attempted it. He has favoured us with nothing but a dogmatical ipse dixit. How can two sets of attributes be predicated of himself, apparently opposed to each other, and yet not be incompatible?-let him shew us this, and we will then prove to him, that when we predicate two sets of attributes of the Son, we do that which is not only accordant with Scripture, but perfectly compatible with the soundest principles of human reason. Can it not be said of Mr. Porter that he is both mortal and immortal? and yet the two sets of attributes are perfectly compatible. Mr. Porter had too exalted an opinion of his own intellectual character, and too low a one of his opponent was too confident of his own system, and was too ignorant of the one which he was opposing, to support with effect the propositions which he attempted to establish. If this discussion, however, has taught him modesty, and we think it will have that effect, we conceive that it will have accomplished an important good-at least to himself. He more than once sneered at the prejudices which influenced the minds of Trinitarians, and which prevented them from embracing like opinions with himself; but is he altogether free from prejudices which warps the mind of him who is the subject of them? was he not cradled in the very lap of Arianism; did he not imbibe it with his first breath; and has he not been breathing its tainted atmosphere ever since; let him not, then, talk of our prejudices until he can convince the world that he has none of his own. In his first speech he dwells at considerable length upon the standard of reference, and throws out several broad insinuations respecting the accuracy of the received version of the Sacred Scriptures, which, if likely to produce any effect whatever, would only have a tendency to unsettle the minds of men, and lead them to place no reliance in the version now in common use. What could the Papist do more? But perhaps he acted upon Dr. Priestley's principles, that it is necessary a man should become indifferent to all religion, before he be prepared to become an Unitarian.. But the truth is, that not one single doctrine is expunged, nor the evidence of its truth rendered less clear by all the various lections which have been discovered; and we do not rest this statement on our own authority-we could produce the names of some of the ablest Biblical critics, who have borne testimony to the truth of our assertion. Mr. Porter quoted a passage from the work of Dr. J. P. Smith, upon the "Scripture Testimony to the Messiah," in which that author states, that "respectable and excellent as our common version is, considering the time and circumstances in which it was made, no person will contend that it is incapable of important amendment."* But what do we find the same author stating respecting the opposite error into which Unitarians are so prone to run? "If the one party has appeared backward to critical inquiry, and prone to confide in authorized versions and revised readings of the Scriptures, the other (that is the Unitarian) has often shown a propensity to unfounded suspicion, and to rash alteration of the translation of the text. This is a more dangerous extreme than the other-it is less favourable to reverence for the Sacred Word-it tempts critical vanity-it fosters the pride of learning, or of half-learning, and it often manifestly proceeds from a wish to dictate the result." That this propensity is one which Unitarians frequently display, must be evident to every person who has examined the " Improved" or Unitarian "version," the ignorance of whose translators, and their determination to force the original to correspond with their false views, Dr. Magee, in his Work upon the Atonement, has so completely exhibited. Trinitarians have no wish whatever to bolster up that which can be proved to be erroneous,-they have no reason whatever to dread "legitimate criticism," nor have they been one whit behind Unitarians in the application of it to the Sacred Scriptures; and should a new translation be made, as Dr. Smith and other eminent scholars have shown, it must be favourable instead of hostile to their system.‡ ture. Mr. Porter, in his first speech, page 11, asks,-“Where where in all the world, did Mr. Bagot light upon this heterodox truth ?”—“That there is one God Jehovah, who is God only, to the entire exclusion of the alleged Godhead of every creaNow we ask Mr. Porter, can he point out to us one single Trinitarian creed in existence, in which this article of belief does not form a prominent feature; can he point out to us a Trinitarian writer who has not maintained the same as the very basis of his faith respecting the Godhead? We confidently assert that he cannot. Trinitarians maintain, as firmly as any other men can do, the numerical unity of the Godhead; and if Mr. Porter or any other man will assert the contrary, he asserts that which is not the fact, and the sentiment contained in the assertion we at once pronounce to be a foul calumny. Attempt has been made after attempt, by Arians * Vol. I. page 570. + Ib. vol. I. page 78. Dick's Lectures on Theology, vol. II, page 96, 97. A valuable addition to our theological literature. and Socinians, to represent us as Tritheists; but we might safely challenge Mr. Porter and all the host of his Unitarian brethren to point out to us where, or in what respect, we trench upon the numerical unity of the Godhead, by holding the sentiments which we entertain. The term Unitarian, which they have arrogantly assumed, cannot be regarded as a distinctive appellation of any one sect or party of professing Christians. We demand from them a definition of unity as applied to Deity-let them give us this, and we will pledge ourselves, if it be a correct and positive one, to show that it is perfectly in accordance with our published and avowed opinions. Do not Arians and Socinians believe that all the perfections of Jehovah are infinite-is not unity one of their perfections? and if so, they must predicate infinite unity of the Supreme Being, which just amounts to an infinite absurdity, and which just shows that all their a priori arguments respecting his simple unity, as distinguished from that which is numerical, are worth absolutely nothing. We will not, however, occupy our space with a disquisition on this subject-we shall proceed to examine the arguments of the Rev. Gentlemen, and to comment upon some of those passages of Scripture adduced by each, in confirmation of those propositions which they had undertaken respectively to maintain. Mr. Porter avowed himself more than once to be an Arian, (page 10, page 190,) that is, whilst he maintained that Christ the Word was a mere creature, he also affirmed his belief in his pre-existence, but this he did not undertake to maintain in any of his propositions. Now we believe, that Mr. Bagot should have insisted upon the avowal of his entire opinions respecting the person of the Redeemer, before he ever should have consented to meet him in a public discussion; and our reason for this is, that we believe no Arian ever yet has been able to produce from the Sacred Volume one single text in confirmation of the truth of the peculiar elements of his belief. The Arian system is in itself so utterly absurd, that we really cannot divine by what intellectual process any man can bring himself to believe in it. There is no rational stopping-place between Trinitarianism and downright Humanitarianism. We will submit all the texts quoted by Mr. Porter to any unprejudiced individual, be he Unitarian, or be he Trinitarian, and we will defy him to select from amongst them one, even one, which will go positively to prove the truth of the Arian system. "Where-where in all the world" did Mr. Porter get his Arianism? it was not in the Bible, for assuredly it is not to be found there. In our review of the texts quoted by Mr. Porter, we may occasionally view them in connexion with his own admitted creed, as well as in reference to the propositions which he attempted to establish. The first proposition which he undertook to maintain was, that "There is one self-existent God, the Father, who is God alone, to the entire exclusion of the alleged proper Deity of the Word." The first text which he quoted in proof of this was, Deut. vi. 4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," (i. e. Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,) page 17. Now we ask, in the first place, does not this text go in direct confirmation of Mr. Bagot's first proposition? In the second place we ask, is there one word said here respecting the Deity of the Father as exclusive of that of the Son or Word? In the third place we ask, how do Unitarians, on their principles, explain the mode of expression which is here adopted-the word "God" in the original being in the plural number? Literally the text will read, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah." Mr. Porter must surely be compelled to have recourse to those "wiredrawn" deductions which he so violently denounced in his opponents, before he can bring the text, even remotely, to bear upon the point at issue between him and them; and even then, he must be compelled to base the whole upon a gratuitous assumption, that the person here denominated Jehovah means the Father, exclusive of the Word. But will men of sense take his assertions for proof? It is not necessary for those who hold the doctrine of the True Deity of the Word to deny that of the Father; but if they should, we conceive that it would be impossible for any Unitarian to identify, by direct quotation from the Scriptures, the person here called Jehovah with God the Father. As it can be proved by a multitude of passages of Scripture, that the name Jehovah is applied to the Son, the person contending for his Deity has as good a right to infer that it is here applied to him, as Mr. Porter has to infer that it is given to the Father. To this passage of Scripture, however, every Trinitarian will most cordially subscribe; nor is there any truth announced in it in any degree inconsistent with the principles of his belief. It went directly to prove the truth of Mr. Bagot's first proposition; but assuredly its reference to that of Mr. Porter was remote to the utmost degree. Does it, however, lend any sanction to Arianism? None. But lest it should be supposed that this was a mistaken or an unhappy quotation on the part of Mr. Porter, though he has placed it in the very front of his array, we shall select another of the most favourable to his cause, apparently, which he has adduced, amongst others, in proof of the first member of his first proposition. Page 60, Ex. ix. 14, "I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, that thou mayest know, that there is none like me in all the earth." The same objections may also be made against this quotation, in reference to his first proposi tion-it merely affirms that there is none like Jehovah in all the earth-but how can it be proved that this is affirmed of the Deity of the Father, to the exclusion of that of the Word? But Mr. Porter makes this very sage comment upon this text. "And if there be none in all the earth, then there can be none in all the universe like Jehovah." Now we would really wish to know, whether Mr. Porter believes the earth to be co-extensive with the universe. The discoveries of Columbus would be nothing to those of Mr. Porter, were he a navigator. This is beyond all controversy-one of the most sapient comments we have ever met with in all the course of our reading that the earth, which can only be regarded as an almost infinitely minute portion of the universe, should be equal to the whole of it. This is a discovery with a vengeance. Such a mode of reasoning may suit the gullability of Unitarians, but verily we believe it to be too monstrous for any Trinitarian to swallow. The angel Gabriel might say that there was none like him in all the earth, but would that prove him to be the selfexistent God? These and all the other texts quoted by Mr. Porter under this head, went directly to prove the scriptural character of Mr. Bagot's first proposition-a proposition adopted and sanctioned by every Trinitarian. Some other mode of argument must be adopted by our Arian and Socinian opponents, before they can make any impression upon those doctrines which we entertain, and which, in the late discussion, Mr. Bagot so ably vindicated. Mr. Porter next proceeded to adduce-page 60, 61Passages which," according to his opinion, "evince that the Father is the one being who is asserted to be God alone, to the exclusion of all others." We shall select the passage which, from his comment, he appeared to consider as of the greatest importance to the proof of his position, which wasJohn iv. 23, 24:-"The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth." Mr. Porter here takes for granted, that "the two terms, God and Father, are used as interchangeable, and as having precisely the same meaning." If this be the case, then, Mr. Porter sanctions the principle by which we interpret those passages where the |