Unitarianism Defended A Series of Lectures by John Hamilton Thom James Martineau Henry Giles

330 Pages·2021·3.42 MB·English

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Unitarianism Defended, by
John Hamilton Thom and James Martineau and Henry Giles

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: Unitarianism Defended
A Series of Lectures by Three Protestant Dissenting
Ministers of Liverpool

Author: John Hamilton Thom
James Martineau
Henry Giles

Release Date: September 10, 2015 [EBook #49930]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UNITARIANISM DEFENDED ***

Produced by Julia Miller, Elizabeth Oscanyan and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from scans of public domain material
produced by Microsoft for their Live Search Books site.)

UNITARIANISM DEFENDED:

A SERIES OF LECTURES

BY

THREE PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTERS

OF LIVERPOOL:

IN REPLY TO

A COURSE OF LECTURES, ENTITLED “UNITARIANISM

CONFUTED,” BY THIRTEEN CLERGYMEN OF

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

WOULD TO HEAVEN THAT CHRISTIANS HAD THEIR OWN ‘VAIL’ OF ORTHODOX WORDS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEIR MINDS; THAT, LIMITING ORTHODOXY TO
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRIST AS THE
SPIRIT (‘THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT,’ SAYS ST. PAUL),
i.e., THE MEANING, THE END OF ALL REVELATION, THEY

WOULD NOT ALLOW A NEW letter, CONSISTING OF ABSTRACT DOCTRINES, TO INVOLVE THEIR MINDS IN A ‘VAIL’ WHICH OBSTRUCTS THE VIEW OF THE
Gospel, even more than the old letter, which kept the Jews in “bondage.”—Heresy and Orthodoxy by Rev. J. Blanco White, p. 53,
2nd edition.

LIVERPOOL:

WILLMER AND SMITH, 32, CHURCH STREET.

LONDON:

JOHN GREEN, 121, NEWGATE STREET.

1839.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY RICHARD KINDER,

GREEN ARBOUR COURT, OLD BAILEY.

GENERAL PREFACE.

In this Preface, and in all the other contents of this volume, we have occupied the position of an assailed party, lending our
best consideration to whatever a leagued body of resolute and unsparing adversaries could say against us. We have stood
upon the defensive, not lamenting that such an occasion had occurred of exposing our views of Christianity to so severe a
scrutiny, and of displaying to the world whether our position was tenable. We did not provoke this Controversy. It was of
our opponents’ choosing. They entered into combination, and arranged their method of attack, and invited the public
attentively to look on while they performed upon us the work of destruction. With respectful attention, as men whose
system of Christianity was about to be subjected to a powerful analysis by those who believed the main ingredients to be
poisonous,—but with quiet hearts, as men who had no interest in this world but to discover Truth,—we have interfered no
further than was necessary to make this examination, by carefulness, impartiality, and accuracy, productive of a true result.
We have struck out whatever was untrue, and we have supplied whatever was wanting, to exhibit a full statement of the
respective Evidences of Unitarianism and of Trinitarianism. Lecture qualifies lecture; and Preface corrects Preface. We are
satisfied to have thus placed, side by side, the contrasted views of Man and God, and to await the issues.
To return upon the “thirteen Clergymen of the Church of England” the words of their General Preface, (p. xi.) “it is no
uncommon practice in modern criticism to neglect the statements” of an opponent’s case, as if they never had been
made, and the corrections passed upon one’s own as if they never had been experienced. It is the policy of the “thirteen
Clergymen” to reiterate, nothing daunted, arguments, our careful replies to which are not even noticed, and
misrepresentations whose injustice had solemnly been protested against. By these resolute repetitions some are seduced to
believe, and attention is withdrawn from the overthrow of an error or a calumny by the hardihood with which it rises from
its fall, and reasserts itself. Strike them down;—they get up, and coolly offer themselves to be struck down again. Great
ought to be the power of Truth; for great is the vitality and the power of effrontery in a popular error. It is only in the long
combat of years and generations that the Real manifests at last its imperishable quality. The “General Preface” quietly
gathers up all the “disjecta membra” of error and misstatement, and without a word of answer to our analysis of their
character, presents them again to have sentence and execution passed upon them. It is a careful redintegration of the
broken particles, which in our simplicity we had hoped would not so readily reunite. We are obliged, therefore, by way at
once of Preface and of Protest, to repeat our solemn contradiction of some most strenuous misrepresentations, and to
attempt again the exposure of some fallacies most tenacious of life.
I. It was distinctly stated by us in the course of this Controversy, that not upon any grounds of literary evidence did we
discredit those prefaces which relate to the miraculous (or as, in insult to the purest and holiest human feelings, our
opponents are not ashamed to call it, the immaculate) conception; and that our estimate of them was formed solely upon
grounds of inherent incredibility, and of proved inconsistencies both with themselves and with the general statements of the
New Testament. Yet in total disregard of this our denial, the Preface (p. xiii.) reasserts the charge, as if it never had been
contradicted. We also distinctly stated that the miraculous conception in no way interfered with Unitarianism,—that
many Humanitarians believed in it; yet it is the policy of Trinitarianism to repeat, that we pervert these portions of
Scripture, for the sake of evading a fact fatal to our system. Unitarianism is so little concerned to evade the fact of a
miraculous conception, that many Unitarians themselves adopt it. It is the “tactics” of the “thirteen Clergymen,” their system
“of holy war,” (see Preface to Mr. Ould’s Lecture) to ignore whatever we may say on our own behalf, either in way of
correction or of defence, and to reassert the false statement.
II. The “Unitarian Creed” is described by our reverend opponents as “a mere code of unbelief” (p. xiv.) it being the
policy of the “thirteen Clergymen,” not only to pay no regard to our most solemn assertion of our faith in Christianity, as
God’s full and perfect revelation to man, but also to assume to themselves the functions of infallible judges of what is
Christianity, and what is not; and so, again to return upon them their own language, to “deify their own fallible” (p. xii.)
interpretations and inferences. Yet they can impose upon the simplicity of the world, by charging others with the “pride of
reason.” Infallible themselves, to differ from their infallibility can of course be nothing else than the pride of reason.
III. It is stated (p. xv.), that we “utterly deny” “the eternity of punishments,” without adding what we have added, that the
moral consequences of actions are eternal, and that in its influence on character and progress, the retribution of every evil
thought or deed is everlasting. What we do deny, as the blackest misrepresentation that can be conceived of the God of
Providence, whose glory it is to lead his children to Himself, is the horribly distinct statement of their own “General
Preface”—“that the sufferings of the lost are not intended for their amendment, but as a satisfaction to divine
justice, when the hour of pardon shall have passed away.” (p. xv.) Is this the Religion, and this the God, of Love?
These are the men who make the Unbelief of which they afterwards so blindly and bitterly complain. If such was
Christianity, unbelief would be a virtue, a prompting of devotion, a protest on behalf of God.
IV. Our doubt as to the existence of, or necessity for, an external Devil, permitted by God to ruin the souls of men, has
been converted to two uses in this Preface;—first, as manifesting that we are ourselves under the power of the subtlest
device of Satan, who has concealed from us his existence, that he might lead us captive at his will; and, secondly, that
though denying the existence of Satan, we are yet ourselves the emissaries of Satan; for that as the Devil tempted Eve, and
our Lord himself, by perversions of the Word of God, so Unitarianism, by its interpretations, is his present instrument,—in
fact, Satan himself tempting the world by the word of God, as of old he tempted Eve and Christ. (pp. xv. xvi.) We leave
this matter to the judgment of men whose sense of propriety and decency has not been borrowed exclusively from the
influences of a dogmatic Theology.
V. It is said of us (p. xvi.), contrary to our own most distinct averment in this very Controversy, that “according to the

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

theologians of this unhappy school, it seems to be almost a fundamental rule, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as
true in its nature, or divine in its origin, of which all the parts are not level to human understanding: and that whatever the
Scriptures teach concerning the counsels of Jehovah, and the plan of his salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and
attenuated, in such a manner, by the transforming power of art and argument, as to correspond with the poor and narrow
capacities of our intelligence.”
Where are the simplicity, the sincerity, the love of Truth, which alone can make Controversy fruitful of good results, when
such a representation of the spirit of our Theology can be given by “thirteen Clergymen” after we had published the
following words in our fifth Lecture (p. 9), for their special instruction:—“Let me guard myself from the imputation of
rejecting this doctrine because it is mysterious; or of supporting a system which insists on banishing all mysteries from
religion. On any such system I should look with unqualified aversion, as excluding from faith one of its primary elements; as
obliterating the distinction between logic and devotion, and tending only to produce an irreverent and narrow-minded
dogmatism. ‘Religion without mystery’ is a combination of terms, than which the Athanasian Creed contains nothing more
contradictory; and the sentiment of which it is the motto, I take to be a fatal caricature of rationalism, tending to bring all
piety into contempt. Until we touch upon the mysterious, we are not in contact with religion; nor are any objects reverently
regarded by us, except such as, from their nature or their vastness, are felt to transcend our comprehension.” Nay, it is not
a little remarkable, that the very illustration employed by the “thirteen Clergymen” to exhibit our absurdity in rejecting the
incomprehensible, had been previously employed by ourselves to exhibit the necessity of admitting the incomprehensible:—

Trinitarian Preface, p. xviii.
Unitarian Lecture, No. V. p. 9.

“Much of the great mystery of godliness, God manifest
in the flesh, with all the firmament of saving truth and
love, whereof it is the radiant centre, must remain
inexplicable to our present capacities. But to argue
from thence, that this mystery is a cunningly-devised
fable, is as illogical as it would be to maintain that
there is no bottom to the sea, because we have no
plumb-line with which it may be fathomed.”

“The sense of what we do not know is as essential to our
religion, as the impression of what we do know; the
thought of the boundless, the incomprehensible, must
blend in our mind with the perception of the clear and true;
the little knowledge we have must be clung to, as the
margin of an invisible immensity; and all our positive
ideas be regarded as the mere float to show the
surface of the infinite deep.”

This is bold misrepresentation; a consistent hardihood in the “tactics of holy war.” To persevere, against all remonstrance,
in the repetition of a misstatement injurious to an opponent, and to do this so coolly as to use almost his own words in
imputing to him the very opposite of what he has said, is at least a convenient, if not an honourable nor yet a formidable
policy.
In the same spirit of neither honourable nor yet formidable policy, is the attempt (p. xvii.) to identify Mahometanism and
Unitarianism, by the help of a literary forgery, which even if it was authentic, would prove nothing except that the early
Unitarians of England, in the reign of Charles the Second, amid the corruptions of Christianity, rejoiced in the testimony
borne by Mahometanism to the great doctrine of revealed religion, the Unity of God. It is said that there is, among the
MSS. in the Lambeth Library, a “Socinian Epistle (to this effect) to Ameth Ben Ameth, Ambassador from the Emperor of
Morocco to Charles II.” Leslie, in the Preface to his “Socinian Controversy Discussed,” was the first who made use of this
supposed letter, and not without the suspicion, that he had first forged it himself.[1] “I will here,” says Leslie, “present the
reader with a rarity, which I take to be so, because of the difficulty I had to obtain it.” “It is in my mind,” says Mr.
Aspland, “decisive of the question, that immediately after Leslie had published the Epistle, Emlyn, who answered the tract
to which it was prefixed, stated it as his belief, upon inquiry, that no such epistle had ever been presented by any one
‘deputed’ from the Unitarians, and insinuated that no credit was to be given to a document published by Leslie, unless
vouched by some other authority than his own; and that Leslie, in replying to this answer, though he dwells, for pages,
upon the passages before and after this, relating to the epistle, says not a syllable about his ‘rarity’ or in defence of his
veracity.” “Leslie,” continues Mr. Aspland, “is convicted (by Emlyn) of quoting passages from Archbishop Tillotson’s
Sermons, which had been published in the name of their eminent author, as if they were the work of an avowed ‘Socinian.’
And if you will consult his reply, you will find this theological braggart completely humbled, and reduced to the necessity of
using the wretched plea, that he had omitted the name of the ‘great Prelate,’ out of tenderness.—Is it uncharitable to
suspect, under all these circumstances, that he who was proved to have resorted to one trick, might have had recourse to
another?”
“As to your ‘rarity,’” says Emlyn in his reply to Leslie, “of the address to the Morocco ambassador, I see not what it
amounts to, more than a complaint of the corruption of the Christian faith, in the article of one God, which the
Mahometans have kept, by consent of all sides. Yet, forasmuch as I can learn nothing from any Unitarians of any such
address from them, nor do you produce any subscribers’ names,[2] I conclude no such address was ever made, by any
deputed from them, whatever any single person might do. I suppose you conclude from the matter of it, that it must be
from some Unitarian, and perhaps so; yet you may remember that so you concluded from the matter of Dr. Tillotson’s
Sermons, that they were a Socinian’s.”[3]

For our own part, when we read this amusing attempt to identify us with Mahometans, by the help of an unknown letter,
bearing no subscription, and addressed, by nobody knows whom, to the Ambassador of Morocco, in the reign of Charles
II., we were forcibly reminded of two passages in Ecclesiastical History, in whose pages all tricks and absurdities can be
paralleled, and whose exhibition of gratuitous follies and distortions has left the possibility of “nothing new under the sun,”
of this description, for our modern days. Hildebrand himself, yes, Gregory the Seventh, like our poor selves, was
suspected of a leaning to “Islamism,” (General Preface, p. xvii.) because he wrote a letter, not to the Ambassador, as in

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

our case but, as became his greater dignity, to the Emperor of Morocco, thanking him for the liberation of some Christian
captives, and expressing his conviction, so much was there of the spirit of God and goodness in this act, “that they both
worshipped the same spirit, though the modes of their adoration and faith were different.” It also appears that the Emperor
Manuel Comnenus exposed himself to the same imputation of “Islamism,” because he wished to correct an error in the
ritual of the Greek Church, which by a laughable misunderstanding of an Arabic word, signifying eternal, “contained a
standing anathema against the God of Mahomet,” as being “solid and spherical.”

“Solventur risu tabulæ; tu missus abibis.”

We confess our unmixed astonishment at finding the “thirteen Clergymen” avowing the most undisguised Tritheism. We do
not recollect in modern times so bold and unwary an admission of Polytheism as the following: “Our inability, therefore, to
explain the Triunity of his Essence, can be no reason for rejecting the revelation of it contained in his Word; even if we
were deprived of those shadows and resemblances of this divine truth, which may be seen in the one nature of man,
communicating itself to many individuals of the species. There is one human nature, but many human persons.” (p. xix.)
Is this then the Unity of God which the “thirteen” maintain, viz., such a unity as subsists between three individual men? Is it
their meaning that the Divine Nature is a Species containing under it three Individuals, as human nature is a species
containing under it as many individuals as there are men? Do they mean to contend, with some of the Fathers, that three
men are only “abusively” called three, being in reality only one? What mercy would Dr. Whately have for such unskilful
controversialists? Is this however the deliberate view of the whole thirteen, or is it only the rashness of one of them?—for it
is very important to have so definite a statement of what is meant by the Trinity in Unity.
VI. It is most incorrectly stated (Preface, p. xx.) that “Dr. Priestley, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Belsham, not to mention earlier
writers, have laboured hard to show that the Fathers of the first three centuries were Unitarians, and believers in the
simple humanity of Jesus Christ.” Such a labour was never undertaken by these writers, nor by any one else. It is
capable of proof that the Fathers of the three first centuries were not Trinitarian in the Athanasian sense; but that they were
believers in the simple humanity of the Christ, no one maintains, from the time that Platonism first began to transform
Christianity into harmony with its own peculiar ideas. That Unitarians have supported this view by “hardy misquotations,”
is, to say the least of it, an unwise provocation from men who have in the course of this Controversy been convicted of the
most careless misquotations both in their own case (see especially preface to the Seventh Unitarian Lecture), and in
that of their favourite Champion (see the Appendix to the Sixth Unitarian Lecture). That the substantial statements of
Unitarians as to the Unitarianism of the primitive Church have been overturned by Bull, &c., (Trinitarian preface, p. xxi.)
is a hardy assertion in the face of the following quotations from Bull himself: “In the FIRST and BEST ages, the Churches of
Christ directed all their prayers according to the scriptures, to God only, through the alone mediation of Jesus
Christ.”—Answer to a Query of the Bishop of Meaux, p. 295.
“The Father is rightly styled The Whole, as he is the fountain of divinity: For the divinity which is in the Son and in the Holy
Ghost, is the Father’s, because it is derived from the Father.”—Defence, sect. ii. 8.
For another quotation from Bishop Bull, see also preface, p. vi., to the Seventh Unitarian Lecture.
VII. The “thirteen Clergymen,” finding that Mr. Belsham’s “Improved Version” was not a Standard with us, and knowing
perhaps that in our rejection of it as such we have been borne out by the Unitarian Association at its recent general meeting
in London, yet determined to find a standard for us somewhere, have (p. xxvi.) put into our mouths, with marvellous
naïveté, an appeal to Mr. Belsham’s Translation of St. Paul’s Epistles. We have already given up the Mr. Belsham of the
Improved Version, and they, for their own easy purposes, represent us as making an appeal to the Mr. Belsham of “the
Epistles.” We will yield to our reverend opponents whatever consolation they may be able to derive from their imaginary
triumph, in case we made this imaginary appeal. The Trinitarians cannot divest their minds of the idea that we must have
an Authority somewhere. They cannot understand what is meant by deferring to principles alone; by having no external
judge of Controversies, no shorter road to conclusions, than to submit every question to the fullest light that Knowledge
and Inquiry have provided, or may yet provide. The Cæsar to whom we appeal from Mr. Belsham is not some other Mr.
Belsham, or the same man in a different book, but the great principles of Criticism and of Interpretation, as recognized by
competent judges of all parties.
VIII. For the faith of the Church of England, the “thirteen Clergymen” declare, that “it is alike their privilege and obligation
to contend in that spirit of charity which becomes a believer in Jesus.” (Preface, p. xxviii.) We shall not open former
wounds, but look simply to some of their last manifestations of “Charity” in their General Preface.
1. They say of us (p. xxiii.), that “Unitarians have borne some such proportion to the Christian Church, as monsters bear to
the species of which they are unhappy distortions.”
2. They “decline to receive us as brethren, and to give us the right hand of fellowship” partly because our doctrinal
views of Christianity are different from their own, and partly because, as they aver, we maintain our views in dishonesty,
using language hypocritically. We “cannot be Christian brethren,” say they, “for we cannot tread the same road, even for
an instant. They use the language of Christianity, without believing its mysteries. How, then, can we bid them God speed,
while they are influenced by this spirit of unfairness? ‘The words of their mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in their
heart: their words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.’” (pp. xxiv. xxv.)
3. We are charged with deliberately opposing our own minds to the mind of God. “That such unwearied hostility,” say
they, “is waged by Unitarians against the mind of God, as expressed in his word, all their publications unequivocally and
mournfully attest.” (p. xxv.)

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

4. They describe us as “blasphemers against the Son of Man,” and they close this peculiar exhibition of “Charity” by
offering up for us the following prayer:—
“O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a
sinner, but rather that he should be converted, and live, have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics,
and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word,” &c. (p. xxix.)
If such is their “Charity,” may we be permitted to ask, what form would their uncharitableness take?
Such is the “General Preface,” which the “thirteen Clergymen” are deliberately of opinion that the issues of this
Controversy, and our mutual relations to each other, justified them in writing. We confess that we had prepared ourselves
for a careful attempt, on their part, at repairing whatever further inquiry, and, we may say without presumption, the close
scrutiny of an opponent, had shown to be weak or imperfect in their previous labours,—a last effort to present again the
edifice of their faith in what they deemed its most favourable lights, accompanied by a corresponding attempt to shake the
foundations of Unitarian Christianity. They have thought themselves, however, sufficiently strong already to be able to
throw away this last opportunity. They deem the work already done, and that they have earned the right, without further
addition or defence, to entitle their Lectures “Unitarianism Confuted.”
By their own act they entered with us into this Controversy; they repeatedly recognized us during its continuance as the
persons whom they were opposing, and whose Theology they had undertaken to refute;—yet our careful and respectful
examination of their views, and statement of our own, have not been able to win from them one word either of notice or
reply. However low their opinion may be of us, as of antagonists beneath their consideration, yet surely in an attack on
Unitarianism in Liverpool, we are the persons whose views and influence they had most occasion to correct; and if no
more respectful feeling, mere expediency, a regard for their own designs against Unitarianism, would seem to require some
examination of the arguments and doctrines of those who are its Ministers and interpreters in the place where this attempt
at its overthrow has been made.
In abandoning this last occasion of a careful and elaborately strengthened restatement of their case, we confess they have
disappointed us. Nor do we believe that even that part of the public which has most sympathies with them, and would
most rejoice in their success, will contemplate the omission without surprise.
The origin and history of this Controversy is sufficiently detailed in the annexed Correspondence. It will there be seen how
our desire for a really close and decisive examination of the several points at issue between us has been evaded: our
reverend opponents would not admit of any controversy of which declamation was not to be the instrument.
We have already stated at the opening of this Controversy, that we did not enter into this discussion for the sake of a
Sectarian triumph, but in the more Christian hope of exposing and checking the Sectarian Spirit. To exalt the spiritual
character of Faith above the verbal and metaphysical,—to unite mankind through their common love and acceptance of
Christ’s goodness and of Christ’s God,—to make his Church one by their participation of one spirit, even the spirit of the
life of Jesus,—has been our highest aim, not only on this particular occasion, but throughout all our Ministry. We
acknowledge it to be an aim that, indirectly at least, is destructive of “Orthodoxy,” that is, of “the supposed attainableness
of Salvation only by one particular set of Opinions,” for if the love of Christ’s God, and the prayerful seeking after Christ’s
goodness are sufficient to place us on the way of everlasting Safety, then the question is virtually decided, for no man will
follow Orthodoxy gratuitously. It is necessary to set it forth as the only escape from Hell,—else no man would burden
himself with it. And thus Orthodoxy is condemned to be damnatory. Intolerance is the very condition of its existence.
Cursing is its breath of life. Let it acknowledge that the pure heart, and the pure life, and the spirit of faith in God, may save
a soul from death, and Orthodoxy will have dissolved itself, for nothing but the last necessity, the attainableness of safety
by no other means, could justify its existence. A damnatory creed must be an essential of Salvation;—else it is the greatest
impiety possible to conceive. Was it, then, the intention of Jesus to establish a certain Creed breathing curses against all
who do not think[4] alike,—however they may love and live? Alas! why, then, was not that merciful being as distinct as the
Athanasian Creed? If Jesus had been charged with the delivery of an exclusive Creed, as the only instrument of Salvation,
would he have veiled it from the eyes of those he came to save? Need we pursue the argument further? Orthodoxy is not
Christianity;—yet that in Orthodox bosoms the Spirit of Christ may dwell, we are not the persons to deny.
What interest or value can these disputations have for beings whose main business in this world is, in the prospect of a
coming world, to conform their souls to the image of the heavenly model, to Jesus the pattern of citizenship in the new
Heavens and the new Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness! “Whilst we are wrangling here in the dark,” says Baxter, “we
are dying, and passing to the world that will decide all our Controversies, and the safest passage thither is by peaceable
holiness.” Whilst we are struggling for points, of which we know little or nothing, hearts are dead or perishing. Whilst we
are battling for our conceits, we are all of us unsound within, not right with God, and falling away from the true service of
our great master. Whilst proclaiming in Sectarian eagerness, “Lo, Christ is here,” and “Lo, Christ is not there,”—none of
us are sitting at his feet, and submitting our souls and passions to his yoke. Whilst we are falling out by the way, in vain his
heavenly invitation is addressed to our unquiet hearts—“Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your
souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

1. See “A Plea for Unitarian Dissenters,” pp. 88-9, published in 1813, by the Rev. Robert Aspland, from whom we take the exposure of

this forgery now brought forth again; for in Trinitarian Controversy falsehood seems immortal, and there is no work for us modern
advocates, except to “slay the slain.”

2. “There is internal evidence of its being written in the way of banter. No subscription appears to it, and no person is named as

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

concerned in it, but a Monsieur Verze, a Frenchman, who might be employed as an agent, and yet not be a ‘Socinian’
agent.”—Aspland.

3. Plea for Unitarian Dissenters, p. 137.

“My Lords, if your Lordships attended to the manner in which that quotation is introduced into Leslie, you might see that it bore
internal evidence of being something of the nature of a jeu d’esprit.... My Lords, this Leslie was a general maligner.... I really think
that this is raking into a dunghill to produce this address to the Ambassador of the Emperor of Morocco.”—The Attorney-General
before the House of Lords in the Lady Hewley Appeal, June 28th, 1839.

4. “He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.”—Athanasian Creed.

CONTENTS.

GENERAL PREFACE.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE.

L E C T U R E I .

THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.

BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.

“Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may

present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”—Colossians i. 27, 28.

“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in

Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that
the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”—Galatians ii. 4, 5.

L E C T U R E I I .

THE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.

BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

“And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the

Father,) full of grace and truth.”—John i. 14.

L E C T U R E I I I .

CHRISTIANITY NOT THE PROPERTY OF CRITICS AND SCHOLARS; BUT THE GIFT OF GOD TO ALL

MEN.

BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge

of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”—2 Cor. iv. 6.

L E C T U R E I V.

“THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”

BY REV. HENRY GILES.

“There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”—1 Tim. ii. 5.

L E C T U R E V.

THE PROPOSITION “THAT CHRIST IS GOD,” PROVED TO BE FALSE FROM THE JEWISH AND THE

CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.

BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us

there is but one God, the Father, of whom all are things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.”—1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

L E C T U R E VI .

THE SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF, AND THE CHRISTIAN IDEA

OF SALVATION.

BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be

saved.”—Acts iv. 12.

L E C T U R E VI I .

THE UNSCRIPTURAL ORIGIN AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

xxi

xxii

BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.

“The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”—John xiv. 10.

L E C T U R E VI I I .

MAN, THE IMAGE OF GOD.

BY REV. HENRY GILES.

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”—1 Cor. xi. 7.
“And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I

perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him,—Father, I have sinned against heaven and
before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.”—Luke xv. 17-19.

L E C T U R E I X .

THE COMFORTER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHO DWELLETH IN US, AND TEACHETH ALL

THINGS.

BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments: and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may

abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless; I will
come to you.”—John xiv. 15-18.

L E C T U R E X .

CREEDS THE FOES OF HEAVENLY FAITH; THE ALLIES OF WORLDLY POLICY.

BY REV. HENRY GILES.

“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”—Rom. xiv. 5.

L E C T U R E X I .

THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MORAL EVIL.

BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

“Woe unto them that say, ... let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it; woe unto

them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter.”—Isaiah v. 18-20.

L E C T U R E X I I .

THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF RETRIBUTION HEREAFTER.

BY REV. HENRY GILES.

“And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.

Then said the Lord, Thou hast pity on the gourd for which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came
up in a night and perished in a night. And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score
thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand?”—Jonah iv. 9, 10, 11.

L E C T U R E X I I I .

CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, AND WITHOUT RITUAL.

BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.

“To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively

stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ.”—1 Pet. ii. 4, 5.

I N D E X O F T E X T S .

EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.

xxiii

xxiv

CORRESPONDENCE

ON THE

TRINITARIAN AND UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY

AT

LIVERPOOL.

1

To all who call themselves Unitarians in the town

and neighbourhood of Liverpool.

“AND WHEN THEY HAD APPOINTED HIM A DAY, THERE CAME MANY TO HIM INTO HIS LODGING TO WHOM HE EXPOUNDED AND TESTIFIED
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, PERSUADING THEM CONCERNING JESUS, BOTH OUT OF THE LAW OF MOSES AND OUT OF THE PROPHETS, FROM
morning till evening.”—Acts xxviii. 23.

Men and Brethren,—I am aware that the term “Religious Controversy,” is a phrase peculiarly revolting to many minds; that
it presents to them nothing in its aspect but that which has been sarcastically called the “Acetum Theologicum,” a
something bitter and distasteful, of more than common offensiveness and asperity. It is for this reason that, in proposing a
course of lectures on the subjects in controversy between the Church of England and those who call themselves Unitarians,
and who, by that very term, seem to impute to the great majority of professing Christians, of almost all denominations, a
polytheistic creed, and in requesting your attendance on these lectures, and inviting your most solemn attention to those
subjects, I wish, antecedently, to remove from myself every suspicion of unkindness towards you, and to take away any
supposition of unchristian asperity in my feelings, or of a desire to inflict upon the humblest individual amongst you
unnecessary pain. That no mere political difference of opinion, much less that any apprehension of danger to the
Established Church, have originated this movement, will be sufficiently evident from the fact, that while we are surrounded
by many other classes of dissenters, equally opposed to the principle of our establishment, and much more likely to draw
away the members of our flocks to their communion, I and my reverend brethren, who were associated with me, on the
present occasion, have limited ourselves exclusively to an inquiry into, and an endeavour to expose, the false philosophy
and dangerous unsoundness of the Unitarian System.
Now, what is the cause of this distinction? It is simply this, that while we believe the other dissenting bodies to have
arranged an ecclesiastical system, in our judgment not clearly Scriptural, and deficient in those particulars which constitute
the perfection, though they may not affect the essence of a church, we do at the same time acknowledge that they
generally hold, as articles of faith, those great fundamental Gospel truths which are the substance of the safety of souls;
truths which, while so held, give them a part in that gracious covenant in Christ, within which God has revealed a way of
salvation for all and out of which he has not revealed a way of mercy to any. These fundamental truths are the very
doctrines which are controverted between us and those whom we call in courtesy, but not as of right, Unitarians: viz., the
Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atoning sacrifice, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the fall of our nature, and the
gracious renovation of the human soul, through his supernatural operation. Assured as I am that these truths (which,
without a desperate mutilation, or an awful tampering with the plain language of the Word of God, it seems impossible to
exclude from that divine record) are of the essence of our souls’ safety, I ask you, men and brethren, I put it to your
consciences, is it not of the nature of the tenderest charity, of the purest love, of the most affectionate sympathy with those
in the extreme of peril, and that an eternal peril, to supplicate to these doctrines the attention of such as have not yet
received them, to pray them to come and “search with us the Scriptures, whether these things be so?”—Acts xvii. 11.
Shall he who, unwittingly, totters blindfold on the edge of a precipice, deem it a rude or an uncharitable violence which
would snatch him with a strong and a venturous hand, or even it may be with a painful grasp, from the fearful ruin over
which he impends? Is it not to your own judgment a strong antecedent ground of presumption, that you are alarmingly and
perilously mistaken in this matter, when you see such numbers of highly-gifted and intellectual men, men of study—of
general information and of prayer,—holy men, men who “count not their lives dear unto them,” so that they may honour
God and preach this gospel, and that not in one particular place, but over the whole surface of the church; who yet account
these truths, which you reject, as the essential truths of salvation; truths built, you will remember, in their minds, not on the
traditions or authority of men, but on the lively oracles of God?
Seeing, then, men and brethren,
1. That the points of difference between us are of the very highest possible importance, and not matters of mere
theoretical speculation, as some of your writers have striven vainly to make appear; that, in short, if Unitarians be sound
interpreters of Holy Scripture, we Trinitarians are guilty of the most heinous of all sins—idolatry; and if, on the other hand,
ours be the creed of the apostles, saints, and martyrs, Unitarians are sunk in the most blasphemous and deadly error,
and are wholly unworthy of being considered Christians, in any proper sense of the word. And seeing,
2. That considerable numbers, it is apprehended, especially among the middling and lower classes, who outwardly profess
Unitarian principles, are in total ignorance of the unscriptural nature and dangerous character of those principles. And
seeing,
3. That the controversial discussion of disputed points was unquestionably the practice of the apostolic and primitive, as
well as of all other ages of religious revival, and is calculated as a means, under the good blessing of Almighty God, to
“open men’s eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light;”—We invite and beseech you, by the mercies of God in Christ,
to come and give us at least a patient hearing, while we endeavour to “persuade you concerning Jesus,” and “by all means
to win some of you.” It is impossible that we can have any base or worldly motive in thus addressing you—any other
motive, indeed, besides that which is here avouched, viz., our solemn impression of the value of souls, and of the peril
to which the false philosophy of Unitarianism exposes them.
Surely it is a sweet and a pleasant thing,—a thing not to divide and sever, but to unite and to gather into the bonds of
dearest affection—thus to tell and to hear together of the great things which our God has done for our souls; of His love to
us, when He, “Who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, did take upon him the form of a servant, and, being found
in fashion as a man, did humble himself, and become obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.”—Phil. ii. 6-8.

2

3

It is the intention of my reverend brethren and myself to meet together on the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of February, (the
day immediately preceding the commencement of the course,) for the purpose of solemn humiliation before God, and
earnest prayer for the blessing of our Heavenly Father, upon the work in which we are about to engage, that we may be
enabled to exhibit and preserve “the mind of Christ,” while employed in “contending for the faith,” and that we may have
great success in our endeavours to be instrumental in enlightening the eyes which we believe to have been blinded by “the
god of this world,” and causing “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, to shine unto them.”—
2 Cor. iv. 4.
And now, men and brethren, humbly and affectionately praying your serious attention to these things, I commend you to
the protection and blessing of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I remain your friend and servant in the gospel,
for the Lord’s sake,

Fielding Ould,

Christ Church, Jan. 21, 1839.
Minister of Christ Church.

4