his own mouth uttered, when he addressed the FATHER, in prayer, as the ONLY TRUE GOD, and declared the knowledge of HIM, and of himself as sent by him, to be life eternal: we are not apprehensive lest he should reject us because we pray as he has taught us (Matt. vi. 9), and ONLY as he has taught us, and are solicitous to be found among those “true worshipers" who worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth (John iv. 23); and thus pray, and thus worship, because we honour him that gave us these injunctions—not, indeed, as God the Son (an appellation not found in the Scriptures), but as the beloved Son and Servant of Jehovah, his Messiah, and his Representative. If we should prove in error (though on these points we feel assured we cannot, while his word is truth"), we feel no alarm at the prospect of the great day, unless we are among the "workers of iniquity;" and from those who are, no form of belief will avert the awful doom. (Matt. vii. 23.) For our own sake, and not less for theirs, and the cause of that charity without which "we are nothing worth," we wish our Christian brethren could be prevailed upon to dismiss such hard thoughts of those who believe their faith strictly scriptural, who believe its influence and requirements truly evangelical, and who hold it fast, because they see it taught by prophets and apostles, nay, more, by him who eminently was the Word of God, and by God himself. No doubt there are expressions which, if we neglect the peculiarities of scriptural phraseology, and leave out of sight the plain declarations of the law, and the prophets, and the gospel, might lead us to reject the doctrines which our understanding discerns to be light and truth, and which our heart clings to as life and peace, as hope and consolation; but we compare Scripture with Scripture; and that which (through the nature of human language, and the changes in human modes of thinking) is difficult or obscure, we interpret by what is plain and unequivocal; we employ the light to enlighten the dark, and not the dark to obscure the light and if we cannot satisfy ourselves as to the precise meaning of those expressions, we are certain what they cannot signify we know that revelation cannot be inconsistent with itself, we believe that the words of au apostle cannot contradict those of his and our Lord, nor the words of a prophet those of Jehovah and our minds rest, with tranquil yet earnest conviction, on the declarations of Jehovah and of those who spake as he gave them com 66 mandment. Our doctrine that GOD IS ONE, and that One, JEHOVAH the FATHER, and the GOD OF CHRIST,-who himself declares, that ALONE and BY HIMSELF" he created all things (Is. xliv. 24),-is one which the "wayfaring man (Is. xxxv. 8) cannot err in, and we believe it to be the " way of holiness." If we do not make it so, great must be our condemnation. In The Unitarian knows, as well as the Presbyter, that A creation is ascribed to the Messiah. It was his exalted office, by his word and the spirit which God gave him, to create men anew to righteousness and true holiness. this NEW CREATION, he was the Agent of the Father's wisdom, power, and mercy. In the ORIGINAL CREATION, the declarations of revelation are too express, solemn, frequent, and unequivocal, in referring it to the immediate agency of Jehovah, to allow the supposition that there was any instrumental cause employed. The testimony of Christ is express (John viii. 54), that his FATHER is the Being whom the Jews called their God. No one can doubt this was JEHOVAH; and Jehovah solemnly declares (Is. xlv. 18), “I am JEHOVAH, and there is NONE ELSE." Here I rest my faith, even on the Rock of Ages. How any scripturalist, on reading such declarations as I have cited, can use expressions like those employed by the Presbyter, "the God Man, Jehovah Jesus," is past my comprehension. Calvin liked not the term Trinity; it savours, he thought, of a barbarous age: what shall we say to these incongruous combinations? To me they appear shocking in the extreme. I am persuaded it is not the spirit of God by which any one calls Him Jehovah who was (Jehovah declares it) "the Servant of Jehovah." (Is. xlii.) And if any doctrine authorizes such language, can it be the doctrine of him who said, "The Lord thy God is One Lord"? I bless God that I have not so learned Christ. The Unitarian trusts in his Saviour because he trusts in Jehovah, whose servant he was. He relies not on any arm of flesh, but that arm which is all-powerful. He never thinks of Jesus as a mere Man, but as a Man empowered by God. He knows that God was with him, and dwelt in him, and wrought his works of power, and gave him his spirit beyond measure, and declared and executed his purposes of grace by him. He believes in him, because he believes in the Father who sent him. He confides in his power to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him, because he knows that the Father of Mercies has made him the Author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. That which human systems attribute to God the Son (language no where found in Holy Writ, and which the "Bible Christian" should never use) he attributes to God, even the Father, dwelling in the Man Christ Jesus, and acting by him; and he seeks no better foundation for his hope of mercy to pardon and grace to help. As Christ said, "The Father is greater than I," and greater than all," and addressed Him, in prayer, as the only true God," the apostle Paul could not have declared (contradicting his Master, and contradicting himself), that Christ is God over all,* or the Great God. I am fully satisfied that he did not; and if the reader will take the trouble to examine a little tract, called A Comparative View of the Scriptural Evidence for Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, he will see how the Unitarian explains those passages which are usually brought against his doctrine, in consistency with those which all must acknowledge is plain and unequivocal in their import. As to Mr. Belsham's statements, no Unitarian, except himself, is answerable for them, any more than the Presbyter's clerical brethren are for his unscriptural language and unchristian uncharitableness; but respecting those quoted as Mr. B.'s note on Titus ii. 13, I think it right to say, that as I cannot find them in his work on the Epistles, nor in his Calm Inquiry, nor in the Improved Version, I suspect that it is one of those numerous instances, in which persons quote as Mr. Belsham's that which his opponents have attributed to him. Perhaps the Presbyter has not yet learnt, that neither the Bishop of Salisbury, nor still less the Archbishop of Dublin, is an authority to be trusted, where Unitarians are to be trampled down. As to Newton and Locke, as our faith rests not on their belief, if they had been Trinitarians, we should not have followed them, but Christ; but they were Unitarians. If the Presbyter is satisfied with the assertions of Bishop Burgess to the contrary, it must be from ignorance of the evidence on the other side. I am satisfied, as to Newton, with the express testimony of his intimate friend (see the * I translate Rom. ix. 5, -" From whom was the Christ, as to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed for ever;" and I am confident this is as correct as the rendering of the common version. Preface to Hopton Haynes's Scripture Account), and with what we are allowed to know of his writings; and as to Locke, with the general tenor of his works, and the utter absence of any proof that he believed in the personal deity of Christ; and the statement of the excellent Bishop Law (the father of the present Bishop of Bath and Wells), that Locke was understood to be one of the writers of the Unitarian Tracts, published at the close of the 17th century. I did not court, and I have no wish to continue this controversy; but it is not well that the public Journals of Bristol should be employed as a vehicle of attack upon the Unitarian's faith, stigmatizing him as a malignant unbeliever, without his shewing to those who will read, solid reason for believing that he is indeed a Christian and a Unitarian, because he believes that GOD is ONE is the express doctrine of both revelations. Unless some better reason, however, than Presbyter has given for his assertions, should be brought forward, or any thing should be inserted in your Paper requiring explanation of my statements, I shall willingly shew to him who writes next, that I do not think having the last word a matter of moment. The candid will infer from my silence that I do not believe a reply required. I quote by way of conclusion, the sentiments of a Bishop of the 17th century, who, with perhaps less of human learning than the good Bishop whom the Presbyter cites, was a century in advance of him in reference to the principles of religious liberty and the rights of conscience: I refer to Jeremy Taylor. The sentence should be deeply impressed on the heart of every controversialist : "A good man that believes what, according to his light, and upon the use of his moral industry, he thinks true, whether he hits upon the right or no, because he hath a mind desirous of truth, and prepared to believe every truth, is, therefore, acceptable to God, because nothing hindereth him from it, but what he could not help, his misery and his weakness, which being imperfections merely natural, which God never punishes, he stands fair for a blessing of his morality which God always accepts." Accept my best acknowledgments of your equity as an Editor. A CHRISTIAN. PROFANE HYMN. A CONTEST is carrying on between the Calvinist Baptists respecting a Hymn-Book. Dr. Rippon has for about forty years had possession of the Baptist market, and his Selection has passed through very many editions, which we learn with satisfaction have been very profitable. Some of the ministers of that denomination, however, have thought that a better book might be compiled, and they have accordingly issued one, under the sanction of many respectable names, the profits of which are to be devoted to the necessitous widows of Baptist ministers. The new Selection has been reviewed uncourteously in the "Baptist Magazine," and the significant cry of heresy is there attempted to be raised against it! To this ungracious attack there is a reply in the "New Baptist Miscellany," the writer of which denounces Mr. Ivimey as the reviewer, and smartly chastises his intolerance. In the same work there is a review of a new edition, the 27th, of Dr. Rippon's Hymn-Book, in which are interspersed some original hymns. The following is given by the "New Baptist Miscellany," with no doubtful meaning, as a specimen. It will be seen that it is a hymn to and for the Jews. The capitals and italics are carefully preserved. Come, Abram's sons, Messiah view, Became the son of Mary too. This Jew, your Ehjeh, the I AM, That none who look to him should die. He by his cloud all Isr'el led, And Isr'el with his manna fed; He did the Jordan's waves divide, And land his flock on Canaan's side. This Jew shall say, Come, come, ye bless'd, PAUSE. Hear, Abra'm, Isaac, Jacob too, With all the saints around the throne. |