tianity. His name has come to have all the force of an argument in favour of the tenets he impugns. His writings dispense far and wide the light of a beacon; and when the fear of running into uncharitableness leads us too near the shoals of latitudinarianism, this light-house of the Christian world warns us back. Whatever may have been the besetting sins of Mr. Belsham's long controversial career, no one can charge him with the want of explicitness or of boldness. The present pamphlet is worthy of himself. Its design and spirit are in striking consistency with the moral tendency and aim of his former labours. It has for its object, to ridicule the vulgar' notion of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or their freedom from great philosophical errors;' to prove that Moses was not the author of the Book of Genesis; and to shew, that the ingenious attempts of learned men to re⚫ concile the narrative in the first chapter of Genesis with the true system of the universe, are unsatisfactory, and useless, and even injurious to the cause of revealed religion.' It is a vulgar,' but a forcible expression, which we are tempted to employ when we say, that Mr. Belsham is a man who sticks at nothing. He concedes to Bellamy and Carlile, in the following passage, all that they would wish for.

To conclude. The Scriptures in general will never be read with that pleasure and improvement which they are calculated to impart, till the vulgar opinion of the plenary inspiration of every book, and of every sentence contained in them, is entirely given up, and till no inspiration of any kind, or in any degree, is allowed, but what the writers themselves claim and prove. While the mind is entangled in the notion of an universal plenary inspiration of the sacred volume, it finds difficulties at every step, and is fearful of exercising a sound discretion; its reasoning powers are cramped and suspended, and it ventures only to exercise its ingenuity in harmonizing contradictions, in reconciling to probability things that are repugnant to common sense, and in vindicating the morality of actions which are at variance with truth and justice. In fine, so long as the plenary inspiration of all the books which compose the volume of the Jewish and Christian scriptures is asserted and maintained, the objections of unbelievers, however they may be silenced by pains and penalties, can never be answered in a way which will be satisfactory to men of sense, candour, and reflection.' pp..28, 29.

We have sufficiently expressed our opinion as to pains and penalties in such cases, in reviewing Mr. Belsham's memorable defence of Ecclesiastical Establishments; and Mr. Belsham is the last man we would silence in that way. We would sooner see him made a bishop. But we cannot help adverting to the capricious diversity of fate which the learned Translator, the learned Divine, and he who should have been their bookseller, have met with:-the first, patronised by the hierarchy; the se

cond, revered as the patriarch of his sect; the third, out of Bedlam, but in gaol. Posterity, with more even-handed justice, will award to their labours a common fame. All three of them agree in this; that the Bible, as it is now vulgarly understood, in the vulgar translation, and according to the vulgar opinion of Christians of all denominations, is open to unanswerable objections, and that parts, at least, cannot be read with either pleasure or improvement.

We shall make but one more extract from Mr. Belsham's discourse, and for this we feel that we ought almost to apologize to our readers. But such passages speak volumes as to the

general spirit' of a writer. And as the spirit of Dr. Carpenter's letter suggested Mr. Fripp's first doubts as to the purity of the orthodox system, who knows but the spirit of Mr. Belsham's discourse may excite a salutary doubt in the mind of some person as to the true genius and tendency of Unitarianism?

That there was one only God, one glorious person alone, the Creator, the Former, and the Lord of all things, was unquestionably the clear understanding of the Hebrew nation in all ages; who justly repel with indignation the insulting charge that their ancestors ever worshipped a Triune Deity. Into whatever errors or idolatries this extraordinary people might be suffered to fall, never, never did they so far apostatize from the religion of their forefathers, and the doctrine of their sacred books, as to concede, that Moses taught the existence of the Trinity in Unity, or that the Eternal and Almighty God transferred to some inferior nature the task of new modelling and of governing the world and its inhabitants, while he was himself contented to sustain the part of a silent and inactive spectator.

The arguments in favour of these strange suppositions are almost too trifling to be mentioned, and in all other cases would be passed over in silent contempt by many, who now bring them forward with the greatest parade."* pp. 14, 15.

* Mr. Belsham, in the subsequent paragraphs, condescends to notice one of those 'trifling' arguments, founded on the plural form of the Hebrew word translated God, as uniformly connected with a singular verb. Miserable subterfuge,' miserable sophistry,' are the words employed by our "Calm Inquirer" on this subject. Who does not know,' he says, that such anomalies are common? We must ingenuously confess that we do not. But moreover, the word translated God, in its singular form, expresses power: in its plural, it sig 'nifies omnipotence.' Nor is it at all uncommon,' adds this learned Hebraist, to apply the very same word in its plural form to magis'trates and judges: Moses himself is called Elohim.' Now, then, what can be clearer, than that it must, in the plural, mean omnipotence? Ergo, magistrates and judges are omnipotent; and the meaning of Exod. vii. 1. is, I have made thee an Omnipotent to Pharoah!! Will

66

The learned and pious Bishop of St. David's has termed the Unitarians, God-denying apostates;' in allusion, we presume, to 2 Pet. i. 1. We strongly object to the phrase, as warranted neither by the text nor by the fact. We do not see, indeed, how the term apostates can be with propriety applied to any collective body, the greater part of whom have been educated in the false opinions they hold, and have not, as individuals, apostatized. But, waiving this objection, we consider the designation as useless for the purpose of argument, and adapted only to inflame the passions. Yet, let the reader compare with this expression, against which such a clamour has been raised, the above declaration of Mr. Belsham as to those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have the very word apostatized, hypothetically applied to the Jews, but, by direct and necessary implication, pointed at all Christians who hold that "the Word was God," and that "all things were made by him." This apostacy is intimated to be worse than any errors or idolatries into which the ancient Jews were suffered to fall. Nay, notwithstanding the present intellectual and moral degradation of the Hebrew nation, it were an insult to them, an insult which, we are told, they would justly repel with indignation, to charge their ancestors with the foul crime of that apostacy in which is involved the whole Christian world!! We will not be provoked even by Mr. Belsham into recrimination. We should be ashamed to plead such a precedent in extenuation of a moment's forgetfulness of the decencies of controversy. We would, however, recommend Unitarians like Mr. Fripp, when they complain of the spirit of orthodox writers, to look nearer home. But this is not the use which we wish our readers to make of such passages. There is apostacy somewhere. So far, Mr., Belsham has correct views of the immense distance which separates his creed from ours. Trinitarian Christianity is idolatry, or Socinianism is apostacy; and Dr. Wardlaw's affirmation, that the whole world lies between the two systems,' is no hyperbole. If Mr. Fripp still objects to it as such, we refer him. to Mr. Belsham, who will on that point set him right.

Mr. Aspland is a far more formidable antagonist than Mr. Belsham, because, with far more natural acuteness, he is always cool, and never loses sight of the character of a gentleman. If, as a writer, he is never profound, neither is he ever pompous; he is always plausible, and sometimes elegant. His native good taste is conspicuous in his keeping clear from the slang to which his brethren Fox and Gilchrist have continually recourse in

Mr. Belsham have the goodness to inform us what Adonim and Baalim mean in connexion with a singular verb; or what is the superlative'

of Lord?

venting their high-minded contempt of orthodox opinions. His copious use of the evangelical phraseology gives the appearance of propriety and truth to many of his statements; which, indeed, are frequently unexceptionable taken by themselves, and are objectionable only as they are known to be designedly exclusive of those truths which the Writer would have you mistake for contradictions. Much that is said in these two Sermons, in illustration of the perfect character of our Lord, and of the evidence which it afforded of his Divine mission, is both just and important. We have only to regret in such passages, the sinister purpose to which they are intended to be subservient. In using the term sinister, we do not mean to impute dishonest or dishonourable artifice. Presuming, as we are bound to do, upon the sincerity of our opponents, we would impute to no other source than the natural influence of error, the sophistry by which they seek to give plausibility to their opinions.

The unworthy artifice of laying to their adversary's charge things which he would most explicitly disavow,' is, as Mr. Fripp remarks, too common among controvertists on all sides: it is not peculiar to Unitarians, although it has, perhaps, a more than ordinary prominence in their tactics. The standing jest (for it is no better, and the levity with which it is usually brought forward, warrants our terming it such) which represents Trinitarians as believing in Three Gods-as believing in a contradiction, &c. is an artifice of this low kind. Passing this over, the usual reasonings in favour of Unitarianism, appear to us to range under three general heads: those which are founded on the exceptionable statements of Trinitarian writers; those which rest on truths held in common by both parties; and those which rest on mere assertion and palpable misrepresentation.

Persons competently acquainted with the Controversy, are well aware, that the arguments, or call them prejudices, which range under the first head, are the most difficult to dispose of; difficult, because it is often impossible to defend the expression, and yet, cowardly to seem to surrender the truth it was designed to convey; because, too, it is both painful and invidious to abandon to the cavils and taunts of an opponent, the weak or incautious statements of learned and pious men; and further, because it is conceding too much, to allow that they are objectionable to the alleged extent. The writings of the Fathers abound with passages of the description to which we allude. Those writers to whom Hooker refers, as, by their 'overbold affirmations,' favouring the Eutychian heresy, afford numerous instances of the same kind. The received reading of Acts xx. 28, which, even were it genuine, would be insuffi

cient to license a phraseology at variance with the uniform practice of the sacred writers, has led too many devout persons to speak of the Deity as undergoing passion and suffering. Dr. Watts, in his more juvenile compositions, fell into this palpable impropriety. All those representations, moreover, which convey the idea, that the interposition of the Son of God rendered the Father placable, or which seem to contradict the Scripture doctrine, that our salvation originated in the love of God, who "sent his only begotten Son into the world, that "whosoever believeth in him, might not perish,”—are justly reprehensible, as being both incorrect and dangerous. We say, seem to contradict the Scripture doctrine, because we never heard of a Calvinist who did not really believe, notwithstanding any statements which, on the face of them, might appear to impugn it, that the interposition of the Saviour originated in the appointment of God, and was the effect, not the cause, of the Divine placability and compassion. There is much gross, if not wilful misrepresentation on this subject, to be found in Unitarian writers. But still, we deeply regret that orthodox writers should have afforded them any handle for so grave and specious a charge.

Under this first head, also, we must rank the injudicious verbal criticisms which have confounded illustrations with proofs, or staked the force of the argument on isolated passages insufficient to sustain its weight. Of this description is the whole controversy relating to 1 John v. 7.; a text on which Dr. Hill's remark, cited in our last Number, might have precluded an undue stress being laid; namely, that it would prove, at most, only a oneness of record. The value of a passage as an illustration of the doctrine to a believer, and its substantive force as an independent proof, have not been sufficiently discriminated. The Scriptures were not designed to form a textbook to the controvertist; nor is there any room for surprise that they convey the most important doctrines in so indirect a manner, as to afford few passages that can be employed as demonstrations against the sceptic. It is one of the worst effects of controversy, that it tends to divert the attention from the scope and tenor of Scripture, to the critical discussion of particular phrases and detached texts.

But we must hasten to notice the reasonings of Unitarians which class under the second head. And here we speak according to the best of our recollection, (and shall be happy to retract or qualify the assertion if it be too strong,) when we affirm, that, in no Unitarian writer that we are acquainted with, is the fact honestly admitted, that Trinitarians, equally with themselves, admit the true, and proper, and perfect (though, as regards his person as Mediator, not simple) humanity of Jesus