said "let there be light," "let there be a firmament." This word, or power, was "with God," was an essential attribute of his nature, and an emanation from him, (see 1 John i. 2), where "eternal life" is said to be "with the Father;" and "was God," was not any thing distinct from him. "The same was in the beginning with God," before it had gone forth to cause the world to be created. "All things were made by him." "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth, (Psalm xxxiii. 6). "By the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth," "and by the same word are kept in store," (2 Peter iii. ̧ 5 and 7; see also Psalm cvii. 20, xlvii. 18). "And without him was not any thing made that was made." There is no difficulty in this: every part of creation was performed by the "word"-the mandate of Jehovah, he spake all into being. "In him" the word, or power of God, as revealed by the prophets, "was life, and the life was the light of men;" the expression of God's pleasure by the prophets, was the only light given to the world before the coming of Christ. "And the light shineth in darkness," in the darkness of heathen superstition, and under the veil of the Jewish economy, "but the darkness comprehended it not," i. e. it was not comprehended until the true light came. All this I conceive to be an allusion to the state of the world before the coming of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ; the Evangelist then goes on to mention the coming of John, and the revelation of the true light by him to whom it was communicated for that purpose, even Jesus Christ. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." He himself was not appointed to proclaim that Light, but was sent to bear witness to, or to point out, the person who was commissioned to show it forth. "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." This Light shall be of universal operation; it is not now shown to the Jews only, but to all the world-to every

man.

"He was in the world," here the Evangelist returns to speak of the personified word or power of God; "and the world was made by him," see above, "and the world knew him not;" i. e. the generality of men knew

not that the word of God was come into the world. "He came unto his own" people, the Jews, "and his own received him not"-would not acknowledge him, would not understand who he was. "But as many as received him, to them he gave power" or authority, or privilege, "to become the sons of God, who are born," &c. The Evangelist then proceeds to show how the true light was communicated, and how the Word or power of God came unto his own: "And the Word was made" or became "flesh;" (flesh is here put for man generally). These blessings were produced not by the miraculous appearance of Jehovah himself, but by the Word or power before spoken of, becoming tabernacled in the person of Jesus Christ. "And dwelt amongst us, full of grace and truth," "and we beheld his glory"—the glory of the man in whom the word did abide, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." Christ is in this Gospel called "only begotten," where he is, by the other Evangelists, styled "best beloved," peculiarly so, since in him the word, the power, the spirit of God was displayed "without measure. In short, this passage seems to me, to mean, the Word or power of God, that is, God himself, created all things, spoke by the Prophets, was life and light, under the Jewish economy; was not always comprehended or duly attended to by the children of men; was at length in the wisdom of the Deity "made flesh," or manifested in the person of Jesus Christ, who appeared in the world vested with the divine authority, as the "only begotten of the Father." The writer to the Hebrews, in like manner, begins his epistle by showing the great superiority of Christ to all the other prophets and messengers of God. Thus we find, that this passage, though a difficult one, may be proved to be completely Unitarian.

(To be Continued.)

THE CHRISTIAN PIONEER.

GLASGOW, April 1, 1829.

that

IN our last Number we gave a brief account of the proceedings in this City, in relation to a Petition in behalf of universal religious liberty. On the following Sunday, the Petition lay for signature in the Catholic and Unitarian Chapels, and early in the week

was sent for presentation to Lord Holland and Mr. Brougham, having upwards of four thousand two hundred names attached to it, all of whom were above sixteen years of age. The intolerant and outrageous conduct we before noticed, if not higher and better motives, at length roused another part of the inhabitants of this City, by whom a Petition in favour of the measures of Ministers in relation to the Catholic question, was prepared; but being left for signature at two Institutions, to which only their Subscribers had access, did not receive more than 300 names, but those consisted of men of weight and influence in the community. We rejoiced that these individuals resolved on petitioning, and have no doubt that petitioning in another form, had greater effect than if, under the circumstances, they had joined the prayer of the people; but we also think, that it was their duty to have first vindicated the sacred right of the expression of opinion, which, in our case, was grossly and shamefully violated, and afterwards to have adopted their own mode of stating their views and feelings. Popular rights ought never to be assailed with impunity; and we hold in this case, as in all others, that where the power of preventing, resisting, or remedying evil is possessed, "he who allows oppression, shares the crime."

Whilst we still rejoice in the measures now in progress through Parliament, so far as they are founded in justice and benevolence, we cannot withhold the expression of our repugnance to certain of the provisions. We are not amongst the number of those who pay any great respect to titles, but were we Catholics, we should protest indignantly against any interference with the names which we chose to give our Pastors, or with which, according to the government of our Church, they were invested; and as friends of perfect religious liberty, we contend that it is an unwarrantable interference. To be called Bishop of this, or Bishop of that, is of little comparative moment; it is the right of any carthly power to dictate in such matters, with which we battle. The use of a gown, as part of the dress of a minister, we conceive to be a thing of perfect indifference; but if a Government strove to force its wearing as a means of possessing civil or religious privileges, then would it be a tyranny that should be resisted. A declaration of certain opinions may contain nothing to which we could object, but if that declaration be presented as a test, the submitting to it would be an acknowledgement of the right of the civil power to legislate in religion. And as to the Catholic Bishops assuming the title of the Episcopalian Prelates, we much question if the assumption be not originally the other way. The taking away their living was the former piece of injustice, and now even the consolation of the barren title is to be denied. On the same principle, we object to the clauses, occupying as they do a large portion of one of the Bills, relative to the Jesuits. If these, or any other men, commit aught against the peace and good order of society, let them be punished; but if merely because persons calling themselves by the same name, have, in bygone ages, perpetrated outrage, people now living are to be treated as aliens and outcasts, then do we think it to be a violation of freedom, and a denial of

justice. If thus "bad begins, still worse remains behind." The disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders, has our decided reprobation. It is the deprivation of a positive and actual privilege. With the exception of the removal of the brand on the Catholics, which we rejoice in as the establishment of a great and generous principle, an equality of civil rights without regard to religious faith, this disfranchising clause we cannot but regard as legislating against the poor and in favour of the wealthy. We hold, at all times, that making wealth the criterion of civil privilege, is unworthy of Christian law-makers; that to man, as man, if not incapacitated by crime or mental defect, ought the rights and privileges of civil society to pertain. Had the question, therefore, been, which should have the right of voting, the forty shilling or the £10 freeholder, we should have said, " in respect. to their property, NEITHER, But when, as now, the point at issue is, you shall have the stigma removed from your faith, but you must, as its price, renounce a privilege which is the only thing about you that has given you the slightest importance in the state, it does seem to us, whatever expediency may assert, to be a measure based on injustice, and to involve a principle, which, if carried out to all its legitimate consequences, is fraught with danger to the rights and liberties of man. We see well enough the glaring absurdity and contradiction of the lease-hold possessor of a quarter of an English rood having a privilege, by virtue of that possession, which is denied to the owner of hundreds of acres; or of a man serving seven years to gain that, which may be had by another who hires a room for six months; and had the matter related merely to a fair and equitable adjustment of these contending interests, we should not have touched upon it in our publication. But when one privilege is to be taken away from its present possessors, and taken away, too, because imperious necessity has forced the removal of laws attaching stigmas and penalties to a particular faith, and countenancing false and injurious imputations on that faith, then we do feel it to be our duty to protest against the injustice, and to characterize it as an act unbefitting the dignity of legislators, and a paltry compromise with irrational and unmanly fears.

Having thus expressed our individual opinions, we gladly turn to a more pleasant theme, and, with sincere and grateful feelings, express our admiration of the enlightened and truly Christian sentiments uttered by Dr. Chalmers, with all that eloquence for which he is so distinguished, at the meeting in Edinburgh. We had occasion, in our Second Volume, p. 176, to introduce to the notice of our readers, the opinions of the Doctor on the subject of Catholic disabilities. This more public declaration of them, especially at the present crisis, calls for our unfeigned respect and eulogy. We hail it as an auspicious omen for truth and liberty, that such sentiments should be held, and publicly enforced and advocated, by an individual holding the situation of Dr. Chal-. mers. We have only one thing to regret as connected with his declaration of them, the inconsistency, which to our minds is manifest, in the Doctor's continuing in communion with any Church,

established and supported by the civil power. In comparison with the Churches of Rome and of England, we hold the Church of Scotland to be purity itself; but if, as the Doctor affirms, and we believe, the truth of God-the declarations of the Bible, need no other weapons for their support and dissemination and universal triumph, than Scripture, reason, and prayer, we at least must protest against the inconsistency of adherence to any Church which joins itself in "unholy alliance" to the carnal and worldly instruments, wielded even by that Church of which the Doctor is so distinguished an ornament.

Those who oppose the measure in agitation, said Dr. Chalmers, have "been designed by the appellation of Anti-Catholic, leaving to us the goodly designation of Pro-Catholic. There never was a grosser imposition practised upon the public mind than by the meaning of those two words. We are not Pro-Catholics. We are not indifferent, neither are we hostile, to the holy cause of Protestantism. I cannot answer for others; but in vindication of myself, I declare that it is in the spirit of the utmost devotedness to that cause that I now come here, and because in this emancipation of Papists, I see for Protestants-I see for Protestantism, a still greater and more glorious emancipation. The truth is, that these disabilities have hung as a dead weight around the Protestant cause for more than a century. They have enlisted in opposition, some of the most unconquerable principles of our nature-resentment on account of injury, and the pride of adhering to a suffering cause. They have transformed the whole nature of the contest, by having rooted and given ten-fold obstinacy to error; they have given to the side of Protestantism the hateful aspect of tyranny, while, on the side of the Catholics, we behold a generous and high-minded resistance to what they deem to be oppression; they have transformed a nation of heretics into a nation of heroes. We could have refuted and shamed the heretic out of heresy, but we cannot pull down the hero from his altitude. From the first introduction of this heterogeneous element into the question, the cause of truth has gone backward; it has ever since been met by unyielding defiance, from a people irritated, but not crushed, under a sense of indignity. This notable expedient for bringing down Popery, has compressed it into a firmness, and enclosed it within a phalanx, which, unless opened by emancipation, will be found impenetrable. Gentlemen might draw arguments from history against us; but there is one passage in history they never can dispose of. How comes it to pass, that Protestantism achieved such a triumph, and made such progress, when it had pains and penalties to fight against: and how comes it, that its progress was arrested from the moment it laid on those pains and penalties in turn? What have all the enactments of the statutebook done for the cause of Protestantism in Ireland? And how comes it to pass, that when single-handed truth walked through the land with the might and prowess of a conqueror, no sooner was she propped up by the authority of the state, no sooner was the armour of intolerance given to her, than her brilliant career of victory was for ever ended. When she took up the carnal and