may be satisfied with such contemptible trifling with the language of Scripture; I am not. Nor, though he professes that there is no meaning in the word "Mediator" (Reply p, 7, note) because Christ was God as well as man, am I convinced of more than this, that, because Mr. R. is not willing to believe what he cannot comprehend, therefore, he thinks St. Paul must have been wrong when he said, "For this cause, he" (the same WORD who, St. John says, was God)" is the MEDIATOR of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, they, which are called, might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb, ix. 15). Let Mr. R. believe what he likes; I am perfectly content to receive the testimony of St. John, that " Christ was God," and "became man," and that of St. Paul, that he so became man, in order that, by atoning by death FOR men, he might mediate between God and man, being, FOR THAT PURPOSE, "EMMANUEL GOD WITH US.' 99 This is, I allow, with Mr. R., a mystery, and with St. Paul, “a GREAT mystery." But, am I to reject it, because it is a mystery? Is my reason to reject the word of Him who gave me that reason ? Unitarians profess to judge everything by reason; but, I declare, after having studied their writings, that they shew by their use of reason, that reason with them is not what reason is with most persons. If their reasonings are proof of reason, I confess openly, that I undervalue it more than I can express, Such, I think, is not what God gave them. In a word, if for reason they would substitute prejudice, there might be some sense in their logic, As it is, reason with them is a complete plaything, which they do what they will with ; a mere puppet to amuse. કે Mr. R. reading this, no doubt, either smiles in his selfcomplacency at my supposed absurdity and boldness in daring to say such things of his idol," or is, perhaps, devising some scheme to disprove my assertions, by a reply to this answer. Before, then, he puts his thoughts into print, let him apply to himself and his creed, the charge he makes against his opponents, that "the insurmountable difficulties that attend the Trinitarian scheme, compel its advocates to throw around it the shades of MYSTERY, but truth solicits enquiry," &c. (Reply, p. 17). Of course, there is no MYSTERY, in Mr. R.'s creed of "one Jehovah!" The nature and properties of God' are, of course, perfectly intelligible N to Mr. Rowntree. His reason can, of course, comprehend HOW God always exists; is every where present; and knows all things, filling every portion of space, and directing all the affairs of men! He, of course, understands Infinity, Eternity, and all the attributes and perfections of God! He professes to believe God is holy and perfect, and, of course, can reconcile the dealings of a perfect and holy God with imperfect and unholy man, so as to deny justice to the Almighty! If he cannot understand, comprehend, reconcile and explain these things, will he say, that there is NO MYSTERY even in Unitarianism? Is there NO MYSTERY thrown about God's speaking the universe into being, from nothing? "Let there be light-and there was light?" Is there NO MYSTERY there? Is, I ask, Mr. R.'s reason competent to answer these queries? If not, let him pause there, and enquire, why he professes to believe the assertions of Scripture. But, as this must be as great a mystery to a Unitarian, as to me; Mr. R. may find exercise for his reason, without diving into his religious creed, in the following circumstances, which, no doubt, he believes without asking (or perhaps having ever asked) a question about them. Is the junction of his soul and body mysterious, or is it not? Is the act of dipping his pen into his inkstand to write against the " Deity of Christ" mysterious in its being an act of obedience on the part of his muscles to his volition, or is it not? Is the act of thinking mysterious, or is it not? Is the fact, that of two eggs apparently alike, composed alike of what we call "white" and "yolk," by being hatched, one shall produce a hawk and the other a dove, mysterious or not? Is there any mystery or is there not, in the fact, that of two berries almost exactly alike in colour, and form, and size, from the same earth, contained in the same flower-pot, shall spring the NOURISHING red currant, and the DEADLY nightshade? These are a few of the many things going on about us, which we see with our eyes and handle with our hands; and we believe them, because we see them, though they surpass our reason and are most mysterious! And yet, when HE who made these marvels, who thus exhibits himself surrounded with mysterious works, reveals HIMSELF in his word, Mr.R. refuses to believe what He says, because there is MysTERY in what is revealed, and he will not credit what his reason (say prejudice) cannot comprehend! If Mr. R. will explain to me, but one of these circumstances-only onewhich he does believe, I will allow, but not before, the weight of his objection against the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, on account of the mystery thrown around them, not by man, but by JEHOVAH HIMSELF. I cannot more appropriately close these pages than by quoting a passage from that great scholar and divine whom Mr. Rowntree has asserted to uphold Unitarianism. "He knew the force of "prejudice, and the pride of human reason, to be so great, "as often to prevent men from believing that which they can"not fully comprehend; he foresaw that many would reject "their Saviour, because he came to them in appearance "different from what they expected; and because he asserted "claims, which they could not reconcile with their own "notions. The same will ever be the case, as long as men "set up their own reason for a perfect and paramount guide "in matters of religion, instead of receiving with humility "and thankfulness, the revelation which God is pleased to "make of himself, and waiting for a more perfect knowledge "of him, till the time when we shall see him face to face, and "know him even as we also are known." (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) [Bishop of London's Lectures on St. John, p. 37.] ERRATA. The reader is requested to pardon a few typographical errors in the punctuation, &c. besides the following. Page 14-FOR 'honor,' READ horror. 15 16 17 30 44 46 49. add after "sword," as a scourge on those IDOLIZING Christians. add also to the reference, Leslie. Dialogues, p. vii. FOR Mussleman" "GODHEAD" Mussulman. CRUCIFIXION. as great" as great as. "term of schism" -term Schism. 50 put a comma after "evidence." 63-FOR "I DOUBT not,' READ I DOUBT NOT. 66 71 Page 66 a Humanitarian" 33-FOR "81," READ 85. 54" they have," Humanitarians. Throne. ADDITIONAL ERRATA. he has. By the same Author, AND MAY BE HAD OF THE PUBLISHERS, 1. "The REVIEWER REVIEWED," being a criticism of Mr. Rowntree's Remarks on Mr. Dudley's Sermon on Col. i. 16. Price 6d. 2. A SERMON preached at Blandford Forum, 9th Dec, 1832, in aid of the Sunday and Weekly Schools of that parish. London: Rivingtons. Price 1s. 3. The HISTORY and PRACTICE of PSALMODY; being the substance of two Sermons, preached at Longfleet, 13th April, 1834. London: Wix. Price 1s. 4. The RIVER DERWENT and other Poems. London: Longman and Co. Price 6s, 5. LAYS of LEISURE, a series of Poems partly translated from modern languages. London: Smith, Elder and Co. Price 12s. 6. EIGHT ESSAYS on VOLCANIC and METEORIC PHENOMENA, published in the Magazine of Natural History for July 1833; May, July, September, and December, 1834; and January, March, and August, 1835, Price of each number, 2s. Preparing for publication, 7. GAUSSEN's LETTER to a DENIER of CHRIST's DIVINITY, translated from the French. POOLE PRINTED BY J. SYDENHAM, |