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

    . controverted points ) mi g ht agree to differ , ever remembering the maxim © f Augustine , ' MeUus est dubitare de occultis quam litigare de incertis . '" We cannot but give Mr . B . full credit for the feeling which dictated this passage . That he intended and fancied that he had attained impartiality , we readily believe , and the general freedom of his work from the abusive and- insulting expressions , and the bitterness of manner , so commonly

    employed against those who depart in material points from the prevailing standard , is highly gratifying to us . Notwithstanding a manifest bias in favour of the more common opinions , we think him , in cases where doctrine is not concerned , &fair interpreter , because he does not seem intentionally to avoid stating opinions and criticisms at variance with his own judgment , and a useful one , because , though the reader should not agree with him , he will not the less find his observations on the words and grammatical structure ,

    and his varied illustrations , instructive and appropriate . But wherever the great questions respecting the person and office of Christ are at all involved , ( and in the Gospel of John this is very extensively the case , ) we must say , that he has shewn himself incapable of admitting impartial or unprejudiced views , or of making any just or satisfactory statements of the arguments of Unitarians . Had he given a faithful abstract of our sentiments and modes of defending them in reference to the most remarkable texts ^ we should not have

    complained of any warmth with which he had expressed his disapprobation . Had he even at once refused us a hearing , while he confined himself to the fair statement of his own views , we also should have been content to make our own appeal , and should not have censured him for the want of a liberality too seldom to be found ; but when , after great professions of

    impartiality , he uses unfair arts in defence of his own opinions , and misrepresents what is to be said for ours , we do think that a warning is required , lest the unwary or uninformed should imagine that they have before them the means of judging , when , in fact , they have only heard the pleadings on one side . We acknowledge the difficulty of writing a commentary with doctrinal impartiality ; by which we understand , so as , without entering into

    theological disquisitions , fairly to state the leading interpretations of the texts discussed , shewing how each professes to be derived from the original words % and adding our own judgment , expressed as decisively as our convictions justify . It is difficult truly to represent arguments which may seem to us trifling or unsatisfactory ; it is difficult to appreciate arguments to which our prejudices are strongly opposed . If , conscious of the difficulty , a man will undertake only to express or defend his own views , his prudence is to be commended ; if , having undertaken fairly to sum up the evidence , he

    should be prevented b y prejudice from doing full justice to the statements of those whose opinions he disapproves , he may be excused ; but if , with pretensions to impartiality , we find great mistakes and misrepresentations , we are obliged , whatever we may judge cf his intentions , to condemn him severely , as blinding and misleading his readers , and injuring those whose doctrines fall under his displeasure . To this condemnation it will appear , we think , that our author has exposed himself . The constant application of the inaccurate , and , as it is commonly understood , reproachful term Socinian to our tenets , notwithstanding repeated protests against it , is no indication of fairness or good-will , though of this we sjbould not think it worth while to com p lain . The frequent use of the word orthodox , too , as a term of commendation in the preface , forbade our arguing

    Untitled Article

    58 RevieiiK ~~ Bloom / ieIfIs ' Reeensio Synoptiea Annotationh 8 acr < & .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 58, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/58/