Milton's search for "the mangled Osiris," for "the lovely form and immortal features of truth," in the history of the church!

Let us not be misunderstood, as if we would cut off the present age from the past. We mean not, that Milton should have neglected the labours of his predecessors. He believed justly, that all the periods and generations of the human family are bound together by a sublime connexion, and that the wisdom of each age is chiefly a derivation from all preceding ages, not excepting the most ancient, just as a noble stream, through its whole extent, and in its widest overflowings, still holds communication with its infant springs, gushing out, perhaps, in the depths of distant forests, or on the heights of solitary mountains. We only mean to say, that the stream of religious knowledge, is to swell and grow through its whole course, and to receive new contributions from gifted minds in successive generations. We only regret, that Milton did not draw more from the deep and full fountains of his own soul. We wish only to teach, that antiquity was the infancy of our race, and that its acquisitions, instead of being rested in, are to bear us onward to new heights of truth and virtue. We mean not to complain of Milton for not doing more. He rendered to mankind a far greater service than that of a teacher of an improved theology. He taught and exemplified that spirit of intellectual freedom, through which all the great conquests of truth are to be achieved, and by which the human mind is to attain to a new consciousness of its sublime faculties, and to invigorate and expand itself for ever.

We here close our remarks on Milton. In offering this tribute, we have aimed at something higher, than to express and gratify our admiration of an eminent man. We believe, that an enlightened and exalted mind is a brighter manifestation of God, than the outward universe; and we have set forth, as we have been able, the praises of an illustrious servant of the Most High, that, through him, glory may redound to the Father of all spirits, the Fountain of all wisdom and magnanimous virtue. And still more; we believe, that the sublime intelligence of Milton was imparted, not for his own sake only, but to awaken kindred virtue and greatness in other souls. Far from regarding him as standing alone and unapproachable, we believe that he is an illustration of what all, who are true

to their nature, will become in the progress of their being; and we have held him forth, not to excite an ineffectual admiration, but to stir up our own and others' breasts to an exhilarating pursuit of high and ever-growing attainments in intellect and virtue.

SIR,

Reply to Philo- Veritas.

I INTEND the following as a reply rather to the spirit and substance of your objections, than a detailed answer of your queries. Your prejudice (as I consider it), "that there is no medium between the mere humanity and supreme deity of Christ," will prevent you, so long as it is entertained, from seeing the justice of any explanation which could be offered, of the particular texts you have quoted, or of any other of the same kind.

I will first slightly advert to the very palpable mistake in your allegation, that all Unitarians assert the mere humanity of Christ. The Arians, a pretty numerous body, expressly contend against such an idea, and yet contend with equal zeal for the strict Unity of the Godhead. But perhaps you think that the theory of Arius respecting the person of Christ, is only a compromise of difficulties equally inconsistent with the proper humanity or the proper deity of our Lord; and, therefore, ought to be put out of the question. Well, be it so. I like to bring argument to a point. For the same reason, I will grant you, that some eminent Unitarian advocates (Priestley, for instance) have sometimes expressed themselves in such a way as to give some ground for your prejudice. On this head, I would only ask for the fair play which is claimed by one of the most distinguished modern advocates of Orthodoxy, Magee. Speaking of definitions of the doctrine of the Atonement, and of the idea attached to it, as if an atonement was necessary to make God merciful, he scouts it declares it to be a calumny-and asserts his right to claim and to vindicate what he conceives to be the truth of the subject, without regard to such ultra views. Notwithstanding this, however, it is perfectly well known, to every person versant in the history of theology -that our forefathers were, in this instance, really of that ultra spirit which he disavows, and that many of the orthodox are so to this day. Just so with Unitarianism;

some of its earlier advocates, in the heat of controversy, might carry matters to an extreme; but our faith is not pinned to their sleeves. I may suppose, that the doctrine of the Trinity tends to Tritheism; you may suppose, that the doctrine of Unitarianism tends to that of the mere humanity; and, in some cases, and with minds of a certain description, our impressions may be equally just. But let the lovers of truth be candid, and judge of others as they desire to be judged by others.

I will next admit, that the Scriptures speak in very high terms of the character and office of Christ, and that in some instances, titles and attributes are assigned to him, which in their abstract nature do only belong properly to the Deity. But the question still remains, and it is the true one, between the Trinitarian and Unitarian, -Whether such attributes belong essentially and intrinsically to Jesus, or were bestowed upon him, and derived from the One Supreme Being-the Father Almighty? This is the point. I have purposely used the name Jesus here, rather than Son,-not with the view of taking any advantage of it in the argument, but because the introduction of the term Son (in the sense in which it is popularly understood), takes the question for granted, which ought to be proved; and even although that be not intended, yet it necessarily obscures the discussion.

Here, then, is a Man-Jesus of Nazareth-laying claim to the title of the Son of God, and to other titles and attributes of high import. Do these circumstances justify us in supposing, that he is personally the Supreme Being; or one of a Trinity, making up this Supreme Being, and essentially equal to the other members of the said Trinity? This is the question. I waive all objections on the ground of his appearing in the form of man-of his being born, dying, and rising again,-because all this may be said truly of him, in regard to his human vehicle, let his animating spirit, or proper person, be what it may. But when he speaks (or others speak of him) in his proper and peculiar character and offices, What does he say of himself? Does he say, that his attributes are intrinsic, or derived?

And, here, I need not furnish you with any list of texts, in favour of his derived and subordinate power and authority, because you have already One Hundred of them before you in this Miscellany. Perhaps you may object

to some of them, as not being quite to the point in the shape I have here put it; but I think you cannot deny, that a great many of them are expressly in favour of derived and subordinate power and authority. You can only set aside their obvious import, in the way of opposing it by texts of a contrary description; but remember, that they must directly, and obviously affirm the essential and independent Deity of Christ. The whole host of texts usually quoted in favour of his high titles and attributes, go for nothing to the argument as we have put it. I can scarcely guess what passages of Scripture you might adduce to this point; but I shall suppose you produced one for every five of its opposites. What then?" The Scripture cannot be broken"-it cannot be inconsistent-the interpretation of one of these classes of apparently opposite testimony, must be interpreted and modified (if need be) by the other; and which shall yield?—the one or the five?

But, as far as my memory serves me, you will find no text direct to your point. The most that can be urged, is, that there are a few texts which use language so strong that it nearly amounts to an express assertion of the Supreme Deity of Christ. Of these we shall take some which you quoted, as a sample. Several of them rest on the use of the term "God our Saviour." We are in the habit, in these modern days, of using the term our Saviour, as a proper name of Jesus the Christ; and from this association of ideas, you infer, that the term "God our Saviour," used in the Scriptures, is equivalent to "our Saviour (in the modern sense of the word) is God." Nothing can be more loose than such an inference. God the Father, our Creator, our Preserver, and Deliverer, is, in all these, and other respects, independent of the Christian economy-our Saviour; and is so styled in the Old Testament, whose language the Apostles adopted; and under the Christian economy, and according to any theory, he participates in the work of our salvation, and is consequently our Saviour, as well as Christ is. As to the passage in Isaiah, the learned are not agreed about the correctness of our common translation; and it is time enough to bring forward such passages on either side, when they have settled their rendering.

I select those two texts which you have more expressly quoted, to show how they may be interpreted according

of

to our system. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Jesus was anointed, without measure, with the Spirit of God, and had power to communicate the same Spirit, in certain measures, to his disciples-" to baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;" and the power was increased after his ascension, of which the day of Pentecost bore witness. Nor is this power abated by the lapse of time. Wherever men meet in his name, the gifts and energy this Spirit will be displayed, if not repressed and grieved by their own follies. This influence is called Christ, by the same figure of speech whereby it is said "that Christ dwelleth in our hearts." Again; "God was manifest in the flesh." The power and wisdom of God are manifested in the works of creation, even in their quiescent and natural state-much more when they were called into existence, or when their laws are reversed by any miraculous interference. When God appeared on the top of Mount Sinai, he was not personally present there, in such a way as if he were absent from other parts of the universe. He only made his presence visible and manifest to the senses of the people, by a miraculous exertion of his power. In the character and actions of Christ, God gave another miraculous display of his presence; but chiefly of a moral kind-" of his grace and truth"-and rather to be perceived by the moral, than by the natural senses of mankind. Such displays of the divine energies, are called his Logos, or his Word; it has been from the beginning—all things were made by it—and, in the latter day, it was displayed in human nature-it was made flesh, and dwelt among us-and they whose senses were rightly exercised to discern it, beheld his glory, and do yet behold it.

For a more extended illustration of some of these observations, I would refer you to a book published a few years ago, by Whittaker in London, and Chalmers & Collins in Glasgow, entitled "The Primitive Doctrine, concerning the Person of Christ." The author of it has some peculiar views, that do not concern our present argument; but, at all events, it will convince you, that a man may entertain the most exalted views of the character and offices of Christ-views not inferior in point of practical dignity to those of Orthodoxy itself—and yet he may be a strict and decided Unitarian.

PHILO-VERITAS ALTER.