cannot be avoided, that when Christ laid aside the form, he laid aside also the substance and the efficiency of God.—To be in the form of God, therefore, seems to be synonymous with being in the image of God; which is often predicated of Christ, even as man is also said, though in a much lower sense, to be the image of God, and to be in the image of God, that is, by creation." Much in the manner of Milton, it is remarked by Wakefield in his Enquiry (p. 185), that "this form must consist in no equality or similitude of essence, but in mental endowments, in some communicable properties, in something that can be participated in common by mankind, by Jesus, and by God."

In a further part of this chapter, having been proving how "the Son himself professes to have received from the Father all that pertains to his own being," Milton thus returns to the consideration of this passage:

"Christ therefore, having received all these things from the Father, and being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, namely, because he had obtained them by gift, not by robbery. For if this passage imply his co-equality with the Father, it rather refutes than proves his unity of essence; since equality cannot exist but between two or more essences. Thus Milton's contemporary Crellius, in his Work De Uno Deo Patre, remarks, (B. i. S. ii. Ch. xxxvi.,) "If Christ be equal to God, in respect of essence and essential properties, the essence of Christ must of necessity be different from the essence of God. Wherefore they must either bold two divine independent esseuces, or two Most High Gods, or that Christ is not the Most High God."

Milton proceeds to argue that the phrases, he did not think it, he made himself of no reputation, (literally, he emptied himself) appear inapplicable to the Supreme God. For to think, is nothing else than to entertain an opinion, which cannot be properly said of God (Opinio autem in Deo non cadit)." This Milton attributes, in his Artis Logica Institutio, as quoted by his translator, to the Deity's absolutely universal knowledge quia per causas æque omnia cognoscit). "Nor can the infinite God," he adds, "be said to empty himself, any more than to contradict himself; for infinity and emptiness are opposite

terms."

In thus examining "the principal texts which are brought forward to prove the divinity of the Son," Milton arrives

at "the last passage, from Jude ver. 4, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Who will not agree," he remarks, "that this is too verbose a mode of description, if all these words are intended to apply to one person? Or who would not rather conclude, on a comparison of many other passages which tend to confirm the same opinion, that they were spoken of two persons, namely, the Father, the only God, and our Lord Jesus Christ?" He then proceeds to "the passages quoted in the New Testament from the Old," from which Trinitarians would infer the Deity of Christ. But these considerations I must postpone to another opportunity.

My Father's at the Helm.

J. T. RUTT.

[Verses from St. James's Chronicle, January 10, 1826.]
THE Curling waves, with awful roar,
A little bark assail'd;

And pallid Fear's distracting power
O'er all on board prevail'd-

Save one, the Captain's darling child,
Who steadfast view'd the storm;.
And cheerful, with composure, smiled
At danger's threat'ning form.

66

"And sport'st thou thus," a seaman cried,
"While terrors overwhelm ?"

Why should I fear?" the boy replied,
"My Father's at the Helm."

So when our worldly all is reft,

Our earthly helper's gone,

We still have one sure anchor left-
God helps, and He alone.

He to our prayers will bend his ear,
He, give our pangs relief;

He, turn to smiles each trembling tear,
To joy each tort'ring grief.

Then turn to Him, 'mid sorrows wild,
When wants and woes o'erwhelmn;
Rememb'ring, like the fearless child,
Our Father's at the helm.

Letter from Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Gurney, the Quaker, upon a Trinitarian Discourse of his at Taunton.

SIR, Taunton, May 19, 1826. By the request of many of your readers I send you the following letter, which was handed to Mr. J. J. Gurney, of Norwich, in consequence of his delivering a discourse, the principal part of which appeared to me directed against the religious sentiments of Unitarian Christians. In conclusion he endeavoured to impress on the minds of his numerous audience, that the Friends were believers in the generally-received Orthodox notions of the Trinity. But Clarkson, their historian, and many other competent judges, are, I believe, of a different opinion. Indeed, I have long had the satisfaction of being on terms of intimacy with several intelligent members of their society, and have attended almost every meeting (when the public have been invited) for the last ten years, but I never before heard them defend the doctrine of the Trinity either in public or in private. I ought, perhaps, to add, that I received a long and friendly reply from Mr. Gurney, which of course I ought not to publish without obtaining his consent; in this he declines entering into a controversy on the subject, but refers me to his Essays on the Evidences and Doctrines of Christianity. This work, which is strictly Athanasian, I hope will soon be noticed by your respectable correspondent Ñ. in the Monthly Repository. J. ARMSTRONG.

SIR,

Taunton, April 23, 1826.

I have this evening attended public worship at the Friends' meeting, and I trust that I have listened with seriousness and attention to your discourse on some of the doctrines of Christianity, in which I have long felt a lively interest; but as I differ from some of your conclusions, and as you appear to me not well acquainted with the real sentiments of Unitarians, against whom some of your remarks were evidently directed, I hope you will excuse the liberty I have taken in thus addressing you.

In the first place I beg to assure you that we do not set up our reason above revelation; if the doctrine of the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, were clearly revealed in scripture, however incomprehensible or contradictory to reason, we should in these, as in the doctrine of a resurrection, bow with submission.

Nor is the appellation mere man, which you repeated more than once, applicable to our views of the Saviour: we believe in the divinity of his mission, but not in his Deity. Nay, I will go further and say, that in scriptural language he may be called a god, because the Apostle John says, that those were called gods to whom the word of God came. Moses was called a god, Exodus vii. 1: "See," says Jehovah, "I have made thee a god, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." We believe of Christ that he was chosen from among his brethren by his Father and our Father, by his God and our God; that he was greater than Moses or any other prophet; that he performed miracles which a mere man, without the especial assistance of God, could not perform. Still, as we cannot conceive of two Gods, we say with the Apostle, "that he was a man approved of God, by signs and miracles, which God did by him."

pas

I wish, Sir, that you could see on paper the various sages of Scripture which you quoted; how opposite and contradictory! Sometimes you represented Christ as the Eternal Son, and then as born of a virgin. Sometimes you represented him as God over all, Creator of the world and all things therein; and then you said that God had highly exalted him, and given him a name above every other name, &c. You represented him as all-wise, and yet he declared, when speaking of the day of judgment, "Of that day knoweth no man, not even the Son, nor the angels; but the Father only." You represented him as possessing all power, both in heaven and on earth; and yet, when solicited by the mother that her two sons might sit, the one on his right hand and the other on his left in his kingdom, he says, "To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." I might go on, but I hope I have said sufficient to recall your serious attention to the subject. That there is but one God, that he created Christ, and gave him all the power which he possessed, is my most deliberate conviction: this seems

"To speak of the Eternal Sonship of Christ," says Dr. Adam Clarke, (a learned Trinitarian in the Methodist connexion,) "is nonsense; for if he is, a Son he must have had a beginning, and therefore was not eternal."

accordant with the whole tenor of Scripture. The Trinitarian may continue to talk

"about essence and substance, and no one knows what;
God either made Christ, or else he did not;

If he did, he's a creature, 'tis plain at first view;
If not, he's a God, and then we have two."

If Christ was really God, I cannot account for the fact, that after our Lord's ascension, after the day of Pentecost, when one should naturally suppose that the doctrine of the two natures, the Trinity and the like opinions, which are now adored as mysteries, and a belief in which is so often insisted upon as essential to salvation-I say, I can. not account for it, that Luke and the other apostles, who wrote after this time, should have expressed themselves in a manner so ambiguous, and in general so contradictory to the alleged fact.

I believe that it is generally admitted by all parties, that the disciples of our Lord considered that he was a man, and as to his nature nothing more than man; that one betrayed him, another denied him, and all forsook him and fled. Now it appears to me that if, in after time, it had been revealed to them that Christ was what he is now represented to be, they would have been so struck with amazement, that the beginning, the middle, and the end of all their discourses would have been, that Jesus of Nazareth, whom we always considered as a man like ourselves, was no other than the very and eternal God, the Maker of heaven and earth. But how different is the case! They continue to speak of him as a man appointed by God, as distinct from God. "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

My time, Sir, will not permit me to refer to the stress which you laid on the phrases "Emmanuel, God with us;" "In the beginning was the word," &c.; but I take the liberty to enclose a work of Dr. Carpenter's, in which you will learn our views of these and many similar passages. At some future time you can return it to my friend Rebecca Russell, at Priscilla Gurney's, Bath, or to Mr. John Young, of this town. Soliciting your pardon for this intrusion, I subscribe myself, Sir,

Yours in Christian affection,

J. ARMSTRONG.