of the author. The " ulterior motive" he speaks of, (p. 5,) was apparent. And to the question "Did I dishonour the Son and Servant of the Supreme Jehovah, in regarding him under this character?" we may answer, Yes-you "dishonour the Son, who WILL BE HOnoured even AS THE FATHER," (John v. 23,) by calling him "SERVANT" in a Socinian (or Unitarian) sense, and which the text, 1 Cor. xv.24-29,does not justify more than any other text in the Bible. To the second question, "Is it for this I am called a Socinian ?"-be it answered-No;-but, for asking the first question, you are (reading of course, Unitarian for Socinian,) so called and something else.

Mr. R. proceeds (p. 10) to tell us he prays to THE Father only, saying, "Our Father;" I am glad to find that he does pray even to the Father. St. Stephen, who knew as much about prayer as Mr. R., prayed also,-"LORD JESUS, receive my spirit!" (Acts viii. 59). This prayer, however, in Mr. R's version, is called invoking!

Is Mr. R. ignorant, that the Polonian Unitarians (he will not reject their authenticity, certainly,) actually "excommu"nicated in past times, and deposed from their ministry, such "of their party as denied that Christ may be prayed to, and "worshipped with divine worship. This had bad effects, "therefore the Unitarians of Transylvania were more mo"derate, they admitted to the ministers and professor's places, "those that rejected the invocation and adoration of Christ; "but obliged them under their hands, not to speak against worshipping or praying to the Lord Christ in their sermons "or lectures!"

66

It is as well to reply here to a note about the word "SERVANT" in the appendix to the Reply, p. 16. Mr. R. must have known, that, when I said, the term servant' was NEVER applied to Christ in the New Testament, I meant in the sense in which he used it, as one who had never been any thing else than a servant. The word "so" introduced after never,' as it ought to have been, would have made this apparent. Phil. ii. 7, is a very dangerous text for Mr. R. It refutes him doubly. If Christ is there said to have TAKEN UPON HIMSELF the form of a servant," (doulou or bond-man), those words shew, that this was a voluntary act on the part of the Saviour; and, therefore, that he had power to do it; moreover the preceding verse (which Mr. R. did not quote, to save his consistency!) states that before this, HE was in the form of God." If then he was a servant on earth, he must have been GoD before; for "the form of" are words applied to each condition; and whatever they mean in the latter case, that they mean in the former. The Unitarian interpretation of the word form' will not hold against that of Josephus, who speaks of the nature and "essence" of God, which must be the meaning here, since naturally God has no 'form' in the ordinary acceptance of that word. The term servant' or bond-man expresses the accidental character of Christ when on earth, living in poverty, without possession, treated contemptuously (as he is still, though exalted to heaven), especially by the great of this world, and at length dying the death of a condemned and scourged slave. The same Isaiah who in xlii. 1, calls Christ a servant, in ix. 6, calls the same Christ-" The mighty God-The Father of the everlasting age-The Prince of Peace." In the former passage of the lxx. the word SERVANT, or CHILD, [pais] is represented by a similer word "paidion" (SERVANT OF CHILD) in the latter.

Many Unitarians never pray ;-they laugh at prayer,-ridicule the notion altogether. (See Pye Smith).

[These remarks are from "a Brief History of the Unitarians CALLED ALSO Socinians, in four letters to a friend, 1691, p. 33," where Mr. R. may see also how conscientious' those Unitarians were.]

Even SIMON MAGUS begged the apostles to "pray to the Lord for him,"-(Acts viii. 24)-that "Lord Jesus," (v. 16) whom he had recognised by baptism,--(sincerely or insincerely is not the question :)—and Simon Magus is an authority Original Unitarians ought to respect, for, according to the Fathers, he was the founder of those heresies, which they appeal to for the antiquity of their faith. It would take up too much room here, to shew this-and I refer Mr. R. to the Fathers themselves.

:

Pliny, a heathen author, makes it one of the charges against the Christians that they prayed or sang praises to "Christ as God" (carmenque Christo quasi Deo)*, Ep. x. 97 and it is moreover said, that those who were true Christians would not speak ill of Christ, or worship the heathen gods instead ; the test, Pliny says, of their being revera Christiani, 'REALLY Christians.' As Mr. R. is pleased to shew his reading by common place quotations from heathen writers, I thus offer him another, bearing more upon the subject, and that, because, as he refuses to receive the genuine words and sense of Scripture on the subject of prayer, the evidence of a man whose interest it was to persecute the Christians, may have weight with him as to the customs of the times" co-eval with the apostles." But, he says, "the Unitarians act up to the VERY LETTER AND SPIRIT" of Christ's command in praying to the Father. St. Paul more modestly observes: "Not as though I had already attained, either were already PERFECT" (Phil. iii. 12). It may be a very easy matter certainly for Mr. R. to act up to the letter and spirit of his Christianity; I can only say, that in common with most persons who have

* On the evidence from these words, see FABER contra Priestley, Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, vol. i., p. 57.

An application of the former (which for the benefit of Mr. R's. admirers who can't read Latin, I translate." But tell us ye High PRIESTS, what influence money has over your sacred rights?") perhaps, might be found without going to the UNITARIANS of "AMERICA" (of whom by and bye).-I do not wish to retort Mr. R's gentlemanly and decorous interpretation of motives, by which MINISTERS of the Church are supposed to be actuated, upon himself; (which would be an uncivil return for like forbearance on Mr. R.'s part, see Reply, p. 9, &c.)-and, moreover, as the High Priests alluded to are Pagans, "THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY LAW" has nothing to do with them: they be long to those congregations (whether two thousand or two,) who trace their pedigree up to Pagan corrupters of Christianity. As to the other quotation (Mr. R. does not say whence he got it) "who forbids a laugher to speak TRUTH?" I would merely ask again, who justifies a sneerer and scoffer to laugh at truth?-observing at the same time, that there are two ways of laughing-one, that of those who think the Sardonic grin of suppressed vexation a substitute for argument; and the other, that of the believer in Scripture, whole and undefiled, who smiles at the impotent attacks of those. who mutilate, misquote, misinterpret, and misapply the Scriptures.

E

tried it, I find it very difficult to act up to our's, and in nothing more so, than in the spirit of prayer, especially for such persons, as I believe dishonour "Our Father who is in heaven," -yet for whom our Church ("established by Law") daily prays; "That it may please Thee (the Triune Jehovah) to forgive our enemies, persecutors and slanderers, and to turn their hearts," and "to bring into the way of TRUTH all such as have erred and are deceived,"-not, of course, forgetting "all false doctrine, heresy and schism."

If Mr. R. would try to understand the petition, "Thy kingdom come," he would, perhaps, begin to discover that this "kingdom of God," is also the kingdom of Christ (for it is a New Testament expression altogether);-and that to pray, "Thy will be done on earth, As it is in heaven," accords but very little with a captious objection to a commendation, in true Christian feeling, to HIM who said "If ANY man WILL do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God," (John vii. 17,-Reply, p. 14, note);-" or," (which words may be misapplied by the determined Socinian or Unitarian,) "whether I speak of myself," i. e., in the character of a mere man, or in any character less than that of God.

Notwithstanding Mr. R.'s appeal to the "Lord's Prayer," I still maintain, that St. Peter (2, ch. ii. 1) alluded to those heretics, whom the Catholic Church of all ages and the Fathers likewise, point out to us as the authors of those sects to which, as I have before shewn, Mr. Rowntree's "authority in controversies of faith" traces up his religious creed, and which were the sources whence "original Unitarians" arose. If he disputes the fact, the quarrel is not with me, but with the whole Church and its orthodox branches, through a period of more than sixteen hundred years; he must challenge THEM, not ME -history is the umpire!

Mr. R. then taxes me with classing his congregations with Jews, Mahometans, Hindoos, &c. To accommodate the "two thousand congregations in America," he should have supplied the &c., by The Canadian Indians,-The Chocktaus, or Esquimaux. But did I class them there? No. It was Mr. R. who spoke of his forming a part of "COUNTLESS MULTITUDES" of dissenters. I merely observed, that if so, as the "multitudes" were "countless," they must, "probably, embrace all who deny Christ's divinity in this our world," and, therefore, Jews, Mahometans, Hindoos, &c., whom we

*See Article XX.

66

66

do not consider "dissenters." But, since Mr. R. is pleased to allude to this, I must tell him something, which he does not appear to know. First, then, the Jews actually understood that Jesus spoke of himself as God. Therefore, the Jews sought "the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the "sabbath, but said also that God was HIS FATHER, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD," (John v. 18); on which verse let me add, that the word "HIS" (idion) implies, that God was Father to Jesus in a sense in which he was not Father to any other being in human shape. This is Beza's interpretation, who did not belong to "the Church established by law." EQUAL WITH GOD" is rendered (in the Improved Version) "making himself like:"-the original word (ison), as the translators ought to have known, implies equality, and not similarity—and this fact is actually allowed by Belsham, (Calm Enquiry, p. 134, note 80). Let this text alone shew the spirit as well as the letter of the Improved Version. But it shews more, as I said; it shews that the Jews understood what the Unitarians do, or will, NOT understand. I have never heard that the modern Jews have had more, or less, understanding on Christ's equality with God the Father, than their ancestors.

66

66

66

66

66

The Mahometans come next.

In the controversy between the Old Unitarian and Mr. Fox, in the Monthly Repository for June 1817, I find Mr. Fox using these words, after having enumerated pretty many of the points in which the Church of England and the Unitarians "agree to differ:" "How worse than a name is the profes"sion which leaves all this ambiguity! Now, this list of topics in which Christians differ, is precisely your corres"pondents' list of those on which they agree. These are our common christianity! AND WHY ARE THEY NOT OUR COMMON ISLAMISM? For, with the exception of one point, the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, on which no "Calvinist or Arminian will allow that he has more than a "verbal agreement with us, they are subjects on which the "MAHOMETAN is "under no uncertainty." (p. 70-75). Who, now, classes Mr. R.'s "congregations" with MAHOMETANS? It is a fact, perhaps unknown to many persons who may feel a sort of uneasiness at being classed by themselves or others with Mahometans, that about 160 years since, the Unitarians of that time actually claimed kindred with the Mahometans. When the Emperor of Morocco sent his ambassador to Charles II., two ENGLISH UNITARIANS "in

their own name and in that of a multitude of their persuasion," addressed an " epistle dedicatory to his Illustrious Excellency, Ameth Bel Ameth, ambassador of the mighty Emperor of Morocco to Charles II., and in this epistle they saluted and congratulated him, and all that were with him, as votaries and fellow-worshippers of the sole Supreme Deity of the Almighty Father and Creator; and stated that they (ie. Mahometans) are their NEAREST fellow-champions for those truths," (viz. Unitarian doctrines) and "that God had raised up their Mahomet to defend the same truth with the sword!"-(Law of Whittingham, p. 25.)

On a subject so serious as the origin and progress of faith and doctrines professed by any sect, it can ill accord with the object of one who would point out error, to brand, for the sake of opprobrium, those who are in error, with obnoxious designations. But I feel perfectly persuaded, that with respect to those points on which Mr. R. fans up his indignation into a flame, he is not aware how much he is at the mercy of an epponent. He is angry at being classed with "Mahometans." Now it is a matter of positive fact, that the very appellation of the later Unitarians was stolen from the Mahometans, who, in every age, have so called themselves by preference and "prescription." (See Life of Saladin, p. 104.) In 4th ch. of the Koran, there is this passage,-"Verily, Christ Jesus is the Apostle of God and his word which he conveyed into Mary; and a spirit proceeding from him. Christ doth not proudly disdain to be a SERVANT unto God," a passage evidently compiled from Heb. iii. 1; John i. 14; viii. 42; and Phil. ii. 7. “Like his heretical successors," says Forster,' (Mahometanism Unveiled, ii. 27,) "those very passages of Scripture which most strongly AFFIRM the divinity of Christ, the Arabian impostor perverts into DENIALS of his divinity. Again, the Koran converts Matt. x. 40 into "Whoever obeyeth the APOSTLE, obeyeth God." Mr. R. seems not aware how far Mahometanism convicts his opinions, for it was derived from the Scriptures, and their evidence, as to what was believed from them over a large portion of the eastern world, cannot be set aside, in the weight of probable testimony. The Mussleman doctrines contend for the apostolical antiquity of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity; nay "Paul is called the most renowned teacher of THE TRINITY." (Hottinger Hist. Or. p. 231.) Does Mr. R.'s reading afford him no recollection, how frequently the Unitarians have made overtures to the Mahometans on matters of faith, and how fond they are of them;