Sidor som bilder


doctrines imputed by “the Evangelical Observer"? So strenuous are the efforts of bigotry to keep the people in the ignorance which is its source, that unhappily that necessity does exist. The most peremptory denial is hereby given, then, to “the gross errors and abominations” of that statement. The reverse of the statement would express the actual opinions more clearly. The statement itself is as much opposed to Christian Unitarianism, as is the darkness of midnight to the effulgent light of meridian day.

The pages of No. 1. are occupied by the attempt to prove “the One proper Sonship” of Christ. The argument-it is called so by mere courtesy—is founded on Romans viii. 3, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” . In the space of 22 pages, there never surely was before exbibited a more strange jumble of in. coberence and contradiction, of Scripture perversion, and of the utter absence of rationality. For instance, " Christ's sending, was not any local motion from the place where he was, to some other place where he was not. The Father sent him to this lower world, yet he was here before. The Father sent him from heaven, yet he remained in heaven still, with respect to his Godhead.” “Christ is the co-eternal Son of God the Father. They were both of the same standing (if we may with reverence so express it), both from everlasting. Christ was eternally a Son; there never was any time when he was otherwise, or when he began to be. Whensoever the Father did exist, the Son existed also (as the ancients used to express it). If the Father was eternal, and always a Father, then the Son was eternal, and always a Son, for relatives must be simultaneous.” What a melancholy exhibition of fatuity is here. Surely, surely, Dr. Adam Clarke is nearer to common sense and Christian verity, when, in his commentary on the New Testament, he has this Note on Luke i. 35, “ Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” “ Here, I trust,” observes Dr. Adam Clarke, “ I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, is, in my opinion, antiscriptural and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: 1, I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it. 2, If Christ be the Son of God as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for Son implies a Father, and Father implies, in reference to Son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and Son imply the idea of generation, and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation. 3, If Christ be Son of God as to bis divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 4, Again, if the divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i. e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead. 5, To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son, is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that, which has bad no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father, and time also antecedent to such generation; therefore, the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. The enemies of Christ's divinity, have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating the subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ.”

It must be totally unnecessary to add any thing to what Dr. Adam Clarke has bere stated. It is a complete refutation of No. 1. of “ The Evangelical Observer.” The conductors, indeed, as if conscious that their present exhibition is but a sorry one, “ have the pleasure of announcing to their readers, that they have been furnished with excellent matter for their future numbers, on Socinianism." In pity to the public, it is to be hoped, that they do not hold out a delusive expectation. If, however, “their future numbers" contain not more charity and truth than their first, they will be scarcely on a par with that Athanasian creed, of which Archbishop Tillotson wished that the Church were well rid, a wish that friends as well as opponents, may, perbaps, extend even to “ The Evangelical Observer."

ARGUS. Christian Unitarians, and Missions to the Poor.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer. SIR,—The sentence quoted into the Pioneer, from the Report of the “Glasgow City Mission," which states,

that the Missionaries met with the “greatest opposition from Roman Catholics, Deists, and Unitarians,” almost compelled me to believe, that obstinate bigotry, reckless calumny, aud unblushing falsifying, must be ranked by the authors of that Report, among the cardinal virtues inculcated by their theological system. And indeed, it is too lamentably obvious, that with them, mere opinion must have taken precedence of pure principles, and dreamy speculations usurped the place of generous deeds. If the Missionaries were opposed by Unitarians, the latter must have clothed their opposition in words. They could not have opposed without speaking. What, then, did the Unitarians say to the Missionaries? Did they say, We are opposed to your attempts to do good? Did they say, We are against your striving to instruct the ignorant, to reclaim the vicious, and to relieve the distressed? Did they say, We are hostile to your exertions, to diffuse the truth as it is in Jesus, and the knowledge of the only true God the Father, and Jesus Christ whom He sent? The Missionaries dare not affirm, that Unitarians opposed them in language like this. What, then, was the opposition made, and in what language was it couched? Let the Missionaries and Report-makers answer, and that answer, I will venture to affirm, will be an exposure and condemnation of their own conduct.

The Unitarian cannot be opposed to any attempts to do good. Nor can he raise opposition to the diffusion of knowledge, virtue, the love of God and man, and obedience to Jesus Christ; for the moment a man should become an opponent of these things, he would cease to be a Unitarian. But that Unitarians are advocates instead of enemies of City or Town Missions to the poor, is proved by the fact, that I have for the last three months, been engaged, under the direction of the “ Lancashire and Cheshire Unitarian Missionary Society," in visiting the poor in Manchester at their houses; to talk with them, not about disputed theology, but about their condition and habits-about the advantages of temperance, sobriety, and attendance at a place of worship. I have visited many

dreds of houses on this mission, and yet have never met with the least opposition. And why?—Because I have not pestered the people with speculation and controversy, but approached them with universally acknowledged practical principles. Let the managers of the Glasgow City Mission look at this fact, and blush for the grossly false charge they have preferred against Unitarians. MANCHËSTER, Feb. 16, 1831.

H. CLARKE. [The Editor cannot but express the feelings of pleasure, with which he has received the gratifying intelligence contained in the preceding communication. It is bis beart's desire and prayer, that the blessing of God may attend the labours of his excellent and indefatigable friend. May the Manchester Mission be the precursor of similar exertions in all the places which need them.]

[ocr errors]

REVIEW. Christ and Christianity. Sermons on the Mission, Char

acter, and Doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth.By W.J.

Fox. 2 Vols. CORDIALLY do we congratulate our fellow Christians on the publication of these admirable sermons, and gladly do we tender' our warmest thanks to their author, for this additional contribution to Christian knowledge, benevolence, and virtue. Happy be who possesses these volumes, and happier he, who is induced by their eloquent pleadings, to exemplify the virtues they inculcate, to imbibe the benevolence which breathes throughout their pages, and to drink deeply of that sacred spirit of reverence for truth, and Christ, and God, which is the foundation of moral excellence, and the never-failing spring of faith, and hope, and charity. Would our fellow Christians of other denominations, with candour and seriousness peruse these discourses, even they, we think, would admit, that a Christian Unitarian may and does preach“ Christ crucified," and that the truths he pourtrays, have in them a life-giving power, and that they kindle a glowing zeal, a devotedness to human good and to heaven's glory, before which apathy and indifference must vanish, and in the fervour and energy of which, the virtues and graces

which constitute and adorn a holy and righteous life must flourish in lasting loveliness.

The titles of the sermons, bear in themselves their recommendation, and the execution is worthy the superscription. Christ the desire of all nations——the song of angels-Christianity defined—the gospel a principle of equality—the baptism of Christ—the temptation-the excellence of Christ's preaching-Christ's conversation with Nicodemus—the Lord's prayer-Christ's doctrine of Providence-social duty- the beneficence of Christ Christ's conduct towards the Samaritans-Christ's apology for the Gentiles--the glory of God in the face of Christ the power of Christ's character—Christian liberty—the progressive character of the gospel-Christ raising Lazarus -the transfiguration-Christ weeping over Jerusalemthe coming of the son of man-Christ not of the world Christ's legacy of peace-Christ our passover-Christ on the cross-the resurrection of Christ-the Jews' account of the resurrection—the argument from the resurrection of Christ to that of all mankind—the three witnessesthe ascension of Christ. What subjects of thought are here suggested, what motives to thankfulness, what inducements to obedience are here held forth! Who can question that the Unitarian preaches Christ, after such an enumeration?

In the preface, Mr. Fox states it to be his purpose, to follow these sermons by a similar publication on the Apostles and their preaching, and to complete the whole by a series of discourses on the Holy Scriptures, their history, theology, morality, poetry, and philosophy. His object in all, he states to be, “ to recommend religion to mankind, not as consisting in mysterious or barren propositions, arbitrary enactments, blind servility, and sectarian exclusiveness, but as a plan of rational instruction and moral improvement, with love for its vital principle, and universal happiness for its final result.” In the volumes before us, that object bas been so far accomplished, and we trust they may meet so friendly a greeting from that public they would enlighten and bless, as to enable their author speedily to realize his benevolent project. It will be an acceptable offering to human nature and human goodness, it will accelerate the triumphs of Christ and Christianity.

Our notice this month of these truly Christian sermons, must necessarily be but brief; but we were loath to suffer a single opportunity to escape, of directing the attention of our readers to the pleasure and improvement which awaits them.-Extracts in our next.

The General Baptist Advocate, Nos. 1 and 2.

This is a publication intended to be continued monthly, devoted partly to the inculcation and defence of the prin

« FöregåendeFortsätt »