In verse 21, "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

In verse 22, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath com. mitted all judgment unto the Son."-The receiving such a commission implies, necessarily, his antecedent possession of every divine quality to enable him to perform the work: and I would also remark, that as the Father judgeth no man, consequently, in arguing for the Deity of the Father and the Son, from the divine works performed by them, we have more evidence for the Deity of the Son than we have for the Deity of the Father; for though it is true that "whatsoever things the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise," yet the proposition cannot be converted so as to say, Whatsoever things the Son doeth, the same doeth the Father likewise."

66

Verse 23, "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, which hath sent him."

In JOHN X. 27-38, he asserts the possession of the same power with the Father to protect his people against all their spiritual adversaries: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."-By the latter declaration, in which he sums up into one comprehensive as. sertion the substance of the two preceding verses for the consolation and security of his people, he evidently must mean, one in power and superiority to all their enemies, and in affection towards his people. It was in this sense that the Jews understood him; for they immediately took up stones to stone him, as a blasphemer; upon which Christ proceeds with his discourse, from verse 32 to 38, which consists of two parts: 1st, a justification of his words, from the 32d to the 36th verses; and 2dly, an explanation of their meaning, in verses 37 and 38: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." Now it is evident that this latter declaration is even stronger than the former ("I and my Father are one"); for it denotes not a mere simple unity of connexion, but a unity of reciprocity and of mutual indwelling; and it had the very same effect upon the Jews, of leading them to regard him as a blasphemer, upon which he took no further trouble to do away their impressions, but worked a miracle to release himself from their malignity: "Therefore, they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of their hands,"-evidently leaving them, as we must argue, upon every principle of duty and piety, in possession of the correct meaning of his two declarations in the 30th and 38th verses.

In JOHN X. 15, he asserts his possession of a knowledge of the Father, equal to the knowledge which the Father has of him: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father." Now, although

we may say that God knows every creature to perfection, yet we may truly address every created being in the universe in the language of Zophar: "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" Surely a created and finite intelligence, which knows his Creator even as the scrutinizing omniscience of his Creator knows him, is an anomaly which neither can nor does exist!

In JOHN xiv. 9, 10, he asserts his oneness with the Father to be so complete and perfect, that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father: "Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ?" And then he proceeds still further to give evidence of the perfect oneness that subsists between them; a oneness so perfect and so close, as to admit of no distinctness or independence of power, authority, or operation whatsoever, on the part of the Son, in his divine nature, from the Father: "The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself (that is, as a separate being from the Father, as Philip supposed); but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

On comparing JOHN xiv. 14 with xvi. 23, we find that Christ and the Father are equally employed in answering the prayers of the Church. The former passage is, "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it ;" and the latter, "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." And I would here remark, that the same Apostle-John-who has recorded these two declarations, enlarges upon the former, in his first Epistle, v. 14, 15, in a manner which shows that he recognised the correctness of directing our petitions to the Son of God, as well as to the Father: "And this is the confidence that we have in him (the Son of God), that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”

In JOHN xiv. 23, Christ asserts his possession of the same faculty of being universally and permanently present with his people, as the Father possessed; and represents the promise of his presence as equally valuable to his people, as that of his Father: "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."-We may also remark, upon this passage, that it connects the promise of God's presence with the love of Christ, and not of the Father; so that, if Christ is not one God with the Father, we have here an instance of God surrendering his glory and prerogatives to a creature!

In JOHN xvi. 15, we read this declaration of the Saviour: "All things that the Father hath, are mine;" and, in JOHN xvii. 10, a similar one: "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine."-Here are two explicit assertions of a common proprietorship with the Fa

ther, in all that belongs to the Father, from one "who did not 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 ROM. 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, 66 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 his 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 arrangements 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 Jesus Christ 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 immedi. ately 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 per. haps 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