Sivut kuvina

were to be received in submission and silence; or that he could suppose that convictions like ours, convictions that have resisted all the persua. sions of worldly ease and interest, that have removed from us the Charities and sympathies of men like him, and held in simple fidelity to bruto and God, could be so lightly shaken that nothing more was re

ed to blow them away than a course of ex parte lectures without ver or discussion. If the object had been to confirm Trinitarians in

views, this kind of proceeding we should have understood ; but by some thing more was required when Unitarians were publicly in

to the controversy. Much less could we anticipate that the Imerend gentleman, holding himself to be upon a “ religious level” far

Sto belong to a different order of spirits, could yet be so far om the Christian and Apostolical spirit as to refuse to bring

into direct conflict with our “ darkness.” With these ex

controversy, and having no bonds with anything but truth, sides of the

edly rejoiced, that, for the first time in this community, both

great question were about to appear together before the e


solemn tribunal of pub In all these things

us is of the nature o

to admit that we stood in limine, denied. W that it never was


only the Trinitarian ad pit to be taught to bi ecclesiastical feeling that is assum ed to you, the freer lai conduct will not be nobler ideas which

ese things we have been quickly undeceived. In our simplinot find anteved that discussion was really invited and desired. We

at we were invited to hear, but not to argue; that to lecture e nature of “ dearest affection;" but that to hear what we

urge in reply would be to“ recognize us " as “ Christians, ' » at we stood on the terms of a religious equality, which is . denied. We now find that all reciprocity is refused to us

cver was intended to treat us as equals ; that the method os only the the Unitarian controversy, about to be adopted, is to hea

Initarian advocates—to call us around the Christ Church pul

ught to listen and believe. Clergymen may be so blinded b ucal feelings as not to perceive the extreme offensiveness of all

umed in this mode of treating their fellow men ; but we turn . freer laity of the Church, in generous confidence, that sue)

l not be found to accord with your spirit of justice—with th.
as which you have gathered, from the intercourse of life,
dealing between man and man.
posed to the clergymen about to lecture at Christ Church, th.

bad appealed to public opinion, through a popular advocac
oss should be on both sides, and, as far as possible, before
Es. This is refused to us, because we are not Christians.
spirit of the Saviour ? It is also refused to us, because it ;
at Trinitarians cannot enter our places of worship without

principle, whilst we may enter their's without pain or con Now the very opposite of this, though not the truth, wona Bearer to it. In our worship there would be the inoffensi

some views dear to you: in your worship there would Presence of some views most painful to us. In our worshin

bear addressed that Great Spirit whom you, too, adore your worship, we should hear addressed, as God, him whor ind follow, as the image of God, the man Christ Jesus. In

We proposed

the pleadings


this in the s asserted, tha sacrifice of

t Trinit


[ocr errors]

have been D earer absence of some V the actual presene you would bear addr seek: in your w we revere and follow

our worship, you would find deficiencies only ; in yours, we should find what, to us, is positively objectionable, religion materialized and the Deity distributed into persons. The Rev. Fielding Ould, in one of his letters, represents us as looking upon you to be Polytheists, which we do not; and, in another of his letters, tells us, that we may enter your temples without pain or compromise of feeling. It will be evident to you, Trinitarian laymen, that the Lecturers at Christ Church cannot retire, upon such reasoning as this, from the full, public,and impartial discussion which we propose to them, without making it manifest to the public, that they are determined upon doing so.

We proposed to them discussion through the press, as well as from the pulpit : and this also is denied to us, on the ground, that newspapers are read by the sceptical, the scoffing, and the profane. Now not in news. papers alone, but in any journal whatever, was the controversy offered by us; yet we could not but have anticipated the objection, when we recollect the use made of the newspapers by the religious party to which the reve. rend gentlemen belong. Again have we tendered discussion, through the press, in any form whatever, with the single condition, that the views of both parties shall be presented to the same readers—in the hope, not as yet gratified, of an answer in a juster spirit.

Nothing now remains for us but to appeal from ecclesiastics to minds more generally influenced, to minds that, taught in the great schools of humanity, have learned mutual respect, and that have dropt, in the free and noble intercourses of man with man, the monkish and cloistered sentiment of spiritual as of civil superiority. To you, then, the Trinitarian laity, we make our appeal ; from the exclusiveness and assumed infallibility of clergymen, to men who, from familiarity with wider influences, have formed different conceptions of Christian brotherhood and of Christian justice. We should not have held ourselves authorized in thus addressing you had we supposed, that your cause or yourselves, your ideas of justice had been worthily supported by your ecclesiastical representatives, who, we firmly believe you will agree with us in feeling, have openly betrayed both you and it.

We appeal to you, not without confidence, to give us that equal audience which your clergymen have refused; that those of you who, through interest in the great question, are led to hear the Trinitarian statements, will, in the love of the truth, and in the spirit of equitable inquiry, hear also the Unitarian replies. We seek not to make you Unitarians : that, at least, is not our chief desire and aim. But would to God that we could do something to spread that true Christianity which holds the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and deems charity dearer and more heavenly than doctrinal faith! Would to God that this controversy might have some effect, not in building up any one creed, or swelling any one sect, but in destroying the delusive and separating ideas that lie at the roots of creeds, and are the nourishers of bigotry, uncharitableness, and heresies! We should deserve well of this great community, if we could remove from it this cause of strife and bitterness,-if we could exhibit the God of Jesus requiring from us, not speculative opinions, but the heart, the temper, and the life of Christ !-if we could expose the unchristian idea of men preparing themselves for a moral heaven by a


metaphysical creed, and unite those who now consume their energies,

teir temper, and their time, in contending for abstruse and uncertain dogmas in the deeds of mercy and of brotherhood which flow out of our common Christianity, and which, in the wide wastes of sin, of ignorance, we misery that surround us, are the moral debts of man to man, and consitute the religion which, before God, even our Father, is pure and undefiled. Respectrally directing your attention to our advertisement of a syl

Lectures on the Unitarian Controversy, presenting both sides of uestion our portion of which will be delivered in Paradise Street Chapel, on successive Tuesdays,

We are, Christian brethren,
Yours, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood,

John Hamilton Thom.
Liverpool, Feb. 2, 1839.






1839.–February 6.

1. Introductors. The pract

tory. The practical importance of the Controversy

1839.-Pebruary 12.
1. The practical importance of the

Unitarian Controversy. Rev. J. H. Thom.

[ocr errors]

with Unitarians.
February 13.
2. The Integrity of the

of Holy Scripture
against Unitarian Obje

tertity of the Canon

Peripture maintained
Ditarian Objections.

Rev. Dr. Tattershall.

February 19.
2. The Bible; what it is, and what
it is not.

Rev.J. Martinez

Pebruary 20.
2. The Unitarian Interpr

the New Testame
delective Scholar
honest or uncan

rian Interpretation of Testament based upon Scholarship, or on disencandid Criticism.

Rev. T. Byrth.

February 26.
3. Christianity not the property of

Critics and Scholars, but the gift
of God to all men. Rev. J.H. Tho


Pebruary 27.
4. The proper lo

Lord Jesus Christ.

"per Humanity of our

Rev. J. Jones.

March 6.

6. The proper

Jesus Christ pro Whecies,

dinances. March 13. 6. The proper De only good the Work

et Deity of our Lord
ist proved from Pro-
pes, and Jewish Or-

Rev. J. H. Stewart.


March 5.
4. “There is one God, and one Me-

diator between God and men, the

Man Christ Jesus.” Rev. H. Gil
March 12.
5. The proposition. That Christ is

God,'proved to be false from the
Jewish and the Christian Scrip-

March 19.
6. The scheme of Vicarious Redemp-

tion inconsistent with itself, and
with the Christian idea of Salva-

Rev. J. Marline
March 26.
7. The unscriptural Origin and Ec-

clesiastical History of the Doc-
trine of the Trinity. Rev. J.H. The

Deity of our Lord the
Dad of Consistency in
Q Redemption.

Rev. H. M'Neile.


March 20. 7. The Docs

prored as the Deity

Christ Harch N.

[blocks in formation]

8. The Atonemen

to the necessit Man, and shown with the Deity of Christ.

April 2.

8. Man, the Image of God. Rev. H. Gile.

22ent indispensable
Secessities of Pallen
Down to stand or fall
Ety of our Lord Jesus

Rer. R. P. Buddicom.

[blocks in formation]

To the (so-called) Unitarians of Liverpool. Men and Brethren,--Before the commencement of the lectures, on which I have taken the liberty of inviting your attendance, I am anxious respectfully to address to you a few observations in reference to the con ters which have appeared in the public journals under the signature your ministers.

It would appear that these gentlemen have been desirous to produce upon the public mind an unfavourable impression, à priori, of my rend brethren, and of myself in particular, because of our name clined, on their proposal, to enter upon a course different from and which we had originally contemplated.* " You will not, we trust, a Messrs. Martineau, Thom, and Giles, « incur the reproach . a discussion with us, and then changing it into an indictme, us.Now, we never invited any discussion with these gen. we had, we should have addressed ourselves to them persona?

ay discussion with these gentlemen ; if while we would not, and do not, shrink from any discussio into which we can consistently enter, we cannot allow diverted from the pursuit of our original purpose, viz.,

tently enter, we cannot allow ourselves to be

' of our original purpose, viz., to deliver a course ures upon the various points of Unitarian doctrine, which we be

think we can prove, to be not only unscriptural, but fatal to the souls of those who embrace them, and which cannot be .. (as appears from the published works of the most learned without a virtual surrender of the inspiration of the bio as I do, that your best interests for time and for etern

rests for time and for eternity are involved in the momentous questions at issue questions affecting the wees of true religion- I inserted a letter in the daily prints, express had hoped, in terms of courtesy and affection, invi and soliciting your attention.

ourtesy and affection. inviting your presence

I also caused a notice to : our intention to print the lectures, separately and in for extensive and immediate circulation, so that the amp

ctures, separately and in a collective form, might be afforded for replying to our arguments on t

ulation, so that the amplest opportunity ng to our arguments on the part of any who

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

statements, as we

Teel disposed to the task. That is, we proposed to employ the
atality of the pulpit and the press, (an instrumentality, be it ob-
Equally at the service of those who differed from us,) in order to
ce the best interests of a portion of our countrymen, whom we

obeperishing for lack of knowledge.”
Where is there to be found here aught of arrogance, or uncharitable-

assumed infallibility? Where is there aught of unfairness,
z rejection on our parts of the acknowledged principles of argu-

de justice?" It is true we refuse to advise our respective con-
ministers may

cous to attend at Unitarian chapels, to hear such answers as your
wers may think it right to offer in refutation of our reasonings. Our
sand our consciences alike forbid our concurrence in such a

We cannot go ourselves, nor recommend our people to go
their ears wounded, their hearts pained, and their Christian

shocked, by the iteration of such, in our view, blasphemous

as we find spread in painful profusion over the pages of
"theology. And why, then, it is asked, do we invite or ex-
pect your att
services of on

attendance upon what are called “the painfully revolting"
our church? For this reason, that, as appears from the

their principal writers, Unitarians do not attach the same
to religious doctrines and opinion that we do. It seems to

a matter of comparative indifference what dogmas a man ided he be sincere in his profession ; while with us sincerity on of truth, being persuaded that as a man's religious opinion's

his conduct be in time, and his destiny through eternity. Pinion, then, that our people would suffer by being brought act with error, in the same way that the human body would be

by accepting an invitation to feed at a table where poison proposedused with bread, we feel obliged to decline recommending the

Tangement to their adoption. But, feeling that there would

danger nor risk to those who are represented as having a sinal petite for poison as well as bread, and as looking upon all theolo

"ODs if not as equally harmless in their bearing on their eternal L e ventured to invite you to come, that we might " persuade

Ring Jesus.” If there be any of you whose conscience re. tendendust a participation in Trinitarian worship, we invite not his at. J e would be not intentionally accessory to the wounding of est conscience among you.

thus, men and brethren, perceive what was intended by the at our religious levelwas different. We meant not to

O urselves any undue superiority, but simply to state a fact expected to

e think it both unreasonable and unjust that we should be become the auditors of what we deem blasphemous error

t w O urselves to the joint circulation of what we call truth and

i and thus be “ partakers of other men's sins,"—we cannot

Pinion that there is some ground for these charges in refe.

e Conduct of those who, on this ground, attempt to prejudice public mind against us, as if we were declining a battle which we

works of all their prin
importance to religio
be with them a maty
holds, provided he be
is no criterion of truth,
are, so will his conduc
Being of opinion, the
into contact with err

was mingled with bre proposed arrangement be neither danger n

gical opinions if not as e interests, w e ven

the weakest conscien

You will thus, me assertion tha t our “ religious arrogate to And while

falsehood, and thus
but be of opinion that
rence to the conduct of the

had invited and provoked.


« EdellinenJatka »