of the Redeemer's sojourn upon earth, the word of God is one, all Scripture is given by inspiration, and holy men of God ever spake moved by the Holy Ghost.

Having, Sir, thus given the affirmative evidence in proof of what I consider a most fundamental truth, though one little heeded in the present day of intellectual infidelity, I would on a future occasion, with your leave, discuss the objections usually alleged against the position: and, as objections are naturally stated with most point by those who feel their force, perhaps some of your numerous correspondents whom they influence, will notice them in the way in which they are found to arise, otherwise I will proceed to meet them in the form and order in which they are customarily relied upon. The full inspiration of Scripture lies at the very foundation both of our faith and practice. By plenary inspiration, it is not however meant that the sacred penmen always had an audible voice tinkling in their ear to tell them the word they should use. God spake to them "in divers manners." (Heb. i. 1.) But it is meant that they were inspired, as the Scripture says. God spake to Moses face to face, to some of his servants in dreams, and to others in visions, but in recording their message they were one and all under the direction of the Holy Ghost, by him they were inspired, the words which they used, they were influenced by him to use, and they used them because they could employ on each occasion no others. In language of Bishop Horsley (Sermon 15) I say, "the Prophets were necessary agents, acting under the irresistible impulse of the Omniscient Spirit, who made the faculties and organs of those holy men his own instruments, for conveying to mankind some portion of the treasures of his own knowledge." In the terms of Bishop Pearson, I say again, "the words which Balaam's ass spake were as much the ass's words, as those which Balaam spake were his," and with Hooker,† the Prophets "neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths, no otherwise than the harp and lute doth give a sound according to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it with skill. The difference is only this: an instrument whether pipe or harp, maketh a distinction in tone and sound well perceived of the hearer, the instrument itself understanding not what is piped or harped. The Prophets and holy men of God not so... they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength of their own words;"-not, however, universally to the full extent of the language in which their prophecies were expressed; "they sought what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify," (1 Pet. i. 11;) they had revelations which they heard but understood not, (Dan. xii. 8;) yet so far as conscious of the purport of their sayings, they wept when prophecying of mourning, lamentations and woe, and when they spoke of our peace, (1 Pet. i. 11.) every corner of their hearts (as Hooker says) was filled with joy.

* On Creed, p. 28, 8vo. Ed.

† First Sermon on Jude, sect. 4.

d.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

SOCINIANS NOT UNITARIANS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-The assumption of the appellation "Unitarians" by the Socinians, as though they, and they alone, among those called Christians, held the doctrine that God is One, (like the similar unwarranted assumption of the appellation of "Catholics" by Papists,) seems to be not the least among the means whereby the unwary are deceived. As a friend to truth, then, and to the souls of men, I beg to offer to the public, through the medium of your Magazine, some observations respecting this assumption-so boldly made on their part, and so heedlessly admitted too often on ours— wherein my object shall be to prove, not only that the Socinian impugners of the true and proper Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ have no exclusive or peculiar right to the name of " Unitarians," by which they affect to be distinguished, but that they have no right to the name at all: the only real Unitarians being they who "worship One God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity."

The method whereby I undertake to prove this most important proposition, is the following-of the soundness of which let your readers judge: The Socinian, I presume calls himself (although I would not call him) a Christian-he professes to regard Jesus Christ as the HERO of his religion-as a man, who, for his piety while on earth, was high in the favour of Jehovah, the same one supreme God whom the old heathens, in their more serious moods, often acknowledged-who, therefore, when he died as a martyr for virtue and truth, was admitted into the chiefest place of honour among creatures, and became, as a glorified man, the mediator between God and men, sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, from whence also he is to come, together with his saints and servants, to judge the world at the last day. I say, I take it for granted that Socinians profess to believe as much, at least, as this; else with what face can they call themselves Christians in any sense, or pretend to reverence the Christian Scriptures at all? But, with all this, they maintain that Jesus Christ was and is no more than a human creature like ourselves, although the most perfect of such creatures, or of all creatures. Now what essential difference, or what difference at all, except in name, is there between this system of modern Socinian theology (I may add Arian also) and that of the ancient Platonics, or Gentiles generally; they all instinctively felt their own guilt and pollution in a greater or lesser degree, which rendered them unfit to present themselves before God in their proper persons, in consequence of which they generally (I believe I may say universally) admitted their need of some intercessor, into which office they imagined that the mighty dead (who in their day had been regarded as danμoves

wise men and great men) were exalted, and whom they therefore honoured after their death as daiμoves-Demons, and yMahuzzim, or protectors. The prevailing sentiments among the Heathen sages upon this subject, may be expressed in this sentence of Plato, in his Symposium, Θεὸς ἀνθρώπῳ ου μίγνυται—and Πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι Θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ. Again, Celsus in Origen terms his Demons σατράπας τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεοῦ, καὶ ὑπάρχους, καὶ στρατηγοὺς, καὶ ἐπιτρόπους. Here we see that Celsus, as some others did, acknowledges but one sovereign God; yet holding, as he also did, the doctrine of Demons, in common with the old philosophers, who can call Celsus, with truth or propriety, a Unitatarian? Again, the Koran inculcates with triumph, as though it alone inculcated, the doctrine that "there is one God:" but it adds, that "Mahomed is his Prophet," whom the Mussulman regards, therefore, as his Mahoz, his protector, his tower of defence, and his Demon. So, also, the Romanist, and the modern Greek-who bas embraced the Latin idolatry without the name-in words, indeed, acknowledge the true and proper Deity of Jesus Christ; but, if they do, they again degrade him into the rank of a mere creature, by associating with him many other mediators and intercessors, through whose merits and prayers they hope to be saved; as the Virgin Mary, Peter and Paul, and in a word, the whole host of heaven. Such is the didaokaλía_dapovíwv the doctrine διδασκαλία δαιμονίων of demons unto which they have given heed, as was foretold, whereby they have brought back the old demonolatry of the hea thens; and even Jesus himself, whom they profess to know as God, they by works deny, placing creatures along with him before God when they pray, in plain violation of the first commandment, which directs that that action in which God is faced, must face nothing else but God: "Thou shalt have no other Gods (0708 Dnbx, i. e. after or secondary gods) before my face." Thus those Catholic-not Christians, but-apostates as we read in Rev. xiii. 3, that "the whole world wondered after the Beast") are convicted of the same polytheism which their forefathers held in the times of Paganism, notwithstanding that they profess to have received the doctrine of the Scriptures, that there is one God and one Mediator, who is Immanuel-God with us.

.(על פני)

And what is Socinianism, with all its boast of being exclusively "rational" and Unitarian, better than any one, or than all of these? They are but different modifications of the detoidaiovia of the time; which the preaching of the cross attacked and subverted, although some of them may be detoidaμovεσTEρo-attached to a greater number of Demons-than other. Thus Socrates for himself, though for public opinion's sake he would sacrifice a cock to Esculapius, seems to have been contented with one Demon: the Mahomedans also have one, viz. Mahomed himself. Numa Pompilius also appears at least principally to have regarded but one, with whom also he imagined or pretended that he held converse. But the common herd of modern Greeks or Romans, as well as the ancient

ones, are "too superstitious" to be so easily satisfied, and therefore have a whole Pantheon full of them, as "Gods many, and Lords many" before the face of Him whom they "ignorantly worship," who is a jealous God. And what is Socinianism as contrasted with these, which I suppose will be granted to be all irrational schemes? It cannot be viewed as presenting a contrast to any of themit is in no respect their αντιςοιχον, but their συνοιχον—it only differs from some of them in degree: Socinianism is less superstitious than either the Greek or the Roman system-indeed, as their own writers confess, and it is of itself abundantly evident, religion, or deioidaμovia of any kind, appears to sit very loose upon them: still, and for fashion's sake, like Socrates, they will in a Christian country so far do homage to that worthy name by which we are called, as to acknowledge the "one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus:" they confess him, together with us, to be ανθρωπος-man; but they will not confess him to be θεανθρωποςGod-man, as we do. What is he then, according to them, but a Demon-an image of jealousy, to provoke unto jealousy, whom they have set up in that chamber of imagery, their heart? "For their Rock is not as our Rock, even themselves being judges."(Deut. xxxii. 31.) Socinians therefore, if they will not obey the truth, cannot possibly extricate themselves from the imputation, which they seem so anxious to avoid, otherwise than by openly rejecting all idea of the mediation of Jesus Christ, and taking refuge in a system of pure Theism, which to the nature of guilty and ruined man is intolerable, as all ages and nations have confessed, and as the Bible plainly states-" no man can see me and live""who can dwell with a devouring fire"-" for our God is a consuming fire." Well, therefore, did Luther exclaim, "Nolo Deum absolutum." And here he at once spoke both scripturally and according to the proper and just instinctive feeling of our fallen humanity, in which I doubt not that the angels who kept their first estate in heaven also partake: for if even they are not pure in his sight" (Job xxv. 5,) how can they appear before the face of that glory, but as it is shrouded under the vail of that light, which is the only begotten and co-eternal Son of the Father? If Socinians, then, will not "honour the Son even as they (profess to) honour the Father"-if they will not submit their wisdom to the wisdom of God, and confess Him who has come in the flesh to be "the true God, and eternal life," God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, being of one substance (ópo-ovotos) with the Father,' they must either receive the condemnation of other idolaters, and perish, together with their Demon, or false Christa mere creature-from under those heavens which he made not, (Jeremiah x. 11,) or else they must needs openly call Jesus altogether accursed, (Karaparov,) and attempt, like the fabled giants, to ascend to heaven purely by their own strength. O, that this paper might be the means of rescuing even one of them from this fearful dilemma, of which to take either side must involve them in certain

and everlasting destruction; for "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him," (John iii. 36.) And again, he himself says (John viii. 24,) "If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins."-(Compare Exod. iii. 14.)

In conclusion, then, I maintain that it is the scriptural Trinitarian alone who really and consistently worships the Unity. He feels and owns, in common with holy Job, and with all who really fear God, that he is vile, and that he cannot answer Him, if he would contend with or enter into judgment with him-no, not in one instance out of a thousand. He confesses his absolute need of a Redeemer-a "daysman betwixt them, who might lay his hand upon them both," (Job ix. 33.) And he adores the wisdom and goodness of God, which has supplied for him the friend that he needed; but he believes this friend to be THE LIFE:-in the language of the patriarch, he says, "For I know that my Redeemer is the Living One, ' (Job xix. 25;) and, with the inspired Apostle in the Apocalypse, he sets the seal of his vai aunv—“even so, amen" to the declaration proceeding from his own blessed lips, "I am the First and the Last-I am the ỏ wv-the Living Oneand I was dead, and behold I am alive again for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death," (chap. i. 17, 18.) And thus he lets it appear that what has always been and is the principle of all true religion-"the root of the matter," as Job calls it, after confessing his faith in his divine Redeemer (chap. xix. 28)—is in him. In Jesus he trusts, and is neither an idolater nor an atheist; for Jesus is Jehovah : and through Him, and through Him alone, he comes unto God to offer himself and all his reasonable services, and he does not sin against the first of all the commandments, and provoke Him who is a jealous God to his face, because, when he seeks his face, he seeks no face besides his-he sees there no face but the "face of God"-he sees "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ"-and he worships one God acceptably, in spirit and in truth, because he worships the Father in the Son, and by the Spirit. His Jesus is no demon, but the caster-out of demons, who is himself " over all, God blessed for ever. The disciple of Jesus then, who worships Him as the early Christians all did, and who sings hymns unto Him as God, (see Pliny's letter to Trajan,) is the only real Unitarian-all besides, as Pagans, Mahomedans, Catholic apostates and others, are either manifest idolaters and polytheists, or else gropers in the dark after an incomprehensible and unknown, or rather unknowable (ayvworov-see Acts xvii. 23) first cause, which leaves them as hopeless, as they are in fact and experience, aɛo-without God in the world.

6

I conclude, praying unto Him who died for us all and rose again, that it may please him to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived;' and let each Christian reader add, "We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord."

D.