tralize the force of this title when applied to Christ in Isa. ix. 6, will, by a parity of reasoning, dilute and neutralize its import when applied to Jehovah in these four passages to which I have referred. But, however, he asserted that there is no authority for applying ISA. ix. 6 to the Saviour. In reply to this, I beg to refer him to MATT. iv. 14, 16, where the previous context of this passage (ver. 1 and 2) are expressly quoted as having their fulfilment in the personal ministry of Christ: "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up."

But while I am occupied with this passage of Scripture, I wish to make a remark which applies both to it, and to other passages which contain a description of the Saviour's person. I hold that the person of Christ, as Mediator, is a complex person,-God and man. I therefore expect to find, when I open the Bible, that those passages which contain a description of his person should be of a complex structure, corresponding with the complexity of the person described. For instance: in Isa. ix. 6, I find this to be the case; for the first two clauses of the passage, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given," describe his humanity; and the remainder of the verse describes his Deity. So also in MAL. iii. 1, he is first described, in reference to his Deity, as "the Lord coming to his temple;" then he is described, in reference to his mediatorial character, as "the Messenger of the covenant;" and then these two references to the condi.. tion of the Saviour are combined into one personal reference, by the use of the pronoun "he" in the concluding member of the verse,"even he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts."-So also in HEB. i. 8, 9, we find another complex description of his complex person; for the 8th verse refers to his Deity, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;" and the 9th verse refers to his humanity, in reference to which, it is said, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Now, when I read this portion of the word of God, I do not apply to its interpretation Mr. Porter's principle, which he has borrowed from the algebraic doctrine of positive and negative quantities. I do not employ the 9th verse, in order to neutralise the 8th. I believe both declarations to be true.

Mr. Porter yesterday maintained, in order to weaken my argument from the application of the title "God" to Christ, that this title is frequently given in Scripture to confessedly created beings. In reply to this, I answer, that, admitting it to be the fact, yet if it weakens or dilutes the force of my arguments for the Deity of the Son, from the application of this title to him,-it must, on a similar principle, weaken the force of the argument for the Deity of the Father, derived from the application of the title "God" to him. As an instance of this subordinate use of the title God, Mr. Porter referred to ExOD. vii. 1: “And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee (or appointed thee) a God (or Elohim) to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee." But upon this text I remark, that it is quite

absurd to place it on a level with the instances of the application of the title "God" to Christ, which I have adduced. Here the official sense in which Moses was to be made "a God," is limited to Pharaoh, and explained to mean that, in the same sense in which Aaron was to be a prophet to Moses, so was Moses to be "a God" to Pharaoh. And so far from the application of the term implying the investiture of Moses with any thing like an independent authority, power, or prerogative, it is expressly stated that Moses was "to speak all that God commanded him." And on reverting to ExOD. iv. 16, we find a passage precisely parallel to this, which gives it this explanation: "And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God." But I ask, was Moses in the habit of acting as if he were a Deity? Surely not: and I may remark, that, when on one solitary occasion he had spoken unadvisedly with his lips, and had thereby abstracted from the glory of Jehovah, he be.. came the subject of the Divine displeasure, and was excluded from the promised land, as a punishment of his presumption. The commands of Moses were always prefaced by "thus saith Jehovah," and "Jehovah hath commanded me." Christ, on the other hand, never adopted this style of inferiority: he never says, "thus saith Jehovah :" he always acts and speaks upon his own authority, and in all things exhibits himself to his creatures as Lord of all. Observe, for instance, the language which he adopted in the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time (for so it is in the Greek), thou shalt not steal: but I say unto you." Here he contrasts his legislative authority with that of Jehovah, delivering the ten commandments to the Israelites.

The next instances of an alleged application of the term "God" to creatures, to which Mr. Porter referred, were in Exod. xxi 6: "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges" (in the Hebrew it is "Elohim");-and 1 SAM. ii. 25: "If one man sin against another, the judge (in Hebrew "Elohim”) shall judge him." In both of these passages, Mr. Porter asserted that the term "Elohim," or "God," is applied to the judges of Israel. I deny this; and I assert, that no proper instance of the application of this title to the judges can be adduced. Does not Mr. Porter know, that the Jewish government was a THEOCRACY?-that God himself was Judge and King? and that he was ever regarded as presiding in the Jewish courts of law? And, if you look to Exod. xviii. 14-19, you will find the judicial process explained upon this principle': "And when Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto evening? And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me, to inquire of God. When they have a matter, they come unto me, and I judge between one and another; and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.* * * Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God."-So that, upon the principle that God was Judge and King, whenever an Israelite brought his cause into the court, he was considered as bring

ing it before the great Judge and King. I would here add, that the word "Elohim," in both the passages under consideration, is translated in the Septuagint as denoting the Supreme Being; and the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions of 1 SAM. ii. 25, translate "Elohim," not as "Judge," but as the "Supreme God." And these authorities are at least as good as Mr. Porter's.

But let me a little farther examine this objection, derived from the application of the title "God" to creatures. If this title were given by MANOAH and his wife, when their feelings were overwhelmed with fright and alarm, to a created angel, am I to set up such authority as this against the authority of the Holy Ghost, who applies the same title to Christ? Or, if I find the witch of Endor, when terrified by an apparition, giving the title of "God" to a fictitious or real being, am I to confront this fact with the instances of the application of the same title by the Holy Spirit to our Saviour, in JOHN i. 1, and HEB. i. 8, and thus set up the authority of a witch against the authority of the Holy Ghost? Again: when I adduce in argument the two instances of an application to Christ of the titles "King of kings, and Lord of lords," which are recorded in REV. xvii. 14, and xix. 16, and which are the same as those applied to the Father, upon Mr. Porter's principles, in 1 TIM. vi. 15; I am answered, forsooth, as I have been answered, that the argument is worth nothing, because Artaxerxes styled himself "King of kings." But I answer, If Artaxerxes chose to give himself the nickname of "King of kings,"—if he chose, in the pride of his heart, to set up his authority against the authority of God,-am 1 to admit this as a parallel case with the ascription of the title of "King of kings" by the Holy Ghost to our Saviour? Does the Holy Ghost, do you think, apply the titles of "King of kings, and Lord of lords," as nicknames to our Saviour? But I am driven almost upon the very verge of blasphemy, in endeavouring to answer such arguments as I am now referring to! I shall conclude this point, by reading a note upon the subject, to the following effect:-The simple and correct way of trying the value of the objections advanced against the Deity of Christ, from the application of the name of "God" to confessedly created beings, is to examine the alleged instances by a plain grammatical principle, which is this: That we are always to understand words in that sense in which the speaker or writer employs them, and then to decide upon the correctness of that sense according to the competency of the judgments of those who so employ the words in question. Now, apply this principle to PSALM lxxxii. 6, 7: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Here we at once perceive, that the Psalmist has used the term in an ironical— or, I might say, in a ludicrous-sense. Apply the principle also to 1 COR. viii. 5: " Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many)." Here it is evident, that the Apostle is speaking of those who were gods in the estimation of their worshippers; and we know that the Heathen were grossly incorrect in their use of the word "God." ON THE OTHER HAND, apply the same principle to JOHN i. 1: "The Word

was God;" or to Rom. ix. 5: "Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." In these instances, we find the Holy Ghost, by the instrumentality of the Apostles, giving the title "God" to Christ; and we cannot suppose that he gives the title to him in an ironical sense, or in a subordinate sense (for in each passage there are concomitant expressions, which show that the title is used in its strict and proper sense). Thus, the question resolves itself into this: Are we to suppose that the Holy Ghost was an incompetent judge as to the correct application of this title? Are we to reject his testimony as to the Deity of the person to whom he thus gives the name of God, in the same manner as we reject the testimony of the Heathen, as to the Deity of those real or fictitious creatures to whom they gave the title? The answer is easy; and this view of the subject places it in its proper light.

I would also remark, that the Greek word Oos is not represented in the New Testament as being applied, by any competent authority, to any confessedly created being; and also, that the contrast instituted by Unitarians between passages in which the title "God" is applied to creatures, and those in which it is applied to Christ, might as well be instituted between the same, and those passages in which it is applied to the Father. Why should our opponents be allowed the advantage of a tacit admission, that the title is applied, in every case, in a strictly proper sense, to the Father? We do not deny the true Deity of the Father; but we fairly argue, that every objection advanced against the Deity of the Son, is an equally valid objection against the Deity of the Father.

Mr. Porter next referred to JER. Xxiii. 5, 6: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (or JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." In order to evade the argument for the Deity of Christ, which I derived from the application to him of the name, "Jehovah," in this passage, Mr. Porter argued, that I might as well believe in the Deity of Jerusalem, because the same title is applied to that city in JER. xxxiii. 15, 16: "In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, THE LORD (or JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." I would like to know if Mr. Porter has forgotten his Hebrew? Is he not aware, that the words," she shall be called," in the latter passage, are a mistranslation? He said a good deal, in the course of this discussion, upon the subject of bad translations; but he has not hesitated to argue from a mistranslation, when he considered it to be in his favour, and suitable to the defence of his opinions. Allow me, now, to give the true rendering of this passage. It may be either translated thus, "And He who shall call her is Jehovah our Righteousness; "or thus, "This is the name whereby He shall be called (or by which one shall call him) Jehovah, our Righteousness." The latter translation is

adopted by the VULGATE and the SYRIAC version, and is constructed on the principle of understanding the personal pronoun, to be the masculine in the Chaldaic form, which is of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament. Dr. PYE SMITH's translation of this passage is as follows:

"And this is He who shall call to her,
Jehovah our Righteousness."

I may here remark, in addition to the above, that the passage extending from verse 14 to 26, is wanting in the Aldine, Vatican, and Alexandrine copies of the Septuagint; but in two M.SS. it stands thus

1. Καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα ὃ κληθήσεται, Κύριος δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν : "This the name which shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness."

2. Καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα ὃ καλέσει αὐτὴν, Κύριος δίκαιος συν ἡμῖν : “ And this the name which he shall call her, the righteous Lord with us;" understanding the last word, in this latter version, to be a cominemorative indication of the presence of the righteous Lord with his Church.

MR. PORTER.-I will exercise my privilege of putting a question to Mr. Bagot, to which I hope to receive, what I have not yet received on former occasions, a plain and direct answer. Mr. Bagot has asserted, in the hearing of you all, that, in order to enable Christ to exercise and execute the functions of his office, it was necessary that he should lose communion with God; and, therefore, that he did lose communion with God. I now ask Mr. Bagot, How did Christ lose communion with God, without being sinful?

MR. BAGOT.—My words were simply these: Christ assumed human nature, in order that he might, in reference to that human nature, become capable of losing communion with God; for, in reference to his divine nature, he could not lose communion with God.

MR. PORTER.-My friends, if I was desirous to signalize myself as a master of declamation, I should be obliged to Mr. Bagot for the speech now delivered; for never was there a fairer opportunity afforded to man of showing how completely an opponent's own statements could be retorted on himself, than that which is now presented to me. What a display might I not now make, if I could descend to the arts of vulgar oratory, in the advocacy of my cause! But to such means I never shall resort.

I must strongly object to Mr. Bagot's introduction of the name of that venerable man before us (Dr. BRUCE), my predecessor and my friend. I object to this allusion as being personal, to one who had no opportunity of speaking for himself, to correct what might be a misrepresentation of his sentiments, or to set himself right before this assembly. It was unkind and uncourteous, on the part of Mr. Bagot, to take advantage of the accidental circumstance of our carrying on this discussion within these walls, in order to make a clap-trap allusion to that venerable man.Such acts may have their effect on a few unthinking minds; but