710 Pastor in Reply to Mr. Asplund, on the Term Unitarian. whether it is desirable that Christians of this description should be distin guished from the rest of their Unitarian brethren by any name at all. I imagined that a term, opposing them to the believers in our Saviour's preexistence, might tend to divide into two sects those, who worship the same God, the benevolent and merciful Father of mankind; who avow the same principles respecting the use of the understanding in the investigation of sacred truth; who entertain similar views concerning the duties and prospects of the followers of Jesus; and who ought to be for ever united in cordial endeavours to provoke one another to love and to good works. In the second place, 1 intended to say, that if any distinct appellation were requisite, the common and well-known term Socinian did not appear to me so objectionable as it has been sometimes represented; and I knew of no other word in the English language, which would be generally understood, and which therefore I could have substituted in its place. But as the body of Christians in question evidently disapprove of being called Socinians, and as some of them have proposed to call themselves Humanitarians, I would decide at once in favour of the latter choice. It is true that persons prone to cavil may object to this appellation as they have objected to the generic name, Unitarian. They may charge us anew with folly, injustice, and presumption in appropriating to ourselves a designation, which belongs to us no more than to them, as if forsooth we were the only men in the world who believe in the humanity of Christ. We know, however, that they, who would urge this objection, might object to any name whatsoever, and that the meaning of words does not depend so much upon their etymology as upon the established practice of those who employ them. After considering therefore the candid and judicious observations of your respected correspondents, I beg leave to retract my recommendation of the term Socinian, and to state that, although I had rather perhaps avoid the use of any term subordinate to Unitarian, yet I have no objection to adopt the name Humanitarian, not as the designation of a separate sect opposed to the Arians, but as a brief and con venient method of denoting the sentiments of those Christians, who maintain that our Saviour was a human being in his original nature. Hoping that the ample discussion of this important subject in your Repository may prevent any further dispute upon the title of all believers in the supremacy of the Father to be called Unitariars, until the name Unitarian itself, shall be lost and absorbed in that of Christian, SIR, I remain, Sir, Yours respectfully, R. ASPLAND may be assured I have no feeling towards him but that of respect; and as to his reflections against me, I pass them with a smile of forgiveness. Perhaps he may one day find that I have no reluctance to affix my name to the sentiments I have recently written for your Repository. I have been unfortunate in my expressions, or Mr. A. has been unfortunate in his apprehension of their meaning. I should have been chargeable with making a "strange com. plaint" indeed, if I had complained of the term Unitarian being used at all, by him or any other persons to whom it belongs. On the contrary, I have not written a word tending to put the term "under proscription." It is a very proper term, if used in a proper manner; and so is the word Trinitarian. But neither of them, in my opinion, ought to be selected as the distinguishing appellation of any particular class of Unitarians or Trinitarians. This opinion I shall endeavour to establish. Mr. Aspland says of the term under consideration, "I use it as I do the terms Christian and Protestant, and am the better pleased with it, because like those terms it expresses a principle on which I am in a state of agreement with a respectable portion of my fellow-creatures." Very well. Here we exactly coincide, although Mr. A. most unaccountably says this "displeases" me. I am perfectly pleased with this representation, and it is precisely in this way that I would use the term myself, as expressing a principle on which several classes of Christians are agreed. But is it not a curious way of describing any par ticular sect, to employ for that purple, apply it by way of distinction to pose a word which expresses, not the their Fund? And does not that fund peculiarities of such sect, but its actively aid the propagation of opinagreement" with thers? One ions which are peculiarly and exclumight suppose that Mr. A. is himself sively their own? Opinions in which convinced of its impropriety, seeing other Unitarians, such for instance as he declares that he uses it as he does Chandler and Price and Towgood and certain other terms which are never Worthington never could concur? And appropriated to any particular party, are not their chapels also, intended but applied alike to all parties who and used for the purpose of supportagree in the general principles they ing an interpretation of the Christian import. scheme decidedly opposed to the faith of these celebrated Unitarians? It is true, Unitarianism lies at the foundation of their system. But so it might have been said of Joanna, before mentioned, (supposing her to have adopted the term Christian as the distinguishing appellation of her party) that Christianity lay at the foundation of her system. To this she added many fancies peculiarly her own, not included in Christianity; and in like manner they add many opinions peculiarly their own, not included in Unitarianism. She might be called a Christian, and they may be called Unitarians, but not by way of distinction. These are not the distinctive appellations of the respective parties, because, as Mr. Aspland will admit, they express nothing but what the parties hold in agreement with others. It remains then to be seen whether Mr. A. is quite correct in this declaration, or whether the language he now uses is consistent with his general practice. If it be not, his language is to be imputed merely to inadvertence or mistake. But he will allow that mistakes ought to be corrected. Is it then at all common with that gentleman or any other persons, to use the terms Christian and Protestant in the same manner as he and his party use the term Unitarian? As specimens of that manner, I before cited the expressions "Unitarian Fund" and "Unitarian Chapel." These are cases in point. Mr. A. has conveniently passed the former in silence: and although the latter was brought forward in a "story," and met by him with the declaration that "story telling is not argument," yet I beg leave to say that the story related did, in my judgment, contain a complete argument, and one that bore directly on the point under discussion. Nor would twenty stories, such as Mr. A. says he could tell, in any degree in validate it, because they do not strictly apply to that point. But what is there objectionable in the use of the before cited expressions and other similar modes of appropriating the term Unitarian? Why, Sir, it reminds one of Joanna Southcott's inscription on her chapel "The House of God." In this there is an insinua tion, not expressed but implied. And so there would if she had raised a public fund for the purposes of her party, and called it The Christian Fund-or The Protestant Fund. Would it have been correct, or seemly, thus to appropriate a general name to an object intended for particular purposes? Now is it not precisely in this manner that the term Unitarian is commonly appropriated by a partioular class? Do they not, for exam Here then are two things which I am unable to reconcile; first, Mr. Aspland's professing to use the term in question as he does the term Christian and Protestant, which are never selected by any particular party of Christians or Protestants as their distinctive appellation. Secondly, his habitually and publicly concurring in the prevailing custom of his party of selecting this term whereby to distinguish themselves, their institutions, their chapels, their writings, &c. although it confessedly expresses a principle on which they are in a state of agreement with a respectable portion of their fellow-creatures !". If, Sir, this manner of using the term be justifiable, a similar use of the opposite term Trinitarian must be equally so. Let us therefore try the question on this ground. Suppose any one party of Trinitarians, the Wesleyan Methodists for instance, were to select it in the same way: we should then hear perpetually of the Trinitarian conference, the Tri 712 Pastor in Reply to Mr. Aspland, on the Term Unitarian. nitarian preachers, chapels, &c. But would this manner of applying the term be at all consistent with accuracy or modesty? And yet if it were objected to, the Wesleyan would be taught by Mr. Aspland to reply, "If other Trinitariaus wish to distinguish themselves from me, they are welcome to set up what distinction they please; only let that distinction mark their opinions and not mine" ! :--Upon the same principle might they style themselves Protestants only, and distinguish their chapels or institutions, by the term Protestant, saying, "We are the better pleased with the term because it expresses a principle on which we are in a state of agreement with a respectable portion of our fel. low-creatures!" To this, the proper and sufficient reply would be, as it is to Mr. Aspland, that this very "agreement" is the reason why the term which expresses it ought not to be selected as your appropriate appellation, for it is equally appropriate to others. I am surprised that Mr. A. should dissent from my remark that the term Unitarian has "no allusion to his peculiar faith, or that which distinguish es his party from all other Christians." He declares, on the contrary, that it "refers entirely and solely" to their peculiar faith! In the name of common sense, how can that be their peculiar or distinguishing faith which is avowedly a principle on which they are in a state of agreement with a respectable portion of their fellow creatures?" That which distinguishes one sect from others, must be that on which they differ, not that on which they agree. When I read the productions or hear the discourses of Mr. Asplaud's sect, I often find them insisting largely on their peculiarities; or those tenets which "distinguish them from all others." These relate to the official character and work of the Son of God; and also to his person, which they contend is that of mere humanity. If any thing be of importance to Christianity it must surely be the official character and work of its Founder, and the vital subject of redemption, with other por, is conected with it. This here, Sir, that I find their "peculiar faith or that which distinguishes them from all other Christians." Unitarianism does not so distinguish them, because, as Mr. A. says, it is what they hold in "agreement" with others, as they do their common Christianity and their Protestantism. Do these latter terms describe their peculiar and distinguishing faith? Certainly not, because these words express only general points on which they agree with others. The term Unitarian, according to Mr. A. himself, is like them in this respect, and therefore, has no alJusion to that which distinguishes them from all other Christians. Mr. Aspland calls upon me to explain the following expression, which he pronounces a "startling" one, "The difference between those called Socinians and Socinus, is far less than that which subsists between them and most other Unitariaus." Really, Sir, I thought I had only expressed an obvious fact upon which there could not be two opinions. I cannot descend into minute explanations of what is so plain. Let the creed of Socinus be brought up point by point in comparison with Mr. Aspland's, and then let the latter be compared in the same way with that of either of the four celebrated Unitarians whom I have already named in this paper, and a child may see the truth of my assertion without being startled. I therefore said, and I think said truly, that this fact was sufficient to overturn the greater part of Mr. Aspland's quotation from his "Plea.” For if it be improper to distinguish his sect by the word Socinian on account of some differences between them and Socinus, (which is the drift of Mr. A's. argument,) it is still more improper to distinguish them by the word Unitarian, because the differences are still greater between them and other Unitarians. With the most cordial respect for Mr. Aspland's character, whatever errors or mistakes I may impute to him, I beg leave to submit these observations to his serious consideration and that of your readers. SIR, PASTOR. Bromley, Nov. 19, 1815. I WISH to inform your readers, who probably comprehend most of those whom such information will interest, that I entertain the design of publishing the Theological Works of Dr. Priestley, on such a scale of expense, as may render them an easy purchase, considering their number and extent. For some time I indulged the hope that a friend peculiarly suited by the nature of his own pursuits, and his present intimate and happy connexion with a society which was the last scene of Dr. Priestley's labours in England, would have undertaken the office of his Editor. My friend, however, assures me that his increasing engagements, which, from their importance, I know not how to regret, will render this impracticable, while he freely offers me every assistance in his power towards the accomplishment of such a design. In the theological works of Dr. Priestley I include his papers, forming about a third part of the Theological Repository, and all his other publications, except the Scientific and those on Miscellaneous Literature. I propose to add occasional notes, concise, and chiefly employed to correct, or supply references, to remark any variation in the author's opinions, to preserve the original dates of his pieces, and to describe any important discussions which they occasioned. For these purposes I shall solicit, and have no doubt of obtaining the kind assistance of several friends to the memory of Dr. Priestley, whose own pursuits have made them much better acquainted with his writings and the circumstances attending their publication, than my general engagements have allowed me to become. Adopting the types of Lardner's Works for the text and notes, the same fulness of page and average bulk of volumes, I apprehend that the theological works of Dr. Priestley, as I have described them, may possibly reach but can scarcely exceed sixteen such volumes. For their publication I shall propose a subscription, with a sum paid on subscribing, moderate, compared with the extent of the undertaking, and such farther sum on the delivery of each volume, that the whole works may cost the subscribers considerably less than by any other mode of purchase. On this plan of publication it would be unreasonable to ask the assistance of booksellers. I am therefore induced to request any of your readers, especially those residing in the centre of large districts, who may be disposed to promote the object, by receiving subscriptions, to favour me, by an early post, with their acquiescence, that I may mention their names in a Prospectus, designed for your next Number. It would gratify me to have an opportunity of circulating widely, the theological works of Dr. Priestley, under the advantages of a connected form. Yet, should there appear, after a short experiment, only such a number of subscribers as will merely cover unavoidable expenses, I shall, notwithstanding, immediately proceed in the execution of the task I have undertaken; pleased thus to bear in lively recollection my too short personal acquaintance with Dr. Priestley, and to acknowledge what I owe, in common with thousands, to the valuable information of his writings and the edifying example of his life. I remain, Sir, Yours, &c. J. T. RUTT. P.S. I shall thank any of your readers, inclined to oblige me on this occasion, to direct to me, by post,No. 39, Goswell Street, London. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Essay on Luke xxiii. 43, by the late and my God and your God." John SIR, Rev. J. Simpson. Rearsby, Oct. 19, 1815. AVING found among my fa Hther's papers the following in terpretation of Luke xxiii. 43, and I am, Sir, J. W. SIMPSÓN. Luke xxiii. 43, " Verily I say unto thee, to-day (σusgov) shalt thou be with me in paradise." By paradise, here, is meant the state of the righteous dead, which the Jews imagined to be a state of conscious happiness. If σquɛgov be understood of the time when the event will take place, it must signify either the real, or the apparent time, either a specific, fixed period, or an undetermined period. 1 σήμερον be interpreted literally, that on the very day when Christ spake the words, the malefactor should be in a state of conscious happiness, this would not accord with the image under which our Lord represents death, namely, as being a state of sleep, out of which he says, that he shall awake mankind at the general resurrection. John v. 25, 28, 29. xi. 11-14. Luke viii. 52, 58. Nor would an assertion, that the man should on that very day be in a state of conscious happiness, correspond with his being with Christ, for the history mentions that Christ was alone in a sepulchre till the third day after this. Not the least intimation is given in it that he left the sepulchre during that time. Nor do either he or his apostles give any reason to suppose he did, though every thing they say upon the subject expresses, or seems evidently to imply, the contrary. Jesus himself says to Mary, soon after his resurrection, "I do not yet ascend to my Father, but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, xx. 17. Further, as the apostles will not be with Christ till his second coming, we cannot suppose the malefactor will be with him till that time. See John xiv. 2, 3. If σημερον be taken to denote only that it would appear to the man to be on the same day, because while sleeping in the grave he would not be conscious of a moment elapsing between his death and his resurrection to life; it may be objected, that the previous ideas of the malefactor would not lead him to understand it in this sense; for the Jews and the Gentiles, dead was a condition of conscious thought that the state of the righteous happiness immediately after their departure from this life. And, in order to answer the purpose for which Jesus spake, the man must of course comprehend the meaning of his words. both As such great difficulties attend the interpretation of anμegov to express the time when, let us inquire for some other meaning of the word that accords with the context, and with Jewish phraseology. Our Lord's discourses at different times, and upon different occasious, were all consistent with each other. Also, whatever he introduced with the word verily, was always distinct, pointed, just and important. We may conclude, then, that the sentence which we are considering, especially as it was a consolatory address to a man dying in agony, would be strictly true, and be clearly comprehended by him. Now, in the prophetic style, future events are often represented as present, or as having actually taken place, in order to denote the certain accomplishment of a prediction. Thus Isaiah Ix. 1, "Arise, be thou enlightened, for thy light is come: and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee." Isaiah ix. 2, "The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light, they that dwelled in the land of the shadow of death, unto them hath the light shined." Ver. 9, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." Also lxv. 17, lxvi. 22, liii. 2-9, lv. 4, xlix. 7, 1. 6, xl. 1, 2, 3, 9, and Isaiah's triumphal |