On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
the l ^ ethren ? Wh ^ nee b ^ qwie ? What are bis qualifications > How hag he distinguished "himself ? In epistles , and whose learning was nev&r called in question even by those who least approved of his opinions . But hear the oracle , p . 11 : " With respeet to Dr . John Taylor ' s interpretation ( of John i . 1 ) it goes for nothing , and less than nothing , with those who are conversant with the inconsistencies of bis writing's . " **
Dr . Slykes , that eminently learned and judicious commentator and critic , p . 60 : ** We want some higher authority than Dr . Sykes . " Mr . Emlyn , p . 63 : " So w < 3 are to take this hold assertion , and this reference to Mr . Emlyn as satisfactory proofs . "
Mr . Wakefield , p . 60 : was a mistaken and lame biblical critic . " Mr . Lindsey and Dr . Priestley , p . 32 , from Dr . Laurence : " The flimsy refinements , and loose lucubrations of Lindsey ,
or of Priestley . " Mr , Simpson , p . 71 : <* Gould not these gentlemen with the help of their referee Simpson , "" &c .
If ever there was a calm , impartial inquirer into the sense of the Scriptures , it was the late Reverend and learned John Simpson of Bath : and there are few individuals to whom Scripture criticism is more indebted . I do not , indeed , entirely agree with him in all his results , and
particularly in his interpretation of the texts in 2 Pet . ii . and in the Epistle of Jude , relating * to the angels who kept not their first estate . But it is disgusting- to see a scholar of * such distinction , treated with such a contemptuous sneer by one who , it is very plain , has never seen Mr . Simpson ' s Works .
ft is , however , quite ludicrous to see how this gentleman treats the learned an 4 ingenious Hugh Farmer , and those who think with him , siicfi as Lardner , Sykes , &c , upon the subject of demoniacal possessions , p . 68 . Having cited a passage from Dr . Campbell , expressing that
Author ' s disapprobation of Mr . Farmer ' s hypothesis concerning demoniacs , and having shewn how Dr . Campbell ' s strictures might be amended by some valuable remarks of his own , he adds , However , while the stately horse ( viz . Dr . Campbell ) is content to graze in the valleys below the Alps , the ephemeral insect , ( via . Farmer , )
that is ever restless , wings its little way over the highest mountains . Alps are no Alps to that . Difficulties are no obstacles to that : pleased witfy its own buzz , it thinks the atmosphere can scarcely contain an animal of such size , beauty and strength . " JE * obr Mr . Farmer ! little did he expect
Untitled Article
What way doep he icake good his claim to he lord of the empire of criticism , and by his sole and pereinp , toiy fiafto stamp the credit of literary reputation , of biblical scholarshi p , and of moral worth ? Oxford we know , and Cambridge we kuow , but who is the Rev . Samuel Newton , of Witham ?
Dismissing , however , the consideration of the temper with which this Author ' s remarks are written , let us proceed to consider the objections which he has urged against the Improved Yersion , and to examine their validity .
1 . The Author borrows his first objection from Dr . Laurence , who accuses the Improved Version of being " " manufactured to promote the cause of Unitarianisrn . " ¦ " The Editors , ' says Mr . Newton , p . 33 , " write for a systematic purpose : and discovering as they do the perpetual bias of their system , it appears to be an
impossibility , that they should have fairly discharged their duty . Philology knows no system—criticism is of no creed— -the fair philological import of the words is the question with criticism : a question which the determined partizan , acting for hi « party , is not likely after a due manner to consider . "
This objection has been frequently made to the Improved Version : and the truth of it , to a certain extent , cannot be denied . The Editors of the Improved Version were Unitarians : and were plainly biassed by their system , whether erroneous or true , in their interpretation of the text
And if this bias . were peculiar to these JEditprs , it might and would form a considerable objection against their translation . But the fact is , that the objection holds equally against every Version of the Scriptures , the public Version itself , least of all excepted . This objection , therefore , as urged against the Improved Version is of no
that / a work whicii , for learned criticism , for temperate discussion j and for cogent reasoning , excited the admiration of all the learned theologians of his own age , would have exposed him to the captious sarcasms of tire critics of tb « succeeding
generation . Still , however , it is some comfort that ttoey- ^ regiich critics < & « the Author ol tive . " ** iaita * foii ' 3 AppeAl . "
Untitled Article
qjo ^ 402 On the Rev . Samuel Newton ' s Objections to the Improved Version .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1819, page 402, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1774/page/2/
-