to the attentive reader, that the word "Lord" is there a synonyme for "God" and Mr. Bagot cannot assign it to Christ, without assuming the very point in question between him and me in this discussion.

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, whom 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 saying, 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 (ourav) a commission, or delegated authority, to forgive sins." I may mention, moreover, that some have rendered the terms Κύριε Ιησοῦ, 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 unquestionably this last quoted passage will prove that the seven ministering spirits, which wait before the throne of God, are likewise to be regarded as persons of the Godhead. In fact, I have not the slightest 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 advanced. 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

of words which have been associated with this controversy; such as "persons," "hypostases,' ," "distinctions," &c.; and he founded an argument upon the adoption of these terms 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 " omnipresence," which Mr. Porter frequently employs, to describe the knowledge, 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 doctrines contained in the propositions printed in the placard of the subject of discussion, and of the regulations, which have been mutually assented to; and I shall not suffer 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 expression 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 promulgated the following sentiment ?

Whether this perfection 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! 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 beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;" and Satan himself was constrained to acknowledge that 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 assembly, 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 primary 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

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 Evangeliste? 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 venerable 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 providence, 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 10th 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 precious "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 nature, that, if true, it ought to have been written in such visible characters, that he who runs may read; and to have been revealed so conspicuously, as to produce immediate conviction. As to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ illuminating every page of Scripture, I maintain 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 overwhelming as that it must necessarily and unavoidably produce conviction. 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 conviction? 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 producing 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

sun, which shines with majestic splendour in the expanse above, is the great centre of the universe, around which the earth and all the planets revolved; but it has been ascertained only within 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. Porter'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 overpowering splendour 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 subject itself, I ask, when Mr. Porter speaks of statements respecting the Deity of Christ necessarily and irresistibly producing conviction, is be aware of what an evil heart of unbelief there is in man by nature? 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 (Kugov), 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 communion 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, as we are told in GAL. iv. 4, he was made 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 the 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 xvif. 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 the same as that which is spoken of in the latter passage. 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

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 common 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 quickeneth 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? Can they 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 come 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 Godhead 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 manifestation in the flesh by the phrase of "coming down from heaven," I should wish to know what Mr. Porter understands by the declaration 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