the person who actually executes the work; therefore, whether you represent Christ as the instrument or not, still there is a principle propounded here which proves him to be "God."

I read the following address to Jehovah, in NEH. ix. 6: “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein.' Now, might I not as well maintain, that the "Jehovah" who is here addressed was a subordinate agent in the hands of some superior Deity, who did not manifest himself in the work, but sat behind the curtain of the universe; as argue that, though it is said of Christ in COL. i. 16, "by him were all things created," yet he was not the Creator, except in this inferior sense?

But, in fact, creation was not a work in the sense in which we understand the term. It was effected, not by "working," but by "commanding." This is proved by the passage to which I have already referred, in GEN. i. 3: God said, Let there be light; and there was light;" also from Ps. xxxiii. 9: For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast;" and Ps. cxlviii. 5: He commanded, and they were created;" and from Isa. xlv. 12: "All their host have I commanded." I ask, then, What was the occasion for a subordinate agent, if the work was achieved by the fiat of the Creator? Does not such a doctrine detract from the perfect efficiency of the command of the Eternal? Surely there was nothing for a subordinate agent to effect. And, to suppose the intervention of any secondary instrumentality between the command of God and the effect produced, would destroy the omnipotence of God, by referring the more difficult part of the work to a created and finite instrument, and the easier department to the superior being; for surely, it is far easier to command, than to do; it is far easier to say, Let there be light,” than actually to generate and produce the light. And Mr. Porter would do well to show, how a created agent could be of any avail, where there was not any pre-existent matter upon which his limited faculties could be brought to bear. For a finite instrument could not create. For, what, let me ask, is creation? Is it not an origination from nothing?-a filling up, as it were, of that unmeasured vacuum which exists by the inherent constitution of all things as ordained of God, between a state of being and a state of nonentity? And what created being could conduct any thing through that infinite process of origination? Surely nothing but the unlimited and unrestricted power of Jehovah could achieve so great a work. In fact, the doctrine which teaches that Christ, as a created and subordinate agent, could create a world, amounts to this—THAT A FINITE POWER PERFORMS EVERY THING, WHILST THE INFINITE power of GoD PERFORMS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I say it again: This doctrine represents the power of Christ, as a finite and delegated power, achieving all things; whilst the infinite omnipotence of Jehovah-the length, and breadth, and height, and depth of which, the highest angel cannot scan-is represented, on Mr. Porter's principle, as retaining its lodgment within the nature of Deity, reposing in a state of inactive indolence, whilst the stupendous work of creation was effected by the instrumentality of a subordinate cause. And, at the same time, such is the

T

nature of the work, that we would be led to regard the immediate agent, by whom the power was actually exerted, as our Creator and our God.

But let me suppose, for a moment, that Christ, as a created being, was the subordinate instrument in the creation of the world. I ask, then, whether did God impart to him a finite or an infinite power, as a qualification for the work? Let me examine this dilemma: Suppose I am answered that God imparted to Christ an infinite power, I reply at once, that this would represent him as conveying over to a creature (for the supposition is, that Christ is a creature) an incommunicable attribute of Deity. It would also involve a supposition of the existence of two omnipotent beings-the being who originally had infinite power in himself, and the being to whom that infinite power was imparted. But it requires only an exercise of the first principles of common sense to know, that the existence of two distinct omnipotent beings is a philosophical absurdity; because, if one be omnipotent, he must necessarily possess control and power over the other. So that we conclude it to be impossible, that God, as an infinitely superior being, could have imparted omnipotence to Christ; as he would, by doing so, have surrendered even his own infinite superiority. But I may be told, that he only communicated a finite power to Christ, to enable him to create. I call, then, on Mr. Porter to prove how a finite power could be sufficient for the execution of so great a work. Perhaps he will answer, that, because creation is in itself finite, a finite power could be able to create. But mark the sophism which is involved in this reply: it assumes that the word finite" has the same signification in the two clauses of the sentence: whereas this word, when applied to creation, is a term of quantity; but when applied to power, is a term of quality. And, therefore, there is no such analogy between a "finite power" and a "finite creation;" and the answer is nothing more than a mere play on words. Consequently, the doctrine which supposes that a finite power is sufficient for creating, must fall to the ground.

But, again, let me imagine this doctrine to be true. I should like, then, to know what proof has any man that God is omnipotent, if a finite power could create. Is it not by a reference to the works of creation that we usually argue for the uncontrolled and illimitable power of the Eternal? And if creation cannot demonstrate the omnipotence of Jehovah, does it not follow, that he has achieved nothing by which to prove the boundless nature of his physical power?-But I have said enough to warrant me in drawing this general conclusion, that creation is the work of Deity-that the omnipotence of the Creator is written, in legible characters, upon the visible structure of the material universe; and that, as Christ is revealed in Scripture as the being by whom "all things were created," he must be omnipotent, and, therefore, God.

But before I conclude this address, I must refer you to a passage upon which those who agree with Mr. Porter are accustomed to lay considerable stress, and which he has advanced to-day, as an argument against the true Deity of Christ. The passage I allude to, is to be found in JOHN xiv. 28, "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto my Father: for my Father is greater

than I." When Mr. Porter quoted the latter clause of the text, he omitted altogether the former clause, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto my Father;" and by doing so, he left an impression upon the meeting, that the clause, “My Father is greater than I," is the primary and prominent sentence in the text; whereas, it is evident from its being connected with the preceding part of the verse by the word "for," (which is a small word of three letters, the grammatical use of which is, to marry one part of a sentence to another,) that it is a subordinate part of the passage, the meaning of which is qualified by the words which go before. I shall now explain the passage upon this principle: and, first, I request you to observe, that Christ does not say, "My Father was greater than I,” in reference to his pre-existent glory; nor, My Father will be greater than I," in reference to the glory which he was to resume after his exaltation: but he uses a style of expression which shows, that he refers to the present time,-to the time of his humiliation in the flesh. The Apostles had been expressing regret at the announcement of his immediate departure, and this passage contains a soft rebuke of the selfishness of their feelings. We may paraphrase it thus: "If ye really loved me on my own account-if the regard and affection you profess to entertain, were purely disinterested in its nature; so far from evincing sorrow at the prospect of my departure, you would rejoice that I shall leave this state of temporary degradation, that I shall cease to be the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and that I shall resume that original and essential glory which I enjoyed with the Father from eternity. For, as long as I continue in my present state of humiliation, my Father is greater in glory than I; but when the days of my flesh shall terminate, I shall then be glorified with the Father's own self, with that glory which I had with him before the world was created." This is obviously the correct paraphrase of the passage; for no other interpretation of the words, " For my Father is greater than I," could justify or attach any force to the interesting appeal which the Saviour makes to the love and affection of his disciples. This text, therefore, when rightly understood, affords no objection against the Deity of the Saviour; but refers only to that temporary condition, during the continuance of which, he "made himself of no reputation."

MR. PORTER.-Mr. Bagot has told us, that the term “infinite," as applied to the works of creation, is a term of quantity; and that the same term, as applied to the power exerted in creation, is a term of quality. I beg therefore to ask him, if, when applied to power, it be a term of quality, what is the particular description or quality of power which it denotes? Does it denote moral power, or physical power, or metaphysical? Or, if none of these, what other sort or classification of power?

MR. BAGOT.-I consider that I have explained myself in a sufficiently satisfactory manner to the meeting. I will not be drawn into any metaphysical subtleties or disquisitions. I look upon the subject of our discussion to be simply a question of fact, to be established by the production of testimony.

FOURTH DAY.

MR. BAGOT.—Before I proceed to answer the remainder of Mr. Porter's arguments, there are a few positive and affirmative positions into which my two propositions may be subdivided; in support of which, I wish to advance, in a summary way, a few positive and affirmative proofs, in addition to what I have already given:

1st, I believe that we ought to address our prayers to the Divine Being; for which I refer to the proofs contained in the following passages: PHIL. iv. 6, 7; 1 TIM. ii. 1, 2, 3; 1 JOHN iii. 22.

2d, I believe that we ought to direct our prayers to the Father, and to worship him as well as the Son; for proof of which I refer to the example of Christ himself, "in the days of his flesh," who frequently prayed to the Father, not only in public, but in private; and also to the examples of the Apostles, recorded in ACTS iv. 24 to 30, &c.

3d, I believe that we ought to pray through Christ, as Mediator ; for proof of which I refer to Rom. i. 8, &c.

4th, I believe that Christ, as Mediator, is subordinate to the Father, who sustains the higher office in the mediatorial plan of the Gospel. This is proved by JOHN iii. 35; viii. 26-28; x. 18 and 32; xii. 49, 50; xvii. 7, 8; Acts x. 38; Rom. xv. 6; EPHES. i. 16, 17; iii. 14, 15; HEB. ii. 9; REV. i. 1; ii. 27. You may perceive that Mr. Porter has been acting as an animated Concordance for me, for which I here take the opportunity to return him my best thanks.

Mr. Porter yesterday alluded to two distinct senses, in which the term "worship" is used in Scripture: 1st, as denoting the homage which is paid to God by his creatures; and, 2dly, as denoting that external respect which we pay to a superior fellow-creature. In these I fully concur; and I also agree with him in considering that the instances which he referred to (in GEN. xxiii. 7; xlix. 8; MATT. xviii. 26; LUKE xiv. 10; REV. iii. 7 to 9) are very clear and satisfactory instances of this secondary kind of worship; but I caution him not to use these instances in order to dilute the meaning of the term worship when applied to Christ, because they will equally dilute the meaning of the same term when applied to the Father. There is no higher Greek word denoting worship than gooxuvaw, which is applied to Christ in HEB. i. 6, and elsewhere; and is the same word which Christ himself uses in JOHN iv. 23, 24, to denote the highest kind of worship, "worship in spirit and in truth," which is given to the Father: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers (goonuntai) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,” (προσκυνήσουσι τῷ Πατρὶ).

Now, upon Mr. Porter's principles, he must admit that goonvσουσι, "shall worship," is here used in its highest sense; and I there

fore infer, from the parallelism of the two passages, that it is also used in its highest sense in HEB. i. 6.

Mr. Porter adduced the instance recorded in DAN. ii. 46, of NEBUCHADNEZZAR worshipping DANIEL. I ask him, in reply, does he mean to confront the act of an idolatrous and heathen king with the command of God the Father, in HEB. i. 6, "Let all the angels of God worship Christ"!!!

He also referred to 1 CHRON. xxix. 20, where on DAVID's commanding the people to "bless the Lord their God," it is added, that "the people bowed their heads, and worshipped God and the king." I ask him, in reply, does he not know that the Jewish government was a theocracy that God was really their King, and that the words, "God and the King," both refer to the one Jehovah; and this interpretation renders the obedience which the people gave to DAVID'S command commensurate with what he desired them to do. He only desired them" to bless the Lord their God," but said nothing about worshipping himself.

In reply to my argument from the prayers of STEPHEN, recorded in Acrs vii. 59, 60, Mr. Porter argued that Christ was visible to STEPHEN when he presented these prayers to him. I request you, in reply, to look to the passage; and you will find that STEPHEN had seen the vision in the council-hall within the city, and that it was not until they had cast him out of the city (as stated in ver. 58), that he offered up these prayers. But what difference could the fact of STEPHEN'S seeing Christ make? How does Mr. Porter prove that it is no idolatry to offer direct prayer, and ascribe divine power, to a creature, if that creature be only seen at the time? Surely, if it makes any difference, it is this: it renders the idolatry of STEPHEN ten times worse-for if he had seen Jesus (a creature, on Mr. Porter's principles) standing at the right hand of God, he should not have diverted and turned away his prayers from the Creator to a creature!!

In order to answer my argument from HEB. i. 6,-"When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him,"-Mr. Porter has informed us, that Christ is personally present with the angels in heaven; and that, therefore, they may worship him without idolatry. I ask him, in reply to this, Does he mean to argue, upon this principle, that the object of religious worship should be personally absent? If so, let him mark the consequence which follows, viz.: the Father is the object of religious worship to the angels in heaven; therefore, according to Mr. Porter's principles, the Father is not in heaven!!

He has also made a strange assertion, that, when Paul prayed to Christ, he had appeared to him, and was personally present and visible to him. I answer, that he cannot prove this, in reference to Christ's humanity; for there is not a single word in the passage, which could lead us to draw this inference;-and I should be sorry that Mr. Porter should become obnoxious to the curse of adding to the word of God; and we are told, that the heavens were to receive