Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

appear to such advantage as in their moral influence, and in their fitness for preparing us for the purity, the worship, and the love of heaven.

Finally, while you hearken to the gracious invitation of your God and Saviour, “Look unto me and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth; for I am God, and none else, "*—give him the glory that is due to his name, by an entire trust, genuine contrition, and cordial submission, and ye shall have the witness in yourselves that he IS GOD, in the pardon which he grants, the change which he produces, and the salvation which he bestows. (40.)

. Isaiah xlv. 22.

END OF THE FIRST LECTURE.

Note.-The necessary haste with which this Lecture has been sent to the press, has prevented the author from verifying some of the quotations which have been taken from other works, by a reference to the originals. He has no doubt, however, that they are, in every instance, honest and correct ; while he will, of course, be happy to acknowledge any incidental error into which he may be proved to have fallen.

APPENDIX.

. (1.) p. 2.-"No one can feel his heart softened by a commiseration which he is wholly unconscious of requiring. The pity that feels with me is, of all things, the most delicious to the heart; the pity that only feels for me is, perhaps, of all things, the most insulting.Extract from Letter of Messrs. Martineau, Thom, and Giles, January 31, 1839.

(2.) p. 4.–Familiar Letters, Lett. vi.

(3.) p. 5.-"What is there of bigotry in our not allowing the Socinians to be Christians more than in their not allowing us to be Unitarians ? We profess to believe in the divine unity, as much as they do in Christianity. But they consider a oneness of person, as well as of essence, to be essential to the unity of God; and therefore cannot acknowledge us as Unitarians. And we consider the Deity and Atonement of Christ as essential to Christianity; and therefore cannot acknowledge them as Christians.”-Fuller's Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, p. 176.

(4.) p. 8.-Considerations on Difference of Opinion, sec. i.

(5.) p. 8.—The following is the Title of a Pamphlet published a few years ago, by Dr. Drummond, of Dublin :-" The doctrine of the Trinity founded neither on Scripture, nor on reason and common sense, but on tradition, &c." Again in Rammohun Roy's Final Appeal, p. 354, we read, “The doctrine of the Trinity appears to me so obviously unscriptural, that I am pretty sure, from my own experience and that of others, that no one possessed of merely common sense will fail to find its unscripturality after, &c."

(6.) p. 13.-Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France, p. 38. (7.) p. 14.-Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part II. preface, p. xiii. also Letter v. (8.)

P. 16.–Sermons and Tracts by W. E. Channing, D.D. London, 1828. pp. 67, 71, 72, 73.

(9.) p. 17.–Lindsey's Apology, chap. i. (10) p. 18.—“Monthly Review” of Bishop Horsley's Sermon, March, 1793.

(11.) p. 20.—Quoted by Mr. Blackwall, as cited in Fuller. (12.) p. 20.-Ibid.

(13.) p. 19.—“Let any of the followers of these worthy interpreters of the Gospel, and champions of Christianity,” (adds Mr. Blackwall, by way of reflection,) “ speak worse, if they can, of the ambiguous oracles of the father of lies. These fair-dealing-gentlemen first disguise the sacred writers, and turn them into a harsh allegory; and then charge them with that obscurity and inconsistency which is plainly consequent upon that sense, which their interpretations force upon them. They outrage the divine writers in a double capacity : first, they debase their sense, as theologues and commentators, and then carp at, and vilify their language as grammarians and critics."-Sacred Classics, Part ii. chap. v.

(14.) p. 19.-Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part ii. pp. 33–35.

(15) p. 20.-See Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii., pp. 419, 420, fifth edition, 1832.

(16.) p. 23.—“ In no sense whatever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God, in all the New Testament.”—Priestley's Letters to Mr. Burn, Lett. i.

(17.) p. 28.—That which is called sin by Unitarians, must consist chiefly, if not entirely, in the irregularity of a man's outward conduct ; else they could not suppose, as Dr. Priestley does, that “Virtue bears the same proportion to vice that happiness does to misery, or health to sickness, in the world.''-Let. ters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, vol. i., Let. v.—That is, that there is much more of the former than of the latter.

(18.) p. 28.—I do not see how Unitarians, while they speak of moral evil in so diminutive a style, can possibly conceive of it after the manner of the inspired writers, as“ an evil and a bitter thing;" or, as it is expressed in that remarkable phrase of the Apostle Paul, “ Exceeding sinful.This expression is very forcible. It resembles the phrase far more exceeding,or rather excessively exceeding in 2 Cor. iv. 7. It seems that the Holy Spirit himself could not find a worse name for sin than its own.

(19.) 32.—Channing's Discourses, London, 1833, x. and xi. on Lore to Christ; also Sermons and Tracts by the same, London, 1828, p. 114.

(20.) p. 33.-Mr. Lindsey's Catechist, Inquiry 6. (21.) p. 33.–See Mr. Toulmin's Sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson,

pp. 47, 56.

(22.)

33.–See Mr. Belsham's Sermon on the “ Importance of Truth,"

pp. 4, 32.

(23.) p. 33.– For specimens of this, see Notes to the “ Improved Version," passim. Especially Note on Heb. xiii. 25.

(24.) p. 33.-Doctrine of Necessity, p. 133. (25.) p. 34.—History of the Corruption of Christianity, vol. i. p. 155. (26.) p. 35.—Mrs. Barbauld's Answer to Mr. Wakefield. (27.) p. 35.-Dr. Harwood's mons, p. 93. (28.) p. 35.-Doctrine of Necessity, p. 153. (29.) p. 37.—Channing's Sermons and Tracts, p. 155.

(30.) p. 37.—"For it is notorious, and it will require no small degree of hardihood to deny it, that from those who have professed Unitarianism in England, the largest stock of unbelievers have arisen ; nay more, that their principal Academy, the place in which Unitarian principles were inculcated in their greatest purity, and with every advantage of zealous ability in the teacher, and of unbiassed docility in the learner, has borne witness to the efficacy of those principles, by its dissolution, imperiously demanded by the prevalence of infidel opinions. Now in what way shall we account for this event ? Was Unitarianism not properly taught at Hackney ? Or, with all its vaunted simplicity, is it a scheme so difficult to conceive, that the learners, not being able to comprehend it rightly, became unbelievers from not having been firmly grounded? Howsoever it be explained, the fact is incontrovertible, and serves not a little to countenance the idea, that the road to Uni.

tarianism differs from that which leads to infidelity by so slight a distinction, that the traveller not unfrequently mistakes his way.”—Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. pp. 391, 392.

What other tendency, may we ask, than to promote infidelity can such a commentary as the following have,—in which the inspiration of the apostle Thomas is boldly denied ?

“* And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.' The great stress laid on this text is no evidence of a good and well-supported cause. Thomas, overpowered with astonishment, and too full of emotion to give an orderly arrangement to his thoughts, breaks out into the sudden exclamation, My Lord! and my God! and theologians build an essential doctrine on this passionate language of an UNINSPIRED MAN! Whether Thomas addressed Jesus in the first clause of the sentence, My Lord ! and then in a pious rapture looked up to heaven and exclaimed, my God! or whether he left the sentence unfinished, through the force of his feelings, so that his precise meaning cannot be ascertained, I will not determine."-Channing's Sermons and Tracts, p. 130.

(31.) p. 37.—History of Baptism, p. 47.

(32.) p. 39.—Lord Shaftesbury insinuates, that the Heathen Magistrates, in the first ages of Christianity, "might have been justly offended « With a notion which treated them, and all men, as profane, impious, and damned, who entered not into particular modes of worship, of which there had been formerly so many thousand kinds instituted, all of them compatible, and sociable till that time."-Characteristics, vol. I, sec. iii.

(33.) p. 39.—Priestley's Differences in Religious Opinions, sec. ii.

(31.) p. 42. How pleasant must it be, for instance, to the profligate or the sceptic to read such a passage as the following:

The word hell, which is used so seldom in the sacred pages, and which, as critics will tell you, does not occur once in the writings of Paul, Peter, and John, which we meet only in four or five discourses of Jesus, and which all persons acquainted with Jewish Geography, know to be a metaphor, a figure of speech, and not a literal expression, this word, by a perverted and exaggerated use, has done inspeakable injury to Christianity.- Channing's Sermons and Tracts, p. 257. -It would be ludicrous, were not the subject so unspeakably awful, to observe the shifts by which these Unitarian divines endeavour to get rid of the plain scripture testimony to eternal punishment. The word in the original, to which the Doctor in the above passage limits his observation, as being always connected with the notion of penal retribution, is manifestly Gehenna, there being another word also rendered in our version by the term Hell, that is Hades. Let us, however, follow the Doctor in his criticism, and see to what it amounts.–First, this word has been only used by the inspired writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James, and by our Lord himself in four or five of his discourses. The implied inference is that, because it is only used by these, it is a word of minor importance, and not worthy of having any Christian doctrine or Scripture argument founded upon it.-Secondly, this word was derived from a particular place connected with particular facts. It was derived from the valley of Hinnom, once the seat of the cruel idoiatries of the worshippers of Moloch, and after the time of Josiah given up to desecration and a curse, set apart for the reception of all that was vile and refuse, the unbaried malefactor, the putrifying carcase, the filth and offal of Jerusalem ; a place where continual fires were kept burning to prevent the pestilential communication. Hence the name of this place was aptly taken to express the region of future torment, the accursed place, the place of all that was vile

« ÎnapoiContinuați »