I now come to state the doctrine which I propose to maintain. I have, in compliance with the request of Mr. Bagot, embodied the doctrine which I am about to maintain respecting the Supreme Being, and respecting the person of our blessed Lord, in answers to two queries propounded by him, and to which he insisted on a public and direct reply. The queries, as they were originally proposed, (for to the second edition of them I do not wish unnecessarily to refer,) were, Whom do you consider to be the One God of the Bible? And what positive views do you hold in reference to the person of the Word which was made flesh?

To these questions I gave my answers in the columus of the Northern Whig:

1. There is one self-existent God, the Father: who is God alone; to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every other person, being, subsistence, or distinction.

2. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, deriving (even in his highest capacity, nature, or condition) his existence, wisdom, power, and authority, from the Father, and subordinate to him in all attributes.

I had purposely drawn up these propositions in a form which I thought directly impugned the doctrine advanced in the Abstract of Mr. Bagot, and in the Articles of the Church of which he is a member; but as at our conference soon afterwards, held for the purpose of settling the preliminaries, he thought the contradiction not strong enough, I afterwards modified them, at his desire, into the form in which they appear in the printed handbill:

1. There is one self-existent God, the Father: who is God alone; to the entire exclusion of the alleged Proper Deity of the Word.

2. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is (even in his highest capacity, nature, or condition,) a created being, deriving his existence, wisdom, power, and authority, from the Father; and inferior to him in these and all other attributes.

At the same time that I made these modifications in my printed propositions, I declared to him, and now repeat publicly, for the information of all to whom the opinions of so humble an individual are matter of concern,-that I ain not one of those Christians who believe our blessed Lord and Saviour to be a simple, mere man, miraculously inspired and directed by the Supreme Being, or by his energy, the Holy Spirit. I receive his own words as literally true, when he declares that he came down from heaven. I acknowledge, according to his own most solemn declaration in that most affecting prayer that ever was uttered or recorded, that he had glory with the Father before the world was; and I regard the state of glory into which he was removed by his ascension as only a resumption of that dignified state in which he existed before he appeared among men, ' with an augmentation of rank and felicity, conferred upon him as a reward for the benevolence, the patience, and the piety, evinced in the midst of the most cruel privations and sufferings here below. These are my views of the person of the Redeemer of men; and I think they are borne out by the tenor of the Sacred Volume; though not unattended with difficult and perplexing circumstances, which sometimes occur to my own mind with a force that disposes me to look with great charity on those who differ from me. Still I

think them to be founded on, and agreeable to the Word of God. But I refused to insert them in my replies to Mr. Bagot's queries, because they do not relate to the subject of controversy between him and me. Our discussion relates to the "Proper Deity of the Word." On that subject my propositions are, I will venture to affirm, as full and explicit as he could himself desire; and on points that may be agitated between myself and my Unitarian brethren, I will not enter into controversy with him. Let him first become a Unitarian, and then it will be time enough for him and me to discuss the pre-existence or humanity of Christ. And if I were to judge from the first of the propositions which he has put before the public, I might conclude that he is already almost, and is on the high road to become altogether, such as I am myself. For, behold, in the very front appears a statement, which contains no doctrine from which the most determined Unitarian that ever lived, would or could express his dissent. His first proposition is:

1. There is one God, Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature.

Shade of the injured EMLYN! be at rest. Your principles are espoused by the advocate of that church whose prelates countenanced your odious persecution! Peace to your manes!-your mantle has fallen where you least expected it to light. "There is one God, Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature." Where-where in all the world did Mr. Bagot light upon this heterodox truth? Not, certainly, in the creeds which he habitually recites in public worship; and which, whether Nicene or Athanasian, contain no doctrine so pure, so clear, so beautiful, so scriptural, so divine, respecting the Godhead of the Almighty! No, nor in the tomes of ponderous divinity that have been elaborately composed in cloisters, colleges, or halls-and have been preached in pulpits, or unfeignedly assented and consented to by the clergy of his church. It was not there that Mr. Bagot lighted upon the pure and beautiful truth, which his own first proposition enunciates, that there is one God Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature!" No: some stray leaf of LARDNER or of BELSHAM must have wandered into his study, like the Sibyl's verses borne upon the flitting breeze; some fragment of PRIESTLEY or of PRICE, of CHANNING or of BRUCE, must have found its way into his retirement; and having caught his eye, has presented to his mind the idea of this simple and admirable truth, that JEHOVAH IS ONE! which, so soon as seen, captivated his imagination by its loveliness, and won him by its charms to do it this public homage!

It cannot be said, with truth, that Mr. Bagot adopted this divine and scriptural and most Unitarian proposition, without due warning. The act was not done inadvertently. I told him, at the time when we exchanged our statements, that his amounted to a departure from his own doctrines. I told him that it would be considered by those of that theological party of which he was regarded as the champion, as a dereliction of their principles. I told him it would not be

considered by any party as a satisfactory reply to his own question, which he had of his own mere motion put to me, and which he had insisted on my answering explicitly, and in the public prints, before he would even consent to make arrangements for the present meeting. I put the question to him in his own words,-" Whom do you consider to be the One God of the Bible?" I fully expected to hear him answer, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;"—or, in the language of the Litany, the "Holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God." Such an answer would have comported with his office as a clergyman in a Trinitarian church, and with his character as a man zealous for that doctrine, and who had previously published a Treatise on the subject; but all such ideas were vain. Mr. Bagot had, in his sermon at St. Anne's, avowed himself "a Unitarian;" and so much was he in love with his newfangled designation, that nothing would content him but to advance this Unitarian proposition to the front of his arrayed battalion!-The name of Unitarian has been held up as a term of invective and severe reproach. Its synonymes, in popular addresses, have been infidel, atheist, reviler of the Saviour! The Unitarian doctrine has been held up to public scorn and execration, as a God-denying heresy a soul destroying-leprosy

a dilution, and a upas tree! It is to be hoped that none of these epithets will ever again be employed: for now our name is assumed, as a term of honour, by the very leader of our opponents; and our right to its exclusive possession is contested with us, as a thing of value; and he who steps forward to impugn our faith in fact, pays it the compliment of assuming it in name: insomuch that when he might, and in my opinion was bound in fairness to put down in his first proposition a statement of the Trinitarian doctrine, he feels himself induced or obliged to content himself with the assertion of ours.

I say again, I distinctly say, that Mr. Bagot, by this statement, shrinks from the defence of the Trinity. I say again, that he renders up the battlements of his own ecclesiastical creed. I say again, that he has not given a clear, an open, and explicit answer, in accordance with the principles which he is supposed to maintain, to the very question which he perseveringly and pertinaciously urged on me!

But while I allow,-and not only allow, but in the course of this discussion shall strenuously maintain, that the first proposition of Mr. Bagot contains nothing but a principle of eternal truth, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,-I am very far from bestowing the same praise upon the second, which he has linked with it in an ungrateful and unholy alliance. His first proposition we have The second is to this effect:

seen.

2. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is the Word made flesh, perfect God and perfect man; possessing, as the Word, the same eternity, knowledge, power, authority, prerogatives, and godhead with the Father, and one with him in all attributes.

The match is ill assorted; the parties are not agreed; and I forbid the banns!

The first proposition is rational-scriptural-intelligible; the second is irrational, unscriptural, and unintelligible. The first proposition asserts, that "there is one God Jehovah only; "—a proposition

which is in accordance with the soundest dictates of the human understanding;—a proposition which is in complete harmony with that primary revelation, the revelation of nature, on which the revelation of the Bible is founded: for if the heavens declare the glory of God, they declare the glory of One God only; if the firmament showeth forth his handy-work, it certainly reveals the handy-work of none besides. Whereas the second of these mutually-destructive propositions announces a second person in the character of Deity, of whom reason says nothing, and of whom, in this capacity, Scripture is silent. The first proposition declares, that "there is ONE GOD, JEHOVAH, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged godhead of every creature;”- a proposition which is distinctly stated over and over again, as I shall abundantly prove, in every part of the Sacred Volume, with every copious variety of phrase, of emphasis, and connexion, that can give it weight. The latter announces, that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Mediator, is perfect God and perfect man; —a statement which I defy him to produce any one passage of Scripture to prove;-to prove, not by inference, nor deduction, nor wire-drawn conclusion, nor by arbitrary meaning placed upon words contrary to their known tenor and signification in other places; but by plain, downright, unequivocal assertion, such as I shall bring forward, if he does not, to establish his first proposition. Let him name to us one single text in which it is plainly declared, that “the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is the Word made flesh, perfect God and perfect man," -or words to that effect, and the controversy between us is at an end. The first proposition declares a truth which all can understand, and all can heartily embrace, that "there is ONE God, JEHOVAH, who is God only; -a truth which is no mystery and no contradiction. But the latter, which asserts that the same being is perfect God and perfect man, asserts what Mr. Bagot may and will and must affirm to be a mystery; but which, I do declare, appears to me to be nothing but a contradiction and an absurdity. To say that the same-being and the same person is perfect God and perfect man,-what is this but to affirm, that he is almighty, at the same time that he is weak; that he is omniscient, at the same time that he is ignorant; that he is omnipresent, at the same time that he is limited in extent; that he is eternal, at the same time that he is limited in duration; that he is supreme and independant, at the same time that he is inferior and dependant?-Call this a mystery!—say that it is above human reason! It is not above human reason! I know the meaning of every term in the proposition. I know the force of every connecting particle or phrase employed. I see and know that the two sets of attributes, the divine and human, are perfectly incompatible; that the proposition which asserts they both belong to the same person, is irreconcilable with itself, and is self-destructory. No such proposition is contained in Scripture!

I am aware that those who argue on this hypothesis tell us, they are compelled to resort to it, in order to get rid of a contradiction. They say that one set of qualities appear to be ascribed to our Lord Jesus Christ in one set of passages, and another in other places; and thus they are obliged to have recourse to the supposition of two natures

as united in one person, in order to get rid of a contradiction! And how do they get rid of this contradiction? How does their theory help them out of the difficulty? Verily, it leaves them just where it found them! It gets rid of the contradiction, by leaving it still staring them broadly in the face! Asserting the union of two natures, the divine and the human, in one person, is just asserting the same proposition in other words, which is allowed by the argument itself, to be contradictory and absurd! I shall prove, when these supposed contradictory texts come before me in the discussion, that it is by no means necessary to have recourse to this extravagant and unheardof supposition, in order to understand the passages referred to. I shall show, if I have time, that there is not one of them which may not be explained on the supposition, that our blessed Lord is what he always spoke of himself as being, one separate and distinct person and being; like other created intelligences. In the mean time, I would just beg to state or to repeat to you, what is the nature and kind of that evidence, which, if this doctrine be the doctrine of Scripture, must be required to support it.

For this purpose, let us place ourselves in the situation of one of the Evangelists; MATTHEW, for instance, who had known, and personally accompanied our Lord. He knew that this illustrious teacher was not only the long-expected Messiah, for whom the nation of the Jews anxiously looked, but a personage infinitely more exalted than the race of Abraham had ever exalted in their most ardent moods of anticipation; he was no less than THE ETERNAL AND OMNIPOTENT JEHOVAH, who created, sustains, and governs the wide universe of nature, clothed with the attributes of humanity. Under the veil of human infirmity was concealed the awful majesty of the Eternal King! With this sublime and mysterious being, MATTHEW had himself lived in habits of intimacy and familiarity. He had been invited to become his follower, and had accepted the call; he had entertained him in his house-had accompanied him on his journeys through the land of Judea-had witnessed his dangers, and shared his privations; and had seen him weep over the grave of Lazarus; and had heard him affectingly deplore the blindness and infatuation of the Jews in obstinately rejecting him; and had beheld him shed tears over the city of Jerusalem, while he foretold the ruin and desolation which the perverseness of its inhabitants was bringing down upon it. Nay, more, he had beheld him seized like a malefactor by a band of infuriate zealots; dragged before a bigoted highpriest and a cruel magistrate; condemned to death by a sentence extorted by threats from an unwilling but guilty judge; and, at last, crucified on Golgotha, with every circumstance of insult and aggravated cruelty: and knowing all this, and knowing that this being, thus treated, was no less a being than THE DREAD AND AWFUL MAJESTY OF HEAVEN,-that Great and Eternal Being, whose very name was deemed by the Jews too sacred ever to be pronounced, save once in each year, by the high priest when alone, in the holy of the holies;-MATTHEW, knowing all this, sits down to write a history of his life and labours for the instruction of his countrymen. He begins with the commencement of his earthly existence; he con