« EdellinenJatka »
translated, “given by inspiration of God,' signifies breathing " God,' or 'breathed from God.'
“No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, &c. The inspiration of Prophecy is not denied. But can anything be more idle than to prove the inspiration of all the books of the old Testament by such a quotation as this : · Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.""
Page 16.—“ So then, it appears, that if these rational and liberal critics are not allowed to Unitarianize the Bible, they are prepared to deny its divine authority, and to give it up to its enemies !" Dr. Channing does not say so. What he says is, that he cannot defend the Scriptures unless he is allowed to interpret them by the same principles which are applied to all other works. And this principle of interpretation we understood Dr. Tattershall freely to admit. The use that is made of the extract from Dr. Channing, exhibits the temptations of controversy. There is nothing in the extract that Trinitarians them. selves would not say upon occasion. Why is it thought worthy of being marked in italics that the dispensation of Moses is imperfect when compared with that of Jesus? Is this denied ? Why is the word seems italicized, when the connected word is not rejects, but only distrusts? Yet the author praises the candour of Dr. Chan. ning.
Page 20, 21.-" The improved Version." It is a curious fact that most of the Trinitarian objections to the Improved Version have becu provided for them by an Unitarian Critic and Reviewer. Dr. van penter in his reply to Archbishop Magee states, “I furi opponents of the Improved Version some of the most power weapons against it.” Again, “ At my request a young took to draw up the table I wished. This led him to collate de Versions, which he did with great patience and i
He dishe did with great patience and fidelity. covered some variations from the basis which were not nouceur" I thought it right to point them out. It is not too much to say but for this, neither Bishop Magee, nor any other sured the Improved Version, would have been aw ence."-pp. 308, 309. Whatever becomes of the Impro the Controversy between"Unitarianism and Trinitarianism remanean where it was, to be settled upon independent prin
ttled upon independent principles, critical and
exegetical. So far, the whole Version relates to the introd Suppose those chapters aut from them? The doctrine nuost Unitarians believe. American Unitarian Critic chapters of Matthew he encies with those of
lar, the whole indictment against the Improved the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke. apters authentic and genuine, and what follows The doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, which
believe. Professor Norton, the ablest, perhaps, of rian Critics, defends this doctrine. The introductory athew he rejects, chiefly on account of their inconsist
hose of Luke, the authenticity of which he does not doubt. Dl: carpenter also critically dissents from the Notes in the Improved Version on the introductions of Matthew and Luke. Reply to Dr. Magee, p. 299. It is not then such a new thing among Unitarians, to question the authority of the Improved Version. Will the Author inform us where he got his knowledge respecting Ebion, his existence and opinions ?
Page 37.—Does the Author deny that Free Inquiry generates a degree of scepticism--that is, not of unbelief, but of the examining and questioning spirit? Or does he mean to object to all free inquiry on account of this tendency? It is extraordinary reasoning to take Dr. Channing's caution against a sceptical spirit, proceeding from the very constitution of mind, as a proof of the tendency of Unitarianism to infidelity. If Unitarianism leads to unbelief, it is strange that so many Unitarians should defend the Evidences of Christianity, and that one of them, Dr. Lardner, is the great authority from which Trinitarians themselves draw their knowledge of the external testimonies.
Page 39.—"Another leading principle, common to both systems, (Chitarianism and Infidelity,) is the non-importance of principle itself
The enjoyment of the Divine favour.” Let it be known, that by principle here, the Author means opinions.
Page 41.-" Does the Deist reject the Bible because God is re
presented as a being who takes vengeance? So does the one the very same reason reject the Gospel ? Does the Deist“? Bible because it contains the doctrine of atonement and sovereignty? For the very same reason the Unitarian rejects inc pel.” It is melancholy to have to remark upon this passage... Unitarian does not reject the Gospel, unless the Gospel means Trinitarianism, a use of words which, in controversy, cannot be:
The Unitarian does not deny that God takes vengeance, "os geance is meant the infliction of retribution. The Unitarian accep the Gospel, but does not find in it the doctrine of Atonement.
Page 46.-" How, on Unitarian principles, this reasoning can we are swered, is more than I can tell.” Jesus did refer to God both words and his works. But Unitarians do not regard the miss, Jesus as similar to that of any of the Prophets. It was e different. He was himself the Revelation : a man in the image God. By the Prophets, God taught the Jews certain lessons, and inspired certain expectations. By Jesus, in whom was the spirit will out measure, God exhibited a perfect revelation both of human pero fection and of human destinies. God's word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us. The purposes of the Deity were impersonatel, He was consequently the life, and the way, as well as the truth.
Page 59.-Does the Author mean to contend that Thomas was an INSPIRED MAN when he refused to believe in the risen Jesus. We had thought the Trinitarian view was, that the day of Pentecost dated the inspiration of the apostles. But it appears the Author believes Thomas to be inspired when refusing to believe in the resurrection de Christ.
Page 60.-Is not the Author aware of the doubtful authenticity of the second epistle of Peter, from which he quotes twice, contrary to the judgment of Lardner, who decides that the doubtful Epistles, so stated by Eusebius, should not be used as authority for doctrines !
There are other passages in this Lecture on which we might comment. But we refrain. We wished to remark upon those passages which affect the cause, and not more than was unavoidable upon mode which affect only the advocate.
Course of Lectures intended to be delivered successively.
Unitarian Controversy - - Rev. J. H. Thom. . . Rev. F.Ould.
1. The Integrity & the Canon
of Holy Scripture maintained
it is not - - - - - Rev. J. Martineau.
The Unitarian Interpretation of
honest or uncandid Criticism - Rev. T. Byrth,
Lord Jesus Christ . . . Rev. J. Jones.
Critics and Scholars, but the gift
diator between God and man, the
- Rev. H. Giles.
The proper Deity of our Lord
God, proved to be false from the
- Rev. J. Martineau.
The proper Deity of our Lord the
tion inconsistent with itself, and
Rev. J. Martineau.
prored as a consequence from
clesiastical History of the Doc-
- Rev. J. H. Thom.
- Rev. H. Giles.
The Atonement indispensable
Unitarian Lectures will be published weekly, and may be had of JOHN GREEN,