"laws of honor," and as in the world 66 a passage of arms is sometimes evaded, under the pretence that the antagonist is too little of a gentleman, so in the Church a polemical collision may be declined, because the opponent is too little of a believer. They say that the plea alleged for evading the controversy on the ground of their non-acknowledgment of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is insufficient; for, in the first place, the subject of inspiration was among those expressly proposed by the clergymen for discussion, and they were aware of the views of Unitarians on the subject; for in the first Church Lecture pages are crowded with citations from Unitarian writers, and their views of inspiration are made a chief ground of indictment against them. Again, as to the necessity of settling the question of inspiration before that of interpretation can go on, the Unitarians being charged with deception, repeat the words of Mr. Byrth, who says, "In whatever light the Christian Scriptures are regarded, whether as the result of plenary inspiration, as we Trinitarians believe, or as the uninspired productions of the first teachers of Christianity, or even as the forgeries of imposture, the meaning of their contents is a question apart from all others."

The proper course for the Churchmen to pursue is to establish the existence of their system in the Bible, then to prove its credibility in itself, and finally its inspiration. Both these preliminaries are denied. The second ground on which it is alleged, that a claim to a controversy has been forfeited, is that miracles do not prove the intellectual infallibility of the performer. This is an unlooked for heresy, and cancels all promises, and brings into use the Popish notion that no faith is to be kept with heretics. The reply is that the clergymen must have been aware that the ministers held this opinion, for it was plain that they would deny the plenary inspiration and yet admit the miracles. And as to this sentiment putting them a step beyond common Deism, it has been advanced (as the passages quoted prove) by Bishop Sherlock, Locke, Dr. S. Clarke, and Bishop Fleetwood. The same opinion is likewise common among the Friends. The ministers recapitulate the grievances of which they complain in the origin and progress and sudden termination of the controversy, as if on account of their undeservedness. In conclusion, they utter this solemn protest against an accumulation of injuries:

"And now, gentlemen, accept from us, in conclusion, our

solemn protest against the language of unmeasured insult, in which, under the cover of sanctity, the associated Clergymen, whom you represent, have thought proper to speak of our religion; against the accusations personally addressed to us, in the presence of three thousand people, by the Lecturers in Christ Church, of mean subterfuges,' of 'sneering,' of 'savage grins,' of damnable blasphemy,' of 'the greatest imaginable guilt,' of doing despite to the Spirit of Grace,' of the most odious of crimes against the Majesty of Heaven,' and in common with all Unitarians, of forming our belief 'from the blindness of graceless hearts,' too bad to have been touched by any Spirit of God,' and against the visible glee, fierce as Tertullian's, with which 'the faithful' are reminded that ere long we must and shall bow our proud knees, whether we like it or not, to the object of their peculiar worship; so that they are sure of their triumph in heaven, however questionable it may be on earth. We have sat quietly under all this, bearing the rude friction upon everything that is most dear to us, assured that if anything in heaven or earth be certain, it is this: that no Spirit of God ever spake thus, or thus administered the poison of human passions, falsely labelled as the medicine of a divine love.'

"A sweet and a pleasant thing" it must have been, with a vengeance, to have listened to these honeyed epithets. We see very plainly that the old definition, which used to be annexed to the word, Protestantism, in the dictionaries, must be changed, or left as a landmark to designate a time when martyrs at the stake gloried in sentiments, the expression of which now blackens devoted Christians with every epithet of villany. We have before us nine of the Discourses already delivered; though probably the whole course, comprising thirteen on each side, is now completed. It is unnecessary for us to give an analysis of these, for probably most of us, from a familiar acquaintance with the Unitarian Controversy, might sit down and write the substance of what has been said on both sides. They are repetitions of thrice-told tales, accumulations, evasions, and refutations of charges, showing glimpses of the old Adam in both parties, and proving to our minds one single point above all others, that we ought to be devoutly grateful to God, that He only is our Judge, that we are not accountable to man. We will take a hasty glance at the Sermons, and make such brief remarks as occur to us.

The first Lecture on the part of the Church was by Rev Fielding Ould, "On the practical importance of the Unitarian

VOL. XXVII.—3D S. VOL. IX. NO. I.

6

Controversy." We were tempted, indeed, to go no farther than the Dedication, which speaks of the cause in which he is engaged as an "effort to vindicate the name and truth of God from the degrading assumptions of the God-denying heresy of Unitarianism." "Let patience have her perfect work," is our answer to this. The whole argument of the Sermon turns on these three points: That Unitarians are not willing to abide by whatever opinions may have been expressed by those that bear their name; that Unitarianism has no fixed and definite standard, is constantly shifting, is uncertain in its views of inspiration, &c.; that Unitarianism tends to, and is allied with, infidelity. To these we reply, first, That we believe that Jesus Christ was sent into the world to save sinners; consequently he was not the Being who sent him, and he saves sinners so far as he enables them to cease to be sinners. We are no more responsible for the other opinions held by those who agree with us in this doctrine, than we are for the Athanasian heresy or the Oxford Tracts, which originate with those who with us are believers in the Divine Mission of Jesus Christ. Second, As for a want of fixed and definite standard of common agreement, we will be ready to debate this matter, when the Churchmen show us that they have no difference among themselves. Third, As to the tendency of Unitarianism to Infidelity, we reply that thousands, who have been made infidels by Orthodoxy, have returned through Unitarianism to the light and salvation of a Christian faith. One head of the Discourse is of course devoted to our heresy, that virtuous principles and an upright life are needful to salvation. The night is too far spent to make people believe now, that we are in hopeless danger for maintaining this.

Mr. Thom answered this Lecture by another on the same subject. He first compares the idea of a Christian to be gathered from the words and example of Christ, and the Apostolic precepts, with that which an infallible Church sets up. Then he gives his reasons for considering the controversy as important. First, Christ contemplated a union among his disciples, a spiritual union. The Church in Great Britain has all the external power and means for bringing about this union, and so far from perfecting it, it has fierce dissensions in its own bosom. This is because it has sought for a doctrinal union based on a creed. Second, The Church thus becomes an ally of Popery. For, by insisting upon a doctrinal creed as necessary to union and

salvation, it requires infallibility to distinguish that creed even among the contrary opinions which her members hold. He then exhibits the moral influences of Unitarianism in its views of God and Christ, of humanity, of personal virtue, and of a future life, and closes by summing up all into the two great principles of Unitarianism: "First, Spiritual allegiance to Christ as the image of God; second, Spiritual liberty from aught besides; creeds, traditions, rituals, or priests.'

gen

The next Lecture was by Rev. Dr. Tattershall, “On the Integrity of the Scripture Canon." He takes his text from Jeremiah xxxvi. 23, and begins with comparing us to Jehoiakim, who cut and burnt portions of the holy records. He lays down the principle that if a "book be once shown to be uine, and admitted to be inspired, it must then be received whole and entire, without mutilation or alteration of any kind." This principle we fully admit, as far as relates to the book when it comes from the hands of the inspired writer himself. But after the book has passed through the accidents of two thousand years, been translated, transcribed, and printed from copies more or less accurately representing the original, we shall not receive the copy in our hands whole and entire, until either we have applied to it the most searching tests of criticism, or had full and convincing evidence that every translator, scribe, and printer engaged in making the copy which we use, was inspired also. If Dr. Tattershall will prove the inspiration, whole and entire, of any single manuscript on which our version is based, we will prove the inspiration, whole and entire, of that printed edition of the Bible which left the important particle "not" out of the seventh commandment. The argument that Unitarians trifle with the Scripture Canon is based upon the character of the improved version.

Mr. Martineau answers this Lecture by another, the title of which is, "The Bible; what it is, and what it is not." He refers to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which maintains that every idea in the Scriptures, and " even every word employed in its expression, is dictated by the unerring Spirit of God; so that every statement, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, must be implicitly received, as though from the lips of the Almighty himself. We are first assured that whoever denies this, shall have his name cancelled from the Book of Life; and then we are called upon to come forward and say plainly whether we believe it. The invitation sounds

terrible enough. Nevertheless, having a faith in God, which takes the awe out of Church thunders, I say distinctly, this doctrine we do not believe; and ere I have done, I hope to show, that no man, who can weigh evidence, ought to believe it." He properly distinguishes between "the Word of God," a beautiful Scriptural phrase, and the Words of God. As to the Improved Version, he shows that Trinitarians have been chiefly indebted for their arguments against it to Dr. Carpenter's severe and condemnatory review of it. He then distinguishes between the authenticity of a Scriptural record and the question of verbal inspiration, between the words of an Apostle and the words of God. After many eloquent and noble passages, he specifies some minute criticisms which are utterly inconsistent with the theory of verbal inspiration, and closes with the following eloquent words:

"We are warned that the Bible is not a shifting, mutable, uncertain thing.' We echo the warning, with this addition, that Christianity is a progressive thing; not a doctrine dead, and embalmed in creeds, but a spirit living and impersonated in Christ. Two things are necessary to a revelation: its record, which is permanent; its readers, who perpetually change. From the collision of the lesson and the mind on which it drops, starts up the living religion that saves the soul within, and acts on the theatre of the world without. Each eye sees what it can, and what it needs; each age develops a new and nobler idea from the immortal page. We are like children, who, in reading a book above their years, pass innocently and unconsciously over that which is not suited to their state. In this divine tale of Christ, every class and every period seizes, in succession, the views and emotions which most meet its wants. It is with Scripture as with Nature. The everlasting heavens spread above the gaze of Herschel, as they did over that of Abraham; yet the latter saw but a spangled dome, the former a forest of innumerable worlds. To the mind of this profound observer, there was as much a new creation, as if those heavens had been, for the time, called up and spread before his sight. And thus is it with the Word of God. As its power and beauty develop themselves continually, it is as if Heaven were writing it now, and leaf after leaf dropped directly from the skies. Nor is there any heresy like that, which denies this progressive unfolding of divine wisdom, shuts up the spirit of heaven in the verbal metaphysics and scholastic creeds of a half-barbarous period, treats the inspiration of God as a dry piece of antiquity, and cannot see that it