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 Apostle 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 the whole Trinity, (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ;) and God the Son, (the second person of the Trinity,) was THE WHOLE TRINITY, GOD THE 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 the 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 signification 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, so 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 contended and this distinction, if once admitted, takes 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 arguments 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 exclamation of Thomas, on witnessing our Saviour alive after his resurrection : 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 wonder 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 answered 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

something that had fallen from him. An example of this kind, bearing, 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 principle of explanation from being applied to the passage before us. If so, it cannot be considered as a proof of Mr. Bagot's position. This is no "algebraic process of positive and negative quantities," as Mr. Bagot has 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 language 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 propounded, and universally recognised.

Again: Mr. Bagot places much reliance on the words of our Saviour, 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 occupies 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 meaning which we attach to the connecting participle, even as, (xatws,) which he seemingly understands to signify the same as equally, or on a par with. But in the Lexicon of the orthodox critic, SCHLEUSNER, 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:

JOHN xvii. 1, 2. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father! the hour is come: glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. As (xaws) 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 (xalws) they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over, &c.

In these passages, and in many others, the particle xaows manifestly means since or because; and to explain it as signifying 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 principle in the conduct of human affairs. In Ireland, at least, we are acquainted with a case that is completely analogous. We are governed by a Lord Lieutenant, acting in the name and by the authority 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 righteousness," 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 latter 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 I once had a little 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 argues, 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 confidence 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 affirm, 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 farther than this. My reference to JER. xxxiii. 16, was not a hasty or heedless allusion. I knew well the objections that had been stated

to the Common Translation; and I had carefully examined the original, 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 exclusively, 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 interpretation of JER. xxxiii. 16, becomes literally thus:

And this [is that] which shall be called [or named] upon her: JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

And I do maintain, that this Hebraic expression is perfectly equivalent 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, however, 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 expired.

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

expressly declared: "All things," says the Evangelist, "were made through"-that is, by means of "him;" that is, the Word, as an inferior agent or instrument: for so the phrase must be understood, both in the original and in the Common Version. And I find a similar assertion in HEB. i. 1, 2: "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; 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 à 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 Almighty to endow a created being with power to create a world-he was not himself compelled to

-"boldly take the à priore road, And reason downwards,"

till he doubted the power 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! 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 I but Mr. Bagot, who asserts, 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 effect 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 approach very closely to the assertion of three Almighties; but yet, as the creed itself is compelled to 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 alternate 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