to the Common Translation; and I had carefully examined the original, with a view to determine their force. I brought forward that text in argument, because I was and am satisfied that the objections to the common rendering are perfectly vain and futile. I know, and allow, that the text, as pointed, would most naturally, though not exclusively, admit of a different translation. But I likewise know,and herein I have the almost unanimous consent of all modern Hebrew scholars of any note,-that the points are of comparatively recent date, being an invention of the Masorites in the middle ages. If this comparatively modern addition to the text be disregarded,as it evidently ought, then the most obvious and natural interpretation of JER. xxxiii. 16, becomes literally thus:

And this [is that] which shall be called [or named] upon her: JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

And I do maintain, that this Hebraic expression is perfectly equivalent to the English phrase adopted by King James' translators: “And this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.' And I argue, confidently, that this is a perfectly parallel passage to that in JER. xxiii. 5, 6, to illustrate which, I quoted it. When I consider the manner in which Mr. Bagot has spoken of the renderings of the Authorised Version throughout this debate, I cannot help recalling to mind the demand which he made on me before it was commenced; when he declared, that the only standard on which he could consent to carry on this discussion, was the Authorised Version of the Scriptures, admitting the genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of all and every part of the books contained in it. And taking into account the number of instances in which he has not only impugned its renderings, but, as in the instance just exhibited, treated them with contempt, I feel myself justified in charging him with seeking to impose on me a condition which he himself could not have conscientiously accepted.

There are several other texts noted on the paper before me, and numerous statements made by Mr. Bagot, upon which it would be highly expedient in me to comment, did time permit. But I am obliged to pass most of them over, unnoticed. To one point, however, I shall refer; although I feel that, in doing so, I am sacrificing the opportunity of adverting to other subjects of great importance to the cause which I stand forward to defend, and which I had fully intended to bring under your consideration. But I perceive I must abandon all hope of doing so; for I must stop when my hour is expired.

Mr. Bagot reasoned yesterday, in his closing speech, against the supposition, that an inferior or subordinate agent could, by possibility, be employed in executing the work of creation. He went so far as to assert, that not even the Almighty could endow a being distinct from himself with ability to execute such a task. He admitted, that the work of creation itself was finite; yet argued, that no being, but the Supreme Being, could possibly have been enabled to perform it. I answer all such hypothetic statements, by referring to JOHN i. 3; for there I find, that the employment of a subordinate agent is

expressly declared: "All things," says the Evangelist, "were made through "that is, by means of "him;" that is, the Word, as an inferior agent or instrument: for so the phrase must be understood, both in the original and in the Common Version. And I find a similar assertion in HEB. i. 1, 2: "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son; whom he hath appointed heir of all things; through whom also he hath made the worlds." In both these passages, and in several others to which there is not time to advert, the employment of subordinate agency in the work of creation is plainly and explicitly declared; so plainly in the latter passage, even if the Trinitarian version be allowed to stand, that nothing can be more distinct. Mr. Bagot, in his remarks upon this subject, protested against the d priore method of reasoning; but I appeal to yourselves, whether-when, in order to turn aside the arguments of the Unitarians, he denied the competency of the Almighty to endow a created being with power to create a world-he was not himself compelled to

-"boldly take the à priore road,

And reason downwards,"

till he doubted the power of God to impart to a creature the ability to execute a finite operation. From this remarkable specimen, you will be able to judge whether it is Mr. Bagot or I who limits the power of omnipotence! From the example now before you, you will be able to determine which of us it is that takes out of the Bible, a God possessed of those divine attributes which are necessary to render the Supreme Being the object of our confidence and faith! I beseech you to remember, it is not I, but Mr. Bagot, who asserts, that it is not possible for God to employ an inferior being as his instrument, in accomplishing any object whatsoever, which he may wish to effect through such instrumentality.

I thank Mr. Bagot for the admission which he made, when, in the course of his reasonings on the subject of Creative Power, he stated, that there cannot possibly be two almighty beings or persons in the universe. I thank him for this admission, because it seems to me directly to contradict the articles of his own faith, and to confirm and establish the Unitarian doctrine. Did time permit, I would, as Mr. Bagot has expressed it, take the loan of this principle for a little, to show how it may be turned against himself, and against the Athanasian Creed, which declares that "the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty." Now this seems to approach very closely to the assertion of three Almighties; but yet, as the creed itself is compelled to allow, "there are not three Almighties-there is but one Almighty." I need not recall to the minds of some among you, the exclamation which burst from the lips of the Scottish dealer, who, when attending public worship while on his travels in England, happened to hear this creed recited in alternate verses by the clergyman and his clerk!

I have only time to notice one other statement made by Mr. Bagot. He threw out, in the course of his remarks, if I mistake not on creation, a challenge to me to produce a single passage in which .Cc

He

the power of our Saviour, properly so called, was declared to be derived. He admitted that our Saviour had received authority (oboa) from the Father; but he denied that the power which he possessed (dúvaμs) was ever traced to any superior source. challenged me to produce a passage in which any such declaration is made respecting the Son; and, unless I am greatly mistaken, offered to rest the whole argument on this issue. In reference to this challenge, I remark, that even if it were not expressly stated in Scripture, that our Lord's power was derived, still the fact of his authority being communicated, would completely overturn the idea of his Supreme Divinity: for who could bestow authority, odiar, on the Supreme Being? But I meet Mr. Bagot on his own ground; and, accepting his challenge, I beg to turn his attention and yours to ACTS x. 38, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, AND WITH POWER;" which is, in the original, 'Incoũv ròv àñò Ναζαρέτ ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ΔΥΝΑΜΕΙ! Here, beyond all question, the very term dúvaus is used in reference to our Saviour, and coupled with an express declaration that it was communicated to him: so that my reverend opponent might now give up the argument.

I find I have now but four minutes to close my address. I rejoice that this controversy has taken place. I rejoice that I took that view of my duty as a Unitarian minister, and as a friend to the cause of truth, which induced me to accept the invitation or suggestion of Mr. Bagot,-if so he is pleased to call it, which others have construed as a challenge to the whole Unitarian body, and which impelled me to step forward to meet this redoubted paladin. I am glad, I say, that I thus stepped forward; and this consciousness shall be a lesson to me, as long as I live, never to allow any public attack to be made on my principles,-which are dear to me as my life itself;-not less dear to me than Mr. Bagot's are to him, though I dislike talking so much about them, to which I shall not reply, when circumstances bring it under my particular notice. True, I am but a weak, feeble being; but when a great cause is at stake, to which I have devoted my life, so long as I have my reason spared by the God who conferred it, and so long as health endures, I will not suffer that great and glorious cause to be tarnished for one moment by any reluctance on my part, to appear before an unwilling auditory-by any selfish timidity, backwardness, or reserve. I am satisfied this discussion has already advanced those doctrines I advocated, and will advance them still farther. But let me not be misunderstood. I do not expect to make a single immediate convert. I know too well the power of prepossessions which are early engrafted in the mind,-I know too well the pains that are taken to bring up the rising generation under the influence of feelings of horror towards my opinions, -to expect that any thing I can do or say should prevail against that force of prejudice which exists in many minds. But should only a few inquiring spirits,-and such are to be found in every societybe induced to look into the Word of God, and there read, whether these things indeed are so;-should this be the result in any candid

minds, and especially should it be the result in any considerable number of instances, I am satisfied the discussion in which I have been engaged, must tend to the growth of those principles for which I have contended. For truth is mighty, and it will prevail; and we have a promise that a time will come, and a hope that it is rapidly approaching, when JEHOVAH SHALL BE ONE, AND HIS NAME ONE."

At the termination of this address, Mr. Bagot stepped forward to propose a series of questions to Mr. Porter; but Mr. ANDREWS, one of the Chairmen, objected to his doing so, on the ground of his having refused to receive a question from Mr. Porter, after the conclusion of his last address. Mr. Bagot immediately said, that this had escaped his recollection, and he at once acquiesced in the Chairman's decision, but requested Mr. Porter to allow him to make an explanation in reference to his use of the word "blasphemy." To this, Mr. Porter assented; and

MR. BAGOT said.-Mr. Porter has shown, by some remarks in his last address, that he understood me to have associated the charge of blasphemy personally with him. I beg to say, I had no such intention. If he wishes to know what my feelings are towards him and those who agree with him in religious opinion, he will find them stated in the 10th chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the ROMANS, at the 1st verse, where the Apostle says- Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, THAT THEY MAY be saved.”

MR. PORTER.-When I said that if the offensive words which I understood to be applied to me were retracted, I should give the hand of friendship to Mr. Bagot, I spoke in the sincerity of my soul; and thus I redeem the pledge.

Mr. Porter presented to Mr. Bagot his hand, which he cordially shook.

The Chairmen then announced that the discussion terminated, and the assembly dispersed.

FINIS.

We hereby certify, that the foregoing Report contains a full, faithful, and accurate account of our respective Addresses at the late Discussion; and that no other can be genuine or authentic.

Signed this 21st day of May, 1834.

J. SCOTT PORTER.

DANIEL BAGOT.

I hereby certify, that this Report of the Discussion between the Rev. DANIEL BAGOT and the Rev. J. SCOTT PORTER, conducted in Belfast, on Monday the 14th April, 1834, and the three following days, is, in every respect, genuine and authentic,—that no other Report can be so; as this agrees with the short-hand note of the whole proceedings -including criticisms, quotations, references, &c. &c.—taken by me. MICHAEL HANLY.

23, Dominick Street, Dublin, May 21st, 1834.

Simms & M-Intyre, Printers, Bellast.