« EdellinenJatka »
How can we tell how far this process of reconciliation was carried ? Why is it that we have not the works of the Heretics, of whose names ecclesiastical History is so full ?
Page 147.–See the Note.—Mr. Byrth seems to think it impossible to have worded the Title of his Lecture so as not to have insulted some one. Will he allow me to suggest what the Title
might have been without offence, though not with exact truth of description-Some of the interpretations of the Improved Version of the New Testament based upon defective Scholarship." To attribute
dishonesty" and want of " candour,” Mr. Byrth will I am sure hotel to be too vulgar to be altogether worthy of his character as a Critic and a Scholar. In the text of his Lecture (p. 122), he indeed states his belief that Unitarian Interpretation, of every kind, wants ment that he ought to have applied himself, or else to have altered
or wants honesty-and it was to the proof of this state
the Title of his Lecture.
in my own
Page 148.-Luke iï. 23.—" And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.”
Thais passage was not introduced into the first part of Mr. Byrth’s Lecture as originally delivered. I state this only to excuse myself for hay ng taken no notice of it in the body of my Lecture. This is the case also with some other passages. There were also expressions and sentiments of Mr. Byrth spoken, but not printed. would not
state this were it not necessary to justify some passages
Lecture. I refer especially to an oratorical use that was made of a post objectionable and irreverent sentiment of Coleridge's, full of the very spirit of dogmatism and presumption. P. 161.
With regard to Luke iii. 23. The rendering of the Improved Version is that of Bishop Pearce, who I suppose had no heretical reason for preferring it. I confess it does not seem natural. Dr. Carpenter thinks the words “ as he was supposed,” put in to guard against some Gnostic or Platonic error, and for the purpose of stating distinctly that he was the son of Joseph, as he was supposed to be. The same writer acutely remarks that it is most improbable, indeed next to impossible, that any writer should trace our Lord's descent from David through Joseph, and then declare that Joseph was only supposed to be his father, thus Zullifying his own genealogy. Kuinoel gives a suggestion of Boltenius, to which he evidently inclines that s dvomleto
applies not to the supposed descent of Jesus from Joseph, but to the whole genealogy. I annex his note.
“ Boltenius ad h. l. suspicatus est, verba es trouiSeto, non tantum eo referenda esse, quod Judæi falso putaverint, Josephum esse Christi parentem, sed spectari quoque his verbis genealogiam ipsam h. 1. exhibitam, eaque reddenda esse : hanc putabant esse Jesu genealogiam, erat pater ejus Josephus, hujus pater Eli, etc., ut adeo Lucas professus sit, se inseruisse genealogiam, prouti ea in manus ipsius venisset, seque authentiam illius acrius defendere nolle. Hac ratione admissa, explicari forte etiam posset, quî factum sit, ut Lucas genealogiam ipsi suspectam, in Evangelio infantiæ Jesu propositam, ad calcem illius fortasse adjectam, h. 1. inseruerit, quod nempe aliquamdiu dubius hæsisset, an eam reciperet. Alii opinati sunt, hanc genealogiam, cum diversa sit ab ea, quæ in Matthæi commentariis reperitur, cum laxiori vinculo superioribus annexa sit, non a Luca ipso, sed serius additam esse.
Page 149.—See the Note.—“ Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary: of whom (Mary) was born (or was begotten) Jesus who is called the Christ.” “Now is it possible to declare, in plainer terms, that, though Jesus was born of Mary, who was married to Joseph, yet that Joseph did not beget him.”—Magee. Great is the ingenuity here, wonderfully misapplied. Is it not clear that St. Matthew was tracing the descent of Jesus from David, and that he brings down the chain to the very last link, namely Joseph, that is, the very Joseph necessary to be included, the husband of the mother of Jesus ? That Joseph, the very husband of Mary, from whom Christ was born, being thus shown to be a lineal descendant of David, the Evangelist stops. What could he do more? His object being to trace the descent of Jesus from David, what could be more natural than, when he arrived at Joseph, to say—here is the unbroken succession, for this is the very man who was the husband of that Mary from whom Jesus was born. Of course the writer could not alter the form of expression until he arrived at the very man whom he wished to identify as the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus and the reason for altering it then is very obvious.
If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, the genealogy is vitiated, for it is through Joseph that the descent is traced.
Pages 157, 158.-" He was in the world, and the world was made by
him, and the world knew him not.” “ He was in the world, and
Page 161.-The liberality of Robert Hall. We desire to speak
I have already remarked that some of my observations apply more to the spoken than to the printed lecture. Were it possible to efface the impressions made by the speaker, and which required to be counteracted, gladly would I efface every word of personal reference from my pages. Even now, with the recollection fresh upon my mind, of the unsparing contempt
, both literary and moral, expressed by words and tones, not conveyed by the printed page, when the speaker, feeling that the sympathies of his audience were with him to the full, and that their knowledge of the subject required from him the
broadest statements, to render it intelligible, gave himself to the ex-
Syllabus of a Course of Lectures now in course of delivery successively.
es WEDNESDAY EVENINGS IN CHRIST CHURCH.
portance of the Controversy
Rev. F. Ould.
ON TUESDAY EVENINGS IN PARADISE-ST. CHAPEL.
- Rev. J. H. Thom.
Rev. J. Martineau.
of Holy Scripture maintained
against Unitarian Objections - Rev.Dr.Tattershall. buray 20. . The Unitarian Interpretation of the New Testament
based upon defective Scholarship, or on dishonest of uneandid Criticism - Rec. T. Byrth.
Critics and Scholars, but the gift
- Rev. J. H. Thom.
diator between God and men, the
• Rec. H. Giles.
God, proved to be false from the
Rev. J. Martineau.
tion inconsistent with itself, and
7. The Doctrine of the Trinity
prored as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus
clesiastical History of the Doc-
Rev. J. H. Thom.
Rev. D. James.
Truth, who dwelleth in us, and
Rev. J. H. Thom.
Rev. J. Martineau. April 23. 11. Creeds the foes of Heavenly Faith ; the allies of worldly Policy
Rev. H. Giles. April 30. 12. The Christian view of Moral Evil here
Rev. J. Martincau.
. The Nicene and Athanasian
11 The Personality and Agency of
Rer. H. Stowell.
11. The Eternity of future Rewards
- Rev. H. Giles.
Rev. W. Daltor.
The Course of Unitarian Lectures will be published weekly, and may be had of Jonn GREEN,
Newgate Street, London, WILLMER AND Smith, Liverpool, and all other Booksellers.