The assumption of the name of Unitarians, on the part of Arians and Socinians, has had its origin, no doubt, in their anxiety to represent all other classes of professing Christians as Tritheists; but no matter for this, we give it to them at present; though their legitimate and exclusive claim to it we might, under other circumstances, feel disposed to dispute. We may, however, in honesty state, that we feel much more inclined to call them by their real names of Arians and Socinians, than by any other, owing its origin to such a feeling, or to their own wild and exuberant fancies.

This

Unitarians have frequently boasted of the rationality of their system; and we have again and again been most positively assured by them, that none but the vulgar rabble, the ignorant, and the stubbornly prejudiced, can honestly entertain different opinions from them; or if any pretend to do so, whose intellects are powerful and cultivated, it is merely through some foul desire of serving a sinister purpose, but that they are hypocrites, and really disbelieve what they profess. is exceedingly charitable, we confess, and it forms one of the leading articles of the liberal creed of modern Unitarians. "They are the men, and wisdom will die with them." It might, however, happen, though they be clean in their own. eyes, that yet they are not "washed from their filthiness." It has frequently appeared to us, when we felt more disposed to trust to the testimony of facts, than to place implicit faith in the dogmatic assertions and charitable misrepresentations of Unitarians, that all such exclusive claims to honesty and rationality were only the figments of egotistical vanity, unsubstantial as a shadow and visionary as a dream. They have again and again been met on the ground of fair and rational argument, when all the energies of intellectual power have been put forth, and they have been vanquished; the belligerants have entered upon the field of theological criticisi, and defeat has uniformly followed the Unitarian standard; and the controversy which has just terminated has given another complete triumph to the doctrines and principles of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. It is not our intention to give even an abstract of the arguments which were used by the controversialists during the discussion; we could not do justice to either party were we to attempt it. The report of the discussion will be published, and then we intend again to revert to the subject, when we will have the arguments and criticisms of the gentlemen authenticated by themselves; so that any remarks which we may make will not subject us to

the charge of misrepresentation. We confess, that at first we felt disposed to question the utility of such a discussion between two gentlemen so young, lest the vanity which is inseparable from human nature, should prompt them rather to contend for victory than for the naked truth as it is in Jesus; but the result has satisfied us that our objections were groundless. Mr. Bagot was challenged to this viva voce controversy by Mr. Porter; and we would have considered, as he doubtless did, that had he shrunk from the defence of his principles, he would have manifested a culpable indifference to the cause of truth, and he would have been regarded as a traitor to those doctrines which he professes to believe. Reports were industriously circulated, to the prejudice of Mr. Bagot, as a man of talent and of intellectual acquirements; but from every such false aspersion he has nobly vindicated himself: he has shown himself to be a man of brilliant talents, of powerful intellectual capabilities, of extensive theological erudition, and of almost unrivalled eloquence. These qualifications, so essential to every individual engaging in any public discussion of a like character, he brought to bear with irresistible force upon the points at issue between him and his opponent; and so completely did he establish his own positions, and so utterly did he overthrow and demolish those of Mr. Porter, that if Unitarianism were to stand or fall by Scripture testimony, we should regard it as having received its death-blow from the hand of Mr. Bagot. He achieved a complete victory, and he did it unassisted and alone. What peculiarly pleased us in his mode of managing the controversy, was his complete abstinence from every personal allusion to his opponent, his meek and Christian deportment throughout the whole, and his dignified and gentlemanlike conduct, even when assailed by abuse and vituperation. The doctrine of the Deity of the Word had in him a powerful and, so far as Mr. Porter was concerned, an invincible champion.

Whilst we grant that Mr. Porter displayed candour and independence of mind in conducting the controversy, yet we cannot overlook his evident ignorance of the opinions of his opponents; he has never studied the Trinitarian system;-this was one of his principal defects as a controversialist, as many of his quotations from Scripture, and many of his arguments, were directed against imaginary opinions, which his opponent, and those who agree with him in sentiment never entertained, and not unfrequently they went directly to prove and to establish the positions of Mr. Bagot. Another defect

was his intemperate use of insulting epithets in reference to the arguments of his opponent, which he designated "quibbles," "petty sophisms," "vulgar oratory," "wiredrawn deductions," and "clap-trap allusions," but which he did not attempt to controvert or refute otherwise than by dogmatical assertions, unsupported by argument or evidence. We always regard such a mode of procedure as the sure index of the discomfiture of him who has recourse to it; and this is only another instance, added to the many, upon which we have based our opinion! Perhaps some of our readers may not be acquainted with the affirmative propositions which each of the gentlemen undertook to establish; they were the following:

REV. J. S. PORTER'S PROPOSITIONS.

1. There is one self-existing 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.

REV. D. BAGOT'S PROPOSITIONS.

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

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.

Mr. Porter commenced the discussion, and throughout his first and following speeches, endeavoured to establish the propositions which he had undertaken to defend. Many of his points, however, he rested upon those "wiredrawn" conclusions which he so much deprecated in his opponent. The Deity of the Father is admitted by all parties of professing Christians; but supposing it were controverted, we conceive that Unitarians would have as much difficulty in establishing it, as they believe Trinitarians have in establishing that of the Word, the Son of God; because whatever argument, as Mr. Bagot had frequently occasion to show, goes to disprove the Deity of the one, is equally valid against that of the other. The Word is said to be God, John i. 1, and if this does not prove him to be possessed of true Deity, neither does the plication of the same title to the Father prove his Deity. The Word is again called Jehovah; but if this be insufficient to establish his Deity, neither does it prove, when applied to the

ap

Father, that he is possessed of true Deity. Thus it might be shown, that if the names, titles, works, attributes, and prerogatives of Deity, when predicated of the Word, do not prove him to be really and truly God, neither do they prove that the Father is God. Were this neutralizing process of interpretation to be adopted with regard to the Holy Scriptures, we might prove, upon Unitarian principles, that they reveal no Being whatever possessed of Deity, and that the whole is a system of Atheism.

The exclusive Deity of the Father, in reference to the Son, Mr. Porter totally failed to establish. His arguments all went to prove the exclusive Deity of Jehovah, in reference to creatures; and in doing this, he was only lending all the assistance in his power to Mr. Bagot, who undertook to establish that as his first proposition. One text, for instance, which was quoted by Mr. Porter-" Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord," simply goes to prove that there are not two distinct, separate, and independent beings, each bearing the name of Jehovah. The word God in the original Hebrew is in the plural, and literally rendered, the passage would read thus: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your Gods is one Jehovah," giving a strong intimation that there is a plurality of persons or distinctions in the unity of the Godhead, But waiving this, what reason have we to consider this announcement as made respecting the Father rather than the Son? Upon what grounds do Unitarians believe that the name Jehovah in this passage refers to the Father alone? They may make the assumption, but its truth they cannot prove: we may make a similar assumption, with regard to the Son, with equal, if not greater evidence in our favour. Upon such fallacious assumptions as this did Mr. Porter argue for the Deity of the Father, as exclusive of that of the Son, which only required a word from his opponent to overturn and demolish. We know that the Word, in the most unqualified use of the term, is called GOD: and in reference to this point of the controversy, we might demand from our opponents a similar declaration of inspired truth, in which it is announced in so many words that he is NOT God. This would go far to settle the controversy, and to establish the exclusive Deity of the Father, but no such declaration can be found from the beginning to the end of the Bible. Those passages of Scripture which are usually quoted by Unitarians when this demand is pressed upon them, are such as speak of Christ as a man; these, however, do not help them in the least degree out of

the difficulty;-but when they have quoted some of these, then they will turn round and ask, as Mr. Porter did, whether such statements could with truth be made respecting Almighty God? This only establishes one point of the Trinitarian's faith, because he believes that Jesus Christ did really possess a human nature; and every passage which goes to prove that, whether directly or indirectly, only corroborates, on the ground of Scripture testimony, the doctrinal principles which he entertains. But then it may be said that these declarations evidently contradict others, and some one of them must be so modified in its acceptation, that both will harmonize. If the Scriptures should so contradict themselves, that we must destroy the plain and obvious meaning of one class of declarations to produce such a harmony, we would at once join with the Deist, and pronounce them to be "a cunningly devised fable." But we believe both classes of declarations to be equally true, and we admit the plain meaning of each. Do they contradict each other when thus interpreted more than those affirmations do which may be made respecting Mr. Porter himself? May it not be said of him that he is both mortal and immortal-that he shall die, and yet that his being is everlasting-would any man in his senses, however, deny the plain meaning of any one of these affirmations, that he might believe, in a distorted sense, the other? Yet of such evident folly and of such egregious trifling are Unitarians guilty, when they adduce the passages which speak of the humanity of Christ, as so many Scripture testimonies against his proper Deity. Can they bring forward any declarations from the Sacred Scriptures, in reference to the person of Christ, apparently more contradictory than the affirmations which may be made respecting Mr. Porter himself? The Scriptures speak of the Son as being truly and properly God, they also speak of him as man, and we conceive we must believe both, or else reject the Bible.

Great as was Mr. Porter's failure in endeavouring to establish his first proposition, in the case of his second it was still more signally glaring;-all his proofs were totally insufficient to prove the Saviour to be a mere creature, deriving his existence and all his perfections from the Father. The utmost extent to which he could go, was simply to prove him, as Mediator, to be economically subordinated to the Father; but this only confirmed another member of Mr. Bagot's second proposition; so that all his proofs upon this subject supported Trinitarianism; and had