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I say it again : This doctrine represents the 
 power of Christ, as a finite and delegated power, achieving all things ; 
 whilst the infinite omnipotence of Jehovah — the length, and breadth, 
 and height, and depth of which, the highest angel cannot scan — is 
 represented, on Mr. Porter's principle, as retaining its lodgment 
 within the nature of Deity, reposing in a state of inactive indolence, 
 whilst the stupendous work of creation was effected by the instru- 
 mentality of a subordinate cause. And, at the same time, such is the 
 
 T 
 
146 
 
 nature of the work,that we would be led to regard the immediate a^ent, 
 by whom the power was actually exerted, as our Creator and our God. 
 
 But let me suppose, for a moment, that Christ, as a created being-, 
 was the subordinate instrument in the creation of the world. I ask, 
 then, whether did God impart to him a Jinite or a.n injinite power, as 
 a qualification for the work ? Let me examine this dilemma : Sup- 
 pose I am answered that God imparted to Christ an infinite power, 
 I reply at once, that this would represent him as conveying over to 
 a c/eature (for the supposition is, that Christ is a creature) an incom- 
 municable attribute of Deity. It would also involve a supposition 
 of the existence of two omnipotent beings — the being who originally 
 had infinite power in himself, and the being to whom that infinite 
 power was imparted. But it requires only an exercise of the first 
 principles of common sense to know, that the existence of two dis- 
 tinct omnipotent beings is a philosophical absurdity ; because, if one 
 be omnipotent, he must necessarily possess control and power over 
 the other. So that we conclude it to be impossible, that God, as an 
 infinitely superior being, could have imparted omnipotence to Christ ; 
 as he would, by doing so, have surrendered even his own infinite su- 
 periority. But I may be told, that he only communicated ajinite 
 power to Christ, to enable him to create. I call, then, on Mr. Porter 
 to prove how a.Jinite power could be sufficient for the execution of so 
 great a work. Perhaps he will answer, that, because creation is in 
 itself ^rtj<<?, Q. finite power could be able to create. But mark the 
 sophism which is involved in this reply : it assumes that the word 
 " finite" has the same signification in the two clauses of the sentence ; 
 whereas this word, when applied to creation, is a term of quantity ; 
 but when applied to power, is a term of quality. And, therefore, 
 there is no such analogy between a " finite power" and a " finite crea- 
 tion ;" and the answer is nothing more than a mere play on words. 
 Consequently, the doctrine which supposes that a finite power is 
 sufficient for creating, must fall to the ground. 
 
 But, again, let me imagine this doctrine to be true. I should 
 like, then, to know what proof has any man that God is omnipotent, 
 if a finite power could create. Is it not by a reference to the works 
 of creation that we usually argue for the uncontrolled and illimitable 
 power of the Eternal ? And if creation cannot demonstrate the omni- 
 potence of Jehovah, does it not follow, that he has achieved nothing 
 by which to prove the boundless nature of his physical power? — But 
 I have said enough to warrant me in drawing this general conclusion, 
 that creation is the work of Deity — that the omnipotence of the Crea- 
 tor is written, in legible characters, upon the visible structure of the 
 material universe ; and that, as Christ is revealed in Scripture as the 
 being by whom " all things were created," he must be omnipotent, 
 and, therefore, God. 
 
 But before I conclude this address, I must refer you to a passage 
 upon which those who agree with Mr. Porter are accustomed to lay 
 considerable stress, and which he has advanced to-day, as an argu- 
 ment against the true Deity of Christ. The passage I allude to, is 
 to be found in John xiv. 28, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, 
 because I said, I go unto my Father : for my Father is greater 
 
14T 
 
 than I." When Mr. Porter quoted the latter clause of the text, he 
 omilted altogether the former clause, " If ye love me, ye would re- 
 joice, because I said, I go unto my Father ;" and by doing so, he left 
 an impression upon the meeting, that the clause, "My Father is greater 
 than I,'* is the primary and prominent sentence in the text ; whereas, 
 it is evident from its being connected with the preceding part of the 
 verse by the word " for," (which is a small word of three letters, the 
 grammatical use of which is, to marry one part of a sentence to 
 another,) that it is a subordinate part of the passage, the meaning of 
 which is qualijicd by the words which go before. I shall now explain 
 the passage upon this principle : and, first, I request you to observe, 
 that Christ does not say, " My Father teas greater than 1," in refer- 
 ence to his pre-existent glory ; nor, " My Father will be greater 
 than I," in reference to the glory which he was to resume after his 
 exaltation : but he uses a style of expression which shows, that he 
 refers to the present time, — to the time of his humiliation in the flesh. 
 The Apostles had been expressing regret at the announcement of his 
 immediate departure, and this passage contains a soft rebuke of the 
 selfishness of their feelings. We may paraphrase it thus : " If ye 
 really loved me on my own account — if the regard and affection you 
 profess to entertain, were purely disinterested in its nature ; so far 
 from evincing sorrow at the prospect of my departure, you would 
 rejoice that I shall leave this state of temporary degradation, that I 
 shall cease to be the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and 
 that I shall resume that original and essential glory which I enjoyed 
 with the Father from eternity. For, as long as I continue in my 
 present state of humiliation, my Father is greater in glory than I ; 
 but when the days of my flesh shall terminate, I shall then be glori- 
 fied with the Father's oivn self, with that glory which I had with him 
 before the world was created." This is obviously the correct para- 
 phrase of the passage ; for no other interpretation of the words, "For 
 my Father is greater than I," could justify or attach any force to the 
 interesting appeal which the Saviour makes to the love and affection 
 of his disciples. This text, therefore, when rightly understood, 
 affords no objection against the Deity of the Saviour ; but refers 
 only to that temporary condition, during the continuance of which, 
 he " made himself of no reputation." - 
 
 Mr. PORTER.— Mr. Bagot has told us, that the term " injinile;' 
 as applied to the toorks of creation, is a term of quantity ; and that 
 (he same term, as applied to the poiver exerted in creation, is a term 
 of quality. I beg therefore to ask him, if, when applied to power, 
 it be a term of qualify, what is the particular description or quality 
 of power which it denotes ? Does it denote moral power, or physical 
 power, or metaphysical ? Or, if none of these, what other sort or 
 classification of power ? 
 
 Mr. bagot. — I consider that I have explained myself in a 
 sufficiently satisfactory manner to the meeting. I will not be drawn 
 into any metaphysical subtleties or disquisitions. 1 look upon the 
 subject of our discussion to be simply a question oi fact, to be esta- 
 blished by the production of testimony. 
 
HS 
 
 FOURTH DAY. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — Before I proceed to answer the remainder of 
 Mr. Porter's arguments, there are a few positive and affirmative posi- 
 tions into which my two propositions may be subdivided ; in support 
 of which, I wish to advance, in a summary way, a few positive and 
 affirmative proofs, in addition to what I have already given : 
 
 1st, I believe that we ought to address our prayers to the Divine 
 Being ; for which I refer to the proofs contained in the following 
 passages : Phil. iv. 6, 7 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 3 ; 1 John iii. 22. 
 
 2d, I believe that we ought to direct our prayers to the Father, 
 and to worship him as well as the Son; for proof of which 1 refer to 
 the example of Christ himself, "in the days of his flesh," who fre- 
 quently prayed to the Father, not only in public, but in private: and 
 also to the examples of the Apostles, recorded in Acts iv. 24 to 
 30, &c. 
 
 3d, I believe that we ought to pray through Christ, as Mediator; 
 for proof of which I refer to RoM. i, 8, &c. 
 
 4th, I believe that Christ, as Mediator, is subordinate to the 
 Father, who sustains the higher office in the mediatorial plan of the 
 Gospel. This is proved by John iii. 35 ; viii, 26 — 28 ; x. 18 and 32 ; 
 xii. 49, 50 ; xvii. 7, 8 ; Acts x. 38 ; Rom. xv. 6 ; Ephes, i. 16, 17 ; 
 iii. 14, 15 ; Heb. ii. 9; Rev. i. 1 ; ii. 27, You may perceive that 
 Mr. Porter has been acting as an animated Concordance for me, for 
 which I here take the opportunity to return him my best thanks. 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday alluded to tioo distinct senses, in which the 
 term " worship" is used in Scripture : 1st, as denoting the homage 
 which is paid to God by his creatures; and, 2dly, as denoting that 
 external respect which we pay to a superior fellow-cve^iwre. In 
 these I fully concur ; and I also agree with him in considering that 
 the instances which he referred to (in Gen. xxiii. 7; xlix. 8; Matt. 
 xviii. 26; Luke xiv. 10; Rev. iii. 7 to 9; are very clear and satis- 
 factory instances of this secondary kind of worship ; but I caution 
 him not to use these instances in order to dilute the meaning of the 
 term tvorship when applied to Christ, because they will equally dilute 
 the meaning of the same term when applied to the Father. There 
 is no higher Greek word denoting worship than -ygocrxui/sw, which is 
 applied to Christ in Heb. i. 6, and elsewhere ; and is the same word 
 which Christ himself uses in John iv. 23, 24, to denote the highest 
 kind of worship, " worship in spirit and in truth," which is given to 
 the Father: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true wor- 
 shippers (crgoffxuvjjra/) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth," 
 
 Now, upon Mr. Porter's principles, he must admit that 'ff^offxuvri- 
 aovsi, "shall worship," is here used in its highest sense; and 1 there- 
 
149 
 
 fore infer, from the parallelism of the two passages, mai it is also 
 used in its highest sense in Heb. i. 6. 
 
 Mr. Porter adduced the instance recorded in Dan. ii. 46, of 
 Nebuchadnezzar worshipping: Daniel. I ask him, in reply, does 
 he mean to confront the act of an idolatrous and heathen king with 
 the command of God the Father, in Heb. i. 6, " Let all the angels 
 of God worship Christ" ! 1 ! 
 
 He also referred to 1 Chron. xxix. 20, where on David's com- 
 manding the people to " bless the Lord their God," it is added, that 
 "the people bowed their heads, and worshipped God and the king." 
 I ask him, in reply, does he not know that the Jewish government 
 was a theocracy — that God was really their king, and that the words, 
 " God and the King,'' both refer to the one Jehovah ; and this inter- 
 pretation renders the obedience which the people gave to David's 
 command commensurate with what he desired them to do. He only 
 desired them " to bless the Lord their God," but said nothing about 
 worshipping himself. 
 
 In reply to my argument from the prayers of Stephen, recorded 
 in Acts vii. 59, 60, Mr. Porter argued that Christ was visible to 
 Stephen when he presented these prayers to him. I request you, 
 in reply, to look to the passage ; and you will find that Stephen had 
 seen the vision in the council-hall within the city, and that it was not 
 until they had cast him out of the city (as stated in ver. 58), that he 
 offered up these prayers. But what difference could the fact of 
 Stephen's seeiny Christ make? How does Mr. Porter prove that 
 it is no idolatry to o^er direct prayer, and ascribe divine potaer, to a 
 creature, if that creature be only seen at the time ? Surely, if it 
 makes any difference, it is this: it renders the idolatry of Stephen 
 ten times worse— for if he had seen Jesus (a creature on Mr, Porter's 
 principles) standing at the right hand of God, he should not have 
 diverted and turned away his prayers from the Creator to a creature! ! 
 
 In order to answer my argument from Heb. i. 6, — "When he 
 bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith. And let all 
 the angels of God worship him," — Mr. Porter has informed us, that 
 Christ is personally present with the angels in heaven ; and that, 
 therefore, they may worship him without idolatry. I ask him, in 
 reply to this, Does he mean t6 argue, upon this principle, that the 
 object of religious worship should be personally absent? If so, let 
 him mark the consequence which follows, viz: the Father is the 
 object of religious worship to the angels in heaven ; therefore, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Porter's principles, the Father is not in heaven ! ! 
 
 He has also made a strange assertion, that, when Paul prayed to 
 Christ, he had appeared to him, and was personally present and 
 visible to him. I answer, that he cannot prove this, in reference to 
 Christ's humanity ; for there is not a single word in the passage 
 which could lead us to draw this inference: — and I should be sorry 
 that Mr. Porter should become obnoxious to the curse of adding to 
 the word of God ; and we are told, that the heavens were to receive 
 
150 
 
 the humanity of Christ, " until the times of the restitution' of ail 
 things." But, if he means that Christ was personally present as to 
 his superior nature, I fully grant it; because, as I believe in his 
 Deity, I believe him to be, in that respect, omnipresent, 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday told us, that " any Unitarian would gladly 
 worship Christ if he was present, just as he said that Stephen and 
 Paul did." I now ask him, is he willing to abide by this declara- 
 tion ? If so, let him worship Christ this instant ; for he has said, 
 " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am 1 in 
 the midst of them" 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday pledged his character as a scholar, that 
 Acts ix, 14, — " those that call upon thy name,'' — and 1 Cor. i. 2, — 
 "those that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ," — 
 might be translated : " those that are called by the name," &c. I am 
 sorry he would sell his reputation as a scholar at so cheap a price; 
 for he ought to have known, from a mere historical fact, that this 
 interpretation will not answer for Acts ix. 14 ; as believers in Christ 
 were not called by his name until some years afterwards, at Antioch, 
 "where the disciples were first called Christians." 
 
 But I still further say, that the structure of the Greek will not admit 
 of the translation which he has proposed. When the verb iTixaXtu 
 signifies to be called by the name of, it is construed with the prepo- 
 sition swi, as in Acts xv. 17 : s(p' cug s<Kt%r/.'k7iTai ro ovofia, f/jou W avTovg. 
 And I would add, that the veih smx-aXiu, is used in the Septuagint 
 version of Gen. iv. 26, xii. 8, and xiii. 4, in the sense of praying to 
 and worshipping Jehovah. Also, in Rom. x. 12, 13 : " For the same 
 Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him (s/j "xavrag rovg Jcr/- 
 xaKov/xmvg avrov) ; for whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
 Lord (os av imxakignrat) shall be saved ;" (a quotation from Joel 
 ii. 32, spoken of Jehovah by the prophet, and here applied to Christ 
 by the apostle ;) — and in 1 Pet. i. 17, we find the same word applied 
 to the Father, where we read, " If ye call on the Father," &c. (s/ 
 Jlariga, smKaXsTeds). 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday asserted, that Ku^/s 'Irjffov, in the prayer of 
 Stephen in Acts vii. 59, might be translated, "Lord of Jesus." 
 Alas ! alas ! did he not know that these words must be rendered in 
 apposition to each other, since there is no article dividing them, and 
 that the phrase "Lord of Jesus" should be Kv^n rov 'IjjffoD ! ! 
 
 He next referred to Rev. i. 4, 5, " From him who is, and was, and 
 is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne ; 
 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness ;'' and he argued, 
 that the apostle here refers to seven created spirits, and that I might 
 as well argue for their Deity, as for the Deity of Christ on the ground 
 of his being included in the similar benedictions of Paul : but I ask, 
 how did it happen, that he did not at once see that as the Father and 
 Son are here described by a periphrasis, the consistency of the texts 
 requires that the words, the " seven spirits before his throne," should 
 also be regarded as a periphfastical description of a person ? — and it 
 
151 
 
 is evident from tlie context, that this clause is a desiirnation of the 
 Holy Spirit, in allusion to his manifestations to the seven churches. 
 The number seven is constantly used in Scripture, to denote 
 completeness or perfection; as in Job v. 19; Psalm xii. (>; Prov. 
 vi. 1(»: and in the book of the Revelation the perfection of God's 
 government is denoted by the symbolic ajjency of seven anfjels, se- 
 ven seals, seven plagues, seven phials; and the perfection of Christ's 
 wisdom is described, in Rev. v. 6, by the possession of seven horns 
 and seven eyes: therefore, this is just the book in which we naturally 
 expect to find a symbolic designation of the Holy Ghost, as I main- 
 tain that the phrase under consideration is. 
 
 He next adverted to Heb. i. 8, in which the Father is represented 
 as saying to the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!" 
 and he staled, that this passage might as well be translated thus : 
 "God is thy throne for ever and ever." I must, therefore, examine 
 this criticism. The passage in the Greek is as follows: Hohg 5= rhv 
 v'lov 6 '^sovog (!ov, 6 Qshc, ug rh aiwa toZ aicovo;. And I argue against his 
 proposed rendering of it for the following reasons: 
 
 (1.) It would destroy altogether the use for which the Apostle 
 made the assertion, or the connexion of the clause w ith hig general 
 argument. His object in the chapter is to show the superiority of 
 Christ to angels. But Mr. Porter's rendering of the text would 
 destroy this object, since God is, in a figurative sense, the foundation 
 of the throne of every one who sits upon a throne. He is the foun- 
 dation of the thrones, dominions, and principalities in heavenly places, 
 as well as of the mediatorial throne of Christ. 
 
 (2.) It is very easy to understand the expressions — "God is a 
 sun" — " God is a shield" — or " God is a rock," to which Mr. Porter 
 alluded ; but it would be difficult to understand the expression "God 
 is thy throne," without introducing into the passage, some ellipsis 
 to explain it, which we cannot do. 
 
 (3.) If this proposed translation be correct, the word 'deovog, as 
 the predicate of the proposition, should more naturally be without 
 the article. 
 
 (4.) As the person who sits upon the throne is greater than the 
 throne itself, his proposed rendering of the text would give to 
 Christ all the prominence and superiority over the Father, which 
 would be blasphemous. 
 
 So that I ask, on what principle does he argue for this transla- 
 tion ? It cannot be by Licentla Poetica : it must be by some new 
 figure of rhetoric of which I am not aware, and which, until he tells 
 me its proper name, I shall designate Licentia Unitariana ! ! ! 
 
 But in connexion with Heb. i. 8, he referred to Psalm xlv. 
 which he applied to Solomon ; but, I ask, where was his proof for 
 such application? He quoted, indeed, the title of the Psalm, "A 
 Song of Loves;'' but did he not know that the titles of the Psalms 
 are no part of the inspired original, and have no authority whatever ? 
 
152 
 
 He yesterday alluded to Bishop Horsely, which led me to imagine 
 that he had read his works ; but had he read the Bishop's Sermons 
 on Psalm xlv., he never would have hazarded so gratuitous, so un- 
 proved, and so unproveable an opinion as that Psalm xlv. refers to 
 Solomon. Does he not know, that the " testimony of Jesus is the 
 spirit of prophecy P" Does he not know that David, in spirit, 
 spoke of Christ? — and has he not read the last verse of this Psalm, 
 "I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; there- 
 fore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever ;" which never 
 could be applied, in any sense, to Solomon ? I beg to inform him, 
 that Psalm xlv. refers to the mystical and spiritual union which 
 subsists between Christ and his Church. He referred to the fact of 
 the Queen being spoken of as accompanied by Virgins that be her 
 fellows, as a difficulty in the Psalm ; but let me tell him that the 
 Queen is the Church universal, the Virgins that be her fellows are 
 the different denominations of Christians; for there are different 
 denominations and different" parfi^tows between the various denomi- 
 nations which constitute the Catholic Church of Christ. It would, 
 indeed, be a glorious state of unanimity, if no such partitions exist- 
 ed, and that the church on earth were even now, what it shall be 
 hereafter, " one fold under one shepherd :" but in the meantime, I 
 say to you, my Orthodox Presbyterian fellow-christians — to you, my 
 fellow-christians of the Covenanting Synod — of the Secession Church 
 — of the Methodist, and Quaker Connexion, and of the Independent 
 denomination, — let us now congratulate one and other that the par- 
 tition walls that divide us are not so high, but that we can even 
 stretch our arms across them, and extend the right hand of Christian 
 fellowship, to those from whom we are thus for a time divided ! ! 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday argued, that tots uvoTayrieiTai, in 1 CoR. 
 XV. 28, should be rendered, "then shall the Son be made subject." 
 Surely this implies, if it implies any thing, that he is not noio sub- 
 ject ! ! ! But I beg to refer him to the difference between the active 
 and passive voices of this verb, which is proved in this very passage, 
 where both occur. MiroTacso} is to arrange under; vxoraseofLai, in 
 the passive, is to be arranged under, or to be sxibject ; and it cannot 
 mean to be made subject, unless by superadding a passive significa- 
 tion to the passive ! 
 
 He argued that the title of " Son of God" implies that Christ is 
 inferior to God. If so, his title, "Son of man,'' implies that he is 
 inferior to man. Hence Mr. Porter must be something lower than 
 a Humanitarian ! ! ! ! 
 
 He argued that the subjection of Christ to the Father implied 
 inferiority of nature. If so, he must have been inferior in nature 
 to Joseph and Mary, because he went down to Nazareth, and was 
 subject unto them ! ! I ! 
 
 He argued that he that is sent must be necessarily inferior in nature 
 to him that sent him ! I beg to say, that (he fact is quite the reverse ; 
 
153 
 
 for suppose I required to send a messenger to tray place, do you think 
 I would choose a dog or cat, or any animal of an inferior nature to 
 myself, to be my messenger : I woulil certainly send a person of the 
 same nature witli myself! But I would here distinctly remark, that 
 official suhordinadon never can prove natural in/eriorift/ ; and official 
 subordination involves merely a compliance with the will of another, 
 and nothing more ; and may be voluntarily assumed by an equal, as 
 it was by Christ — for he says, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." 
 
 His criticism on Col. i. 16, that iv a-jr-jt Travra, iTcrtadri should be, 
 "In him were all things created," is worth nothing ; because iv is 
 constantly used in the New Testament, in the sense of " by," and 
 in this very passage it is explained by dia at the end of the verse. 
 We have, in fact, in this passage, three forms of expression, viz. — 
 
 8t alrov, 
 sig avrhv, 
 
 connecting Christ, in every possible way, as the sustaining, origi. 
 nating, and final Cause of the creation of all things. And I would 
 here remark, that if he were only the subordinate instrument in the 
 hands of a superior being, it could not have been said, that all things 
 were created "for him," iig aurov; as, in that case, all things would 
 have been created /or the being who employed him. 
 
 He next referred to 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23, "Therefore, let no man 
 glory in men, /or all things are yours; whether Paul or Apollos," &c. 
 Itis quite evident from the context, which Mr. Porter read, that the 
 expression, "All things are yours," is but a figurative mode of as- 
 serting, that all the ministers of the church are appointed, and all 
 the arrangements of the Gospel made, for the spiritual benefit of the 
 church. 
 
 His quotation from John vi. 57, "1 live by the Father," and 
 others of a similar kind, prove affirmatively that, in the possession of 
 a derived existence, which is a necessary attribute of human nature, 
 Christ was a perfect man ; but, as to his Deity, we read in John 
 i. 4, " In him was life." 
 
 As ro John v, 26, "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath 
 he given to the Son to have life in himself," I call upon Mr. Porter 
 to show how a created and finite being could be capable of even 
 receiving the same independent existence as his Creator, so as to 
 " have life in himself," as " his Creator has life in himself." 
 
 As to John v. 20, "The Father showeth him all things that him- 
 self doeth ;'' this passage only proves that his knowledge is commen- 
 surate with the works of the Father, which is a knowledge that no 
 creature could contain. 
 
 As to Col. i. 19, " It pleased (he Father that in him should all 
 fulness dwell ;" his quoting this only proves, that the English trans- 
 
 U 
 
154 
 
 lation is not, in his estimation, quite so inferior to the original as 
 he asserted. The words, " the Father," are supplied by the trans- 
 lators; and / might as well supply the word, "himself," and read 
 the text thus, "For it pleased himself that in him should all fulness 
 dwell." And this is only one proof out of many that a new transla- 
 tion of the Scriptures, faithfully execuied, would be more favourable 
 to the Deity of Christ than the present. 
 
 As to John v. 30, "Of myself I can do nothing: as I hear I 
 judge;" the expression, "do nothing," is here explained to mean, 
 iTiat he does nothing, as Judge, of himself. And I ask. Could Deity 
 act otherwise ? Would the Supreme God judge the world from ca. 
 price or prepossession, and without a proper examination of evidence 
 for the satisfaction of the persons judged ? 
 
 Mr. Porter yesterday asserted, ' when contrasting the Epistles 
 with the Gospels, that what comes from Christ is of the highest 
 authority. I reply, all Scripture comes from Christ; for it was the 
 Spirit of Christ, which was in the authors that gave testimony of 
 what is revealed, (1 Pet. i. 10, 11; Gal. i. 12): therefore the 
 Epistles are as authoritative as the Gospels. 
 
 As to John v. 19, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but 
 what he seeth the Father do ;" this evidently means that the Father 
 and Son are in such a sense so closely One, that the Son can do 
 nothing o/ himself, or independently of the Father. If he had, on the 
 other hand, said, that the Son "cati do of himself ivhat he does not 
 see the Father do" then the passage would prove a complete distinc- 
 tion of being and power. And I would here ask Mr. Porter to ex- 
 plain how a creature could adopt the latter part of this verse without 
 manifest blasphemy : " For what things soever the Father doeth, the 
 same doeth the Son likewise !" 
 
 As to Martha's words, in John xi. 21, 22, "But now I know 
 that whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee;" I sim- 
 ply reply, that Martha here expressed an Arian sentiment, which 
 Christ immediately corrects, by claiming the power referred to, as his 
 own in the 25th verse, "i ain the resurrection and the life; he that 
 believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" just as 
 Nicodemus was a Socinian when he said that Christ was only a man 
 and a teacher, as recorded in John iii. 2; for Christ instantly per- 
 ceived that be was in an unregenerate state, as all Socinians are, 
 and said, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born 
 again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 
 
 As to Mr. Porter's criticism, that wherever Christ uses the per- 
 sonal pronoun " I," he speaks of his entire person, I answer, that this 
 is not the fact; because he said to his disciples in one place, "Lo, / 
 am with you always, even unto the end of the world ;" and in an- 
 other place, he says, "And now I am no more with you:" and these 
 apparently contradictory declarations cannot both be true, unless we 
 
155 
 
 refer the latter to his human nature, and the former to his divine 
 nature. 
 
 As to his quotation of Acts ii. 22, "Ye men of Israel, hear these 
 words : "Jesus of Nazareth, a man of God approved aniontj you by 
 8io[ns," &c. I submit, in reply, the followinjj dilemma: Mr. Porter is 
 either a Socinian, or he is not; if he is a Socinian, let him say so. 
 Why is he ashamed to acknowledge it ? If lie is not a Socinian, he 
 has no business to fight with Socinian weapons, and thus to argue 
 upon a principle which he does not believe. 
 
 Mr. Porter has produced many passages which speak of Christ 
 in reference to his mediatorial subordination, and has argued for his 
 inferiority from them, totally overlooking others which assert his 
 Deity. I would again, therefore, illustrate this principle of reasoning. 
 I read, for instance, in Acts ii, 34, " For David is not ascended 
 into the heavens;" and I might just as well argue that David's 
 soul was not in glory, from an isolated view of this passage of 
 Scripture, omitting and disregarding other texts which prove it, as 
 Mr. Porter might argue from passages in which Christ is spoken of 
 as man, that he is only man, overlooking others altogether in which 
 he is spoken of as God. 
 
 He next referred to Matt. xx. 23, in which Christ is represented 
 as giving the following answer to Zebedee's children, when their 
 mother had solicited that they might sit on his throne with him in 
 his kingdom : " To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine 
 to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my 
 Father." But, in reply to his objections from this text, I maintain, 
 that these words do not, when taken in their strictly obvious meaning, 
 contain any declaration at all inconsistent with the power of Deity; 
 for God does not dispense the glories of his kingdom to those who 
 ask for them through motives of vanity and ambition, as the mother 
 of Zebedee's children did upon this occasion. Such honours are 
 intended for " him that overcometh." Rev. iii. 21. The text should 
 be, " To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give ; 
 but to them for whom it has been prepared of my Father ;" f.e. Christ, 
 when on earth in a state of humiliation, could not assume those pre- 
 rogatives which he had for a time laid aside. And that this is its 
 import, is evident from Rev. iii. 21, where he asserts explicitly the 
 very prerogative which he is here, on the Arian principle, said to 
 disclaim : " To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my 
 throne ; even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father 
 on his throne." And if any stress should be laid on the latter part 
 of this verse, — " for whom it has been prepared of my Father," — I 
 refer, in reply, to John v. 19, where it is said, "For what things 
 soever the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;" and to 
 the declaration of Christ, in John xiv. 2, " / go to prepare a place 
 for you," 
 
 He next referred to 1 Cor. xi. 3 : " The head of every man is 
 
156 
 
 Christ ; the head of the woman is the man ; and the head of Christ is 
 God." But I reply, that this cannot be spoken of Christ in his divine 
 nature, as it would then be equivaleni to saying that "God is the 
 head of God." It must, therefore, refer to his subordinate office as 
 Mediator. And it is an enumeration of the parties concerned in the 
 mediatorial scheme — Man, who is to be reconciled ; Christ, the Me- 
 diator, who reconciles ; God, with whom the reconciliation is effected. 
 And this passage plainly states the order in which the parties stand. 
 
 I MUST NOW PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE ARGUMENTS WHICH Mr. 
 
 Porter has advanced in support of his opinion, as stated in 
 HIS second proposition : That Christ is, in his highest capa- 
 city, nature, or condition, a created being. 
 
 The first proof which he advanced in support of this doctrine, 
 was derived from Rev. iii. 14, where Christ is styled " the beginning 
 of the creation of God." But upon this passage I would remark, 
 {bat. 
 
 By a common metonymy, the abstract term is put for the con- 
 crete; (as in 1 John i. 2, where Christ is styled "that eternal life 
 which was with the Father;") for when a^)(ri is applied to a person, 
 and does not refer to time, it generally signifies, the chief, or prin- 
 cipal. As, for instance, in the Septuagint — 
 
 £xOD. vi, 25 : Aura/ a) ct^'/cu 'sargiac, Xiviruv, these are the heads of the 
 
 family of the Levites. 
 Neh. ix. 17 : ESwxai/ oLgyriV^ they appointed a captain. 
 Hos. i. 11: QriSovrai lavroig ag^jjv /Jbiav, they shall appoint for themselves 
 
 one head. 
 
 In the New Testament, a|;>/a?, powers, is frequently used for ag%ow65, 
 rulers; as in — 
 
 Luke xii. 1 1 : unto magistrates and powers. 
 Rom. viii. 38 : nor principalities nor powers. 
 Eph. iii. 10: unto the principalities and powers. 
 Eph. vi. 12 : against principalities. 
 Col. i. 16 : principalities. 
 In all of which the original term is dpyai. 
 
 But, further, in Col. i. 18, we find this very title given to Christ, in 
 the sense of having the pre-eminence : "And he is the head of the body, 
 the church, who is the beginning (ag%Ji), the first-born from the dead ; 
 that in all things he might have the pre-eminence ;" — and in Rev. i. 
 5, a passage parallel to Rev. iii. 14, Christ is styled " the prince of 
 the kings of the earth" (6 a^x^v ruv ^agiXiuv r^g yrig). And I may 
 also add, that af%ji, in the language of ancient philosophy, denoted 
 an efficient cause — that which gave a beginning to other things— a 
 principle or source of existence. 
 
 I therefore conclude, that this passage in Rev. iii. 14 may be 
 thus translated : " These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true 
 witness, the Chief or Lord of the creation of God." And, in that 
 case, it will be parallel with the declaration of Christ in Matt, xxviii. 
 18 : "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 
 
loT 
 
 But I wish to know. Does Mr. Porter understand, by this declara- 
 tion, which says that Christ was " the beginning of the creation of 
 God," as it is rendered in our version — does he, 1 say, understand by 
 it, that Christ was the first- created being? or, in other words, that 
 there was a time before which he did not exist ? If so, let him mark 
 the consequence of his argument. Christ says, in Rev. xxi. G, "I 
 am ibe beginning and the end.*' — 37 af%'^ ^oc! rh rsXoj. He is, there- 
 fore, the END, as well as the beginning. Now 1 naturally argue, 
 that, if the fact of Christ's being called the "beginning," implies 
 that there was a time before which he did not exist ; then his being 
 called the "end'' must, upon the same principles, imply that there 
 tcill be a time after which he will not exist ! that is, that Christ will 
 be annihilated, and cease to exist! To such an awful length do the 
 principles of reasoning adopted by those who deny the Deity of the 
 Saviour, lead ! 
 
 The next argument which Mr. Porter advanced in support of his 
 opinion, — that Christ, in his highest capacity, is a created being, — was 
 drawn from Col. i. 15, in which he is styled " the first-born of every 
 creature" — tbuHtom^ crucrtg y.risiui. To this argument 1 answer, 
 that the title cgwroVoxo?, " first-born," cannot denote that Christ was 
 created, for the following reasons : — 
 
 (1.) The passage is not T^uroKnarog rrdffrig xrigiug, "first-created 
 of every creature," which would have been the correct way of con- 
 veying the doctrine of Christ's having been the first-created being. 
 
 (2.) The reason which follows in ver. 16, — "for by him were all 
 thfngs created," — would be most absurd : for what could the Apostle 
 mean by saying, "Christ is the first-created being, because he created 
 all things" ? If there be any consequence in the reason given, it 
 would imply, that Christ created himself; as it is not said, that "by 
 him were all other things created." 
 
 For these reasons, I reject the signification which Mr. Porter has 
 attached to this word ; and I shall now explain it. 
 
 The term cr^uroroxog, "first-born," was in frequent use among the 
 Jews, as denoting the lord, proprietor, or prince ; just as the corre- 
 sponding Hebrew term -ii^ji was so Used : as in Exod. iv. 22, and 
 
 in Jer. xxxi. 9, Israel and Ephraim are respectively designated the 
 " first-born" of God, because they were distinguished by the peculiar 
 favour of Jehovah, and placed in a situation of eminence above all 
 nations. The " first-born" is the " heir,'' the xXrtiov6/Mog, who is de- 
 scribed by the Apostle, in Gal. iv. 1, as the "lord of all." xveiog 
 rrdvruv. So that OTwroroxos rrdarig y.riciug, " first-born of every creature," 
 is explained by Heb. i. 2 and 6 ; where the Apostle says of Christ, in 
 the former verse, that the Father " hath appointed him heir of all 
 things," civ 'i&r,x.i y.7.rtPrmiMv rrdvruv; and immediately afterwards styles 
 him " first-born," t^utotoxov, in the sixth verse. And in other pas- 
 sages, where the Af)Ostle styles Christ the " first-born," it is in the 
 sense of " principal," or " chief ;" as in Rom. viii. 29, where he styles 
 him " first-born among many brethren ;" and in Col. i. 18, where he 
 
158 
 
 styles him " first-bom from the dead." And, in Heb. i. 6, he is 
 represented, under the title of " first-born," as the person whom the 
 angels " worship ;" and it is evident, thai, if the term denoted that he 
 was the " first-created" being, this passage would represent God the 
 Father as teaching creature-worship, contrary to Roivr. i. 25, in which 
 idolatry is defined to be " worshipping and serving the creature be- 
 sides the Creator." 
 
 I therefore conclude, that the term " first-born" means the " pro- 
 prietor" or " ruler ;" and then the 'explanation : "For by him'all 
 things were created," &c. which immediately|jfollows, is intelligible ; 
 for then we understand the Apostle as saying, that " Christ is the 
 proprietor or ruler of every creature," because " by him all things were 
 created.'* He who created is Lord by right of creation. 
 
 I may here add, that, even if the term 'x^MTdroxoi; could mean that 
 Christ was created, still the structure of the sentence should be dif- 
 ferent from what it is. It should be T^MToroxog h TraC/ %ri(in,a(ii ; for, 
 in that case, '^^oororoxog should not be followed by a simple genitive, 
 but should be followed by a preposition governing the following noun 
 substantive ; as in Rom. viii. 29, 'tt^utotokov Iv ToXXoTg ahX<po7g. 
 
 I may also add, that the word T^oroToxog might have an active 
 signification in this passage, and be translated as " the first-producer 
 of every creature;" for the word is often used in an active sense in the 
 best Greek authors, as in Homer, Iliad 17, line 4 and 5 ; 
 
 ug Tig Ts^fTopraxi /Ji^^rrig 
 
 JI^uroroKog, xivv^ri, oZ t^Tv lidvTa toxoid. 
 
 Having thus replied to the arguments which Mr. Porter has ad- 
 vanced in support of his position, that Christ is a created being, 
 I now submit the following direct arguments against this opinion : — 
 
 (1.) It is no where asserted in Scripture. From the evident 
 parallelism between John i. 1, &c. and Gen. i. 1, &c. we might 
 have expected the Apostle to have asserted the creation of Christ, or 
 of the Word, in the very commencement of his Gospel ; for it would 
 have rendered the parallelism more complete, to have said, " sv ag%)j 
 sToiriffsv Tov Aoyov 6 Qsog, &c." — It is therefore manifest, that the reason 
 why he did not say so was, because Christ was an uncreated being. 
 
 (2.) It is said in John i. 3, and in Col. i. 16, that "by him were 
 all things created" — Therefore, if Christ was created, he must have 
 been created by himself; for it is not said, that by "him were all 
 other things created." 
 
 (3.) In Rom. i. 25, The Creator and creature are so placed in 
 contrast, as to show, that the Creator could not have been a crea- 
 ture, nor could a creature have been the Creator : but by Christ 
 were all things created; therefore, he could not have been a creature. 
 
 (4.) If Christ were a creature, then it would involve the commis- 
 sion of idolatry to obey the command, in Heb. i. 6, " Let all the 
 angels of God worship him :" for the Apostle defines idolatry, to be 
 " worshipping and serving the creature more than" (or rather " be- 
 sides) the Creator." 
 
159 
 
 (5.) Christ is said, in Col. i. 17, to have been before all things, 
 t. e. as is evident from the context, before all created thini^s; and, 
 therefore, as he could not be before himself, he could not have been 
 created : for it is not said, that " he is before all other created 
 things." 
 
 (6.) lie is called "Eternal life" in I John i. 2, in reference to the 
 ;^re-e.xistence which he had with the Father. 
 
 (7.) It is said, in Heb. vii. 3, that JNIelchisedek loas made like to 
 (d:puiMoiu,amg) the Son of God, in having neither beginning of days, 
 nor end of years ; therefore, Christ was, in reality, what Melchisedek 
 resembled him in, i. e. eternal. 
 
 (8.) It would have added so much to the glory of Jehovah, to 
 say, that he had created so glorious a being as "the Word," that, 
 if true, we would have expected tins declaration to have illuminated 
 every page of Scripture; and that the advocates of this opinion 
 would not have been obliged to adduce one or two figurative expres- 
 sions, such as those in Col. i. 15, and in Rev. iii. 14 ; which are the 
 only show of argument that can be advanced in support of it. 
 
 For these reasons, I maintain that Christ was not, as to his su- 
 perior nature, a created being, but was the God who created all 
 ?hiug:s. 
 
 I shall now advance an additional argument in support of the 
 true Deity of Christ, distinct from those which 1 have already ad- 
 vanced in the previous course of this Discussion. This argument, 
 I shall illustrate by proofs in detail, having first stated it under the 
 following three propositions : 
 
 1. We read of an angel, throughout the Old Testament, who 
 frequently appeared to men, bearing the titles, possessing the attri- 
 butes, receiving the homage, and exercising the prerogatives of Deity; 
 and who was recognised as God by those to whom he appeared. 
 
 2. This angel was not God the Father. 
 
 3. He was God the Son. 
 
 I submit the following passages to illustrate the first of these 
 propositions : * 
 
 Gen. xii. 7. And the Lord appeared (KT">) unto Abraham, and said. Unto thy 
 
 T •• 
 
 seed will 1 give this land : and there builded be an altar unto the Lord that appeared 
 unto him. 
 
 Gen. xvii. 1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared 
 to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God, &c. 
 
 N. B.— The Hebrew verb rendered '' ap/ieared," denotes that the Lord became visible. 
 
 Gen. xvi. 7 — 13. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of wafer in 
 the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur ; and he said, Uagar, Sarai's maid, 
 whence camest thou ? and whither wilt thou go ? And she said, I flee from the face 
 
 « The following texts were not read in full, but only referred to by chapter and verse : but, as I 
 publicly stated that if Mr. Porter would allow me to print them in full I should be obliged to hira ; 
 and as he generously gave me that permission in his following speech, they are here printed as i 
 had prepared them— D. B. 
 
160 
 
 of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy 
 mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto 
 her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ish- 
 mael ; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction, &c. And she called the name 
 of the Lord that spake unto her. Thou God seest me : for she said, Have I also here 
 looked after him that seeth me? 
 
 Gen. xviii. 1, 2. And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre : and 
 he sat in the tent-door in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, 
 and lo, three men'stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from 
 the tent-door, and bowed himself toward the ground. 
 
 N. B. — Of these three, one was supeiior to the rest, and speaks to, and was addressed by Abraham 
 as Jehovah — ver. 3, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 33. In ver. 22 of !8th chap, two of the men are said to have 
 gone towards Sodom : and in chap. xix. I, they are said to have arrived there; and in xix. 13, 
 they represent themselves as being sent by the Lord to destroy Sodom. 
 
 Gen. xxii. 11, 12. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and 
 said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said. Lay not thy hand 
 upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him : for now I know that thou fearest 
 God, seeing thou hast not withheld thv son, thine only son from me. — See also ver. 
 15—17. 
 
 Gen. xxvi. 2. And the Lord appeared unto him, and said. Go not down into 
 Egypt, &c. Ver. 24. And the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, I 
 am the God of Abraham thy father, &c. 
 
 Gen. xxviii. 1!, &c. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all 
 night. • • And he dreamed, and behold, a ladder set up on the earth. * * And be- 
 hold, the Lord stood above it, and said, 1 am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, 
 and the God of Isaac ; the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it. • * And 
 thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, &c, * * Ver. 16. And Jacob awaked out 
 of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place : and I knew it not. Ver. 
 19. And he called the name of that place Bethel. — Read in connexion with this, chap, 
 xxxi. 11, 13. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob. 
 And I said, Here am I. Ver. 13. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst 
 the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me, &c. 
 
 Gen. xxxii. 24, And Jacob was left alone : and there wrestled a man with him 
 until the break of day. Ver. 28. And he said. Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, 
 but Israel : for as a prince hast thou power with God, and hast prevailed. Ver. 30. 
 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and 
 my life is preserved — Read in connexion with this, Hosea xii. 4, 5. Yea, he had 
 power over <Ae awgieZ, and prevailed ; he wept and made supplication unto him: he 
 found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; even the Lord God of hosts. 
 
 Gen. XXXV. 1. And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there ; 
 and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from 
 
 the face of Esau thy brother But this God that appeared unto him, is described in 
 
 Gen. xxxi. 1 1, to be the angel of the Lord. 
 
 Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my 
 fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this 
 day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. 
 
 ExoD. iii. 2. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, 
 out of the midst of a bush. Ver. 4. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to 
 see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush. Ver. 6. And he said, I am 
 the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 
 &c. 
 
 ExoD. xiii. 21. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to 
 lead them the way. — Compare this passage with Exod. xiv. 19. And the angel of 
 God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them, &c. 
 
 ExoD. xix. D. And Moses went up unto God, and God called unto him out 
 
161 
 
 of the mountain, (». e. Sinai,) saying, &c. Now in Acts vii. 38, the Holy Ghost, 
 speaking through Stephen, says, " This (Moses) is he that was in the church in the 
 wilderness, with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai," &<;. 
 
 ExoD. xxiii. 20, 21,^ Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way, 
 and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his 
 voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your transgressions : for my name is 
 in him. Ver. 23. For mine angel shall go before thee. — (This was spoken by the 
 Father of the Son.) 
 
 Judges ii. 1. " And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and 
 said, / fnade thee to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the'land which I 
 swarc unto your fathers." — Then the angel proceeds, in the two following verses, to 
 represent the language of Jehovah to Moses, recorded in E.tOD. xxxiv. 10, 14 as bis ; 
 and in the 4th verse, it is said, "And it came to pass, when the ant,el of the Lord 
 spake these words," &c. 
 
 Judges vi. 12. And the angd of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him. 
 The Lord is with thee,jthou mighty man of valour. Ver. 13. And Gideon said unto 
 him, O my Lord, if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us ? &e. Ver. 
 14. And the Lord looked upon him, and said, &c. Ver. 10. And the Lord said unto 
 him, &c. Ver, 20. And the angel of the Lord said unto him, &c. Ver. 21. Then 
 the angel of the Lord departed out of his sight. Ver. 22. And when Gideon perceived 
 that he was an angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God, for because 1 have 
 seen an angel of the Lord face to face. Ver. 23. And the Lord said unto him. Peace 
 be unto thee, fear not, thou shalt not die ; then Gideon built an altar there unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 N. B. The Hebrew words in this passage may be rendered, indifferently, " an angel," or " the 
 angel." 
 
 Numbers xxii. 12. And God said unto Balaam, Thou shall not go with them, &c. 
 Ver. 32. And the angel of the Lord said unto them, &e. Ver. 35, And the angel of 
 the Lord said unto Balaam, &c. — Chap, xxiii. 4. And God met Balaam, &c. Ver. 3. 
 And the Lord put a word in Balaam's mouth, &c.— Chap. xxiv. 4. He hath said which 
 heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, &c. 
 
 In IsAiAn vi. we have another account of the Deity being manifested to the 
 Prophet. 
 
 Malachi iii. 1 . The coming of " the angel of the covenant" to the_ temple is fore- 
 told, and his Deity, and proprietorship of the temple, is asserted in the words, " The 
 Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple." 
 
 Such is a review of some of the instances in which the angel, Je- 
 hovah, is represented as appearing. 
 
 I shall now prove the second part of the first proposition, which 
 says, that this angel is God : for — 
 
 The name of God was in him. ExoD. xxiii. 21, " For my name is in him." 
 He speaks as God, as in Exod. iii. 2, &e. ; Gen. xxxv. 1 1 ; xxviii. 13. 
 Is spoken of as God, as in Judges xiii. 22, &c. 
 Is spoken to as God, as in Gen. xvi. 13, &c. 
 
 Was worshipped, and received worship as God, as in Gen. xxxv. 1 ; JuD. 
 xiii. 23, &.C. &c. 
 
 The second proposition, which asserts that this angel was not God 
 the Father, is proved by — 
 
 John i. 18. No man hath seen God at any time : the only-begotten Son which 
 is in the bosom ot the Father, he hath declared him. 
 
 John v. 37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of 
 me : ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 
 
 X 
 
162 
 
 The next proposition, that this angel was Christ in his pre-existent 
 Deity, I maintain for the following reasons : 
 
 (1.) The analogy which there is between the character of the 
 Angel in the Old Testament, and the character of Christ in the New ; 
 and the similarity which there is between the visions of the Angel 
 Jehovah to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and those of Christ glorified 
 to Stephen, to Ananias, and to Paul; and between the visions of the 
 Angel seen by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and those 
 seen by John, — render it probable that the Angel was Christ. 
 
 (2.) The offices and relationship to the Jews which the Angel 
 Jehovah is represented in the Old Testament as sustaining, are, in 
 the New Testament, attributed to Christ. The Israelites are called, 
 in John i. 11, Christ's own people ; it was Christ who inspired their 
 Prophets, as we are told in 1 Peter i. II; it was he whom they 
 tempted in the wilderness, as we are told in 1 Cor. x. 9 ; and it was 
 he who would often have gathered them together, as a hen gathereth 
 her chickens under her wings, as we are informed by himself in 
 Luke xiii. 34. 
 
 (3.) When Christ said to the Jews, "Your Father Abraham re- 
 joiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad ;" they understood 
 this as equivalent to a declaration of his being personally seen by 
 Abraham, and Christ did not contradict their conception of his mean- 
 ing, but asserted his priority to Abraham. 
 
 (4.) In Heb. xii. 26, we are expressly told, that it was Christ's 
 voice which shook the earth when the law was delivered on Sinai. 
 
 (5.) Paul, in Eph. iv. 8, applies the 68th Psalm to Christ: there- 
 fore we are to consider that psalm as descriptive of his glory. — But 
 in ver. 7, we read, " O God, when thou wentest forth before thy 
 people; when thou wentest through the wilderness," &c, ; and in 
 ExoD. xiv. 19, it is said, " that the Angel of the Lord went before" 
 them in the wilderness. 
 
 (6.) It was Christ whom Isaiah saw in vision, according to the 
 testimony of John xii. 41. 
 
 (7.) It was Christ who presided over the Jewish church, which is 
 evident from Eph. v. 14, "Wherefore, he saith. Awake thou that 
 sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light ;" 
 which words are a paraph rastical reference to Isa. Ix. 1, "Arise, 
 shine ; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon 
 thee." 
 
 (8.) In Mal. iii. 1, Christ is expressly called the Angel of the 
 Covenant, and represented also, in the same verse, as the Lord of 
 the Temple. 
 
 From all this, I infer that Christ, in his pre-existent Deity, was 
 the Angel of Jehovah, who was Jehovah himself; one with the 
 Father, the President and Patron of the Jewish church. 
 
 I shall now close this address by a remark which I find it neces- 
 sary to make. Before I entered upon this discussion, I laid it down, 
 as a rule to myself, that I would not bring forward, in the course of 
 
163 
 
 argument, the name of a single living individual, unless Brst intro- 
 duced by Mr. Porter. I state this, because I find that some persona 
 have taken offence at the remarks which I felt it my duty to make 
 yesterday, in reference to the j)ublislied sentiments of Dr. BiiucE. 
 Far be it from me to speak with disrespect or unkindness of that 
 venerable and respected man ; nor would I have alluded to him at 
 all, had not Mr. V or \.ev first brought forward his name in this dis- 
 cussion. And I only wish, that Mr. Porter had maintained a similar 
 reserve, and had abstained from the offensive language in which he 
 spoke of that kind, affectionate, and venerable man, Dr. Saurin, the 
 Lord Bishop of Dromore. 
 
 Mr. porter. — Mr. Bagot has" laid down certain principles 
 upon the Scripture doctrine of worship, wilh respect to one of which 
 I have a question to propose. He has stated, that " God is lo be 
 worshipped" — that " he is to be worshipped through Christ, as Me- 
 diator," and, lastly, that "Christ himself is to be worshipped." 
 Now, with reference to the last of these points, I beg leave to ask. 
 When Christians worship Christ, loho mediates between them and the 
 Mediator ? 
 
 Mr. bagot. — The question is absurd ; and I shall answer it as 
 Christ answered the Sadducees, by proposing another. When Ste- 
 phen prayed to Christ, who mediated between Stephen and Christ? 
 — or, when Paul prayed to Christ, who mediated between Paul and 
 Christ ? 
 
 Mr. porter. — Since the commencement of the present dis- 
 cussion, I have had several distinct intimations of a kind calculated 
 to prevent me from doing justice to the cause of which I am an 
 humble, but sincere advocate. I have been made to perceive that 
 an unpopular cause has, in this assembly, a still more unpopular de- 
 fender. Why this should be so, I cannot divine. My conscience 
 acquits me of having made use of any arts for the purpose of gaining 
 your assent. I have neither attempted to work upon your feelings, 
 nor to stir up your prejudices, nor lo excite your passions. My con- 
 science acquits me of having attempted to divert or distract your 
 attention from the important subjects of the discussion between Mr. 
 Bagot and myself. My conscience acquits me of having designedly 
 said any thing, or even thought any thing, which ought to produce 
 an unfavourable feeling towards me, in the minds even of those, 
 whoever they may be, who most dislike the principles for which I 
 contend. 1 have shunned every thing that could hurt their feelings. 
 I have put my plain arguments forward in a plain way, trusting my 
 whole cause to the force of reason and of truth. And shall it be 
 said, that in an assembly like the present, where I see before me a 
 number of Ministers of the Gospel of various Churches, and other 
 persons of different classes, who, from the habit and mode of life to 
 which they are accustomed, ought to know what is due to a person 
 standing in the responsible station which 1 now occupy, — is it, I ask, 
 to be said that in such an assembly, because I have plainly stated 
 
164 
 
 my conscientious convictions in an unvarnished manner, I am to 
 receive intimations to let me knovir the light in which I am regarded ? 
 
 I am not the only person in this assembly vpho is conscious of 
 the fact thus intimated. My reverend opponent also is well aware 
 of it. He knows that he has the feelings of the great majority of 
 the present auditory with him, in this discussion; and I am sorry to 
 find that, instead of con6ning himself to close argument on the sub- 
 ject before us, he has chosen to appeal to your sectarian feelings, 
 addressing you as his " Presbyterian friends," his " Independent 
 friends," and his " Covenanting friends." With reference to such 
 addresses, I shall only say, that I hope you are not more sincerely 
 his friends than I am yours. I ent.ertain towards you no feelings 
 but those of kindness ; but I should be unwilling and indisposed to 
 appeal to your prejudices, instead of addressing you as rational 
 beings. I should seem to myself to pay you but an ill compliment, 
 if I attempted thus to rest the cause on your feelings, and not upon 
 your unbiassed judgment. 
 
 I am truly sorry that, in addition to several previous charges of 
 misrepresenting my language and sentiments, which I not only 
 brought forward, but proved against Mr. Bagot, on former occasions, 
 I am now obliged to make another complaint of the same kind. 
 That gentleman, alluding to my quotation of the text, in which, ac- 
 cording to the common version, it is declared, that " it pleased the 
 Father that all fulness should dwell in the Son," has thought proper 
 to assert, that I repeated the word "Father," — (which is not in the 
 original, but is supplied by the translators to complete the sense,) — 
 as if it were part of the text, without giving any intimation to the 
 contrary. I beg leave to say, such is not the fact. I do most so- 
 lemnly declare, that I quoted the text in the very vs^ords following: 
 "For it pleased [him, i. e. the Father, as appears from verse 12,] that 
 in him should all fulness dwell;" and that I repeated it in the very 
 manner in which I have now read it, as nearly as possible. I ask, 
 could any intimation be given more plainly, that the words intro- 
 duced were so introduced by myself for the purpose of explanation ? 
 I beg leave to add, that I am above such artifices. I should scorn 
 to impose on you by mere sounds, or by mistranslations, or erroneous 
 readings ! 
 
 Mr. Bagot has intimated that in reading Col. i. 12 — 20, towards 
 the close of my last speech, yesterday, I changed the word " by," 
 into " in," because I thought the latter rendering more favourable^to 
 my own views. It is strange that even my concessions are treated as 
 encroachments ! I altered the word " by" in the passage, " For by 
 him were all things created," not because I think the preposition ,"tV' 
 is more favourable to my own views, for I think it is less so; nor 
 because I think that iv is incorrectly rendered, in the Common Ver- 
 sion, by the word " by ;" for I am quite sure that the preposition has 
 that meaning, and that in this context it will scarce admit of any 
 other. But I pointed out " in" as the more usual and more literal 
 rendering of the word, only because such is the /act ; and because I 
 wished to deprive Mr. Bagot, and every one else, of all handle or ex- 
 cuse for saying that I would adduce a single passage which I knew 
 
165 
 
 to be questionably translated, or would build a sinp^le argument 
 on the defects, and, as it might be argued, the mistakes of the Com- 
 mon Version. You see how little encouragement I have received to 
 be candid with Mr. Bagot, when even my very candour is turned 
 into matter ot accusation ! 
 
 A great many of the ol)servations which Mr. Bagot has this day 
 adduced, are of such a nature that they answer themselves. Thug, 
 for instance, he admits that the term worship occurs in Scripture in 
 an inferior sense ; and several times denotes the homage which was 
 presented by created beings to their fellow-creatures, to whom re- 
 spect, reverence, and civil obedience, were due; and yet he cautions 
 you against regarding this secondary meaning of the term as affecting 
 his attempt to establish the necessity of paying divine honours to 
 Christ : since, as he argues, if the inference be good as affecting the 
 worship paid to Christ, it would be equally valid as applied to the 
 worship of the Father — That is to say, he admits, and cannot 
 deny, that the word has this inferior or secondary sense ; and yet 
 argues that the admission of this indispiilable fact contradicts the 
 duty and necessity of worshipping God, the Father ! Might I 
 not be authorized, after listening to such an argument, to inquire 
 whether Mr. Bagot means to deny that worship, religious worship, is 
 due to God, the Father ? My theory does not carry me so far. I 
 admit both the primary and secondary meaning of the term toorship; 
 and the principle for which I contend, and contended, is, that we 
 are to find out from the context, and from considering all the cir- 
 curastances of each particular case, whether it is civil homage or 
 religious worship that is intended whenever the term occurs in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, again, admitted expressly, that the epithet, "first- 
 horn" — or, in the Greek, (if I must speak Greek, which I have no 
 desire to do in a promiscuous assembly,) TouToroxog — is applied to 
 Israel in the Old Testament Scriptures in that language ; and yet, 
 with a perverse inconsistency, he argued from the application of that 
 very term to our Lord Jesus Christ, that our blessed Saviour must 
 be God Supreme ! I, at least, have endeavoured not to trifle in this 
 manner with your understandings. I have, at least, endeavoured to 
 avoid the production of suicidal arguments, which are no sooner 
 stated than refuted, 
 
 A great deal of what he has this day stated, might be refuted with 
 the same facility. Some of his arguments, however, cannot so easily 
 be answered ; because he has now improved upon his former practice 
 of parrotiing over his texts so rapidly, that is was impossible to an- 
 nex any distinct ideas to the words. On a former occasion, I gave 
 him a lesson on this subject, which I imagined would have left an 
 impression, and prevented any recurrence of the evil ; but he is like 
 those perverse pupils, who only grow the worse, the more pains you 
 take to improve them. To-day he has not been content to parrot 
 over his texts, but has satisfied himself with simply announcing the 
 references to c/irt;)/(?r flwrf verse, without repeating the words at all; and 
 even this, with a volubility which would induce me to think he takes 
 it for granted that you wiil, with implicit faith, admit his interpreta- 
 
166 
 
 tion of every text referred to ; and not only so, but that you do now 
 receive every reference which he has announced, as convincing proof 
 that he is a good logician, and a sound theologian. Be it so then ! 
 Take it thus for granted. He has the advantage of your feelings on 
 his side. Any thing that comes from him will not fail to carry con- 
 viction along with it, though it be simply the running over an arith- 
 metical enumeration of passages. But he asks, will I give him leave 
 to publish at full length, in the printed report, the words of all the 
 texts to which he has thus referred ? I answer in the exercise of the 
 same openness, at this advanced age of the discussion, which I 
 have evinced throughout, — I do. I am neither afraid of him nor 
 his texts. I am sure that when all the passages to which he has 
 referred appear in print, and when they are subjected to a calm, 
 rational, impartial, and sober judgment, they will carry with them 
 the refutation — not of themselves,' for that is what never can be 
 effected, — but of those doctrines which he has built upon them ; while 
 the principles for which I have contended in this discussion, will 
 stand untouched, based as they are upon the explicit and oft-repeated 
 testimony of the word of God. Mr. Bagot's mode of arguing the 
 question, by referring to texts, without giving the words, precludes 
 the possibility of an answer to the majority of the points embraced 
 in his speech. I am utterly unable, I candidly confess, to reply to 
 arguments which I have not been permitted to hear. I shall there- 
 fore not attempt what I own to be beyond my power ; but proceed to 
 consider a subject, to which I yesterday announced that I should this 
 day apply myself, — the doctrine of two natures united in the one per- 
 son of Christ the Mediator. I bring this question forward on the 
 present occasion the more willingly, because, as Mr. Bagot is to 
 follow me in the debate, he will thereby have an opportunity of 
 answering my reasoning, if he thinks it admits or deserves a reply. 
 
 The doctrine of the divine and human natures being united in the 
 mediatorial person of Christ, has been frequently insisted on by Mr. 
 Bagot, since the commencement of this discussion, although he has 
 never once favoured us with any express and formal proof of the 
 position. Indeed it is a point which other controversialists, as well 
 as Mr. Bagot, have found it far more convenient to assume than to 
 prove. I might, as I have intimated, reserve my observations for my 
 last speech, to which Mr. Bagot will have no opportunity to reply ; 
 but to enable him to make good his case — if he can — I choose to 
 bring them forward now. 
 
 As Mr. Bagot's own language is not particularly 'calculated to 
 make a definite impression on my mind, I shall take my statement 
 of this doctrine from the Athanasian Creed, which he is bound to say 
 or sing thirteen times every year, and which, of course, it is fair to 
 assume, expresses his sentiments. Indeed it is one of the things 
 contained in the Book of Common Prayer, to the whole and every 
 part of which he has declared his unfeigned assent and consent; and 
 it is sanctioned by one of those Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, 
 which he has subscribed, in token of agreement with their literal and 
 grammatical sense. In this symbol, the doctrine of the two natures 
 in Christ is thus expressed : 
 
16T 
 
 " Furthermore, it is ne(?fc3sary to everlasting salvation, that [a man] also believe 
 rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. > 
 
 " For the right faith is that we believe and confess that oar Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Sob of God, is God and man. 
 
 " God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world ; and man, of the 
 substance of his mother, bora in the world. 
 
 " Perfect God and perfect man ; of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting. 
 
 " Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as 
 touching his manhood. 
 
 " Who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ. 
 
 " One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood 
 into God. 
 
 " One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but unity of person. 
 
 " For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of two natures in the one person of Christ the 
 Mediator, which I propose to subject to a brief scrutiny. 
 
 The regular and orderly mode of considering a question of this 
 kind, is to settle, first, the meaning of the terms. I assume, then, aa 
 the signification of the word person a definition given by high 
 authority: "A thinking, intelligent being; an individual being that 
 can consider itself as itself." And I farther assume, that, when we 
 speak of the nature of a thing, we mean its properties, qualities, or 
 attributes, considered collectively. 
 
 The nature of God, therefore, or the divine nature, means the same 
 as the aggregate of the qualities of God ; that is, all the qualities of 
 God, taken together : and, in like manner, the human natiire, or the 
 nature of man, denotes that union of qualities, properties, or attri- 
 butes, which are found in man. The doctrine of two natures in one 
 person means, that the qualities, properties, or attributes of man, are 
 united with those of God, in the same individual, thinking, intelli. 
 gent being. 
 
 Now, it is the nature or property of God, to be Eternal in dura- 
 tion, Injinite in power, Infinite in wisdom, Injinite in goodness. And 
 in like manner it is the quality or the nature of man, iohQ originated 
 in time, limited in power, limited in wisdom, and limited in goodness. 
 
 When we say, therefore, that the two natures — the divine and the 
 human — are united in one person, we affirm, that the same individual 
 is eternal in duration, yet had his origin in time ; that he is infinite 
 in wisdom, and yet limited in wisdom ; that he is infinite in power, 
 yet limited in power; and that he is infinite in goodness, yet limited 
 in goodness. Now, if this be not a contradiction — a series of contra- 
 dictions, I confess, I think it comes as near to it as can well be con- 
 ceived. If it be really a contradiction in terms, it cannot possibly be 
 true. This is one of the maxims of that logical art, of which Mr. 
 Bagot talks so much and shows so little. 
 
 I pass over this argument, however, and come to consider the 
 testimony of Scripture on the subject, with as much impartiality as 
 if no such objection could be urged against the doctrine in limine 
 It will however, 1 hope, be granted to me, by all candid Trinitarians, 
 — and, I am persuaded, there are many such among those who hear 
 me, — that the testimony of Scripture, adduced in favour of an opinion 
 
168 
 
 such as this, ought to be plain, precise, and definite. What are the 
 proofs usually adduced ? Mr. Bagot has not favoured us with any 
 distinct argument on the point. Others, however, have adduced 
 such texts as 1 Tim. iii. 16: "God was manifest in the flesh " But 
 this reading is rejected as spurious by Griesbach, who, as I stated 
 on the first day of this discussion, was an avowed believer in the 
 Trinity, and whose integrity I never before heard called in question; 
 as well as by Dr. Wardlaw of Glasgow, Mr. Carlile of Dublin, 
 and a whole host of orthodox authorities besides: while others among 
 them, including Professor Moses Stuart of Andover, and i\\Q Eclec- 
 tic and Quarterly Reviewers, consider it as a reading so extremely 
 doubtful and uncertain, that no argument can be built upon it. I 
 need not, therefore, examine the authenticity of this reading in de- 
 tail. The judgment of the critics whom I have named, is, I humbly 
 submit, more than sufficient to outweigh the opinion of my reverend 
 opponent. And with respect to the parenthesis, which he contends 
 ought to be inserted, if Griesbach's reading be followed, I can only 
 say, that I can see no proof of its necessity, and respectfully refuse 
 to admit it upon his authority. I may be allowed, however, to state, 
 as Mr. Bagot has referred to the Alexandrian M.S. in support of the 
 reading " God" in this text, that my attention being turned to the 
 subject during my residence in London, by a pamphlet of Dr. Hen- 
 derson's, I had the curiosity to go to the British Museum (o inspect 
 that celebrated M.S. which is there preserved ; and, unquestionably, 
 the word 0C {Qihg) "God" is found in this passage; but, equally 
 beyond question, the strokes which make the difference between this 
 reading and OC, (og,) "he who," (the reading preferred by Gries- 
 bach,) are a modern addition, differing entirely in colour of ink, and 
 in style of execution, from the rest of the M.S. The corresponding 
 strokes in other parts of the M.S. are beautifully finished, and appear 
 as sharp and as well defined as if they had been traced with the point 
 of a needle; whereas, those which are found in this place are rough 
 blotches, rather than lines ; and the ink in them is black and fresh, 
 while that of the adjacent letters is pale and faded by the lapse of 
 many centuries. 
 
 Another passage which has been brought forward to prove this 
 doctrine occurs in Rom. ix. 3 — 5, which I shall read from the Com- 
 mon Version. 
 
 For I could wish (says the Apostle) that myself were accursed from Christ, for 
 my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh j who are Israelites ; to whom [per- 
 taineth] the adoption, and the gloiy, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, 
 and the service [of God], and the promises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as 
 concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, by his over eagerness to prejudice your minds against 
 such a mode of translating this passage, has already apprised you 
 that the last clause may be thus rendered : — 
 
 Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, wTio is over all. God [be] blessed 
 
 FOB EVER ! 
 
 The passage therefore only declares, that Christ, who, according to 
 the flesh, was born ot the lineage of David, was the greatest of all 
 
169 
 
 the instances of God's kindness to his people; and concludes with a 
 devout thanksgiving to God for his mission. It is, indeed, hard to 
 conceive how an argument for this extraordinary doctrine can be 
 deduced from such a text as this. I observe, moreover, that Mr. 
 Bagot, more than once, in quoting this text, misplaced two of the 
 members of the last clause, in a way which is very frequently prac- 
 tised by orthodox preachers and advocates; so that, instead of 
 " Christ came, icko is over all, God blessed for ever," he converted it 
 into a form which not even King James' Trinitarian translators 
 thought proper to adopt : "Christ came, tcho is God over all, blessed 
 for ever." If it be asked, wherein the difference between the two 
 renderings consists, I answer. It consists in this : that the latter 
 mode, by dislocating the members of the sentence, makes the sug- 
 gested rendering (God [be] blessed/or ever) appear, ibrced, strange, 
 and unnatural ; whereas, if the words were left in their proper order, 
 a very different impression would be made on the mind of any intelli- 
 gent and inquiring person, though unacquainted with Greek. 
 
 An argument has been built on the declaration in Col. ii. 9, 
 which affirms, that " in him dwelleih all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily." But this fulness of the Divinity is stated, in the 19th verse of 
 the preceding chapter, — the same to which I have adverted before, 
 — to be the gift of the Father: "For it pleased" (the Father, 
 as the context shows) "that in him (ill fulness should dwell." In 
 Eph. iii. 19, you will find the Apostle fervently praying that the 
 members of that church might be " filled unto all the fulness of God." 
 Will it be contended, that Paul prayed that the divine and human 
 natures might be united in the persons of his converts ? Indeed, 
 this text alone — on Mr. Bagol's application of the scholastic maxim, 
 Quicquid accipitur, ad modum accipienlis accipilur, the thing re- 
 ceived, must be proportioned to the capacity of the receiver ; or, in 
 his elegant phraseology, " a pint bottle will not hold a quart" — would 
 be sufficient to establish the proper Deity of the Ephesian Chris- 
 tians ; for if they were capable of receiving the fulness of the infinite 
 God, they must, on his principle, be infinite themselves. But if no 
 such consequence follows from it in truth, then all the aid lent to the 
 doctrine of the two natures by Col. ii. 9, is proved to amount exactly 
 to nothing, unless we are prepared to follow different rules in the 
 interpretation of similar passages. 
 
 I have not found any other texts quoted by Trinitarian writers, in 
 support of the doctrine of two natures. But among them, as with 
 Mr. Bagot, there is no lack of "inferences" and "deductions," to 
 support the doctrine. They amount to this, — as you have seen and 
 heard in this discussion, usqus ad nauseam, — That in some texts 
 Christ is called God (as we admit, that in two, or at most in three 
 passages, he is — though in an inferior sense of the word, as the con- 
 text shows) ; while in other places he is called a man, and described 
 as inferior to the Father. And, in order to reconcile the two sets of 
 passages, it is deemed necessary to have recourse to this supposition. 
 Of course, it is presumed that the doctrine of the two natures will 
 remove the contradiction between the different passages, and get rid 
 of all the difficulty. Let us simply try the validity of this supposi- 
 
 Y 
 
iro 
 
 lion, by applying the doctrine of the two natures to the solution of 
 one or two passages. And, first, I shall take one which I have 
 already quoted in this discussion, and to which therefore Mr. Bagot's 
 attention has been turned ; so that he will have his arguments and 
 objections ready, if he thinks proper to reply to my reasoning. 
 
 In Matt. xx. 20 — 23, we read, that the mother of the sons of 
 Zebedee came to our Lord, and besought him, saying, " Grant that 
 these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other 
 on thy left hand in thy kingdom." And after some farther conver- 
 sation, he thus replied to her supplication : " To sit on my right 
 hand, and on my left is not mine to give, — except — to those for whom 
 it has been prepared of my Father" 
 
 Now admitting, for a moment, and for the sake of the argument, 
 that our Lord Jesus Christ was, as the Athanasian Creed declares, 
 perfect God and perfect man, — this petition was most manifestly 
 presented to him in his whole, full, and entire nature. The mother 
 of the sons of Zebedee, did not address herself to our Lord's hu- 
 manity, to the exclusion of his Godhead ; any more, than she made 
 application to his Godhead, as distinguished from his humanity. 
 What she wanted was, to obtain the boon which she sought ; and 
 this she was desirous of receiving from him in any capacity in which 
 he might be competent to grant it. It was matter of indifference 
 to her and to her sons, whether the solicited favour was to come to 
 them, through our Lord's human nature, or through his divine nature; 
 or if it were not perfectly indifferent, the latter would certainly have 
 been the more acceptable channel. They seem never to have 
 doubted our Saviour's ability to bestow the gift which they sought ; 
 and they took the present means of ascertaining whether or not he 
 was disposed to do so. For this purpose, the mother, on behalf of 
 her sons, proposed to him the direct petition which has been stated. 
 And what was our Lord's reply ? — it is couched in the most un- 
 qualified terms. He makes no allusion to any supposed distinction 
 of natures subsisting in himself, nor to any distinction of the powers 
 and prerogatives appertaining to them respectively. He does not 
 intimate, that he wants the desire to oblige them by gratifying their 
 wish ; he declares — he most expressly declares, that he wants the 
 'power to do as they besought him. He declares this, without quali- 
 fication or restriction : " To sit on my right hand and on my left, is 
 NOT MINE to grant !" And he points to another person as alone able 
 to fulfil their request, by intimating, that the dignity which they 
 sought must be reserved for " those for whom it was prepared of his 
 Father." — And, I would ask, are we to suppose that our Lord, 
 though thus speaking of ^imse//", meant only apart of himself? When 
 he said, "The favour sought is not mme to grant," must not the sons 
 of Zebedee have understood him as speaking in his whole and entire 
 character? And would he be so disingenuous, as to affirm concern- 
 ing the whole of his character, that which could only be affirmed, 
 with truth, of a petty and insignificant fragment of his nature ? Yet 
 strange as it may appear, notwithstanding this explicit disavowal on 
 the part of our Saviour, Trinitarians persist in maintaining, that he 
 had at that very moment full power to grant to these petitioners their 
 
m 
 
 request ! And had our Saviour repeated his disclaimer rver so fre- 
 quently, and ever so earnesihj, they would not have hesitated to 
 aftirm, that the matter sought was perfectly within the compass of 
 his prerogative. Now, I beg to ask, is not this imputing to our Lord, 
 the hypocritical practice of mental reservation? Is it not represent- 
 ing him as meanly eluding the application of his followers, by as- 
 suring them that he was not competent to do what he could have 
 done in one instant by a single word ? 
 
 I shall endeavour to make my meaning more clear by a parallel 
 case : — A Right Reverend Father in God is solicited (o nominate to 
 a vacant benefice some clergyman, who is supposed to have claims on 
 his consideration. In reply to the application, his Lordship declares, 
 "The living in question is not in my gift: it must be bestowed on 
 the person who may be appointed by the Lord Primate, whose suf- 
 fragan I am." It afterwards appears, however, that his Lordship 
 could have disposed of the living exactly as it might have pleased 
 him. We will suppose him taxed with want of candour; and what 
 is his defence ? — " Oh ! certainly, I had full power to present to the 
 benefice, in my capacity as Bishop of the Diocese; but I had no such 
 authority in my other capacity, tisA.B. Doctor in Divinity !" Now, 
 I put it to any man of honourable feeling, whether this would be 
 deemed a proper vindication of his Lordship's character for sincerity 
 and veracity. Would it satisfy the applicants that they had been 
 fairly dealt with ? Would not the disaj)pointed party consider the 
 defence put forth, as an insult superadded to the original deception ? 
 Yet precisely similar to this is the conduct of which the Orthodox, 
 as they are called, make no scruple of ascribing to our blessed Lord, 
 in the case which we have been considering. Whether such conduct 
 is worthy of the immaculate Jesus, let any sincere Christian — let any 
 honest man, lay his hand upon his bosom, and say. I ask, again, for 
 Mr. Bagot's interpretation of the passage ! 
 
 I had intended to comment on several other passages in our 
 Lord's life and conversation, with reference to the doctrine of two 
 natures ; but I perceive I have not time. However, I would briefly 
 advert to a few of the absurdities which would follow from this mode 
 of interpreting Scripture. According to this principle of interpreta- 
 tion, any of the ancient prophets might have declared himself totally 
 ignorant of the very subjects on which he had been supernaturally 
 inspired, and of the very facts which he had been expressly commis-. 
 sioned to reveal ; and if called for an explanation, he might have 
 replied, with perfect safety, that, as a mere man, they did not come 
 within the compass of his knowledge, although, as a prophet, he was 
 acquainted with ihem. Our Lord himself might have truly atfirmed, 
 on one occasion, what he might, with equal truth, have denied upon 
 another. He might this moment have declared, that he was in- 
 formed respecting his approaching death ; and the next, he might 
 have protested that he was perfectly ignorant of all that was to befal 
 him. He might, when conversing with his disciples in private, have 
 confessed that he was altogether uninstructed in the councils of 
 heaven, and the sublime truths of religion; while to the Jews in 
 general, he announced himself as a teacher sent from God, and able 
 
ITS 
 
 to declare unto them the designs of the Most High. He might have 
 declared to some persons, the very'day and hour of his future coming, 
 while he owned to others that he was entirely ignorant of the matter. 
 In fact, were it ever so often, and ever so expressly declared in 
 Scripture, that Christ is not God equal with the Father, Mr. Bagot 
 and his fellow Trinitarians would not be at all staggered in their 
 belief. They would instantly reply, that the declaration was made 
 respecting the human nature only ! And, finally, the Evangelists, 
 on this principle, would have been justified in declaring that our 
 Lord never was horn — that he never suffered on the cross — that he 
 never rose again, or ascended up to heaven! All these facts they 
 might have contradicted expressly, and afterwards have sheltered 
 themselves under the evasive plea, that none of them (though true 
 of his human nature) could be affirmed of him as God. Can that 
 be a just principle of interpretation from which consequences sa 
 Irightful necessarily flow ? 
 
 Mr. bagot. — Mr. Porter has again informed you that I " pa- 
 rotted" over my texts — I beg, therefore, again, to inform him, that if 
 he wishes for a list of the passages I have produced in this discus- 
 sion, he shall have them ; on condition, that he will meet me here 
 from day to day, and from week to week, under the same rules and 
 regulations as we have been hitherto guided by, and continue the con- 
 troversy until the whole subject shall be fully discussed. For, in fact, I 
 have a vast deal more matter upon the question, that would occupy 
 me even a month to produce. 
 
 Mr. porter.— I can do without Mr. Bagot's texts ; but I am 
 quite willing to meet him here from day to day to carry on the de- 
 bate, if EVERY PERSON PRESENT, ivho heard the previous part of the 
 discussion, will pledge himself to attend regxilarly to hear it, until the 
 close. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT.— Let it then be put to the vote. If the auditory 
 consent, I consent 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — A vote will not give me the pledge which I 
 have demanded. I do not want to know the tvish of the majority of 
 the persons present, but to receive an assurance from every indivi- 
 dual here, that he will attend with us in this place, from day to day, 
 and from week to week, till the whole subject be exhausted, in order that 
 the same identical auditory may he witnesses to the entire discussion 
 throughout. I am perfectly ready, however, to finish the controversy 
 through the channel of the press. Let Mr. Bagot publish his addi- 
 tional matter as a pamphlet, and I shall reply to it in the same way. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT. — This is the same proposal which I have already 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. PORTER. — By no means. My first proposal which you 
 rejected, was the publication of a series of essays and replies in the 
 ^ible Christian; and what I now propose, is the issuing of a series 
 of controversial pamphlets in a separate form. 
 
1T8 
 
 Mr. BAGOT.— That is a matter quite of a distinct nature from 
 my present proposal, and does not give a direct reply to it. 
 
 Mr porter. — I plainly avow that I mean to reject Mr. Ba- 
 gel's proposal to continue the oral discussion; and I am surprised, 
 that any one who heard the condition which I stated, should for one 
 moment imacjinp, that 1 had the slightest intention of agreeing with 
 it. I thought if, from the first, absurd and impracticable ; and I simply 
 meant, by my conditional acceptance, to put its absurdity and im- 
 practibility in a clear light ; — for I knew, and could not but know, 
 that it was perfectly vain to expect every member of an auditory 
 such as this, to give a pledge of attendance here from day to day, and 
 from week to week. I now, therefore, lell Mr. Bagot, that I will not 
 accept this proposal. 
 
 Mr. bagot here said — "According to the regulations, I was 
 not to address you until half an hour after Mr. Porter's last address; 
 but, for my part, 1 do not feel it necessary to cause any delay." — Upon 
 which, Mr. Dobbs, one of the Chairmen, referred to the printed 
 rules, which stated the arrangement of an interval of half an hour 
 before the closing address should commence, and said, he thought 
 it would be better for general convenience, that Mr. Bagot should 
 delay for at least ten minutes. And that he felt it necessary to make 
 this announcement, lest any person should leave the house, (which 
 was, at that moment, excessively thronged,) under the impression 
 that Mr. Bagot would not commence for half an hour. After a few 
 minutes — 
 
 . Mr. BAGOT rose and said — I argued, this morning, that every 
 objection advanced by Mr. Porter against my Scripture proofs in 
 support of worshipping the Son, were ec|ually valid and conclusive 
 objections against those passages which he might advance in sup- 
 port of worshipping the Father ; and I thereby retorted upon him 
 his own principles of reasoning. He has since reminded you, how- 
 ever, in his last address, that the converse of this proposition is 
 equally true; and that every objection advanced against offering 
 worship to the Father, is an equally valid objection against offering 
 worship to the Son : so that the principle of reasoning which Mr. 
 Porter has embodied in this remark may be compared to the flaming 
 sword placed at the entrance of the garden of Eden, which turned 
 every way to protect the avenues to the tree of life ! But let him 
 mark the consequence of thus retorting this principle; for the reply, 
 if worth any thing, tends to prove that neither Father nor Son are 
 God — and, in fact, that there is no Deity revealed to us in the Bible 
 at all ! 
 
 Mr. Porter has said a good deal, in his last speech, against the 
 doctrine of two natures in the mediatorial person of Christ; aisd, in 
 ihe course of illustrating his remarks upon this subj-ect, he brought 
 before your notice the Athanasian Creed. Now I beg to say, that 
 I did not come here to defend creeds, but to maintain and support 
 by arguments the statement of my opinions, which is contained in 
 my two propositions. But as Mr. Porter yesterday alluded to the 
 doctrine of Transubstaotiation, imagining that I would be foolish 
 
174 
 
 enough to divide my own party against myself, by entering upon 
 such an irrelevant discussion; so, to-day, I suppose, he has advanced 
 the Athanasian Creed, with the hope that I might so far implicate 
 myself in a discussion on its contents, as to divide the Orthodox Pro- 
 testants against me. I must, however, make a remark or two upon 
 this creed. Mr. Porter has informed you that I read it to my con- 
 gregation at least thirteen times in the year. I answer, that I have 
 the advantage of him in that respect ; for how does he know whether 
 I read it or not ? — whereas I know, by sensible evidence, — for I my- 
 self have heard him this day, — that he has read it once in his own 
 Meeting-house. He said much about the meaning of the word 
 Person, and argued that it always denotes a distinct being. I ad. 
 mit, that it does when used in reference to men; but we should exer- 
 cise great caution when we speak of the nature of Deity, by the use of 
 this and other terms which are borrowed from the ordinary vocabu- 
 lary of men. Let us be cautious not to strain analogies too far. If 
 God, in compliance with the infirmities of our weak and finite un- 
 derstandings, has condescended to borrow words from the nomen- 
 clature of his creatures, we should be cautious lest, by stretching 
 their import beyond what we are fully able to determine, we may 
 seem to encroach upon his kindness, and thus to sin, that grace may 
 abound. I admit that the word person, when used in reference to 
 men, denotes a distinct intellectual agent ; but I cannot exactly de- 
 fine its signification, when used in reference to the Godhead. 1 
 observe in Scripture, a revelation of three persons, the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost, who together constitute One God. Be- 
 tween these three, there is, I believe, a certain distinction ; and I 
 employ the word " person," not in its strictly proper sense, as applied 
 to men, but in a peculiar sense, to denote that distinction. Let that 
 distinction be what it may, I find it in the Bible; and I therefore be- 
 lieve it, though I do not profess to explain its nature. 
 
 Mr. Porter argued, that the statements of the Athanasian Creed 
 imply this absurdity. That Christ is eternal and not eternal, omnipo- 
 tent and not omnipotent, omniscient and not omniscient, at the same 
 time, and in the same respect. I answer, that he would have found 
 the explanation of all this in the Creed itself, had he attended to the 
 following clauses, which say, that Christ is " Perfect God and perfect 
 man — equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to 
 the Father as touching his manhood — who, although he be God and 
 man, yet he is not two, but one Christ — one, not by conversion of 
 the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God — one 
 altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person." 
 Christ is eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient, as to his Deity, but 
 not as to his humanity. This is a doctrine which I find clearly re- 
 vealed in Scripture; and it was upon the principle which this doc- 
 trine involves that I answered Mr. Porter's objection from Mark 
 xiii. 32, in which it is said, that Christ did'not know the day or hour 
 of judgment, by showing that though he knew all things in his divine 
 nature, yet, as to his human nature there were some things of which 
 this was^one,^which he did not know. If Mr. Porter wishes to es- 
 tablish his argument, let him prove that Christ's human knowledge 
 
1T5 
 
 necessarily included in it all his diuine knowledge, and then I will 
 confess that there is an unanswerable difficulty in Mark xiii. 32 ; 
 but as loni^ as it is true, that thou^j^h the greater includes the less, 
 yet the Ws never can include the greater, I am justified in saying, 
 that Christ knows, as to his divine nature, many things which he 
 does not know in his human nature ; although it would be absurd 
 to convert this proposition, and to say that he knows, as man, all 
 things which he knows as God. 
 
 As to Mr. Porter's remarks upon I Tim. iii. 10, " God was mani- 
 fest in the tlesh," &c. I have said enough about that text already. 
 And I shall merely remark here, that the fact of Griesbach's having 
 inserted Qiog in his first edition, and of his having omitted it in his 
 second, proves that he had a Socinian tendency. 
 
 I now proceed to Mr. Porter's remarks upon Rom. ix. 5, "Whose 
 are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, 
 who is over all, God blessed for ever." The original of tliis passage 
 is as follows : 
 
 ^u 0/ irarigig, xcci J^ wv 6 'S.okstoz, rh xard ffagxa, 6 m It) -xavruv Qiog 
 
 Mr. Porter proposed to place a stop after Itti 'Xo.'jtuv, and to read the 
 latter clause as a doxology, so as to translate it thus : 
 
 " Whose are the fathers, aud of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is 
 over all. God be blessed for ever. Amen. 
 
 This, however, was an alteration proposed by Erasmus, and adopted 
 by Locke, from whom jMr. Porter has borrowed it. There are two 
 principles connected with thiscriticism, which require to be examined. 
 1st, The proposed change in the punctuation. 2d, The rendering 
 the latter clause as a doxology. 
 
 1. It is a question amongst biblical critics, whether the punctua- 
 tion of Scripture should be regarded as a question oi reading or con- 
 struction; as no system of punctuation, such as appears in modern 
 M.SS, was used by the-Apostles in their autographs. Notwithstanding 
 this, however, the question may very fairly be regarded as one of 
 reading ; and if so, all antiquity — whether we refer to M.SS, versions, 
 fathers, heretics — decides in favour of-the commonly-received punc- 
 tuation, with the solitary exception of one manuscript mentioned by 
 Griesbach, (No. 47,) which places a stop — not after £•-/ rra-JTuv, but 
 after ffagxa. 
 
 But if we regard the proposed punctuation as a question of 
 construction, I argue that it is inadmissible, on account of the dis- 
 memberment which it would cause in the phrase, 6 wv st/ Tavrwv Qiog; 
 for Qchc coming without the article immediately after 6 wv Jt/ TavTuVf 
 must be construed in apposition with it. 
 
 In addition to these reasons, I argue for the commonly-received 
 punctuation, from the nature of the Apostle's style in this passage, 
 which consists of a climax and an antithesis. Karoi. eawj. "as con- 
 cerning the flesh," is evidently one part of an antithesis, requiring a 
 corresponding and contrasted member in the succeeding sentence. 
 For the words "as concerning the flesh," naturally suggest to the 
 
176 
 
 mind the inquiry, " What was he in other respects?'* which ought to 
 be answered in the following clause. 
 
 For these reasons I reject the alteration in the punctuation, which 
 Mr. Porter has proposed. 
 
 2. I object to reading the last clause of this verse as a doxology, 
 because the construction of the passage would not admit of it. The 
 participle cov would be superfluous, and the words, 6 st; ntawm Qsogy 
 would have been sufficient. Also, suXoyrjrog should be placed before 
 0sog ; as is the case in other similar doxologies in Luke i. 68 ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 3 ; Eph. i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 ; and in about forty instances in the 
 Septuagint, There is only one case usually advanced as an excep- 
 tion to this form, which occurs in Ps. Ixvii. 19, of the Septuagint : 
 Ku^iog 6 Qihg euXoyi^rhg' ivXoyrirog Ku^iog '^/xsgav xaff rifMi^av. But the 
 former clause of this verse, which is the part concerned, is of doubtful 
 authority, as there is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew ; and 
 it may be as well translated thus: "The Lord God is blessed." 
 
 If Gen. xxvii. 29, "Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and 
 blessed be he that blesseth thee," should be adduced as an excep- 
 tion to this rule, I answer that it may as well be rendered thus : 
 " Cursed is every one that curseth thee, and blessed is every one that 
 blesseth thee." 
 
 I conclude that if the natural and established order of the words in 
 such doxologies requires that iukoyrirog should be placed before Qiog, 
 no writer who wished to be understood would reverse that order. 
 
 I also argue, that a doxology in this passage would have inter- 
 rupted the Apostle's discourse, by a long and improbable exclama- 
 tion. And I also remark, that when he was in a "state of sorrow 
 and heaviness," on account of his kinsmen's rejection of Christ, as 
 stated in ver. 2 and 3, a doxology would have been very unsuitable 
 and uunatural. A prayer was more congenial with his feelings at 
 the time, and accordingly we find him commencing the next chapter 
 thus : " My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they 
 may be saved." 
 
 I also argue, that the verb effrw should be added to the text, on 
 the supposition of this passage being a doxology. 
 
 And why, I ask, should the Apostle have stopped so suddenly in 
 the middle of a description of one person, to address a doxology to 
 another, especially when the words yMra ea^xa, in the former part of 
 that description, require a response to follow ? 
 
 For these reasons I reject the proposal of Mr. Porter, — to read 
 this passage as a doxology. 
 
 I therefore regard it as a description of the higher nature of 
 Christ, that nature which is here mentioned in contrast with his being 
 of Jewish extraction, "according to the flesh." And I would beg 
 you to remark, that this passage ascribes to the Saviour four titles 
 designating Deity. He is " over all," or Lord of the universe. He 
 is " God," a title which is not used in any figurative or subordinate 
 sense here, as is evident from the strong expressions which are asso- 
 ciated with it. He is "blessed," EuXoyjjroj, not iuXoyrifiivog. And I 
 would here request you to remark, that iukoyrjrog occurs only four 
 
m 
 
 times in the New Testament, (in Mark xiv. 61 ; RoM.i. 25; 2 Cor. 
 xi. 31, and in this passafjce;) anti is so peculiar a title of the true 
 God, that it is sufficient of itself to particularize the Supreme Je- 
 hovah, as is evident from the question of tlie Hiirji Priest to our 
 Saviour in Mark xiv. 61, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the 
 Blessed ?" KuXoyrj/xsw^, on the other hand, is applied to creatures, as 
 in Luke i. 42, where it is applied to the Virgin Mary: "Blessed art 
 thou amon^ women." We have, lastly, the attribute of Eternity 
 ascribed to Christ in this passage : he is " over all, God blessed for 
 ever. Amen." 
 
 In order to obviate the force of my argument for the Deity of 
 Christ, derived from Col. ii. 9, " In him dwelleth all the fulness of 
 the Godhead bodily," Mr. Porter referred to Eph. iii. 19, in which 
 the Apostle prays that the Ephesian church might be " filled with all 
 the fulness of God ;" and he told me, that 1 might as well argue for 
 the proper Deity of all the members of that church, in consequence 
 of this passage. liet me examine the comparison here instituted. 
 The passage in Col. ii. 9, is an asserlionm the following form in the 
 original : on h ahru) xaro/xs?" -rav rh 'xXri^M/MU rrji ^iorrjTog dMjiariy.ojg ; ill 
 which the Apostle employs five most emphatic and expressive terms, 
 to denote the Deity of Christ: " In him dwelleth all the fulness of 
 the Godhead bodily." But the passage in Eph. iii. 19, which Mr. 
 Porter considers as parallel to this, is sprayer, and of a vastly different 
 nature. He does not pray that all the members of the Ephesian 
 church might be filled " tvfth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,'* 
 but that they might be filled "unto" or "towards all the fulness of 
 God ;" for the Greek is, ha. rrXri^MSy^rs sig mv rh 'TrXyjPuijbcc roZ Qio\J. And 
 who could suppose that the latter passage bears the slightest resem- 
 blance to the passage in Col ii. 9 ? The Apostle had no intention 
 of representing it as even possible, that the Ephesian Christians could 
 be filled with all the fulness of the Godhead ! He merely holds forth 
 the unsullied amplitude of Jehovah's moral glory as the standard 
 towards which believers were to endeavour, as it were, to approxi- 
 mate; upon the same principle upon which the Saviour says to his 
 disciples, "Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect"! But 
 he full well knew, that, even in the remotest ages of eternity, the infi- 
 nite distance between the creature and the Creator will be definitely 
 preserved ; and that the holiness of the saints, even in their highest 
 state of exaltation, though perfect in its kind, will still continue to 
 be but a shadow of the moral glory of God ! 
 
 Mr. Porter has again adverted to our Saviour's answer to the 
 request of the mother of Zebedee's children, contained in Matt. xx. 
 23 : "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give; 
 but it shall be given to them for whom it has been prepared of my 
 Father;" — and he argued, in reply to my remarks upon this passage, 
 that the mother of Zebedee's children did not make such distinctions 
 as to the two conditions of Christ which I did, but addressed him in 
 reference to his whole person. I beg to ask him, What have the 
 views of this woman to do with the question ? In all probability, she 
 was a Socinian like Nicodemus, or an Arian like Martha. Mr. 
 Porter says, " It is quite plain that Christ had not the power, t« any 
 
 Z 
 
irs 
 
 sense, lo bestow the solicited honour." But I challenge him to prove 
 this assertion. It is strange, that he who elsewhere claims the pre- 
 rogative of acting by an unlimited power, as in his reply to the leper, 
 " I will, be thou clean," and his declaration to his disciples, " If ye 
 shall ask any thing in my name, / will do, it," — should, in this in- 
 stance, disclaim that power, by an absolute and unqualified declara- 
 tion. Mr, Porter has asserted, that the mode of explanation which 
 I have applied to this passage involves a charge of equivocation 
 against the Saviour; and he endeavoured to illustrate his meaning, 
 by a reference to a Bishop giving away a good living. Now, as to 
 this illustration, all I shall say is, that I wish he would make it good 
 in my case ! but as to the logical principle involved in it, I must 
 maintain, that my explanation of the text does not imply the slight- 
 est charge of equivocation against the Saviour. For, I request you 
 to attend to the phraseology which Christ adopts. He uses the pre- 
 sent tense : " To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to 
 give." He does not say, " To sit on my right hand and on my left, 
 will not be mine to give." And the reason of his speaking in the 
 present tense, is obviously this : Because, at the time ivhen he spoke 
 these words, he was in a state of humiliation ; he had emptied him- 
 self of his pre-existent glory ; and he could not, consistently with 
 these circumstances, have asserted his right to dispose of the hon- 
 ours and dignities of his kingdom, until after he had crushed the 
 serpent's head, and had overcome the powers and principalities of 
 darkness. And all this is declared in Rev. iii. 21, where he expressly 
 asserts the very prerogative which Mr. Porter thinks that he denies 
 in Matt, xx, 23 : " To him that overcomelh, will I grant to sit with 
 me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my 
 Father in his throne." 
 
 I HAVE NOW DISPOSED OF ALL THE OBJECTIONS WHICH Mr. 
 
 Porter has advanced against the Deity of Christ; and I 
 wish, in concluding the argumentative part of this discussion, as far 
 as I am concerned, to propose a plain and simple question to this 
 audience, which contains in it a strong negative argument, not merely 
 for the Deity of Christ, but in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 And I shall propose this question, with the view of submitting it to 
 the conscience and candid investigation of every person who denies 
 the Deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. The question is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 How do you account for this fact — that, in every description pre- 
 sented to our minds, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of 
 the Revelation, of what is passing in the invisible heavens, the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost are never once represented as 
 OFFERING Worship, or doing Homage, on their own account, 
 and in their highest character and condition, to any supe- 
 rior Being ? 
 
 I call upon those who deny the Deity of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost to account for that astounding circumstance. And let them 
 recollect, that angels, as well as men, are represented as worshipping 
 Jehovah — that the Psalmist repeatedly calls upon every order and 
 
1T9 
 
 classification of created intelligences, by a distinct and expressed 
 reference, to worship God ; and, as if the animated creation did not 
 afford objects enough upon whom to call, he addresses the sun and 
 moon, the rocks and trees, and mountains and hills, and cliallenges 
 them to join in the universal anthem of nature, to celebrate the ma- 
 jesty and glory of that Great Being from whom all their brightness 
 and their beauty was derived ! And yet the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost are never so appealed to ; and yet how much would it have 
 tended to magnify and exalt the glory of Jehovah, that he should 
 have been described, not merely as receiving the homage of all the 
 armies of heaven, and all the inhabitants of the earth, but as being 
 the object of the adoration of two such exalted beings ! Let Mr. 
 Porter produce an instance of the Son or the Holy Ghost offering 
 worship in heaven on their own account, and in their abstract con- 
 dition, to any superior being, and the controversy on the subject of 
 the Trinity will be decided in his favour ! He may perhaps tell me, 
 that Christ intercedes for his people at the right hand of the Father. 
 I answer, however, that this is not a case in point. The Saviour in- 
 tercedes, in his official capacity as Mediator, on account of those for 
 whom he has achieved the work of redemption, and he does not re- 
 quire for himself those blessings for which he intercedes. There is, 
 therefore, no such instance in Scripture of the Son and Holy Ghost 
 offering homage to another being, as would prove their inferiority; 
 and I maintain that this can only be accounted for on the principle 
 of their not being creatures, and because they, with the Father, are 
 the ONE true and everlasting God. 
 
 I SHALL NOW DRAW THE GENERAL CONCLUSION FROM THE ENTIRE 
 TRAIN OF REASONING WHICH I HAVE ADVANCED THROUGHOUT THIS 
 
 DISCUSSION. I came here to argue for the true Deity of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ as the Word ; and I trust I have been enabled, by 
 the grace of God, to do so in a satisfactory manner. 1 now lay 
 down this principle, in order to illustrate the force of the reasoning 
 I have advanced, — that no man can deny the Deity of the Son, 
 
 WITHOUT AT the SAME TIME DENYING THiJ DeITY OF THE Fy^THER. 
 
 This principle will appear evident from the following comparison of 
 texts, from which, as a specimen, it will be seen that the Scriptural 
 proofs for the Deity of the Son are as clear and convincing as those 
 for the Deity of the Father, viz. — 
 
 Proofs of the Deity of ihe Father. 
 
 Abba, Father, all things are possible 
 unto thee. — Mark xiv. 36. 
 
 Father, forgive them ; for they know 
 not what they do. — Luke xxiii. 34. 
 
 Father, into thy bands I commend my 
 spirit — Ldke xxiii. 46. 
 
 The true worshippers shall rvorship 
 the Father. — John iv. 21. 
 
 IVly Father worketh hitherto. — John 
 V. 17. 
 
 Pr oofs of the Deity of the Son. 
 
 He is able even to subdue all things 
 unto himself. — Phil. iii. 21. 
 
 Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. 
 — .\CTS vii. 60. 
 
 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. — Acts 
 vii. 59. 
 
 Let all the angels of God worship 
 him. — Heb. i. 6. 
 
 And I Kork. — Jons v. 17. 
 
180 
 
 Proofs of the Deity of the Father. 
 
 What things soever the Father doeth. 
 — John v. 19. 
 
 As the Father raiseth up the dead, 
 and quichenelh them. — John v. 21. 
 
 Even as they honour the Father. — 
 JOHN.V. 23. 
 
 As the Father hnoweth me. — John 
 X. 15, 
 
 Proofs of the Deity of the Son, 
 
 The same doeth the Son likewise. — 
 John v. 19. 
 
 Even so the Son quichenelh whom he 
 will. — John v. 21. 
 
 That all men should honour the Son. 
 — John v. 23. 
 
 Even so know I the Father. — John 
 X. 15. 
 
 Now, let these two classes of texts be considered in juxtaposition; 
 let the declarations in one be compared attentively with the decla- 
 rations in the other. You have one class of passages which ascribe 
 the attributes of Deity to the Father ; and you have, on the other 
 hand, a similar class of texts which ascribe the very same attributes 
 to the Son : — I argue, then, that any principle of reasoning which 
 Mr. Porter may adopt in order to overthrow the doctrine of the true 
 Deity of Christ which I derive from the latter, will virtually and 
 necessarily act as a lever to upset the doctrine of the true Deity of 
 the Father, which Mr. Porter derives from the former. So that he 
 must either involve himself in the responsibility of arguing upon 
 principles which would represent the Bible as a system of Atheism, 
 in which no Deity is revealed at all ; or he must agree with me in 
 receiving as scriptural, the doctrine which I now state as my general 
 conclusion from this entire discussion, — that the Lord Jesus Christ 
 
 POSSESSES, AS THE WORD, THE SAME ETERNITY, KNOWLEDGE, POWER, 
 AUTHORITY, PREROGATIVES, AND GODHEAD WITH THE FATHER, AND 
 IS ONE WITH HIM IN ALL ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 I shall now employ the remainder of my time in taking advantage 
 of the peculiar privilege which the Lord has conferred upon me — of 
 raising my voice within these walls, to proclaim those glorious state- 
 ments of his Gospel which are intimately connected with the doctrine 
 of the Saviour's Deity ; and on account of which, I consider that sub- 
 ject to be supremely important, and have embraced the present op- 
 portunity of defending it by argument. If it could be proved to me, 
 that the doctrine of the true Deity of Christ were nothing more than 
 a piece of intellectual information, invented in order to glare or asto- 
 nish the thinking powers of man ; — if it could be proved, that it were 
 a, mere abstract theory, divested of every practical influence; — then I 
 should at once renounce and discard it, because I am informed in Scrip- 
 ture, that Christianity is a system of moral motives, and that every 
 constituent doctrine of Christianity is "according to godliness." I 
 argue, then, for the Deity of Christ, because it is the primary and 
 most essential principle of the Gospel ; because it is the nucleus — the 
 vitality — the essence — the axiom — the very originating principle of 
 the religion of Jesus Christ ! The doctrine of the Saviour's Deity 
 is, as it were, the key-stone, which, by its inserted pressure, binds 
 and consolidates into one compact body, the whole system of divine 
 truth ! The sentiments which men entertain in reference to the per- 
 sonal dignity of Christ, constitute a test and index of their general 
 
181 
 
 creed ; and are, as it were, a sort of moral barometer, by which we 
 can measure ihe elevation or depression of their opinions upon the 
 other doctrines of the Gospel. Those, for instance, who believe that 
 Christ was nothing more than a man, must rely exclusively upon 
 their own performances for justification, pardon, and peace, in time, 
 and for glory and everlasting happiness in eternity ; and as they 
 superadd to this belief an opinion that the Holy Ghost is nothing 
 more than an attribute, they must believe, that they can attain to 
 that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord, by their own 
 endeavours to sanctify and purify themselves, independently of that 
 process which the Bible reveals as exclusively of the operation of 
 the Spirit of God. And — if we ascend somewhat higher — the man 
 who believes that Christ was an angel or a superangelic being, may 
 perhaps profess to avail himself to a certain extent of his services, 
 and, by adding the merit of Christ to his own good works, may thereby 
 imagine, that he is resting his plea upon a sure foundation. But the 
 Scripture recognises no such basis of justification : a righteousness 
 composed of such heterogeneous qualities can never stand the test of 
 the scrutinizing eye of the Almighty ! The man who does not be- 
 lieve in the true Deity of Christ, can never entertain an adequate or 
 correct opinion in reference to the other doctrines of the Gospel — 
 he can have no proper idea of that system of salvation which can 
 justify the sinner here, and glorify the believer hereafter. If Christ 
 be not God, of what avail is his work P If Christ were only a crea- 
 ture, every work he achieved, every action he performed, was neces- 
 sary to fulfil those infinite obligations under which he lay, in common 
 with all created beings, to serve, to honour, and to obey his Creator. 
 If Christ were only a creature, commissioned to perform the mere 
 work of a prophet or a messenger, might not some inferior being 
 have been selected from a lower class of created existences, who 
 would have discharged the office as well? and might not the "only- 
 begotten Son of God" have been exempted from a commission 
 attended with so much suffering and disgrace? And how could the 
 Holy Spirit sanctify, unless he is divine? He could have no com- 
 mand over the sentiments or feelings of men — no power to control 
 their will — no faculty of universal and perpetual presence, by virtue 
 of which he could dwell in every member of the church, and carry 
 on the work of sanctification in every believer's soul. 
 
 But more awful consequences, still, are attendant upon a denial 
 of the Deity of Christ : it neutralizes and destroys the infinite cha- 
 racter of the Father's love. Observe the strong and emphatic 
 terms in which the Bible speaks of the love of God: " God so loved 
 the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
 lieveth in him might not perish, but have eternal life." — "He that 
 spared not his own Son, but freely gave him up for us all, how shall 
 he not with him also freely give us all things." — " In this was mani- 
 fested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only- 
 begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 
 " Herein is love"— as if there were love in nothing else — " not that 
 we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the pro- 
 pitiation for our sins." Here the love of God is estimated and valued 
 
182 
 
 by the dignity of his Son ; hut if Christ were merely a creature, 
 what would become of the infinite character of the Father's love ? 
 Could not that same physical omnipotence of the Eternal, which, 
 upon Mr. Porter's principles, commanded the Lord Jesus Christ into 
 existence, have created millions of similarly exalted beings to supply 
 the place of that one which God had surrendered as an atonement 
 for sin? Surely, the doctrine which represents the Saviour as 
 merely a creature, deriving his existence and attributes at an im- 
 measurable distance from his Creator, altogether annihilates the love 
 of the Father to the world I 
 
 But observe the influence which the denial of the Saviour's 
 Deity has in reference to the love of Christ himself. The Scrip- 
 tures are replete with animated representations of the length and 
 breadth and height and depth of the love of Christ, which passeth 
 all understanding ! If Christ, however, were nothing more than a 
 created being, what becomes of the infinite condescension of his 
 love— the extreme disinterestedness of that philanthrophy which no 
 human or angelic intellect can scan ? Let me refer you to that de- 
 scription to which Mr. Porter has alluded, of the mediatorial exalta- 
 tion of the Redeemer, which you will find in Phil. ii. 9 to 11: 
 "Wherefore (in consequence of his previous condescension) God 
 also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above 
 every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; 
 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to 
 the glory of God the Father." Now, let me appeal to your candid 
 and impartial judgments, where could have been the disinterestedness 
 in a created being, no matter how exalted, submitting to undergo 
 the temporary humiliation which the Saviour underwent — enduring a 
 few short hours of suffering, no matter how intense, with this glorious 
 prospect before his view, that, when the period of his debasement 
 had expired, he should be raised to a transcendent elevation at the 
 right hand of God — promoted, as it were, into a state of competition 
 with the majesty, the power, and prerogatives of the Eternal — ap- 
 pointed to the office of Universal Judge ; and should, in fact, bs 
 represented as superseding his Creator in the execution of those 
 works which none but Deity could achieve ? If Christ were a crea- 
 ture, his philanthropy was not disinterested — his love was dictated 
 by motives of personal ambition and of self-aggrandisement. For I 
 lay down this as an incontrovertible principle, that there must have 
 been, even in the highest mediatorial exaltation of Christ, something 
 of condescension and humiliation, in order to preserve the disinterested 
 character of his love to man. In undertaking the office of Mediator, 
 his primary motive must have been to release those sinful creatures 
 who were lost in a state of moral dereliction and transgression, and 
 for whom he interposed by that sublime act of philanthropy which 
 the Gospel describes. He must have been actuated by a desire to 
 promote their spiritual prosperity and happiness, both here and here- 
 after. But unless we admit that he was true God, — one with the 
 Father, we cannot contemplate his mediatorial interference in this 
 point of view • but we neutralize altogether the infinity of his love. 
 
183 
 
 and represent the work which he has achieved as an act of selfish- 
 ness, and not of benevolence ! Alas ! alas ! how these systems 
 which deny the true Deity of Christ — how they scorch and wither 
 the sentiments of men in reference to the infinity o^ the love of God ! 
 Methinks th«y are like as if Satan bad kindled a torch in the lowest 
 flames of hell, in order to burn and consume the love of the Father 
 and the Son; but with which he has only succeeded in producing a 
 lurid glare, that has dazzled the intellectual faculties of man, so as 
 to prevent their discerning the light of the glory and love of God as 
 it shines in the face of Jesus Christ ! 
 
 But let me turn your attention to the sad effect which a denial 
 of the Saviour's Deify has upon the prospects of man for eternity. 
 It is a truth written, as with a sunbeam, upon every page of Scrip- 
 ture, that man is by nature a fallen, a guilty, a condemned creature, 
 obnoxious to the righteous judgment of God. We are told, that "the 
 heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" — that 
 " all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God :" Jehovah him- 
 self is represented as looking down from heaven upon the children of 
 men, to investigate their characters with that omniscient ken by 
 which he explores the utmost boundaries of the illimitable universe, 
 and pronouncing this solemn verdict — "There is none righteous; no, 
 not one:" and the Apostle Paul, when reminding the Ephesian Church 
 of their past unregenerate condition, says that ihey were "children 
 of wrath, even as others." If man, then, be in a guilty and con- 
 demned state by nature, it is an awful and important question, Hoia 
 shall he obtain pardon and justification with God, on account of his 
 past transgressions? and how shall his sinful and unholy nature be 
 sanctified and prepared for admission into the realms of everlasting 
 glory ? Can personal repentance, on the part of the sinner, obliterate 
 the crime of which he has been guilty, so as to reinstate him into the 
 condition of a sinless and unfallen being ? Unquestionably not. For 
 whatever act has been performed by God, or angels, or by man, must 
 remain for ever written upon the pages of eternity, never to be erased ; 
 and, therefore, no subsequent repentance on the sinner's part, — no tears 
 of sorrow or contrition, can ever blot out his past transgressions ; 
 nor even could the united tears of angels erase the record of those 
 offences for which man is brought in guilty before God I Can, then, 
 subsequent obedience achieve the work of the sinner's justification? 
 This, alas! will prove as ineffectual as repentance; for though we 
 should render to God a perfect obedience for the remainder of our 
 lives, still the sin we have committed is sufficient to |irocureour con- 
 viction and condemnation ; for the wages of sin is death ! Shall we, 
 then, have recourse to the abstract mercy of God, as the foundation 
 upon which to rest our hope of pardon ? This is the Unitarian's 
 plea: "I believe," he says, "that God is merciful; and I repose in 
 his kindness, and trust he will have compassion upon me." Alas, 
 my friends ! it was bad enough that Mr. Porter should have yester- 
 day adopted the algebraic principle of neutralizing one text of Scrip- 
 ture by another; but to carry up this principle to a contemplation 
 of the character of God, and to bring it into collision with the attri- 
 butes of Jehovah, and thus to set his mercy against his justice — his 
 
184 
 
 compassion against his truth — his grace against his holiness, and 
 thereby to neutralize and annihilate one class of attributes by 
 another, is a guilt that is direful, blasphemous, and indescribable, 
 equal to the crime for which Satan was banished out of heaven into 
 hell ! Methinks, if I could look back upon that important epoch in 
 eternity when God, in the council-chambers of heaven, devised the 
 atonement — when the eternal Three sat down, as it were, to con- 
 stitute and plan the scheme of redemption, — the axiom they assumed, 
 the postulate they adopted, the principle they considered essentially 
 necessary to be at all hazards maintained, was this : That God's 
 justice must be satisfied, before he could become the justifier of the 
 ungodly — that his holiness and truth must be vindicated, by a satis- 
 factory compensation, before his mercy could be dispensed to the 
 fallen family of man ; and that the law must be vindicated, by the 
 fulfilment of its precepts, and the endurance of its penalties, be- 
 fore the sinner could be freed from its condemnation, and justified 
 freely by the grace of God. To meet these requirements, the Saviour 
 became incarnate, and achieved a work which constitutes a basis of 
 justification which meets the demands of God, and the necessities of 
 man. He wrought out a perfect righteousness for his people. He 
 was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the 
 chastisement by which our peace has been effected was laid on him, 
 and by his stripes we are healed. This is the view which the Bible 
 gives of the philanthropy of the Saviour : " lie is the end of the law 
 for righteousness to every one that believeth" — " He was made a 
 curse for us ;" and observe how he sustained that curse : — sorrow was 
 the very essence of the curse, as denounced against Adam ; so Christ 
 was a man of sorrows. The loss of the communion of God was 
 another item in the curse against sin ; and this the Saviour sustained 
 when, in all the agonies of conscious dereliction, he exclaimed, "My 
 God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Death was another por- 
 tion of the curse; for the law has said, "The soul that sinneth it shall 
 surely die;" and, as the sinner's substitute and representative, the 
 Saviour fulfilled the law and died upon the cross, that we might live 
 through him. We can account for the sufferings and death of the 
 Saviour upon no other principle. For how could we reconcile it with 
 the j ustice and mercy of a righteous God, that a sinless and holy being 
 should have undergone so much superfluous suffering, if the work which 
 he came to achieve were merely that of a messenger or prophet, which 
 might have been discharged without such an awful expense of agony 
 as Christ endured ? But we must admit the atonement of the Saviour 
 upon Scriptural grounds: for we are told that "once in the end of the 
 world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice cf himself ;" 
 that "He who knew no sin was made sin," or a sin-offering, "for 
 us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him ;" and 
 that "by one sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are sanc- 
 tified." And now let me show the necessary connexion which there 
 is between the Deity of the Saviour, and his righteousness and 
 atonement. We know that no created or fnite being can perform 
 more than what is his duty to do; for, after all he may have done, 
 he will still be only an unprofitable servant. The very essence and 
 
185 
 
 fundamental principle of the work of Christ, consistine; of his right- 
 eousness and atonement, is this, that it is an act of supererogation 
 intended to be transferred to the account and benefit of others. But 
 no created being could execute such a transferable work ; and if 
 Christ were a creature, his righteousness was required for his own 
 personal justification, and could not be communicated as the ground- 
 work of acceptance to man. We must, then, admit his Deity, in 
 order to give to the work which he achieved in his humanity a value 
 corresponding with the infinite dignity of his character, and com- 
 mensurate with the necessities of the sinner. But what, on the other 
 hand, is the natural effect of a denial of the Saviour's Deity ? It 
 annihilates the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and elevates self 
 as a Saviour in his stead ! — for if Christ be not our Saviour, we must 
 be resting on our own works for salvation. And now, my friends, I 
 would desire affectionately and earnestly to bring home this impor- 
 tant subject to the consciences of every individual in this vast as- 
 sembly. I would wish to propose this question personally to my 
 friend, Mr. Porter, and I would say to him, and to each of you — As 
 you are now in the presence of that God who will judge the quick 
 and dead at his appearing and his kingdom, can you place your 
 hands upon your hearts, and say, in the full assurance of that faith 
 which is the believer's privilege — " We give thanki unto the Father, 
 which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the 
 saints in light ; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 
 and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son ; in whom 
 we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" i* 
 Attend, here, to the force of the word " have." The privileges of 
 the believer are as much in possession as in prospect. Every one who 
 is in Christ, not having his own righteousness, but his, has the for- 
 giveness of sins as a present blessing, which he obtained by grace, 
 when he was enabled to believe ; as the Apostle says to the Ephesian 
 Church (chap. iv. 32), when he directs them " to be kind one to 
 another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for 
 Christ's sake, hath forgiven them;" and the Apostle Peter describes 
 the believer's privilege in language proportionably strong, where he 
 says, (I Pet. ii. 25) — "Ye were as sheep, going astray, but are now 
 returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." I say, then, 
 it is the believer's privilege to have, in consequence of the redemp- 
 tion that is in Christ, in present and actual possession, the full, 
 free, and irreversible pardon of all his transgressions. And why 
 should not this be his privilege ? Who shall lay any thing to the 
 charge of God's elect, whom God himself hath justified ? Who shall 
 condemn those for whom the Saviour died ? And when Christ ex- 
 pired upon Calvary, did he perform an incomplete or inefficient 
 work ? Surely not; or else he never would have uttered that expir- 
 ing exclamation which marked the triumphant consummation of his 
 sacrifice — " It is finished !" The object of his achievement was to 
 remove the vail of the curse, which interposed between the condition 
 of man and the forgiving kindness and love of (he Eternal ; and when 
 he pronounced these words, he had taken away every obstacle which 
 prevented the mercy of Jehovah from shining in all its amplitude 
 
 A A 
 
186 
 
 upon the moral ruins of this apostate world. Christ, then, did not 
 leave his work half finished, but brought it to a glorious and benig- 
 nant termination ; and there is now nothing to prevent the very vilest 
 sinner from looking to a crucified Saviour, and rejoicing in the doc- 
 trine of a full and gracious pardon, which is a reflection from the 
 cross upon the soul of every Christian that looketh unto Jesus, the 
 Author and Finisher of his Faith. But how, you will ask, shall the 
 sinner become interested in the Saviour's work ? How shall he appro- 
 priate to himself the blessings which Christ has purchased by his 
 death ? The Bible says, in reply to this inquiry, " Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Faith is represented 
 in Scripture as the connecting link which binds the sinner to the 
 Saviour, and gives him an appropriating interest in the Saviour's 
 work, and in every blessing which the interference of Christ has 
 obtained. "He that believefh on him is not condemned." — "He 
 that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." Christ is the pri- 
 mary object of the sinner's faith ; and every blessing, such as justi- 
 fication, pardon, peace, and holiness, are the secondary objects of 
 the sinner's faith, reflected back upon the soul from a believing 
 view of the Saviour, as he is held forth in the Gospel : for Christ 
 is made unto us, of God, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctifica- 
 tion, and redemption ; and in him we have redemption through 
 his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his 
 grace. And what are the benefits which result to the sinner, from 
 a believing view of the Saviour ? Being justified by faith, he has 
 peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Justification, which 
 implies the acceptance of our persons, inclusive of the pardon of our 
 sins, is the first gift of the grace of God in the Saviour. And, ob- 
 serve that the Apostle does not represent justification as the object 
 oi hope, but as the object of /ai7/t. We are not merely directed to 
 hope, with the Unitarian, that God will pardon our sins at the hour 
 of death, or at the day of judgment — we are not merely privileged to 
 hope in his mercy ; but w^e are directed in the Gospel to look to the 
 finished work of Emmanuel, and to believe that in him we have 
 redemption, even the forgiveness of our sins. I repeat it : The 
 Christian is not justified by hope, but hy faith. He is not merely to 
 expect &. future pardon, but to believe in a present pardon. Such is 
 the concurrent testimony of the Gospel : " There is now therefore no 
 condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
 the flesh, but after the spirit." — "I write unto you, little children," 
 says the beloved disciple, " because your sins are forgiven you for 
 his name's sake." And the Apostle Paul, in a passage already re- 
 ferred to, says, " Being justified by faith, we have peace with God ;" 
 evidently implying, that the believer is a pardoned and accepted sin- 
 ner, and that he has joy and peace in believing that his sins have 
 been freely pardoned, through the reconciliation effected by Christ. 
 Hope has another and a diflferent object from justification. It refers 
 principally to the glory and blessedness of immortality. The basis, 
 the residence, the object, the tendency, of hope, are strikingly de- 
 scribed by the apostle in Col. i. 27, where he says, that the riches 
 of the mystery of the Gospel is Christ in the believer the hope 
 
187 
 
 OF GLORY. Observe the force and beauty of this dedurnlion : Tlie 
 roo/ of every attainment and principle of spiritual fertility is "Christ;" 
 ihe soil in which that root is planted by faith, and in which it germi- 
 nates, is" in you ;" the ascending stem, which rises from earth to heaven, 
 under (he influence of the Spirit, is " hope ;" ihe/ruit, which will be 
 displayed in rich luxuriance within the Paradise of God, blooming 
 in the atmosphere of immortality, is " glory ;" — a glory which eye 
 hath not seen, which ear hath not heard, and which it hath not en- 
 tered into the heart of man to conceive : for it doth not yet appear 
 what we shall be ; but we know that, when Christ shall appear, we 
 shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is ! 
 
 Now I assert, most explicitly, that an abandonment of the doc- 
 trine of the Deity of Christ, obliterates the atonement, and 
 frustrates the entire work of the Saviour. In fact, if Christ be not 
 God, he is not a Saviour : if He be not a Saviour, there is no salva- 
 tion ; for there is no other name given under heaven amongst men, 
 whereby we can be saved. If there be no salvation, there can be no 
 peace of conscience in the sinner's soul — no hope of glory to shed a 
 calm and tranquil lustre upon the otherwise dark and perplexing 
 path, which leads from time to the unexplored regions of eternity. 
 And if there be no peace of conscience here, and no hope of glory 
 hereafter, there is but one alternative — a fearful looking-for of judg- 
 ment and fiery indignation, which will destroy the transgressors. 
 Would to God, my friends, — and I speak with all the sincerity 
 and solemnity of feeling with which, as a minister of the gospel, I 
 ought to be impressed, when I address immortal and accountable 
 beings upon those subjects which concern eternity, — would to God, 
 that every individual who now hears me — whether amongst those who 
 hold what are termed Unitarian views, or amongst those of other 
 denominations, who are destitute of the vitality and power of godli- 
 ness, — were at this moment savingly converted to God, and that this 
 were the hour of your justification, so that you might depart from 
 this assembly with the Spirit of God speaking peace to your con- 
 sciences ; and that, as the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing when 
 Philip had spoken to him of Christ, so you might be enabled to 
 walk through your earthly pilgrimage, rejoicing in that name which 
 is above every name; being washed,. and sanctified, and accepted, 
 through him who died for your sins, and rose again for your justifi. 
 cation ; evincing your love to the Redeemer by keeping his com- 
 mandments, and looking for that redemption which will be fully 
 consummated at the second coming of Christ, who shall change the 
 bodies of our humiliation, so as to transform them into a likeness 
 with his glorified body, by that energy wherewith he is able even to 
 subdue all things unto himself. 
 
 And now — may that great Being, in whose smile the angels of 
 heaven exist — and whose glory, and majesty, and mercy, constitute 
 the very atmosphere from which the unfallen and sainted inmates 
 of the universe derive all their moral beauty and felicity — may He 
 graciously pardon in me, his unworthy servant, whatever, throughout 
 this discussion, I have spoken inconsistently with the sacred truths of 
 his word ; and may be, by a display of that moral omnipotence which 
 
188 
 
 he has ever at command— cause the brightness and illumination 
 which surrounds his throne, gradually and gradually to expand, until 
 it shall comprehend within its ample and uncircumscribed circum- 
 ference, the dark and dismal intellects of those who reject his Gospel 
 and deny his Son ! 
 
 At the close of Mr. Bagot's address, Mr. PORTER said that 
 he had a question which he would be glad to propose to that gentle- 
 man, if the regulations permitted. 
 
 Mr. BAGOT Slated that, in his opinion, the 4th rule, which gave 
 the privilege of asking such questions, did not contemplate the closing 
 address of either party. In this decision the Chairmen concurred, 
 and the question was not put. 
 
 Me. porter. — Throughout the whole of this controversy, I 
 have always been pleased to hear Mr. Bagot raise his powerful voice 
 to its highest pitch, and to find him delivering his sentiments with 
 those graces of oratory, of which he is so consummate a master : for 
 I have uniformly observed, that, in proportion to the redundance of 
 his declamation, was the deficiency of his argument ; and, in the 
 inverse ratio of the sound emitted, was the quantity of sense which 
 the sound conveyed. You may imagine, therefore, with what delight 
 I heard him commence the sermon on the Atonement, which hp has 
 just delivered. You may imagine the pleasure which I felt, when I 
 beheld Mr. Bagot turn away from the subject which has brought us 
 here this day, to indulge in a harangue, which had no more connex- 
 ion with that important topic, than with any other in the whole circle 
 of controversial theology ! But there was one point in his harangue, 
 
 which standing before you, and before the public, as a man, I trust, 
 
 of some pretensions to an honest name — I feel it incumbent upon 
 me not to pass over in silence. 1 refer to that part of his speech, in 
 which Mr. Bagot talked so loudly and so fervently concerning the 
 guilt of BLASPHEMY, as attaching itself to those who hold certain 
 opinions, which, whether truly or falsely, he imputed to me, and 
 those who generally agree with me in theological opinion. Now, I 
 appeal to all who are here present, whether, when two gentlemen 
 meet to make arrangements for the public discussion of a great sub- 
 ject, it could be anticipated that this was to be the way in which the 
 debate should be conducted ? I appeal to every gentleman who 
 hears me, and who is acquainted with the practice of debate in pub- 
 lic assemblies, whether this is the usage which prevails, — I do not say 
 among ministers of religion only, but among any men who support 
 a respectable rank in society, — when they come together to consider 
 JM common the arguments on both sides of a disputed question? Is 
 it not, among persons of this description, the first rule of debate, that 
 nothing shall be imputed to an opponent that implies criminality, 
 gratuitously, or without direct proof? And, I ask. What blacker 
 charge could be advanced against me, — a professed follower of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and a minister of his Holy Gospel, than the 
 abominable and atrocious one of blasphemy .? — such blasphemy, too, 
 
189 
 
 that, compared witli if, the crime for which Satan was expelled from 
 heaven sinks into insignificance! I hope that Mr. Bagot himself, on 
 reflection, will be sorry for the expression, and will retract it ; but, 
 until it be retracted, I never will reciprocate with him the lauguage 
 of friendship ! He is so fond of calling me his friend, that he re- 
 peated the phrase, even after — and almost immediately after — impu- 
 ting to me the crime of blasphemy! I say again, that, until the 
 offensive expression is retracted, I will not bestow that name on him. 
 I know what is due to my own character. This hand is clean; and 
 never shall it grasp in friendship that of the man who attempts to 
 fasten upon me this odious imputation. 
 
 Mr. Bagot has not failed, in his last speech, — nor, indeed, in 
 almost any previous one, — to taunt me with keeping something of 
 my real opinions in reserve; and he has even extended the accusa- 
 tion to that religious body with which it is my happiness and — hu- 
 manly speaking — my pride to be connected. It is an honour and a 
 happiness to be connected with the Unitarian body, and I feel it so; 
 for I feel and glory in the conviction, that, with a body of men more 
 liberal, more intelligent, more inspired with the charity of the Gospel, 
 I could not be connected. Mr. Bagot has taunted me, and the other 
 members of this religious body, with keeping something in reserve, 
 and with not avowing our real sentiments. But I appeal to every 
 individual who hears me now, and has heard me throughout this 
 entire discussion, whether, if chargeable with any fault in the manage- 
 ment of my argument, it has not been one of a directly opposite kind. 
 I appeal to every person who dispassionately listened to me, whether 
 •I have not repeatedly made admissions, which I knew would be laid 
 hold of to be turned against me — which, in point of fact, were so 
 turned against me ; and from which, had I chosen to practise the 
 wisdom of the serpent, I should cautiously have abstained ! This 
 charge, therefore, I fearlessly pronounce, is not founded on fact, and 
 will not tell with the public, who have attended here throughout this 
 debate. But to prevent this accusation from being circulated and 
 credited by those who, not having been here in person, will take their 
 accounts of the controversy from vague rumour and anonymous re- 
 port, I now repeat, on purpose that it may'appear in the printed nar- 
 rative of these proceedings, the leading articles of the faith which I 
 hold concerning the subjects debated between myself and Mr. Bagot; 
 and they are these : — 
 
 I believe, then, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments contain a full, perfect, and explicit revelation of God's most 
 holy will ; that they are the only infallible standard of truth and 
 duty ; and that they are mercifully designed, and eminently calcu- 
 lated, to promote the dearest interests of men, as rational, moral, 
 and accountable beings. 
 
 I believe that these divine records unite with the voice of reason 
 and of nature, in proclaiming the great truth, which is the foun- 
 dation of all true religion, that there is One, and only OiNE, Eter. 
 NAL and Self-existent God — infinite in power, wisdom, goodness, 
 justice, holiness, mercy, and all other possible perfections. Upon 
 this immoveable basis, I rest my faith and hope ; and I believe, that 
 
19a 
 
 a departure from this great principle led to all the superstition and 
 idolatry of ancient days, and has produced all the corruptions of 
 Christianity which have prevailed in more modern times. I cling, 
 therefore, to the unrivalled Supremacy of the One God, the Father, 
 with a fidelity which cannot be shaken; and I maintain, as the plain- 
 est of all the doctrines taught in Scripture, the strict Unity of that 
 great God, who is not only the God of the universe, but, as the 
 Bible declares, is also the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Whilst I thus believe, on the sure warrant of Scripture, that there 
 is One God, I equally believe, on the same divine authority, that there 
 is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. I be- 
 lieve that this glorious and gracious being, who is called in Scripture 
 the Saviour and the Son of God, possessed glory with his Father 
 before the world was, and was beloved of the Father before the foun- 
 dation of the world. I believe that he came down from heaven, to 
 do the will of his Father who sent him, upon earth. I believe that 
 he is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation, 
 who became flesh and tabernacled among men, full of grace and 
 truth ; and, finally, that he is the exalted being, whom the Father 
 hath appointed to be the Judge of the living and of the dead. 
 
 But while 1 believe the words of Holy Writ which testify the 
 previous existence and glory of our Divine Master, and which ani- 
 mate my soul with gratitude for his amazing condescension in coming 
 to save sinners, I also believe that the Scriptures are not less express 
 and explicit on the subject of his subordination and inferiority to the 
 Father. 
 
 I believe that this great doctrine, which indicates the Unity and 
 Supremacy of God, runs through the whole of the New Testament. 
 I believe that it was the consistent and constant declaration of our 
 Lord himself; who, on every occasion, ascribed his power and wis- 
 dom and authority to the Father as its source, and represented him- 
 self only as the agent whom the Father employed in effecting his 
 purposes of mercy to the human race. I believe that the apostolic 
 writings are filled with texts, maintaining, in the clearest terms, the 
 unrivalled Supremacy of the Father; convincing us that there is but 
 One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ — that the head of 
 every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God ; and informing 
 us, that at the last, when all things shall be subdued unto the Son, 
 then shall the Son himself be put into subjection to him that put all 
 things under him, that God may be all in all. These things I believe, 
 and these things I maintain and teach. 
 
 That there are difficulties connected with the particulars of this 
 assemblage of religious truths, I have always felt; and have acknow- 
 ledged, in the course of this debate, with a candour which I should 
 have been glad to see imitated. I have allowed, and I allow, that 
 there are difficulties attached to my peculiar views of the Christian 
 doctrine. But, let me ask, what system of faith is there, or has there 
 ever been in the world, that has not been attended with its difficul- 
 ties and its doubts ? Where is the point of faith — where is the prin- 
 ciple of religion, whether natural or revealed, which has not been 
 
191 
 
 disputed and objected to — disputed and objected to, not by men of 
 captious and supercilious minds alone — not by those merely who seek 
 to be wise above what is written ; but by persons whom we cannot 
 but believe, in the exercise of that Christian charity which we all 
 hope to receive, to have been, in the main, sincere and good men, 
 and candid and honest inquirers after truth? Now, when such men 
 are driven into doubt or disbelief, there must be difficulties. To say 
 that my system has its difficulties, is only saying that it partakes of 
 a properly which is common to every doctrine under the sun. 
 
 And since I am taunted with these admitted difficulties, con- 
 nected with my creed, I ask, are there^none to be found in that sys- 
 tem which my reverend opponent has defended ? Is there no difficult, 
 no perplexing circumstance, connected with the faith which he pro- 
 fesses, either in the statements ot its creed, or in the proof of its 
 doctrines ? If there be no difficulties in Trinitarianism, why has 
 there been that reluctance against which I have so often and so 
 loudly exclaimed, to bring forward the doctrine of the Trinity as a 
 subject of discussion in this controversy ? Why is it that we heard, 
 from my reverend opponent, scarcely a word upon that point, until 
 now it comes out at the eleventh hour, when there is no time to 
 canvass its arguments, and examine its foundation ? If there be no 
 difficulties in the scheme of the Orthodox, how comes it, I would 
 ask, that all the Unitarian Churches that exist throughout the world 
 were originally formed of members gathered out of Trinitarian folds ? 
 If there are no difficulties connected with their system, how comes it 
 that the aspect of the world would justify the Orthodox in applying 
 .to their Unitarian brethren the words of John the Baptist to our 
 Lord — "He must increase, but I must decrease"? And how is it 
 that we sometimes hear it said, by Orthodox authorities themselves, 
 that Unitarianism is like the lion's den in the fable — 
 
 Vestigia nulla retrorsum I 
 
 But I go farther. If there be no doubts and difficulties connected 
 with the Trinitarian system, how comes it that Trinitarians them- 
 selves are so little united, even upon the true statement of tlie doc- 
 trine of the Trinity ? That there are differences of opinion subsist- 
 ing between various classes of Unitarians, — and more especially 
 between those among us who admit the pre-existence of Christ as a 
 Scripture doctrine, and those who cannot so receive it, — I have no 
 wish to conceal, and have never aflected to deny. Upon this point, 
 I have repeatedly, and in very express terms, declared to Mr. I3agot 
 my own peculiar views, so that he could have no room for doubt or 
 ambiguity. But I refused from the very first to make them the sub- 
 ject of controversy with Mr. Bagot. I reserved them, and reserve 
 them still, to be settled with my Unitarian brethren in our own calm, 
 dispassionate, rational, and charitable mode of conducting such dis- 
 cussions. Since, however, these differences of opinion among Uni- 
 tarians have been once and again referred to, I would ask Mr. Bagot, 
 whether there are no differences of opinion, even on the doctrine of 
 the Trinity itself , amon<^ orthodox mQn — jjersons who call themselves, 
 and are called by others, Trinitarians ; and who would be in no small 
 
192 
 
 degree indignant, were the justice of the appellation denied ! If 
 there are no differences of opinion among the nominally orthodox on 
 this subject, how is it, that in their controversies with each other, we 
 hear of the Ciceronian Trinity, and the Cartesian Trinity, and the 
 AristotelianTiinity, and the P/a^owic Trinity : all of them designated 
 bynames borrowed from profane philosophy — names which are con- 
 fessedly unknown to the writers of the New Testament, and to which 
 the Word of God gives no countenance ? If we are to embrace the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, are we to believe,- I would submissively in- 
 quire — are we to believe, with Dr. Wallis, whose opinion has been 
 sanctioned by a degree of the University of Oxford, that the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are no more three distinct, intelligent 
 persons, than the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
 God of Jacob, are three distinct Gods ? Or are we to acknowledge, 
 with Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, that the Three Persons of 
 the Trinity are as much three distinct infinite minds as Peter, James, 
 and John, are three men ? — an opinion which the learned body 
 before-named decree to be "false, impious, and heretical" ! Are 
 we to believe, with the Athanasian Creed, "that the Father is Al- 
 mighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty ; 
 and yet there are not three Almighties ; there is but one Almighty? 
 Or are we to believe, with Dr. Burnet, that the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost are created beings, and are God only by the indwelling of 
 the Father's Deity ? Are we to believe, with Bishop Gastrell, 
 that the Father includes the whole idea of God, and something more 
 — that the Son includes the whole idea of God, and something more — 
 and that the Holy Ghost includes the whole idea of God, and some- 
 thing more; while all three together make exactly one God, and 
 nothing more ? Or are we to believe, with Bishop Burgess, that the 
 Father is a persoa, but not a being; the Son is a person, but not a 
 being ; the Holy Ghost is a person, but not a being : and that these 
 three personal «o)^enf^7^es make one entire and perfect being? Such 
 the unintelligible jargon which is substituted for the simple doctrine 
 of Scripture, that there is One God, the Father, and One Lord, 
 Jesus Ck jst ! It is evident that each of these learned divines 
 believed in a Trinity of his own ; and each must have regarded all 
 the rest as ignorant, or deniers of the true God. Had my reverend 
 opponent considered these differences between the Orthodox them- 
 selves, jn a doctrine which, as his creed declares, unless a man be- 
 Jieves, " he shall without doubt perish everlastingly," perhaps his 
 sarcasms about the diversities of opinion among Unitarians on points 
 of far inferior moment, would have been spared. At all events, if 
 any argument be founded on such diversities, I have said enough to 
 show that it applies to his own system with much greater force than 
 it does to mine. 
 
 In the various addresses which I delivered since the first day 
 of this discussion, I was anxious to lay before you as much as 
 the time allotted to me would enable me to bring forward, of the 
 clear, full, and distinct evidence which the New Testament affords, 
 in proof of the doctrine which I embodied in the two propositions 
 whose defence I undertook. On account of the number of texts 
 
193 
 
 which I had to adduce, it was not easy for me to crowd even a 
 copious selection from the entire number into my speeches, and, at 
 the same time, to answer all the arguments adduced by Mr. Bagot. 
 In order to do justice to my cause, I felt myself obliged to take up 
 a good part of the entire time allotted to me, in laying before you 
 the direct evidence on my own side of the argument. It was not 
 easy, having so much business of my own to perform, to follow Mr. 
 Bagot in all his devious labyrinths, to trace him in every turn, and hunt 
 him out of those intricate coverts in which his mysterious doctrines 
 were concealed. Having now a little time remaining, I shall not 
 follow the example, which he has set, of deviating from the subject 
 of debate ; but shall employ my leisure in canvassing some of the 
 reasonings which he has brought forward. These arguments I shall 
 endeavour to state as fairly and as impartially as if I believed in their 
 cogency myself. Mr. Bagot, you must remember, argued with great 
 confidence for the clear proof of the proper Deity of the Word, lo 
 be derived from 1 John v. 20 : 
 
 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that 
 we may know Him that is true : and we are in Him that is true, in his Son Jesus 
 Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 
 
 (The latter part of the verse is in the original, xaJ Ifffnv iv tSj aXrjdivu/, 
 £V T'p vi'Z auTov 'iriffoij 'Kpiarui' euro's Igriv, k. r. X.) 
 
 Now Mr. Bagot affirmed, that these words of the Apostle John must 
 be viewed as giving to our Lord Jesus Christ the title of " the true 
 God." If so, every one will admit that the text affords a very weighty 
 argument in favour of his proper Deity: He was quite right in intima- 
 tirig, that Unitarians do not conceive that the words " true God and 
 eternal life" are to be referred to our Lord Jesus Christ, but to "Him 
 that is true," who is mentioned in the preceding clause, and is there 
 found to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The question 
 amounts to this : Are we to understand the last clause as affirming 
 that "Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life" ? or, simply, 
 as declaring that "He who is true, is the true God and eternal life"? 
 The latter is the interpretation adopted by the Unitarian expositors; 
 the former, by the Orthodox. Mr. Bagot argued in opposition to the 
 Unitarian, and in support of the Orthodox interpretation of this text, 
 — that the pronoun euro; (this J must refer to ' IrigoZ X^/o't-w, (Jesus 
 Christ,) as the last antecedent in the sentence with which the pronoun 
 can agree. And so unquestionably it is : but let me assure you, that 
 that consummate master of criticism. Professor Griesbach, to whose 
 edition of the New Testament I have so often called your attention, 
 and whose perfect candour and sincerity I never heard impugned 
 until I mounted this platform, marks the words ' IrjffoD X^isruj, (Jesus 
 Christ,) on which this criticism is founded, as of doubtful authority. 
 If they are removed from the text, the wordaurou, (his,) — which un- 
 doubtedly refers to " Him that is true," — in the preceding clause, — 
 becomes the last antecedent; and the whole passage will read 
 literally thus : "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath 
 given us understanding, that we may know Him that is true: and we 
 are in Him that is true, [whilst] in the Son of Him. This is (he true 
 God and eternal life :" — or, more agreeably to the English idiom: 
 
 B B 
 
194 
 
 "We are in him that is true, [whilst] in the Son of him who is the 
 true God and eternal life." No satisfactory argument can be founded 
 on a basis so frail as a doubtful and uncertain reading. 
 
 But after all, even allowing the received text to stand unaltered, 
 where is the proof that obrog (this) must, of necessity, refer to the 
 last antecedent, " Jesus Christ,^' and not to the preceding one, 
 "Him that is true"? Unless such proof be afforded, this text cannot 
 be quoted in support of the proper Deity of the Word : for the Uni- 
 tarian exposition of it may be the true one. I venture to affirm, 
 such proof cannot be produced ; nay, I could produce numerous in- 
 stances from Scripture of the very contrary. I turn, for example, to— 
 
 Acts iv. 10 — 12. He it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that 
 by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from 
 the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole. This (ourog) is the 
 stone which was set at nousjht of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 
 Neither is there salvation in any otlier : for there is none other name under heaven 
 given among men whereby we must be saved. 
 
 Apply Mr. Bagot's principle to this text : assume that the pronoun 
 oorog (this) must of necessity refer to the immediate antecedent, and 
 not to the more remote; and you make the Apostle Peter declare to 
 the rulers of the Jews, that ihe impotent man whom he had healed, 
 was " the stone which the builders rejected, but which became the head 
 of the corner;" and not only so, but that he was the only medium, of 
 salvation vouchsafed by God to the human race. Again, we read in — 
 
 Acts vii. 17 — 19. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had 
 sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till another king arose, 
 who knew not Joseph. The same (ourcj, " this person,") dealt suhtilely with our 
 kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to 
 the end they might not live. 
 
 Now, unless we refer the pronoun oSros to a remote antecedent, 
 passing over that which immediately precedes it, we shall find in 
 these words a declaration that the Patriarch Joseph was the persecutor 
 of the Israelitish people, and not the cruel and perfidious king of 
 Egypt. 
 
 Or, let us apply Mr. Bagot's principle to a passage which occurs 
 in the writings of the very Apostle whose words we are considering, 
 in the very next Epistle to that in which this text is found, and we 
 shall obtain some unexpected results. 
 
 2 John, %'er. 7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This (ouros) is a deceiver and an antichrist. 
 
 On Mr. Bagot's principle of interpretation, the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved applies the last two epithets to his beloved Lord and IMaster! 
 And now, having demonstrated that the proposed rule of syntax makes 
 our blessed Lord to be a deceiver and an antichrist, I follow Mr. 
 Bagot's example by returning it to himself, to make of it what farther 
 use he pleases. 
 
 But I am not yet done with this text, 1 John v. 20. You will 
 remember — at least such of you as have attended during the progress 
 of this discussion — that Mr. Bagot, with an air of magisterial autho- 
 
195 
 
 rity lud it clown as a principle of Greek construciion, ilial tljc leim 
 wliich orcura in the predicate of a proposition in whicli it is lound, 
 never admits the article. Compassionating my ignorance of syntax, 
 he inquired, with reference to some remarks of mine upon John i. i, 
 " Did I not know the reason why the word edc, in the latter clause ot 
 that verse, was found without the article ?" and then proceeded to 
 state the rule which I have just mentioned as the reason, and as an 
 unquestionable position. In support of the view which I took of the 
 construction in that passage, I had previously arlduced the express 
 testimony of Eusebius, a learned and eminently conscientious writer, 
 who was a Greek by birth, spoke the Greek language, and wrote in it 
 to and for those who, like himself, spoke that language from their 
 infancy. His testimony I gave at length, explicitly confirming the 
 opinion which I had expressed, that the grammatical structure of the 
 sentence in John i. I, would have admitted the article m the predi- 
 cate, had the evangelist meant to convey the idea that the Word was 
 God in the strict and proper sense. 1 also referred to the opinion of 
 Origen— perhaps the most learned of all the Greek fathers of the 
 church, and especially versed in subjects of criticism— which is pre- 
 cisely to the same effect, though I had not time to quote the passage 
 in full, owing to its length. One might have expected that tiie 
 jud<yment of Eusebius and Origen would have carried some weight 
 in the determination of a question such as this. But you will re- 
 member how Mr. Bagot set himself, as a Greek scholar, far above 
 Edsebius and Origen, so that he did not even deign to notice their 
 -opinion ; but, turning to me, in astonishment at my ignorance of so 
 obvious a truth, proceeded to enlighten me by laying down, for my 
 information, the'rule that the predicate of a proposition does not 
 admit the article. , . i , • 
 
 Now I refer you once more to 1 John v. 20, which, be it remem- 
 bered, is an example of his own selection— a text which he himself 
 has adduced, and put prominently forward, both in his Abstract and 
 in this discussion; and with which, therefore, he ought to be supposed 
 to be well acquainted. I take that very clause, ("Tins is the true 
 God, and eternal life,") on which his argument was built ; and, 
 turning to the Greek Testament, I find in the original— 
 OvTSg hnv ' O aXridmg Oshg xai ' H ^un aiuvioc,- 
 The article in the predicate ! 
 Who is ignorant of Greek syntax now ? Which of us requires to be 
 tau'rht the common rules and principles of construction ? 
 
 Nor is this a solitary example of the article occurring m the 
 predicate of a proposition. Look, for instance, to another passage 
 in the same Epistle, — 
 
 1 JoHNji. 7. Tiie old commandment is the word which yc have heard from the 
 beginning. 
 
 In the Greek : v hrokri h rtaXaK* kny ' O Xo'/os Iv mohtsan air a^yra' 
 •^the article in the predicate ! 
 
 And again in — 
 
 1 John iii. 1. Whosoever commitlcth sin, tran5£i"seth aho the law ; for sin u 
 the transij'cssion of the law. 
 
196 
 
 The original of the last clause is, xal yi ^iMa^rta hm' H dvo/iia'^the 
 article m the predicate. 
 
 And still further, we read in that noted passage,— 
 
 1 John v. 6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ: not 
 by water only but by water and blood ; and it is the spirit that beareth witness, be- 
 cause the spirit is truth. * 
 
 These last words are in the Greek, rh Tviv/ji,d kr,v n aKri&ua.-—the arti- 
 cle in the predicate ! 
 
 I have selected all these examples from one not very lono- epis 
 Ue. written by the evangelist John ; but we need not go so far away 
 from the first verse of his Gospel, for a proof that the rule laid down 
 by Mr Bagot will not bear the test of examination. In the fourth 
 verse of the very same chapter, (which is, in English, "In him was 
 life, and the life was the light of men,") we have, in the original, 
 71 luri riv TO fu^ tuv av&^uvuv—the article in the predicate ! '. 
 
 After these specimens, you will be able to judge either of Mr 
 Bagot's caution or his scholarship. You find him hazarding asser- 
 tions which the very same context on which he comments is sufficient 
 to refute. I think you will agree with me, that, if the explanation 
 which 1 proposed be good and valid in other respects, there is nothino- 
 m the canon of my reverend opponent to prevent its adoption " 
 
 Now you will remember that my object in proposing my criticism 
 on John i. 1, was to establish a distinction between the meaning of 
 the term God, in the former part of the verse, where it is found in the 
 original with the article, and the corresponding term in the last mem- 
 ber of the text, where the article is wanting. I argued that, unless 
 we recognise this distinction, we fall into the absurdity of making the 
 evangelist declare that the word is the same God with whom he is 
 My position has been questioned by Mr. Bagot ; and, therefore, it is 
 to be presumed, that he maintains that the term " God" is to be un- 
 derstood in the same sense in both clauses ; and, in point of fact, he 
 adduced his criticism expressly to refute my observation. Let us 
 suppose, then, that the term is to be understood in the same sense in 
 both clauses of the verse, and inquire to what results this principle 
 will lead. The Apostle declares that— 
 
 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was 
 
 CjrOd. 
 
 Now Mr. Bagot tells us that in this verse the term Word means the 
 divine nature of Christ, or, as it is commonly expressed, " God the 
 Son;" and first let us suppose that, by the word God, we are to un- 
 derstand, "God the Father." The whole will then read thus : 
 
 In the beginning was God the Son, and God the Son was with God the Father, and 
 God the Son was God the Father I 
 
 " God the Son was God the Father !" This is downright heresy • 
 confounding the persons, and therefore subjecting its author to the 
 anathema of the Athanasian Creed ! This explanation will not do • 
 and, therefore, we must have recourse to some other plan of interpret! 
 ing the passage. Let us then suppose, as before, that by the Word 
 we are to understand the divine nature of Christ, that is, God the 
 
19T 
 
 Son, the second person in the Trinity ; and that by the term God 
 we are to understand the whole Trinity, God the Father, God the 
 Son, and God the Holy Ghost. On this view of the phraseology, 
 the assertion of the x\poslle will be as follows : 
 
 In the beginning was God the Son, (the second person of the Trinity,) and God 
 the Son, (the second person of the Trinity,) was with tJie whole Trinity, (God the 
 Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;) and God the Son, (the second per- 
 ionof the Trinity,) was the whole Trinity, God tub Father, God the Son, 
 AND God THE Holy Ghost! 
 
 " The second person of the Trinity was the Trinity !" This is a worse 
 heresy than before; for it not only confounds two persons of the triad, 
 but mixes up tVie whole three in inextricable confusion ; and thus it 
 will be found, on trial, that every attempt to make either sense or 
 orthodoxy out of this verse will fail, so long as we affix the same sig- 
 nification to the term " God," in the two clauses of the verse. It 
 must then, at last, be conceded, that it is to be understood in two 
 distinct senses, in the first and second members of the verse; and if 
 this be conceded, the whole question is yielded to the Unitarians, 
 80 far as it depends upon the interpretation of this passage. I defy 
 Mr. Bagot, and I defy any rational being, to put any consistent or 
 intelligible interpretation upon this passage, unless he admits that 
 distinction in the signification of the word "God," for which I con- 
 tended : and this distinction, if once admitted, lakes away the whole 
 basis of his reasoning. 
 
 There is another passage on which Mr. Bagot seemed to lay 
 great stress, and which he repeatedly brought forward. Having 
 omitted to notice it before, and being desirous of treating his argu- 
 ments with all possible respect, which I should not do by leaving 
 them unreplied to, when time permits me to reply, I shall now give 
 it a brief consideration. The passage to which I refer, is the excla- 
 mation of Thomas, on witnessing our Saviour alive after his resur- 
 reclion : "My Lord, and My God!" It is recorded in— 
 
 John xx. 28. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord, and My God! 
 
 Mr. Bagot takes it for granted, that these words are addressed to 
 Christ, and that they contain a recognition of his proper Deity; but 
 they may — just as naturally as regards the mere verbal construction, 
 and much more so as relates to the sense and meaning of the terms 
 employed — be considered as an ejaculation, or exclamation of won- 
 der and surprise, addressed by the Apostle to the Supreme Being, 
 by whose power the miracle which his eyes beheld must have been 
 effected. Thus interpreted, they afford no proof of the Deity of 
 Christ ; but, on the contrary, contain another of the many instances 
 of religious worship addressed to God, the Father, only. I know it 
 may be supposed that the words, " Thomas anstvered and said unto 
 him," distinctly mark out Jesus himself as the person addressed in 
 the subsequent words; but the Scripture idiom will not support the 
 criticism. There are many cases in which, in the language of 
 Scripture, one person is declared to have " answered," or " said" 
 unto another, words which were not addressed to that other person 
 directly; but which were only spoken with reference to him, or to 
 
198 
 
 something that had fallen from him. An example of this kind, bear- 
 ing, in some respects, a striking resemblance to the phrase employed 
 by the Apostle Thomas, occurs in 1 Sam. xx. 12: "And Jonathan 
 said unto David, O Lord God of Israel," &c. No one supposes 
 that, by this address, Jonathan meant to recognise his friend and 
 comrade as the Lord Jehovah, and the God of Israel. All that he 
 intended evidently was, to call God to witness the covenant which 
 he was about to make ; the words, " Lord God of Israel," not being 
 addressed to David, notwithstanding their seeming connexion with 
 the preceding clause. There is nothing to prevent the same princi- 
 ple of explanation from being applied to the passage before us. If 
 80, it cannot be considered as a proof of Mr. Bagot's position. This 
 is no "algebraic process of positive and negative quantities," as Mr. 
 Bagothas repeatedly denominated similar observations made by me. 
 I am not employing one passage of Scripture to destroy or neutralize 
 another, but simply to explain its meaning. Unitarianism does not 
 require the destruction of a single text in the whole Bible. It has 
 no contradictions in itself, nor does it assume or allow that such exist 
 in the Scriptures ; for its own foundation is the simple meaning and 
 direct assertion of the word of God. All that I have done in this 
 and former instances, is to employ those passages which are clear 
 and obvious, to assist in determining the signification of similar lan- 
 guage occurring in texts which would otherwise be liable to some 
 degree of obscurity and doubt. Nor is this a novel principle: it is 
 nothing but the adherence to a rule of interpretation long since pro- 
 pounded, and universally recognised. 
 
 Again : Mr. Bagot places much reliance on the words of our Sa- 
 viour, in John v. 22, 23 : — 
 
 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son : 
 that all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. 
 
 In these very words, however, the Father is represented as the 
 source and origin of the Son's judicial power, and of that honour 
 which accrues to him from the exercise of his functions as Judge, 
 Besides, the latter clause, if understood to mean that the Son occu- 
 pies as high a rank in the scale of existence as the Father does, 
 would be totally inconsistent with Mr. Bagot's own principles. He 
 holds, that the term Son denotes the complex character of Christ as 
 Mediator; and he has over and over again declared, that Christ, in 
 his mediatorial character, is subordinate to God the Father. The 
 text, therefore, on his own showing, would imply that equal honour 
 is due to the subordinate person, and to his superior ; which would 
 be destructive of the very idea of subordination. But there is no 
 necessity for recurring to such abstract reasoning. It is evident 
 that the whole force of Mr. Bagot's inference depends on the mean, 
 jng which we attach to the connecting participle, even as, (xaOug,) 
 which he seemingly understands to signify the same as equally, or 
 on a par loith. But in the Lexicon of the orthodox critic, Schleus- 
 NER, we find that this particle frequently signifies, "inasmuch as," 
 "since," "because," (siquidem, quoniam, proptera quod;) and to 
 prove that it has this signification, he adduces the following apposite 
 and satisfactory examples : 
 
199 
 
 John xvii. 1, 2. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and 
 said, Father ! tlie hour is come: glorify thy Son, that thy Son uKo may glorify thee. 
 As (xa(^w;) thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life 
 to as many as thou hast given him. 
 
 Rom. i. 28. And as {xaOug) they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, 
 God gave them over, &e. 
 
 In these passages, and in many others, the particle xadoog manifestly 
 means since or because: and to explain it as signifyinp^ equally, 
 or on a par, would render the passages unintelligible. That such 
 is the meaning also in John v. 23, is plain from the explanation 
 which our Lord himself subjoins in the last clause of the verse : " He 
 that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent 
 him." The passage therefore must be understood as declaring, that 
 "the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all 
 men may honour the Son, inasmuch as, since, or because, they honour 
 the Father: for he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 
 Father who hath sent him." This is no strange or unheard-of prin- 
 ciple in the conduct of human affairs. In Ireland, at least, we are 
 acquainted with a case that is completely analogous. We are go- 
 verned by a Lord Lieutenant, acting in the name and by the autho- 
 rity of his Majesty the King. To the Vicegerent's lawful commands 
 we are bound, on our allegiance to his royal master, to yield obedience; 
 and any act of rebellion against him would be, both in conscience 
 and law, an act of rebellion against the Sovereign. But all this does 
 not make the Lord Lieutenant, King of Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Bagot, in the early part of this discussion, built an argument 
 for the proper Deity of the Word on Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; in which, as he 
 maintained, the name of "the Lord," [or Jehovah,] "our righteous- 
 ness," is attributed by the prophet to Christ. In my reply, I affirmed, 
 that, if this passage proved the proper Deity of Christ, the application 
 of the very same name to the city of Jerusalem, in Jer. xxiii. 16, would 
 equally demonstrate the proper Deity of that city. Commenting on 
 this observation of mine, my reverend opponent inquires. Whether I 
 have forgotten my Hebrew? or how else can I suppose, that the lat- 
 ter passage will bear the interpretation put upon it in the Common 
 Version, which I quoted ? To this inquiry, I can only answer, that 
 perhaps I have forgotten some of- my Hebrew. I confess, that in 
 my case, this is possible : for I believe / once had a Utile Hebrew to 
 forget. In this particular passage, Mr. Bagot seems to think he 
 has caught me between the horns of a dilemma. Either, as he ar- 
 gues, I have forgotten how to translate the original correctly, or I 
 have chosen to reason, knowingly, from the mistakes of the Common 
 Version ; in which, as he asserts, the text in question — Jer. xxxiii. 
 15, 16— is erroneously rendered. To this, I can with perfect con- 
 fidence reply, that I am quite sure every one who knows me, will 
 acquit me of the criminality of arguing on a basis which I knew to 
 be unsound ; and will give me entire credit for veracity, when I af- 
 firm, that I would not have brought forward the translation of Jer. 
 xxxiii. 16, had I known or believed it to be incorrect. But I go far- 
 ther than this. My reference to Jer. xxxiii. 16, was not a hasty or 
 heedless allusion. I knew well the objections that bad been slated 
 
200 
 
 to the Common Translation ; and I had carefully examined the ori- 
 ginal, with a view to determine their force« I brought forward that 
 text in argument, because I was and am satisfied that the objections 
 to the common rendering are perfectly vain and futile. I know, and 
 allow, that the text, as pointed, would most naturally, though not ex- 
 clusively, admit of a different translation. But I likewise know,— 
 and. herein I have the almost unanimous consent of all modern 
 Hebrew scholars of any note,— that the points are of comparatively 
 recent date, being an invention of the Masorites in the middle ages. 
 If this comparatively modern addition to the text be disregarded,— 
 as it evidently ought,— then the most obvious and natural interpre- 
 tation of Jer. xxxiii. 16, becomes literally thus : 
 
 And this [is that] which shall be called [or named] upon her : Jehovah oor 
 Righteousness. 
 
 And I do maintain, that this Hebraic expression is perfectly equiva- 
 lent to the English phrase adopted by King James' translators : 
 "And this is the name wherewith she shall be called. The Lord 
 OUR Righteousness." And I argue, confidently, that this is a per- 
 fectly parallel passage to that in Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, to illustrate which, I 
 quoted it. When I consider the manner in which Mr. Bagot has 
 spoken of the renderings of the Authorised Version throughout this 
 debate, I cannot help recalling to mind the demand which he made 
 on me before it was commenced ; when he declared, that the only 
 standard on which he could consent to carry on this discussion, was 
 the Authorised Version of the Scriptures, admitting the genuineness, 
 authenticity, and divine authority of all and every part of the books 
 contained in it. And taking into account the number of instances 
 in which he has not only impugned its renderings, but, as in the 
 instance just exhibited, treated them with contempt, I feel myself 
 justified in charging him with seeking to impose on me a condition 
 which he himself could not have conscientiously accepted. 
 
 There are several other texts noted on the paper before me, and 
 numerous statements made by Mr. Bagot, upon which it would be 
 highly expedient in me to comment, did time permit. But, I am 
 obliged to pass most of them over unnoticed. To one point, how- 
 ever, I shall refer ; although I feel that, in doing so, I am sacrificing 
 the opportunity of adverting to other subjects of great importance to 
 the cause which I stand forward to defend, and which I had fully 
 intended to bring under your consideration. But I perceive I must 
 abandon all hope of doing so ; for I must stop when my hour is ex- 
 pired. 
 
 Mr. Bagot reasoned yesterday, in his closing speech, against the 
 supposition, that an inferior or subordinate agent could, by possibility, 
 be employed in executing the work of creation. He went so far as 
 to assert, that not even the Almighty could endow a being distinct 
 from himself with ability to execute such a task. He admitted, that 
 the work of creation itself was finite; yet argued, that no being, 
 but the Supreme Being, could possibly have been enabled to perform 
 it. I answer all such hypothetic statements, by referring to John i. 
 3 ; for there I find, that the employment of a subordinate agent is 
 
201 
 
 expressly declared: "All thinfjs," says the Evangelist, "were made 
 through" — that is, by meam of-^" \nm ;" lliat is, the Word, as an 
 inferior agent or instrument: for so the phrase must be understood, 
 both in the original and in (he Common Version. And I find a 
 similar assertion in Heu. i. 1, 2: "God, who at sundry times, and 
 in divers manners, spaks in time past unto the fathers by the pro- 
 phets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son ; whom he 
 hath appointed heir of all things ; through whom also he hath made 
 the worlds." In both these passages, and in several others to which 
 there is not time to advert, the employment of subordinate agency 
 in the work of creation is plainly and explicitly declared ; so plainly 
 in the latter passage, even if the Trinitarian version be allowed to 
 stand, that nothing can be more distinct. Mr. Bagot, in his remarks 
 upon this subject, protested against the^ priore method of reasoning ; 
 but I appeal to yourselves, whether — when, in order to turn aside the 
 arguments of the Unitarians, he denied the competency of the Al- 
 mighty to endow a created being with power to create a world — he 
 was not himself compelled to 
 
 " boldly take the d priore road, 
 
 And reason downwards," 
 
 till he doubted the jiower of God to impart to a creature the ability 
 to execute a finite operation. From this remarkable specimen, you 
 will be able to judge whether it is Mr. Bagot or I who limits the 
 power of omnipotence I From the example now before you, you will 
 be able to determine which of us it is that takes out of the Bible, a 
 God possessed of those divine attributes which are necessary to 
 render the Supreme Being the object of our confidence and faith! 
 I beseech you to remember, it is not 1 but Mr. Bagot, who as- 
 serts, that it is not possible for God to employ an inferior being as 
 his instrument, in accomplishing any object whatsoever, which he 
 may wish to efl'ect through such instrumentality. 
 
 I thank Mr. Bagot for the admission which he made, when, in 
 the course of his reasonings on the subject of Creative Power, he 
 stated, that there cannot possibly be two almighty beings or persons 
 in the universe. I thank him for this admission, because it seems 
 to me directly to contradict the articles of his own faith, and to 
 confirm and establish the Unitarian doctrine. Did time permit, I 
 would, as Mr. Bagot has expressed it, take the loan of this principle 
 for a little, to show how it may be turned against himself, and against 
 the Athanasian Creed, which declares that " the Father is Almighty, 
 the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty." Now this 
 seems to approacli very closely to the assertion of three Almighties ; 
 but yet, as the creed itself is compelled lo allow, "there are not three 
 Almighties — there is but one Almighty." I need not recall to the 
 minds of some among you, the exclamation which burst from the lips 
 of the Scottish dealer, who, when attending public worship while on 
 his travels in England, happened to hear this creed recited in alter- 
 nate verses by the clergyman and his clerk. 
 
 I have only time to notice one other statement made by Mr. 
 Bagot. He threw out, in the course of his remarks, if I mistake not 
 on creation, a challenge to me to produce a single passage in which 
 
202 
 
 the power of our Saviour, properly so called, was declared to be 
 derived. He admitted that our Saviour had received authority 
 (s^ovGia) from the Father; but he denied that the power which he 
 possessed {dvva/j^ig) was ever traced to any superior source. He 
 challenged me to produce a passage in which any such declaration 
 is made respecting the Son ; and, unless I am greatly mistaken, 
 offered to rest the whole argument on this issue. In reference to this 
 challenge, I remark, that even if it were not expressly stated in 
 Scripture, that our Lord's power was derived, still the fact of his 
 authority being communicated, would completely overturn the idea 
 of his Supreme Divinity: for who could bestow authority, l^ovs/av. 
 on the Su preme Being ? But I meet Mr. Bagot on his own ground ; 
 and, accepting his challenge, I beg to turn his attention and yours 
 to Acts x. 38, " How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
 Ghost, AND WITH power;" which is, in the original, 'IjjtrsDf rh a'lrl 
 Na^agsr wg 'iyptSiv auTov 6 Qihg <:rvsu/jbari ay/w xal ATNAMEI ! Here, 
 beyond all question, the very term bbvafiig is used in reference to our 
 Saviour, and coupled with an express declaration that it was com- 
 municated to him : so that my reverend opponent might now give up 
 the argument. 
 
 I find I have now but four minutes to close my address. I rejoice 
 that this controversy has taken place. I rejoice that I took that 
 view of my duty as a Unitarian minister, and as a friend to the cause 
 of truth, which induced me to accept the invitation or suggestion of 
 Mr. Bagot, — if so he is pleased to call it, which others have con- 
 strued as a challenge to the whole Unitarian body, — and which impelled 
 me to step forward to meet this redoubted paladin. T am glad, I say, 
 that I thus stepped forward ; and this consciousness shall be a lesson 
 to me, as long as I live, never to allow any public attack to be made 
 on my principles, — which are dear to me as my life itself; — not less 
 dear to me than Mr. Bagot's are to him, though I dislike talking so 
 much about them, — to which I shall not reply, when circumstances 
 bring it under my particular notice. True, I am but a weak, feeble 
 being ; but when a great cause is at stake, to which I have devoted 
 my life, so long as I have my reason spared by the God who con- 
 ferred it, and so long as health endures, I will not suffer that great 
 and glorious cause to be tarnished for one moment by any reluctance 
 on my part, to appear before an unwilling auditory — by any selfish 
 timidity, backwardness, or reserve. I am satisfied this discussion 
 has already advanced those doctrines I advocated, and will advance 
 them still farther. But let me not be misunderstood. I do not ex- 
 pect to make a single immediate convert. I know too well the 
 power of prepossessions which are early engrafted in the mind, — I 
 know too well the pains that are taken to bring up the rising gene- 
 ration under thejnfluence of feelings of horror towards my opinions, 
 — to expect that any thing I can do or say should prevail against 
 that force of prejudice which exists in many minds. But should only 
 a few inquiring spirits, — and such are to be found in every society — 
 be induced to look into the Word of God, and there read, whether 
 these things indeed are so ; — should this be the result in any candid 
 
203 
 
 minds, and especially should it be the result in any considerable 
 number of instances, I am satisfied ihe discussion in which 1 have 
 been engaged, must tend to the grovvlh of those principles for which 
 I have contended. For truth is mighty, and it will prevail ; and we 
 have a promise that a time will come, and a hope that it is rapidly 
 approaching, when "Jehovah shall be One, and his name One." 
 
 At the termination of this address, Mr. Bagot stepped forward to 
 propose a series of questions to Mr. Porter; but Mr. Andrews, one 
 of the Chairmen, objected to his doing so, on the ground of his 
 having refused to receive a question from Mr. Porter, alter the con- 
 clusion of his last address. Mr. Bagot immediately said, that this 
 had escaped his recollection, and he at once acquiesced in the Chair- 
 man's decision, but requested Mr. Porter to allow him to make an 
 explanation in reference to his use of the word " blasphemy." To 
 this, Mr. Porter assented ; and — 
 
 Mr. bagot said.— Mr. Porter has shown, by some remarks in 
 his last address, that he understood me to have associated the charge 
 of blasphemy personally with him. I beg to say, I had no such in- 
 tention. If he wishes to know what my feelings are towards him and 
 those who agree with him in religious opinion, he will find them 
 stated in the lOth chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, at 
 the 1st verse, where the Apostle says — "Brethren, my heart's desire 
 and prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved." 
 
 Mr. porter. — When I said that if the oflfensive words which 
 1 understood to be applied to me were retracted, I should give the 
 hand of friendship to Mr. Bagot, I spoke in the sincerity of my soul ; 
 and thus I redeem the pledge. 
 
 Mr. Porter presented to Mr. Bagot his hand, which he cordially 
 shook. 
 
 The Chairmen then announced that the discussion terminated, 
 and the assembly dispersed. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01144 6947 
 
 We hereby certify that the foregoing Report 
 contains a full, faithful^ and accurate account of our 
 respective Addresses at the late Discussion ; and that no 
 other can be genuine or authentic. 
 
 Signed this 2lst day of May, 1834. 
 
 J. SCOTT PORTER. 
 DANIEL BA.GOT. 
 
 / hereby certify, that this Report of the Discussion between 
 the Rev. Daniel Bagot and the Rev. J. Scott Porter, conducted 
 in Belfast, on Monday the lAth April, 1834, and the three following days, 
 is, in every respect, genuine and authentic, — that no other Report can 
 be so ; as this agrees with the short-hand note of the whole proceedings 
 — including criticisms, quotations, references, £fc. ^c. — taken by me. 
 
 MICHAEL HANLY. 
 
 23, Doininick-Mlreett Dublin, 
 Maij2\st, lft!4. 
 
 MAIRS, Printer, Belfast. 
 
^■'•'■i^ ■i^^'j'-^' '*"Tv"?^: ■■■■■ v/ii3^;», 
 
 
 t''.'; '■■■- *-^ 
 
 %':