your Father."-But here, also, the term Father is evidently used in the sense of preserver, as a designation of the Divine Being. Mr. Porter, in the course of his remarks upon this text, challenged me to produce a similar declaration, in reference to the Son: I readily accept the challenge, and shall refer him to a far stronger, and more emphatic declaration of the providential superintendence of Christ; in which he is described as preserving, not merely two sparrows, but all created things; for "he upholds all things by the word of his power," HEB. i. 3.

The next passage to which Mr. Porter referred was LUKE X. 21: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."-This text distinctly proves the Deity of the Father; for it ascribes to him the title of "Lord of heaven and earth," represents him as the object of worship, and as the author of revelation. But in GAL. i. 12, the same divine work is ascribed to the Son: "For I neither received it (i.e. the gospel) of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."-So that, as the same divine work, which in LUKE X. 21 is ascribed to the Father, is in GAL. i. 12 ascribed to the Son, I infer that Father and Son are one God.

The next quotation was from 1 COR. viii. 4-6: "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things which are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one: for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many); but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”—Upon this passage, I beg to make the following remarks:

(1.) The God of the Christian is here placed in direct and expressed contrast, not to a plurality of persons in his own nature, but to a plurality of false gods, whom the heathen worshipped.

(2.) The "one God," in ver. 6, is not placed in opposition to the Godship of Christ, who is elsewhere frequently styled God (as in ROM. ix. 5), any more than the expression" one Lord" is placed in opposition to the Lordship of the Father, who is elsewhere frequently styled Lord (as in MARK xii. 29). The Father and the Son are one God," as the Son and the Father are "one Lord;" or else there are two Lords and two Gods.

(3.) It is asserted of both the "one God," and the "one Lord," in this passage, that they are equally the Creator and Preserver of all things: of the former it is said, "of whom are all things, and we in him;" and, of the latter, "by whom are all things, and we by him."

(4.) As the Apostle speaks of the objects of idolatrous worship, under the general designation of "those that are called gods," and then subdivides them into two species, of " gods many, and lords many;" it is evident that the "lords many" are, equally with the "gods many," included in the more general designation of

those that are called gods." But there is a perfect parallelism between the fifth and sixth verses, from which I infer that the "one Lord Jesus Christ" is, equally with the "one God the Father," included in the more general declaration at the commencement of the 6th verse: "But to us there is but one God."

(5.) The last remark is based upon the supposition that the "one God the Father" refers to the Father personally (or the first person of the Trinity); but I am rather disposed to think, that the word "Father" is used in this passage in a more extended sense, as a general designation of the Divine Being, in the sense of Creator and Preserver of all things. And this I argue, from the explanation of the term which is immediately added, "the Father, of whom are all things." In this view, therefore, of the passage, the "one God, the Father, of whom are all things," includes Christ in his divine nature, by whom all things were created, and by whom all things consist; and the "one Lord Jesus Christ," in that case, involves a reference to him in another capacity, as Mediator, and Head over all things to his church.

(6.) Those who deny the Deity of Christ, and argue for the Deity of the Father only, are bound to account for the Apostle's contrasting the Lord Jesus Christ with the false Deities of the Heathen; for why do so, unless he possessed true Deity? On their principles, the person contrasted with the gods many and lords many of the Heathen, should have been the Father only; for why mention another person, if the Father only possessed true Deity?

(7.) This passage is valuable to my cause, as giving a meaning to the term Kugos, so frequently applied to Christ. The Apostle undoubtedly uses Kúgio (in ver. 5) as a classification or species of

in the preceding part of the verse. Kugios (in English, Lord) implies dominion or authority, and is given to Christ about a thousand times in the New Testament. Throughout the Septuagint it is used as the translation of the Hebrew word in (Jehovah.) Kúgro exactly corresponds with the Baalim of the Phoenicians. It is a word, however, which admits of great latitude in its application; but in this passage, as well as in others, we have plain evidence of its being applied to Christ in the highest sense, not merely from the reasons before stated, but also from the declaration, "by whom are all things," being connected with it; for this phrase is used in Roм. xi. 36, and in HEB. ii. 10, to designate God as the originating cause of all things, as is evident from a reference to the original of the three passages, in all of which the same preposition, dia, occurs.

The next passage to which Mr. Porter alluded was 1 TIM. ii. 5: "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."-Upon this text I remark, that the former clause proves my first proposition; and the latter clause proves that part of my second proposition, which asserts that Christ is Mediator: but it has no reference to "his highest capacity, nature, or condition;" for it contains internal evidence of its referring to him in reference to his official person. But why should Mr. Porter have quoted this text, unless he acknowledges himself to be a Humanitarian? for it

says nothing of Christ as an angelic or superangelic being, but simply speaks of him as "the man Christ Jesus."

Mr. Porter then referred to MARK xiii. 32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father."-I shall, however, decline replying to his argument from this text, until he shall answer a ques tion which I shall propose to him; for I wish to imitate the plan which our Saviour adopted, in order to meet the captious questions which were proposed to him in the days of his flesh. The question I propose to him is this, How does he reconcile with the omniscience of the Father the declaration, in reference to Christ, contained in REV. xix. 12: "He had a name written that no man (or, in the Greek, no one, oudɛiç) knew, but he himself?" Here, it is expressly asserted, that no one knew the name which Christ bore, but Christ himself. Now, I should be glad to know how Mr. Porter will reconcile this strong declaration with the omniscience of the Father. I leave the question with him, in order to obtain from him a solution of the difficulty it presents; and as soon as he shall give it, I shall then reconcile the declaration contained in MARK Xiii. 32, with the omniscience of the Son.

I find that my time is nearly expired. I call upon Mr. Porter, then, to state distinctly and explicitly to this meeting, what are his positive and affirmative views in reference to the person of Christ; I call upon him to state, whether he considers him to be a mere man, or an angelic or superangelic being, manifested in a human form; I call upon him to state to what precise grade and classification of created beings he considers him to belong; and I call upon him to give his direct and positive arguments for what he has asserted in his second proposition, that Christ, in his highest capacity, nature, or condition, is a created being. I again call upon Mr. Porter to produce the text or texts in which he considers that Christ is, in reference to his highest capacity, nature, or condition, designated a

creature.

MR. PORTER.-Mr. Bagot has spoken of the support which I have lent to the first of his propositions; which is, that "There is one God, Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature." I now beg leave to ask him-as, by the regulations of this discussion, I am authorized to do-what he understands by the "ONE GOD, JEHOVAH, who is God only?" Does he mean, "God the Father?" or does he mean, "God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"

MR. BAGOT. I mean to express by the term Jehovah, as used in my first proposition, precisely the Jehovah who is revealed to us in the Bible.

MR. PORTER.-My friends, you will be able, from the answer I have just received to a plain and simple question put to Mr. Bagot, a question which, as a scholar and a clergyman, he ought

H

to be able to answer without doubt, hesitation, or difficulty,-8 question, however, to which he gave no answer at all; for he explained nothing-he defined nothing; but left the subject exactly as it stood before the question was put;-you will be able, I say, to judge from the answer which he gave to a plain question, whether the charge which I yesterday advanced against him, of shrinking from the defence of the Trinity, be correct or not. I say, that in that answer, he shrunk again from the avowal of his principles as a Trinitarian; and, like the persons of whom the poet speaks, "he paltered with us in a double sense."

He kept the word of promise to the ear,
But broke it to our hope!

For my own part, I should be ashamed of myself, and of the situation which I occupy in the church of Christ, and I should blush for those persons who have put me into the station which I hold, if I were capable of giving an answer such as that given in reply to my question, concerning the person of the Deity who is the object of my worship. You will be able to judge, from the specimen now presented, whether it is Mr. Bagot or myself that speaks openly, plainly, directly, and intelligibly! You will be able to judge which of us advocates those principles which dread not investigation. You will be able to judge which of us advocates a cause that is plain and intelligible-a cause such that the more it is examined, the more clearly its beauty and its excellence are seen; and the more its evidences are weighed, the more convincing, palpable, and satisfactory, they appear.

I shall now take notice of some remarks which Mr. Bagot has made upon my address of yesterday; and I must express my regret that, as a foundation for those remarks, he has adduced expressions, and attributed them to me, which I never used—which I absolutely disclaim-which, in the presence of upwards of two hundred witnesses, I absolutely disavow. He attributed to me expressions which, had I really uttered them, would have proved me to be equally destitute of integrity and discretion, both as a minister and as a man. He attributed to me the expression, that the original Scriptures are mutilated, interpolated, and grossly corrupted. I never made use of any such expression! I said that the copy of the original from which King James' version was made, was mutilated, interpolated, and grossly corrupted. I say this again, and can prove it: but to say, that the original Scriptures are so, is a thing of which I never dreamed; and the reason is, that I consider the original from which King James' version was executed, so far as it was mutilated and interpolated, is not Scripture, but a gross imposture foisted in upon us in the place of Scripture.

But it well becomes Mr. Bagot to stand up for the perfect integrity of the text from which King James' translation was made. He knows how to turn its defects to good account. He did not think it beneath him to bring forward, in support of the statement of his doctrine, a text to which every word that I uttered is applicable;-I mean 1 JOHN V. 7. Let Mr, Bagot, after this, talk about

the mutilation, interpolation, and corruption of the Scriptures, as he pleases; but depend upon it, the less he says upon the subject, the better for himself.

You will remember the exclamation of Mr. Bagot, when he asked, 'What sort of faith must that man have, who describes the original of the Scriptures, as mutilated, interpolated, and grossly corrupted!" I can only say, if the question refers to me,-mine is not the faith, which would induce me to attribute to another, expressions which were never used! Mine is not the faith, which would induce me to quote, as an authority, a gross interpolation of Sacred Scripture! Mine is not the faith, which depends on secrecy and silence, when a declaration is required respecting an important doctrine!

I might now proceed to analyse those quibbling arguments, and petty sophisms, to which Mr. Bagot has had recourse, in order to obviate the plain meaning of those strong texts which I yesterday advanced. I put it to you, as persons of intelligence and education, as may be presumed from the station in life which you appear to occupy;-I put it to you, as persons whose presence here shows that you are in some degree concerned for the progress of religious truth;-I put it to you, as persons who frequent those places in which the word of God is dispensed, and who are in the habit of reading those works in which statements in support of peculiar doctrines are brought forward; I put it to you all, if you ever heard of a specimen of sophistry so perfect, as that just afforded by Mr. Bagot's comment on 1 COR. viii. 6. I never, in all my life, witnessed such paring down of Scripture; or such quibbling, in order to get rid of the plain meaning of a plain text.

To follow Mr. Bagot in all his quotations and explanations, would occupy a considerable portion of that time, which, in justice to my cause, I feel bound to employ in setting forth the direct testimony in its favour. I will not, then, be led away by Mr. Bagot. I will not follow him in all the wanderings of his tortuous labyrinth. I will go on in the path of Scripture;-that plain road, in which the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err.

Mr. Bagot has paid me some compliments, for the pains I have taken in proving for him his first proposition. I accept them willingly. I feel that I have deserved them. I did take some pains to prove his first proposition. And why? Just because his first proposition is also mine! Just because it is plain and simple Unitarianism!-I shall now proceed to strengthen it by other proofs; and I shall first adduce some

TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, DIRECTLY PROVING THE UNITY OF GOD, TO THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BEINGS.

These I shall state in such a manner, that, if you have your Bibles here, as you ought to have, and as I hope you have, you will be able to follow me in my references, and to judge whether the conclusions which I draw, are well-founded or not. In this, I am not exactly following Mr. Bagot's example: but I prefer taking my own course. I refer you, then, to