« 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 rames ecclesiastical History is so full ?
tion—" Some of the New Testament ba
Page 147.-See the Note.—Mr. Byrth seems to think it impose to have worded the Title of his Lecture so as not to have ined some one. Will he allow me to suggest what the Title might been without offence, though not with exact truth of descrip
Some of the interpretations of the Improved Version of the estament based upon defective Scholarship.” To attribute besty” and want of “ candour,” Mr. Byrth will I am sure e too vulgar to be altogether worthy of his character as a la Scholar. In the text of his Lecture (p. 122), he indeed belief that Unitarian Interpretation, of every kind, wants · or wants honesty—and it was to the proof of this state. de ought to have applied himself, or else to have altered
Nitle of his Lecture.
Page 148.—Luke iï. 23.-—" And Jesus himself began to be about unty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.”
This 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. I would not state this were it not necessary to justify some passages in me con Lecture. I refer especially to an oratorical use that was
ost objectionable and irreverent sentiment of Coleridge's, 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. Camenter 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
Kuinoel gives a to be his father, thus Zullifying his own genealogy. suggestion of Boltenius, to which he evidently inclines that as evouIŠETO
applies not to the supposed descent of Jesus from Joseph, but to the whole genealogy. I annex his note.
“ Boltenius ad h. I. suspicatus est, verba 's droulsero, non tantum eo referenda esse, quod Judæi falso putaverint, Josephum esse Christi parentem, sed spectari quoque his verbis genealogiam ipsam h. I. 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. I. 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.”
descent applied. Is it Magee.
Page 149.–See the Note.—“ Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary: of whom (Mary) was born (or was begotten) Jesus who 18 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 be 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 ol expression until he arrived at the very man whom he wished to identily as the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus—and the reason 102 altering it then is very obvious.
If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, the genealogy is vitiateu, 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 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 in 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.”
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 person to whom the words were spoken, descriptive at once of his vigour and his rancour : speaking of the Unitarians he said " they are inspired from beneath,”—with a look, said my informant, never to be forgotten. 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
I have already remarked that some of my observations apply more
the spoken than to the printed lecture. Were it possible to efface the impressions made by the speaker, and which required to be
teracted, gladly would I efface every word of personal reference
n my pages. Even now, with the recollection fresh upon my mind, of the unsparing contempt, both literary and moral, expressed
cones, not conveyed by the printed page, when the speaker, ug that the sympathies of his audience were with him to the full,
their knowledge of the subject required from him the
words and tones, not conveyed by
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.
Syllabus of a course of Lectures now in course of delivery successively.
1839.- February 12.
1. The practical importance of the portance of the Controversy
Unitarian Controversy - - Rev. J. H. Thom. with Unitarians . . Rev. F. Ould.
1899.- February 6.
1. Introductory. The practical im
it is not . . . . - Rev.J. Martineau.
ainst Unitarian Obiections - Rev.Dr.Tattershall. January 20.
The Unitarian Interpretation of
Critics and Scholars, but the gift
. Rev. J. H. Thom.
The proper Humanity of our
diator between God and men, the
Man Christ Jesus" . • Rec. H. Giles.
God, proved to be false from the
Ibe proper Deity of our Lord
The proper Deity of our Lord the
tion inconsistent with itself, and
2. The Doctrine of the Trinity
proved as a consequence from
clesiastical History of the Doc-
. Rev. J. H. Thom.
8. Man, the Image of God
- Rev. H. Giles.
& The Atonement indispensable
to the Necessities of Fallen Man, and shown to stand or fall with the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ .
4. The Deity, Personality, and
Operations of the Holy Ghost - Rev. J. E. Bates.
Truth, who dwelleth in us, and
Jested by Unitarians . . Rev.H.W.M'Grath.
- Rev. J. Martinear.
the allies of worldly Policy - Rev. H. Giles.
here - - - - - - Rev. J. Martincau.
- Rer. H. Stowell.
The Eternity of future Rewards and Punishments
tion hereafter - - - - Rev. H. Giles.
• Rev. W. Dalton.
The Course of Unitarian Lectures wi
Newgate Street, London, W
Lectures will be published weekly, and may be had of Jonn GREEN, t, London, WILLMER AND Smith, Liverpool, and all other Booksellers.