every one of sense and understanding will disregard them. I might have taken advantage of the circumstances of my being the Minister who usually addresses a congregation from this place, in order to give effect to my arguments; but I would not do so, because I disdain such arts. I felt from the first that the allusion in question was irregular; but I did not interrupt Mr. Bagot: for I would not have it said, that I, or the venerable individual whom he has so unhandsomely dragged before you, had any thing to fear from all that he could say.

Mr. Bagot quoted two passages from PRIESTLEY and BELSHAM, in which these writers have expressed their opinions of the possibility of the sinfulness of Christ's human nature; but after the answer which he has given to my question, I leave it to yourselves to judge whether such allusions are serviceable to his cause. Has not Mr. Bagot himself declared, that "Christ lost communion with God?" Never did I hear from the lips of a Unitarian-never before did I hear-such an aspersion cast upon the Lord Jesus! Oh! if such an expression had proceeded from the lips of a Unitarian, or had been ushered into the world by a Unitarian press, or by a Unitarian writer, how the apostasy would have been trumpeted forth, and how its authors would have been held up to execration, as persons utterly unworthy of enjoying either part or lot in the advantages of Christian fellowship!

Mr. Bagot, after very charitably imputing to me, and to those who agree with me, "an evil heart of unbelief," proceeded to offer up a prayer similar to that which he presented on behalf of my venerable friend-a prayer which I would characterize, as ROBERT HALL did one by Bishop HORSELY, as offered up to the throne of grace in the spirit of an indictment. After this charitable prayer, he naturally enough proceeded to misrepresent what I delivered in my address of yesterday, in a way that I did not expect. In my closing address of yesterday, the greater part of which I happily had previously written down, so that I am able from the paper before me to read the exact words which I employed, I made the following statement respecting the reasoning of Mr. Bagot in support of the proper Deity of the Word, from the supposed application of divine names and titles to our Saviour.

"The first argument was drawn from the term IMMANUEL, found in Isa. vii. 14, and applied to our Saviour in MATT. i. 23. To understand the perfect emptiness of this argument, it is only necessary to read the passage in ISAIAH, with its context; which I shall do from the version of Bishop LowTH, as being much more accurate than that contained in King James' translation.

"CHAP. VII.

"In the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of," &c.

These were my very words. Yet you have seen and heard how Mr. Bagot asserted, that I poised the BIBLE in one hand, and Bishop LOWTH in the other; and that I weighed the authority of LOWTH against the authority of Scripture, and gave the preponderance to the former. Now, I ask, is this fair? Did I not appeal to the authority of Scripture, and of Scripture alone? It is true I am above pinning my faith on King James' translation as a critical standard. I took LOWTH's as being the best translation I could procure. It was to

P

the Scriptures, however, that I appealed, and not to LoWTH. I have done so no more, in this instance, than he has done in a variety of others, when he adduced other authorities against the renderings of the (so called) authorized version of the Bible. In the present case, it is quite manifest that I no more appealed to LoWTH against the authority of Scripture, than he appealed to King James' translators, in opposition to the authority of Scripture: the two cases are perfectly parallel.

Mr. Bagot has told us that the name which occurs in Isa. ix. 6, and is there translated "THE MIGHTY GOD," is in the original, 72-8, (EL-GiBboR,) a title which elsewhere designates the Supreme Being. I know it is. And what does this circumstance prove? The words, though arranged in a different order, are just the same that make up the name of the angel GaBRI-EL, which has precisely the same signification. Was this celestial messenger, then, really God Most High? If so, he may be put down as another of the persons in Mr. Bagot's multifarious divinity.

As I have already said, if I chose to signalise myself by argu mentative dexterity, Mr. Bagot has given me the opportunity: but I am more anxious to explain to you the clear evidence for the truth, as it is found recorded in the page of revelation, than to obtain for myself the character of an adroit debater or a popular declaimer. I shall, therefore, leave several of the points on which he has touched, to make whatever impression they may seem calculated to produce. There is one allusion, to which, as my reverend opponent has repeated it several times, he seems to attach considerable importance; and which, for this reason, I shall now briefly examine. The allusion is to the passage which occurs in HEB. i. 8; which, in the common version, reads thus:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Now, it is not to be denied, that according to this translation of the passage, the term God is applied to Christ the Son. But I would leave to any unprejudiced person, who should merely read over the whole of the chapter with care, and should attend to the expres, sions which accompany this verse, to determine whether the phrase is, or is not, applied to him in the highest sense, by the Sacred Writer. The mere reading of the preceding and subsequent verse will suffice to render this clear.

HEB. i. 7—9. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto [or of] the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

"God-even thy God-hath anointed thee;" therefore the person who is addressed as God in the preceding verse, had a God above him; and consequently could not be the Supreme Deity, nor God in the strictest sense of the word. "God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness;" therefore the person addressed in the 8th verse could not be the Everlasting Divinity: for who could

anoint the Supreme Being with the oil of gladness? Who could increase that felicity which is at every moment, and has been from all eternity, perfect and complete? "God-even thy God-hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows;" therefore the person addressed in the 8th verse, could not be the Supreme Being, who reigns without a rival and without an equal. This argument is so plain, that even Mr. Bagot, with all his ingenuity, will not be able to tura it aside. But to make it still more obvious, I refer you to

PSALM xlv. 5, 6. Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Here we find the very words on which Mr. Bagot so much relies, as proving the proper Deity of the Word, applied to a person who, from several expressions in the psalm, appears to be Solomon, in a composition which is entitled "A Song of Loves;" that is, an epithalamium or amatory poem. I shall only state, that the commencing clause in HEB. i. 8, and in PSALM xlv. 6, may, in both places, be very properly translated "GOD is thy throne for ever and ever;" an expression which is similar to those wherein God is spoken of as a tower, a fortress, and a shield; and that it is probably applied both to Solomon and to our Lord, simply to denote the stability and continuance of their respective kingdoms.

I shall now proceed to lay before you the remaining proofs that the Scriptures uniformly represent the Son of God, as subordinate to God, the Father; and in the first place I shall demonstrate that→

JESUS

THE TITLES WHICH ARE GIVEN IN SCRIPTURE TO OUR LORD
CHRIST, ARE SUCH AS DECIDEDLY PROVE HIS INFERIORITY TO THE
FATHER.

(1.) He is called "the Word;" and this term is believed, by those who suppose that in him two natures are united, to denote the highest of them.

JOHN i. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JOHN i. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. These two verses, which occur, in the same context, afford the only instance that I have been able to find, in which the term Word can, even by possibility, be supposed to be applied to Christ in any sense. On the former passage I have already commented at sufficient length: I confine myself, on this occasion, to a very few remarks on the latter. It asserts, that "the Word" was made flesh and "the Word," as Mr. Bagot intimates, is the proper and descriptive name for Christ's divine nature. Was, then, the divine nature made flesh? Was the Deity converted into manhood?-This the text affirms, if the meaning attributed to the Word be correctly stated. But this is a doctrine which even the orthodox repudiate: the term Word, there

fore, cannot in this passage admit of the signification supposed. Was the Eternal Majesty of heaven made (eyevero) flesh? Well did Mr. Bagot declare, that it is difficult not to trespass beyond the proper limits, when stating views such as those now adverted to. But, in truth, not only does the term Word not denote the Supreme Deity of the person to whom it is applied; but no term could be employed, more clearly expressing the very contrary: for none can more distinctly proclaim, that one being is inferior to another, than when the former is declared to be the word of the latter. You will observe, that in JOHN i. 14, it is not declared that the SUPREME Being took man's nature into union with his own; but, simply, that THE WORD was made or became flesh. Now that the Word is itself a name of inferiority, I shall prove by simply reading to you the meanings of the term Abyos, (Word,) as given by the celebrated Trinitarian lexicographer, SCHLEUSNER, in his Lexicon to the New Testament. They are as follows:

A word spoken, a speech, an oration, (short or long,) a written discourse, a writing, a book, (more especially historical,) a narrative of a fact, a story, (true or false,) a report, a rumour, a precept, a mandate, a testimony, an oracle, a vaticination, a prophecy, a promise, a threat, a commination, a proverb, an adage, a popular opinion or sentiment, a question, a controversy, a subject of discussion, a suit at law, a cause to come before a judge, a calumny, a reproach, a blasphemy, a doctrine taught, an instruction, a mode or plan of teaching, the power of speaking and teaching; a teacher, [N. B. To this meaning, SCHLEUSNER refers JOHN i. 1, JOHN i. 14, and 1 JOHN v. 7;] the profession of the Christian religion, the subject of discourse, an account to be rendered of any act or fact in words, an account rendered of any thing given and received; a cause; a reason; the estimation in which any thing is held; an affair, a fact, a business; a trade, a commerce; equity, justice, fairness; the apparent and outward seeming of any thing, as opposed to fact and truth. Sometimes it is superfluous; sometimes it is omitted.

Such is the signification of that term which Mr. Bagot tells us is the proper name of the Supreme Deity of Christ. After reading the list, am I not authorised to ask, whether any term could have been found more inadequate to express the idea which his theory affixes to it?

2. Our Lord is called the "Child of God" in Scripture, three times; the "Son of God," or "the Son," ninety-three times at least; "God's own Son, dear Son, beloved Son, or only-begotten Son," fifteen times. The passages being so numerous, I refer you to CRUDEN'S, or any other good Concordance, for the places wherein they occur. Now, I argue, that every instance wherein one of these names is to be found, is a proof of the inferiority of the person to whom it is applied. The phrases, " Son," "Son of God," &c. as applied to our Lord, are no doubt metaphorical; but yet they clearly and strongly express the priority of the Father-the origination of the Son, as opposed to self-existence, and his inferiority to his Father in wisdom, dignity, and authority. It appears, then, that Christ's filial relation to God is expressed in Scripture about one hundred and ten times; while he is not called God oftener than twice or thrice; and, in every instance, with marks which show that the name is given to him only in a general or inferior sense. It is plain, that the Father must

exist before the Son, and that the Son derives his existence from the Father; and both these circumstances are irreconcilable with the alleged proper Deity of the Son. If, indeed, the writers of Scripture had known our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Supreme Being, why would they so repeatedly and habitually give him a name which so distinctly implies inferiority?

The terms Father and Son, as applied to God and our Saviour, denote, indeed, the mutual affection which subsists between them; and bestowed, as the phrase Son of God is in Scripture, emphatically on our Lord, it signifies, unquestionably, that he enjoyed a distinguished degree of regard and affection on the part of the Supreme Being. But this is no more than every Unitarian believes; and, certainly, no denomination could more inadequately denote the Supreme Being. Yet this is the very word which is almost uniformly employed in human creeds, catechisms, and liturgies, to express his Godhead. In such compositions, we read repeatedly of "God the Son;" a phrase which cannot be pointed out in Scripture; but which occurs in that prayer which Mr. Bagot recites every Sunday—“ O God the Son, Redeemer of the world," &c. Let it be remembered, that the phrase "Son of God" is attributed to many other beings whose Deity never was alleged. Thus, we read, that, on the completion of the material creation, "all the Sons of God" (i. e. the angels) "shouted for joy." The Jews, under the Old Testament dispensation, are called "children of the Most High." And, under the New Covenant, Christians are reminded of the love which the Father hath showed unto us, that we should be called "the Sons of God." A phrase which can be so extensively applied, certainly affords no intimation of the Supreme Deity of him to whom it is applied.

3. Our blessed Lord is called an Apostle once; a High Priest eleven times; a Prophet nineteen times. All these terms denote, of themselves, his inferiority to God. The manner in which these titles are given to Christ in the New Testament, confirms this inference.

HEB. iii. 1. Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful. "A High Priest" can scarcely be regarded as denoting a divine person. In this passage, our Saviour is represented as an Apostle, and as a High Priest, who was appointed to those offices, in the same manner, and by the same authority, to which Moses owed his selection; and who was, like him, faithful to his superior. Subordination could not be more clearly expressed. For the other examples of the use of these phrases, I must, as before, refer to the Concordance, in which they will readily be found. Among the instances wherein our Lord is called a Prophet in the New Testament, I refer you to his own words in

LUKE xiii. 33. It cannot be that a 'Prophet perish out of Jerusalem. These words he spoke in anticipation of his death. He is also called by the same title in

LUKE xxiv. 19. Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God, and all the people.