On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    cond is God the Son , the Redeemer ; the third is God the Holy Ghost , the Sanctifier . Now ,, I ask , were these objects of worship ( for they are plura ] , in spite of orthodox evasion ) held out to the Jews by Moses ? Did he command them to worship

    three Persons , each—God , possessing all possible perfections

    and to worship them under three different and irreconcilable characters ? These questions admit of but one answer . The Reviewer meddles not with the subtleties of the Sibellian hypothesis , because neither he nor the Jew may be supposed to urld ^ rstand them , and unless Moses could be proved to be a Sibellian , they enter not at , all into . the present dispute . The

    question of , the Reviewer is not set aside by Moderator ' s argument : — " Is there no difference between the belief and worship of an indivisible Jehovah , and the belief and worship of / ather S 071 , and Holy Ghost , three Persons , andone God V 3 . The Reviewer may justly complain , that while Moderator cavils at his censure of Rabbi Hirsehel , he overlooks the ground

    on which the censure rests . One would conclude , from Moderator ' s paper , that the Rabbi had fallen under the lash of the Reviewer , because he was unskilful in Athanasian

    tacticsbecause he was clumsy in making out , that God and man , infinite and finite ^ immortal and mortal ^ may be descriptions of

    the same identical character : whereas , in fact , he is not censured for ignorance or dullness , but for violating his knowledge ^ and conscience I It is asserted by the Reviewer , that " the argument which the Jews use to justify their rejection of

    Christianity / ' is that Christians have superadded to their God , the God of Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , one and undivided—two other Gods , one a deified man , whom their own fathers hung upon a tree , the other a deified attribute , belonging indeed to God , but inseparable and undistinguishable from him j it is , moreover , asserted , that " Rabbi Hirschel must know this . "

    These assertions , containing the pith of the Reviewer ' s argument , Moderator has not noticed ,, for what reason , is not apparent , except that they are Loo just tobe questioned . If they can be invalidated * let Moderator undertake the task ( and this

    he may alsg conceive to be a matter of no great difficulty , " ) in some future number of the Repository . Should he make the attempt , let him consider that he has to negative these three questions : —first , is not the doctrine of the Trinity constantly

    alleged by the Jews as a subversion of the fundamental princrpie of the law of Moses , viz . the tlfcity of God , and therefore an irremoveablc bar to their embracing Christianity ? Secondly , is it not fair to presume , from Rabbi Hirschers station , and his ^ yi 4 snt & ® od seus € > that he must be Acquainted with the con-

    Untitled Article

    290 Reviewer ' s Reply to Moderator .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1806, page 290, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1725/page/10/