He next referred to Isa. xxxvii. 16 and 20;-verses which at once prove the doctrine of the unity of Jehovah: which constitutes my first proposition. But they also demonstrate indirectly my second proposition, relative to the true Deity of Christ; and this will be evident, when I show that the same divine titles and works, which in this passage are ascribed to Jehovah, are elsewhere ascribed to Christ; which I do by the following comparison; viz.

ISAIAH Xxxvii. 16, 20.

O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim ; thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. Now, therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord, even thou only.

Similar attributes ascribed to Christ.

By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth. -COL. i. 16.

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.-JOHN xx, 28.

I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.-REV. iii. 10.

The next passage which Mr. Porter referred to was ZECH. xiv. 9, which also proves my first proposition directly, and my second indirectly; which will also be evident from the following comparison:

ZECH. xiv. 9.

And the Lord shall be king over all the earth in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Similar attributes ascribed to Christ. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.-MATT. xxviii. 18.

And from Jesus Christ, who is the Prince of the kings of the earth.REV. 1. 5.

• And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. -1 COR. viii. 6.

And as Mr. Porter has laid some stress upon the latter clause of that passage, his name shall be one," I beg to remind him, that, if he understands these words in a strictly literal sense, they contain as valid an objection against the Deity of the Father as of the Son.

He next referred to NEH. ix. 6, which also proves my first proposition directly, and my second indirectly; as will be evident from the following comparison; viz.

NEH. ix. 6.

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone: thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, and thou preservest them all; and all the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Similar declarations in reference to Christ.

For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.-COL. i. 16, 17.

Upholding all things by the word of his power.-HEB. i. 3.

Let all the angels of God worship him.-HEB. i, 6.

He next adverted to MARK xii. 29, which also proves my first and second propositions in the same manner; as will also appear from the following comparison:

MARK Xii. 29.

The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord (Κύριος εἷς).

A similar declaration made in reference to Christ.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him and one Lord (sis Kúgros) Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.-I COR. viii. 6.

He next adverted to GAL. iii. 20, “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one." I merely allude to his quotation of this passage, in order to remark what a proof it affords of the superficial manner in which he must be in the habit of reading the Scriptures; for who that understood the spirit of the Apostle's reasoning in the context of this passage, would think of producing it as a proof of the simple unity of the divine nature? I shall merely paraphrase this text, which will at once show how irrelevant it is to the subject of our discussion: "Now the very idea of mediation necessarily implies the existence of more parties than one; but in the Christian scheme of mediation, the Divine Being is one of the parties concerned."

I shall now direct my attention to those proofs which Mr. Porter advanced in support of the Deity of the Father exclusively. I must request you, however, to remark attentively, that he is bound by the terms of his first proposition, not merely to prove that the Father is the only true God, but that the Father only is the only true God. I repeat this remark as being of the first importance to our subject: he is bound not merely to prove the exclusive Deity of the Father, but the exclusive Deity of the Father exclusively. And it will appear evident, after an inspection of the arguments he has advanced, that he has completely failed in making out his case as stated in his first proposition.

He first referred to MATT. xxiii. 9, "Call no man your Father upon earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven."-I reply, that the Father personally is not exclusively referred to here: the words "your Father," evidently mean your Creator; for any one who has read the Scriptures with ordinary attention must be aware that the title of Father is frequently given to the Divine Being in the sense of Creator, as in MAL. ii. 10, Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us ?"-And, in this sense, I maintain that Christ is included in the designation of “ Father" in this passage; for he is the Creator and Preserver of all things (COL. i. 16, 17): and, at the time when he pronounced these words, he was in heaven as to his divine nature, though in his human nature he was on the earth; for he says, in 1 John iii. 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.

The next passage to which he referred, as a proof of the exclusive Deity of the Father, was MATT. x. 29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them cannot fall to the ground without

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 delaration 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 66 one God," as the Son and the Father are one Lord;" or else there are two Lords and two Gods.

66

(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 ed 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 m (Jehovah.) Kúgio

T:

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 ROM. 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 question 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, oudsis) 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 under.. stands 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