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, to 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, καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ· οὗτός ἐστιν, κ. τ. λ.)

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 intimating, 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 ouros (this) must refer to Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, (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' Inoou Xgior, (Jesus Christ,) on which this criticism is founded, as of doubtful authority. If they are removed from the text, the word aurou, (his,)—which undoubtedly 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 the true God and eternal life:"or, more agreeably to the English idiom.

BB

"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 ouros (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 Unitarian exposition of it may be the true one. I venture to affirm, such proof cannot be produced; nay, I could produce numerous instances from Scripture of the very contrary. I turn, for example, to

ACTS iv. 10-12. Be 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 (oros) is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: 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 ouros (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 the 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 (oUTOS, "this person,") dealt subtilely 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 ouros 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, ver. 7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This (orog) 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 Master! 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

rity, laid it down as a principle of Greek construction, that the term which occurs in the predicate of a proposition in which it is found, never admits the article. Compassionating my ignorance of syntax, he inquired, with reference to some remarks of mine upon JOHN i. 1, "Did I not know the reason why the word ɛds, in the latter clause of 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 adduced 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. 1, would have admitted the article in the predicate, had the evangelist meant to convey the idea that the Word was God in the strict and proper sense. I 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 precisely to the same effect, though I had not time to quote the passage in full, owing to its length. One might have expected that the judgment of EUSEBIUS and ORIGEN would have carried some weight in the determination of a question such as this. But you will remember how Mr. Bagot set himself, as a Greek scholar, far above EUSEBIUS 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.

Now I refer you once more to 1 JOHN v. 20, which, be it remembered, 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, ("THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, AND ETERNAL LIFE,") on which his argument was built; and, turning to the Greek Testament, I find in the original

Οὗτός ἐστιν ' Ο αληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ̔Η ζωή αιώνιας

THE ARTICLE IN THE PREDICATE!

Who is ignorant of Greek syntax now? Which of us requires to be taught the common rules and principles of construction?

Nor is this a solitary example of the article occurring in the predicate of a proposition. Look, for instance, to another passage in the same Epistle,

1 JOHN ii. 7. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

In the Greek : ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ̔Ο λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ' ἀρχῆς the article in the predicate!

And again in

1 JOHN iii. 4. Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.

The original of the last clause is, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστιν Η ανομία—the article in 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, because the spirit is truth.

These last words are in the Greek, rò aveũμá čoτiv ǹ aλýlɛα—the article in the predicate!

I have selected all these examples from one not very long epistle, 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, ἡ ζωὴ ην Τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων--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 assertions 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 I proposed be good and valid in other respects, there is nothing in 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 member 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 understood 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 God.

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 understand, "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!

"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 interpreting 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

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