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. ii. (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."—Letters 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.) p. 32.-Channing's Discourses, London, 1833, x. and xi. on Love 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.) p. 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 Sermons, 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 canse. 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. (34.) 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 unspeakable 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 idolatries 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 unburied 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 and abominable, the place of perpetual fire: and hence Dr. Channing's second easy solution of its most awful application. It is a matter of Jewish Geography; it is a metaphor; it is a mere figure of speech. But now let us, Thirdly, consider two or three of those passages thus lightly disposed of. In Matt. x. 28, we read-" Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Again, in another discourse, Luke xii. 5- Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell." Is the place spoken of in these passages a mere matter of "Jewish Geography?" Again, in Matt. xviii. 8, 9. "Rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire," or "having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." Is this nothing but an affair of "Jewish Geography?" Again, in Mark ix. 43.—“ Than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.' Is this only metaphor, a mere figure of speech? Still further, Matt. xxiii. 33. -"How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" There is no cause of alarm, however; it is nothing but a geographical metaphor! Oh! is it not awful, is it not pitiable, to hear men thus cheated out of the warning voice of the Saviour of sinners, of Him that "hath the keys of hell and of death," and whose word shall judge in the last day? But it is said, Peter has not used this word. Peter has certainly not used this express term Gehenna, but he has adopted a term for the same idea of equal, if not of yet more fearful import, 2 Pet. ii. 4.-" For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell." The word which the Apostle uses in this place is borrowed, not from the Jews, but from the term by which the Heathens expressed the place of future torment; and seems chosen as the only Greek word corresponding to the idea he wished to convey, ̓Αλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας. This word can certainly have no geographical solution. But Paul and John have not used this word. Granted that they have not; but have they not repeatedly referred to the thing which the word implies ? What means then the fearful picture in 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9—“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." And what is the import of the language of the Apocalypse? "Cast alive into the lake of fire." Rev. xix, 20, xx, 10-"This is the second death." Rev, xx. 14, 15. But this is the very trick and subtlety of this unscriptural system, to turn us aside from the vast realities, the actual verities of revelation, to a minute questioning and criticism of the primary meanings and composition of words. But we are not ignorant of their devices. (35.) p. 44.-Mr. D. Levi's Letters to Dr. Priestley, p. 82. (36.) p. 45.-Ibid, p. 24. (37.) p. 46.-Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part ii. p. 33-35. (38.) p. 46.-Defence of Unitarianism, 1787, p. 111. 66 (39.) p. 47.- Monthly Review" of Edward's History of Redemption, vol. lxxx. art. 68. (40.) p. 55.-See Belfrage's "Unitarianism a perversion of the Gospel." |