ther, in all that belongs to the Father, from one "who did no sin, neither was any guile found in his mouth."

In JOHN xvii. 5, he represents himself as having enjoyed glory with the Father's own self before the world was: "And now, O Father! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."-And in this prayer, which he offers up during the season in which that glory was suspended, he plainly represents his glory, both retrospectively and prospectively, to be the one and the same glory with the Father's.

He represents himself as being one with the Father, in the important work of setting himself apart to his mediatorial office; as in JOHN X. 36: "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world;" compared with JOHN xvii. 19: "And for this purpose I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified by the

truth."

He represents himself as possessing an independent and personal power, not only to lay down his life, but to resume it again; as in JOHN X. 18: "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again;" and yet it is asserted, in Roм. vi. 4, that Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. The power, therefore, which was displayed in this instance, must have been a power mutually possessed, and mutually exerted; or, in other words, the Father and the Son were one in the possession of that exceeding great and mighty power, which the apostle says was displayed in the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

He declares himself to be one with the Father in the exercise of the divine prerogative of rewarding, as is evident from a comparison of MATT. vi. 4, "Thy Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly,"-with MATT. xvi. 27, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall· reward every man according to his works;"-and also, on referring to Rom. ii. 6, we find that this is the province of " God; who will reward every one according to his works."

He represents himself as possessing the same ability with the Father to work the miracles which he performed; as his question to the blind men, in which there is not the slightest reference to a superior or more efficient power, clearly implies: "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" MATT. ix. 28;—and as his exact recognition of the ascription of an ability which could be exerted at will, contained in his reply to the leper's supplication, in MATT. viii. 2, also shows: "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean;"-upon which Jesus said, I will, be thou clean"-language as precisely indicative of his possession of an irresistible power, independent of all distinct or higher controul, as the statement in GEN. i. 3, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light." Elsewhere, however, he says, "The Father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (JOHN xiv. 10); thereby implying, that though his ability to perform his miracles was uncontrolled by any superior power, yet it was equal to, or rather one and the same power with the Father's.

Christ was one with the Father, in sending the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, as is evident from JOHN xvi. 7: "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you;" compared with JOHN xiv. 26, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name," &c.

Christ assumes to himself the same prerogative of rebuking and chastening with the Father, as is manifest from his declaration in REV. iii. 19: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten;" compared with HEB. xii. 6, 7: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not?"

In Rev. xxi. 6, 7, Christ distinctly assumes to himself the title of God, and the prerogatives of Deity; "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

These passages, which I have now advanced, constitute a portion of the scriptural material, upon the ground of which I argue for the true Deity of Christ. From this induction of scripture testimony, I derive this conclusion: That the Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared in the flesh in order to become a mediator between God and man, possessed a nature distinct from that humanity in which he tabernacled-that, in reference to this superior nature, he is described as bearing the titles, possessing the characteristics, performing the works, exercising the prerogatives, and receiving the honours of Deity-that he represents himself, and is represented by others, as being one with the Father in the possession of all the essential attributes which are ascribed to the Father. I therefore conclude, that in his superior nature, Christ is true God, possessing the same eternity, power, authority, and Godhead, with the Father, and one with him in all attributes.

SECOND DAY.

MR. BAGOT.-It falls to my lot, in consequence of the arrange ments which have been adopted, to commence the discussion on this day. You are aware, that, according to the printed regulations, no reply to the arguments of the first speaker could have been permitted on yesterday; but each was engaged to give a statement of the positive sentiments which he entertained, in reference to the subject of discussion, and to illustrate that statement by positive and affirmative proofs. I feel obliged to Mr. Porter for the plan he has already pursued; for he has saved me a vast degree of trouble. We may be compared to two architects, who were employed to build a temple; and I trust that on yesterday I adhered closely to this object. I endeavoured to lay Christ Jesus as the foundation-stone; I called to my assistance the Apostles and Prophets as fellow-workers in rearing the superstructure; and I completed my work, by exhibiting Christ Jesus as the topstone. But what did Mr. Porter do?-1st, He occupied one hour at least in clearing away the obstructions to my building, by detailing the origin of this discussion, and the progress of our correspondence, of which it was quite sufficient to know the result, as stated in the printed prospectus of the rules.-2dly, He erected a very small edifice for himself, which, however, he immediately overthrew.-And, 3dly, He came over to me, and for the remainder of his time assisted me in building my house. I had expected that he would have advanced affirmative proofs for the strong affirmative doctrines which he has embodied in his two propositions. I had expected him to have advanced positive arguments in support of his first proposition, that the Father only is the only true God; and of his second proposition, that the Lord Jesus Christ is (even in his highest capacity) a created being: but for neither of these tenets did he advance any thing like satisfactory proof. I must advert, however, to the remarks which he did unequivocally advance. He occupied our time with censures upon the Scriptures, both in the translation and in the original. He described the translation in ordinary use as being incrusted with numerous imperfections and defects. I ask in reply, if he really believes this description to be correct, how does he maintain his own consistency as a minister of religion, in standing up in this place of worship, Sabbath after Sabbath, to read to his congregation a translation of the Bible which he represents as so erroneous and defective? He is not fettered by any ecclesiastical canons or regulations, which would restrict him to the exclusive use of King James's translation; and he may adopt what is termed the "Improved Version of the New Testament," which might perhaps come nearer to his ideas of perfection as a translation, than the ordinary version. But the character which Mr. Porter has given of the common translation is, I hesitate not to say, unjustifiable and unwarranted. I argue not for the infallibility or inspiration of the translators, or for the perfect integrity of the work they have pro

duced. I admit that there are defects in that work; but they are not connected with any point of doctrine, or rule of practice, so as to impair the distinctness of the one, or to blunt the moral cogency of the other. But, just as the astronomer discerns spots in the sun, which do not prevent the inhabitants of our world from receiving all that illumination and guidance which his brightness is calculated to afford; so, although the critical student of the Bible may discern some defects in its translation, yet still the commonly received version is sufficiently accurate to answer that important object for which a revelation has been imparted to be "a guide to our feet, and a lantern to our paths." And if a new translation were faithfully executed, I have no hesitation to assert, that it would be far more favourable to the inculcation of the Deity of Christ than the present.

But Mr. Porter next alluded to the original text of Scripture; which he described-I hope I commit no mistake in quoting his words as "mutilated, interpolated, and otherwise grossly corrupted; and so as to render many passages, especially those connected with this discussion, unworthy of notice." I beg to say to him, in the presence of this assembly, that, if he entertains such an opinion in reference to Scripture, he should, in consistency, become either an Infidel or a Roman Catholic::—an Infidel, in order, on the one hand, to free himself from the perplexity of building his faith upon such a sandy foundation; or a Roman Catholic, on the other hand, in order that his creed may rest upon a basis which is apparently solid to the mind of every sincere member of that communion; namely, the authority and infallibility of the Church of Rome. But, let me ask, what description of faith must that man have, who considers his only rule of faith to be "mutilated, interpolated, and otherwise grossly corrupted?" The natural tendency of preaching up such a sentiment as this, would be to promote universal religious scepticism. But is Mr. Porter, and are this auditory, aware of the laborious research which Dr. KENNICOTT underwent, in order to ascertain the integrity of the Original Scriptures? He spent about thirty years in reviewing, collating, and comparing the different manuscripts of the Bible, to which he, could have access. And when this long period had brought his work to a close, he strongly lamented that he had spent his labour in vain; as he had found no important deviations from the received text. But though Dr. KENNICOTT may have imagined that his labour was in vain, yet this meeting will, on the slightest reflection, perceive that he arrived at the most desirable and important conclusion, and one which demonstrated incontrovertibly the general and minute integrity of the original text of Scripture.

I shall now allude to the commentary pronounced by Mr. Porter upon some of the texts connected with this discussion. He first adverted to Acтs xx. 28: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Mr. Porter argued, upon GRIESBACH's authority, that the word ou, in the original of this passage, is spurious. For

my present object I neither argue for nor against the genuineness of sou; but I would just remark, that this reading is well supported, and that the Vatican M.S., one of the very highest authority, which GRIESBACH never saw, gives countenance to this reading. I make him, however, a present of this text, but shall first make some use of it before I part with it. I do not require it as a proof for my doctrine, nor did I quote it in my enumeration of arguments yesterday. I ask Mr. Porter, then, why is he so anxious to prove that cou, in this passage, is not genuine? Is not this desire to remove this word from the text necessarily based upon a tacit, and, of course, unconscious admission, that if sou were in the passage, it would supply me and my cause with a valid argument for the true Deity of Christ? On no other principle can Mr. Porter be exonerated from the charge of introducing totally irrelevant matter into this discussion. If, then, he admits-which he must, upon every principle of consistency and straight-forward reasoning-that sou, if in this text, would prove the Deity of Christ, I hope his mind is prepared to admit the force of the application of the very same title to the Saviour in passages, about the genuineness and authenticity of which, there is neither question nor insinuation; such as JOHN i. 1; Rom. ix. 5; TITUS ii. 13; 1 JOHN v. 20, &c. to which I yesterday referred.

Mr. Porter next adverted to 1 TIM. iii. 15, 16: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh," &c.-Now, in quoting this passage yesterday, I showed you that it was of no consequence whether we read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, or ὃς ἐφανερώθη; as in the latter case we must naturally understand is to be a relative pronoun, having for its antecedent the noun substantive sou, in the sentence, "which is the church of the living God;" and we must read the intervening sentence as a parenthesis: thus, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, (the pillar and ground of truth, and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness,) who was manifest in the flesh," &c. Mr. Porter has suggested another translation of this passage: thus, " He who was manifest in the flesh was justified in the Spirit," &c.; by which rendering he translates is as an adjective; but I simply reply to this, that it is contrary to every rule and principle of Greek syntax to translate is in. this manner, unless where we cannot possibly find an antecedent in the preceding context, which is not the case in this passage. But these remarks are based upon the supposition of rejecting Osos from the text, which I would not for a moment assent to-because I have evidence internal and external to support the received reading. 1st, I ask any man of plain sense, what becomes of "the mystery," if the word "God" be taken away? If you extract the one, you necessarily remove the other; for in what could the "mystery," of which the Apostle speaks, refer to but to this, that God was manifest in the flesh ?-2dly, Mr. Porter has said much about the purity of GRIESBACH'S text; but, with respect to this passage, how did G