him to two similar prayers, offered up by Stephen to the Saviour himself; in ACTS vii. 59: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;" and ver. 60: "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 addressed 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 disciples 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 only. 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 received 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 only. 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 permitted to look forward, with prophetic eye, to that great and joyful day, when Christ shall have lifted up his elect to blessedness and immortality, and to contemplate

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!"

MR. PORTER.-Before I commence my concluding observations, I 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 witnesses," as they are designated-as an interpolation, a forgery and an imposture. Mr. Bagot has called on me to give in detail 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, performing 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 paragraph of the first page, and in the first line which contains scriptural quotations. After this plain statement, which it is impossible to deny, for the correspondence is in print before the public,-I leave 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. Respecting 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 will that they may be with 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 will' 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

particular instances, to make some general remarks on Mr. Bagot's mode of conducting his argument.

I am not a prophet, nor the son 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 myself, in some degree, acquainted with the general outline of the reasonings that are put forward in defence of their respective doctrines, 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 fact, or declarations of two natures, existing in one person; and thus composing, or compounding, or in some way making up, what he has elsewhere most unscripturally denominated 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 argued in form, that these deductions, or inductions, or conclusions, are insufficient 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 parrotted, 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 follow him through the whole detail of his arguments, so it happily renders the task less necessary. It is not likely that statements repeated, or rather parrotted, so fast, that the mind could scarcely follow them, even when strained to the utmost intensity of exertion,it is not likely that they can have tended much to strengthen conviction in those who were before convinced, or to produce it in quarters where doubt or hesitation prevailed. Such a mode of getting through the discussion may, indeed, enable him to parade a formidable 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 question seriously debated, in a calm and rational 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

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 inference 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 unacquainted with him in his assumed disguise. For proof of this, I could refer you to every narrative of a similar adventure;-from the Il Bondocani of the Arabian Tales, to the travels of CHARLES I. and BUCKINGHAM to the court of Madrid. Now, my friends, as the argument of Mr. Bagot assumes, that these allusions to the inherent dignity of Jesus do not abound in the New Testament, while assertions 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 distinction 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 subordinate, 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 another person, to whom, it is supposed, he was in all respects equal

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 effect of his spoken address is concerned, it would be a waste of time and breath to answer arguments seriatim, which could not be individually effective, because they could not be individually understood. I shall, therefore, classify them into groups, and deal with them collectively.

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 understand 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 LowтH, as being much more accurate than that contained in King James' translation.

CHAP. VII.

1. In the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, Retsin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came 2. up against Jerusalem to besiege it: but they could not overcome it. And

when it was told to the house of David, that Syria was supported by Ephraim, 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 Ahaz; thou, 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,

5.

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;
Because Syria hath 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 !".

9.

Yet within threescore and five years

Ephraim shall be broken, that he be no more a people :

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 weary men,

That ye should weary my God also?