The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1893-02-22 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

TEE 111.111INIMAD NEWS._  Bra,—May I be allowed to say a few words on Unitarians, in order to correct the absolutely false idea of them that the Rev. Gray's maroon would give. And first I should say that I did not see the report of it in your paper until to-day or I should have written earlier. The Rev. Gray says there was no perfection in Christ milers he was the Bon of God. When he mime to prove that statement he evidently felt himself "in • bit of a hole'; for anything which would bee fault in a man would sorely be a much greater fault in a God. Bo to support it he makea two more clarions statements:—  -(1) " There wee no sign of thst feeling of unworthiness in him which was so characteristic of all really good men I" • heinous offencet A terrific charge to bring even if it is true, which it is soil Why, one of tbe most striking points in Christ's abarsoter was big humbleness and modesty: witness— Why eallsst thou me good? There is none good save One, that is God."  (2) The other offence was " the authoritativeness of his teaching, and how he insisted again aud again on the superiority of his own commands to the law II given by God to Moses. These were surely profane unless He Him who spoke amid the thunders aud glory of Monet Sinai." .  Cannot Mr. Gray see that this argoinent outs exactly the opposite way For if one Goa were to place His own commands above those ot Ch., other God, that mould be inoonsistent in the extreme ; but for a perfect wan to contradiot or place himself above part of the Old Testament is reasonable enough, and in fact is musential enough, when you bdlieve, ae Ifoitarians do, that the Old Testament contains erring.  Farther on, be says. " there are those who insist on labmittina to the test of the hamanlanderstauding even the deep things of God." Yes, sir, there are, and the number of these people ie increasing jest in proportion to the spread of saientifie education.  Again, he says, " If Christ was not God, Ile wasnot infallible, and there wag nothing left to Desoto theta that the Bible was God's word, for Christ's ORB of the Scriptures was the proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament." But as Unitarians believe neither in the divinity of Christ nor the infallibility of the Bible, they Cr. not convioted of inconsistency yet.  " The great 'virtue of purity was bonni up with a right belief in the Sacramento," and the Rev. Grey proceeds to give a disquisition on parity and the effect of want of it in the Roman Empire, dui/inn:leap with " The Canaanite was still in the land but at any rate , he was forced to hide himself in holes sod corners, from the face of • society which, as a whole, believed that Christ was God." Now, sir, I consider that to be a deliberate and intentional instill to Unitarians. It is not an argument against Unitarianism, for he prodaces no ev4denen whatever in support of his insinuation that the Unitarians are an impure sect. He cannot. Why cannot clergymen argue from feet° Let me state a fact : When a certain disease, not unconnected with the above anbjeot, was introduced into Barone from the West Indies, it spread like a flash among all classes,. including the grit**, ay,. including Pope Pius X him. self. 'AG dedsation as pretty obvious, and yet • clergyman can say that purity is bound up with beliefs in sacraments, ate. According to your report Mr. Gray spoke of "those who believe in Christ's godhead—Unitarians they were now celled." Surely there is • mis-print there, • negative left out? The gentleman is kind enough to pity the Unitarians because, denying the divinity of Christ, they have no proof of the inspiration cf the Old Testament. No, they have not. And considering that according to the Old Testament GJd actually advocated and encouraged every crime GI any decent magnitude, including murder, slavery, polygamy, tresehery, stealing, and lying (I can give chapter and verse if anybody wants it), I think they show a great deal more respect for God by refusing to believe the. Old Testament account than by accepting it withoutcriticism.  In oonclusion, sir, I would say that I myself am neither Unitarian nor Anglican, and ieterfere only to see that the former gets fair play, which they evidently will not get if left to the mercy of charsbt parsons—Yours,