the language of a creature? Could a creature pray to his Creator to glorify him in this way? Alas! alas! Surely, if we calculate the distance which exists between the lowest and the highest created being, that distance is but a speck when contrasted with the unmeasured interval which there is between the highest created being 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!

This

I now direct your attention to the 10th verse: "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine."-Mark the emphasis of this declaration: all that belongs to the Father, belongs also to the Son; and all 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, in consequence of which there is this mutual proprietorship 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 lead 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. 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 intreat; 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 possess 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 17th 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, lead us up to a contemplation of a higher glory.

But, in connexion with this chapter which I have been considering, 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 Psalmist 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 glory-a glory commensurate with

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 creation 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 whatever in this text, when I recollect what ISAIAH said, that Christ should 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 troubled? 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 circumstance 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 superangelic 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 superangelic 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 disciples 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: "Father, 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

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 to 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 bccur, they can have no other meaning.—I turn, however, from such

particular instances, to make some general remarks ou 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 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 parotted, 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 au

M