ples sanctioned by reason and friendly to civil liberty, and needing neither endowment nor persecution from the civil power to keep them in action, and to make their operation a blessing to society. The repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts would not give the Dissenters power, (as has been vulgarly and clamorously objected,) but it would give them their rights. The acquisition of power would be on the part of the Crown and the People; both which are now tied up from delegating authority to subjects and fellowcitizens who may say their prayers in a place, or after a form not used or approved by the multitude.* If our do homage to her ritual, on pain of civil incapacitation; impossible that the Scottish Presbyterian, the Irish Catholic and the English Dissenter should all be treated as illegitimate by their country, their common mother; impossible that while the light of knowledge is throwing its powerful influence upon every state of Europe, converting Russia into a civilized and polished empire, and raising up a people strong and free and steady in France, Great Britain should continue to venerate the relics of barbarism, and to share with Spain the odium of intolerance. A. GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE No. CCCL. Paris. A leading politician of the present day has said, “Why are not the Dissenters content? The annual Indemnity Bill is a virtual repeal of the Test Acts." He knows us not. object were place or power, his remonstrance would reduce us to silence. Curran's Visit to the Catacombs at What we ask is not pardon, for we are not offenders, but justice. We feel the insult more than the injury of these bills of exclusion; and we demand their abolition in the name of our fathers, in the name of our posterity, in the name of our constitution, and in the name of our common religion. For a proof of the uselessness, at least, of such bigoted enactments, we refer to Scotland, which maintains its ecclesiastical establishment and municipal corporations without them; and to Ireland which has now, for half a century, abolished them with regard to Protestant Dissenters, and which wants only the like abolition with regard to Catholic Dissenters to be in a state of peace and prosperity. Divided as the United Kingdom is in religion, it is impossible that the minority of population, constituting the Church of England, should much longer constrain this great people to * Two exceptions must be made to this statement. Though a Dissenter cannot be an exciseman, he may be chosen by the people to sit in the House of Commons, or be raised by his Sovereign to the peerage. May he not also be of the Privy Council? I don't remember ever to have had my mind compressed into so narrow a space: so many human beings, so many actors, so many sufferers, so various in human rank, so equalized in the grave! When I stared at the congregation, I could not distinguish what head had raved, or reasoned, or hoped, or burned. I looked for thought, I looked for dimples-l asked, whither is all gone-did wisdom never flow from your lips, nor affection hang upon them—and if both or either, which was the most exalting-which the most fascinating? All silent. They left me to answer for them, "So shall the fairest face appear." Life, by his Son, II. 367. No. CCCLI. Fate of Revolutions. Such is the fate of Revolutionsnothing certain but blood. The march of the captives begins through a Red Sea; and after forty years in seeking new abodes and strange gods, the leader seldom sees the promised land, or, at least, dies before his foot has touched it.-Ibid. II. 359. REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-POPE. ART. I.-An Appeal to Scripture and Tradition, in Defence of the Unitarian Faith. 12mo. pp. 232. Bristol, printed for Browne and Manchee, and sold by R. Hunter, London. 1818. 6s. TH HIS is a volume of singular merit. It is attributed to a gentleman who has lately embraced "the Unitarian Faith." There is sufficient internal evidence of its being the work of an accomplished scholar. We are gratified at the outset by the Dedication, a handsome and well-deserved eulogium on Dr. Carpenter. The work is divided into Three Parts. Part I. contains a "Dissertation"" on the Doctrine of the Trinity," and an Examination of the Passages adduced to prove the modern Doctrine of the Supreme Divinity of Christ, and the Economy of a Trinity in the Godhead." The "Dissertation" contains a masterly argument for the Divine Unity, and a just historical view of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Author shews, that whilst the Unitarian lays the foundations of his faith in the New Testament, he may "appeal" with the same success to early "tradition" and to "Scripture." Of the Nazarenes, the next denomination which Unitarians received after that of Christians, he says, The there were a pretence for it, in order to The doctrine and authority of Justin Martyr is thus estimated: "Justin Martyr, a Christian convert from the Platouic school, about the middle of the second century, promulgated an opinion that the Son of God was the second principle in the Deity, and the Creator of all things. He is the earliest writer to whom this opinion can be traced; and there is also internal evidence that he was the originator of it: for he ascribes this knowledge to the special favour of God; and he calls upon others to partake of this great gift and benefit, lest, in hesitating to impart it, he should come under condemnation. He fancied that he discovered the agency of the second or inferior God in Christ throughout the Old Testament, under angelical forms, or in apparitions of the divine glory. But his belief in a special illumination is quite sufficient to set the question at rest, as to the fact whether these opinions were or were not the received traditions; and it is evident, from his own words, that the body of the Christian Church were neither Trinitarians nor Arians; that they neither held the Godbut were, as to his person, Humanitarians, head nor the pre-existent nature of Christ; and believed only in his legatarian and elective office, as the representative and organ of the Divinity. He further says, "What the state of early Christian opiaions was, may be collected from the admissions and indirect confessions of the Fathers of the Catholic Church. Athanasius says, that the Jewish Christians of the Apostolic Age disbelieved the deity of Christ, and drew the Gentiles into their error; these Jewish Christians were called Nazarenes and Ebionites. They differed among themselves as to the miraculous conception, and as to retaining Judaic observances; but they agreed in believing the simple humanity of Christ. It is attempted to throw on them the stigma of heresy, as followers of one Ebion; but Ebion was an honourable term of reproach, implying poverty. How a Jewish convert church, believing only in the crucified Jesus as a man anointed of God, came to exist at all, when it was the obvious interest of the Jews to grasp at his deity, if Jesus may still be the Christ of God, though I should not be able to prove his pre-existence as the son of God who made all things; for though I should not prove that he had pre-existed, it will be right to say that in this respect only I have been deceived, and not to deny that he is the Christ, if he appear to be a man born of men, and to have become Christ by election.' Such, then, was in fact the general belief."-Pp. 8, 9. After the Council of Nice, the growth of error, mystery and idolatry was rapid: "A further progress in the Trinity was made, in a synod convened at Alexandria about the middle of the fourth century, by Eusebius and Athanasius; when the Spirit, as well as the Son, was declared to be of the same substance' with the Father; but it was finally adjusted, and carried to its present height, by Basil of Cæsarea and Gregory of Nazianzum; in whose writings also we first meet with the unscriptural use of the term mystery, not in the original and proper sense of something above human knowledge, or unknown till revealed; but in that of something contradictory to human reason. Hence we hear of the mystery of the sacrament; the mys tery of baptism, in the Popish magical sense of instant spiritual regeneration; the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity of Basil and Gregory received the sanction of the Council of Constantinople, A. C. 381, which decreed that the Father, Son and Spirit were co-equal in power, glory and eternity. often used as a relative, especially by Homer; but as the apostle had used the proper relative 65, three times before this passage, in reference to the Israelites, he might have been expected to write ¿'s €50, and not wy, in case he intended Christ as the antecedent; and this relative he actually does use in reference to Christ, ia Col. i. 15 : ός εςιν είκων το Θε8, who is the image of THE God, or God. But forther, when the article is connected with a participle, it does not mean who, but ke who; as o pinay he who loves, or the person loving; day is therefore he who is, or the person being; he who is over all, or the one that is over all,' easily God; and that such is the proper connexconnects with the following substantive, · "The full equality of the Father, Sonion, independently of grammatical reaand Spirit did not bound the discoveries of the Catholic Church. Nestorius had as serted that the Virgin was the Mother of Christ. The zeal of those who worship ped Christ as GOD, was alarmed for the honour of Mary. The Council of Ephesus, A. C. 431, condemned Nestorius as a heretic, and confirmed the title of the Virgin as the Mother of God.' When once a departure was made from the worship of God, even the Father,' the progress was easy to the deified virgin, the deified bread, the deified sepulchre, the deified souls, and bones, and images of men."-Pp. 16, 17. The Examination of Passages" displays much solid learning, acute criticism and sound logic. A few extracts will shew that the Author is entitled to a place amongst the most judicious and successful expositors of the sacred text. The following are his remarks upon Rom. ix. 5, which the English Version represents as an ascription of deity and worship to Christ: "As the ancient copies of the Gospels were not pointed, the pauses must be regulated by the sense. The charge of altering the punctuation, in order to make the text conform with a system, is therefore absurd. The received pointing is suspicious, because, notwithstanding the obstinacy of Trinitarian writers in defeuding it, the most obvious grammatical construc tion is at variance with it. "In the English Version the position of the original words is changed, in order to bring Christ into closer apparent connexion with the latter clause of the sentence. The literal version would run thus: Whose are the Fathers and of whom was the Christ according to the flesh.' "The words rendered who is are in the original wv. The Greek article is sons, appears from corroborative scripture evidence, that this is the peculiar distinetive title of the most High God, the Father. Ephes. iv. 5, 6: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and FATHER of all, above all: ETI TAYTWY. who is above all.' Or, the one that is "The blessed,' and blessed for ever," is also the distinctive character, or title of guished only (as in Mark xiv. 61) by the the most High God; Christ being distinappellation, SON of the Blessed." "Romans i. 25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the CREATOR, who is blessed for ever. Amen.' Or if this be questioned as inconclusive, from the erroneous confounding of Christ, the Gospel creator, with the Creator of heaven and earth, we may refer to 2 Cor. xi. 31: The God and FATHER of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not:'—where the same words, wv, the one that is, are used The English reader is not aware that the inflexion of cases in the original makes it impossible that there should be any ambiguity in the application of this title to the God and Father; though, as much in the Trinitarian scheme depends on the placing of words, this title would be vindicated to Christ instead of to God, if there were sufficient grammatical authority to favour the attempt A literal version as to position will obviate all ambiguity. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth, he who is blessed for ever, that I lie not.' "The same title occurs in doxologies, or ascriptions of glory, to the Father, God. It is indeed made an objection to the considering the passage in question as a doxology, though it has the characteristic annexation of Amen, that it is necessary to supply the ellipsis of the verb substantive. Yet the same apostle, using the same term of blessing, adopts the same ellipsis, 2 Cor. i. 3: Blessed BE the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Peter, 1 Pet. i. 3: Blessed BE God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." From the circumstance of blessed being the first word in these sentences, it is urged that the passage under consideration caunot be a doxology to the Father. But there are two obvious reasons for the different positions of the words. God is here accompanied with an epithet, and blessed with a term of endless duration. Now He who is over all, God,' has more of titular emphasis, when placed first in the sentence, than if the words ran blessed be God, he, who is over all;' and as the term blessed cannot be disjoined from the words for ever, which most emphatically close the sentence, it is of necessity placed towards the end. The propriety of this arrangement will appear evident, if the words be read in the sequence for which the objectors contend: Blessed for ever be God, who is over all. Amen.' "The passage, then, restored to its just coherence, will run thus: Whose are the Fathers, and of whom was the Christ according to the flesh; he who is over all, God, or God who is over all, be blessed for ever. Amen.' This 'troublesome passage for Unitarians' was thus understood by Bucer and Erasmus, who were both Trinitarians."-Pp. 22-25. On John viii. 58, where, say the Trinitarians, Jesus asserts himself to be Jehoval, the Author has these sensible and satisfactory observations: "It is affirmed that Christ here expressly declares himself THE I AM :' because, in Exod iii. 14, Gon said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' "The expression of John occurs twice before in the same chapter, and in each instance is rendered, according to the received version, I am he:' ver. 24, 'If ye believe not that I AM he [I AM], ye shall die in your sins :' ver. 28, When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am he [I AM].' "The translators therefore should, in consistency, have rendered the words in the verse quoted, Before Abraham was, I AM he; for it is plain they were well aware that the argument, which runs through the whole chapter, is the true Messiahship of JESUS; that the verse in question is closely and logically connected with all the preceding verses; and that, on every principle of criticism, the three I ams should be rendered alike. The consciousness of this inevitable conclusion 6 has led some Trinitarians to correct the two former English readings by the latter, instead of the latter by the former; and to render the words, with verbal literality, "if ye believe not that I am ye shall die,' and ye shall know that I am :' so that the whole dialogue, instead of being occupied with the declarations of Jesus respecting his being the Christ hat should come, is made to turn on the fact of his being the very JEHOVAH who spoke to Moses. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, Jesus speaks of himself, in this discourse, as proceeding forth from' that God, which God it is said that he announces himself to be, and that he styles himself' the Son.' This will, indeed, be evaded by the common Trinitarian subterfuge, that the Father includes in himself all the three persons, by which he is made to be his own Son; but it is only necessary to read the chapter, in order to be satisfied that such a declaration was not the purpose of Jesus, and has nothing whatever to do with his argument, which is strictly confined to his beingHe that should come.' The verbal trifling of this famous argument for the supreme deity of the Son of God is almost below criticism; for had Jesus meant to have declared himself Jehovah, he would have used the words, 'I AM THE I AM.' "Thus far the question has been agitated on the evidence of the translated text: it is to this, in fact, that the Trinitarians usually make their appeal; and it is this which gives them an advantage with the people, whom they are in the habit of persuading, that none can question the infallibility of the Bible translation without a mischievous design; and that no text must be touched, even if it be acknowledged spurious. On referring to the original text in the Septuagint, we find the version accurate as to its spirit; but we discover that the supporters of the above argument, in contending that JEHOVAH uses the same literal words as those used by Jesus, have stooped to deceive the multitude by a wilful misrepresentation. The words in Exodus are, I AM THE ONE THAT IS:' εγω ειμι ὁ ων. Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, he that Is hath sent me unto you.' 6 "The words I AM, in the Greek as well as in the Latin, have often the force of the past time. The expressions of Jesus might properly be rendered, Before Abraham was, I was,' or I was he;' and so in the two other instances: if ye believe not that I was (he), ye shall die;''ye shall know that I was (he);' referring not to a state of existence, which would have no more connexion with the subject of the chapter than a declaration of his supreme divinity, but to his eternal appointment as the Christ of GOD.' The version of I am, if it do not mislead, is confessedly preferable, as far as regards dignity and emphasis of style; and has a propriety, as conveying an allusion to the eternal purpose of God, in whose sight the past and the future are alike present; and in reference to which the Messiah is described as the same yesterday, to-day and for ever.' The Bible translators have, with equal taste and judgment, united the present and past times on a similar occasion, where the existence of God is spoken of: Isaiah xlii. 13, Yea, before the day was, I am HE.'"-Pp. 36-38. 6 The Author shews the probability of Jesus being the angel who forbids worship to himself, Rev. xxii. 8, 9: "The title servant is applied to Jesus by Isaiah, xlii. 1, Behold my servant whom I uphold;' and liii. 2, 'My righteous servant;' and in Acts iv. 27, Thy holy child Jesus,' may equally be rendered servant, mais; the same word as that rendered servant in the quotation from Isaiah, Matt. xii. 18. The title prophet is applied to Jesus by Moses, Dent. xviii. 18, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee;' and by Jesus to himself: Luke xiii. 33, "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Though all reasoning on this passage must be merely speculative, there is at least a strong probability that Jesus is the Angel who forbids worship to him self. The Angel of this passage is not the same who has before refused a similar homage of John, xix. 10, for he names himself of those who bear the testimony of Jesus; and is the same mentioned in xvii, 1, as one of the seven angels who had the seven phials; and who again is distinct from the angel mentioned also as one of the seven, xxi. 9, who talked with me, saying, Come hither;' and this latter angel, though it is attempted to carry on his agency through the 7th, 8th and 9th verses, is not the second angel that forbids worship; for this his agency properly ceases at ver. 5, they shall reign for ever and ever: and the original speaker in this vision, described i. 13, In the midst of the seven candlesticks, one like the Son of Man;' resumes in ver. 5, And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true. And the LORD Gon of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly." This is the peculiar language of Jesus, identified to be his by vetse 12, Beh. ld, I come quickly; and 20, He which testifieth these things, saith, Surely I come quickly;' to which Jos replies, Even so, come, Lord Jesus! The argument therefore is invalid, drawn from verse 16, 'I Jesus "The character of an Angel of God is assigned to Jesus by Paul. Gal. iv. 14, Ye received me as an angel of God, even as CHRIST JESUs."-Pp. 62, 63. In the passage that follows there is a happy retort of a Trinitarian accu sation: "That THE FATHER, OF JEHOVah, is alone Gon, is explicitly declared by Jesus, in John xvii. 3, This is life eternal, that they might know thee [O Father!] the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' "On this passage, they who accuse the Unitarians of racking Scripture, exercise their wit by two experiments: "1. They say, it is not expressed 'that they might know thee only the true God,' but thee the only true God :'' thee the Father' including the Son, who is addressing the Father; the humanity of Jesus now praying to his divinity, which was both in the manhood and in the Godhead at the same time; and Jesus Christ being, in this passage, the man Jesus Christ only, and the Father being Father, Son and Spirit. So that when the Father only is mentioned, it often means the FATHER 10gether with the Son; and when Jesus is distinguished from THE FATHER, it means the man JESUS; God the Son being always included in the term FATHER, "2. They say that Jesus Christ is included in the term true God; for that the connexion properly is, that they might know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God.' |
