Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

APPENDIX.

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 ?

[ocr errors]

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

[ocr errors]

scholarship,

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

D 2

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

APPENDIX.

[ocr errors]

him, and the world knew him not.” “ He was in the world, and
the world was enlightened by him, and yet the world knew him not.”
-I. V. This interpretation cannot, I think, be defended. I am sorry
it was ever given. Yet Mr. Byrth's sarcasm is quite powerless
against it, “ what kind of light is that which blinds the eyes which it
was intended to illuminate ?” in the face of the text—“ the light
shineth is darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not;" unless
he adopts the interpretation of some of the Fathers,—“And the
darkness did not insinuate itself into the light, interpenetrate and
quench it."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page 161.-The liberality of Robert Hall. We desire to speak
with respect of this great and good man. But perhaps it would be
impossible to name a man more illiberal as a controversialist, and who
allowed himself such an unmeasured use of uncharitable language.
It was only the other day I learned an anecdote of him from the per-
son to whom the words were spoken, descriptive at once of his vigour
and his rancour : speaking of the Unitarians he said—“ they are in-
spired from beneath,”—with a look, said my informant, never to be for-
gotten. Many passages might be brought from his writings, especially
his Reviews, demonstrative of this temper,—but the passage given
by Mr. Byrth himself, in which he is satisfied to rest conclusions so
momentous and fearful upon reasonings so arbitrary and vague, is quite
enough. When any man acquainted with the state of Theological
opinion in the world, and with the impossibility of uniformity, can
fix upon his own opinions as essential, and run a doctrinal line between
Heaven and Hell, we require no further tests of his “ liberality,”
unless indeed he is, what Mr. Hall was not, only a traditional

believer.

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-
citement of the moment,-I have more than doubted whether it would
not have been better to have avoided every personal allusion. I believe
that I have in no case overstated or misrepresented what was said.
I deeply grieve to fix upon my pages the suggestions, perhaps, of
momentary excitement, which Mr. Byrth's better feeling has, in some
instances, refused to record-and that the obligation I was under to
remove an impression actually made, does not permit me to give
full effect to this working of a kinder spirit, the manifestations of
which, in other ways, I have respectfully to acknowledge.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

LIVERPOOL.

Syllabus of a Course of Lectures now in course of delivery successively.
TRINITARIAN LECTURE,

UNITARIAN LECTURE,

es WEDNESDAY EVENINGS IN CHRIST CHURCH.
119.-February 6.
1. Introductory. The practical im-

portance of the Controversy
rith Unitarians

Rev. F. Ould.

ON TUESDAY EVENINGS IN PARADISE-ST. CHAPEL.
1839.-February 12.
1. The practical importance of the
Unitarian Controversy

- Rev. J. H. Thom.

February 19.
2. The Bible; what it is, and what
it is not

Rev. J. Martineau.

Arany 18.
- The Integrity of the Canon

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.

February 26.
3. Christianity not the property of

Critics and Scholars, but the gift
of God to all men

- Rev. J. H. Thom.

[blocks in formation]

March 5.
4. “There is one God, and one Me-

diator between God and men, the
Man Christ Jesus"

Rec. H. Giles.
March 12.
5. The proposition That Christ is

God, proved to be false from the
Jewish and the Christian Scrip-
tures

Rev. J. Martineau.

[blocks in formation]

March 19.
6. The scheme of Vicarious Redemp-

tion inconsistent with itself, and
with the Christian idea of Salva-
tion

Rev.J. Martineau.

7. The Doctrine of the Trinity

prored as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus

March 26.
7. The unscriptural Origin and Ec-

clesiastical History of the Doc-
trine of the Trinity

Rev. J. H. Thom.

Carist

[ocr errors]

Rev. D. James.

[blocks in formation]

April 9.
9. The Comforter, even the Spirit of

Truth, who dwelleth in us, and
teacheth all things

Rev. J. H. Thom.
April 16.
10. Christianity without Priest, and
without Ritual -

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
Creeds explained and defended Rø. R. Davies.

11 The Personality and Agency of

Satan

Rer. H. Stowell.

11. The Eternity of future Rewards

and Punishments

May 7.
13. The Christian view of Retribu-
tion hereafter

- 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.

« EdellinenJatka »