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

    with his own hypothesis concerning the homogenity of m £ ti % and knowing my friend ' s aversion , to metaphysics , he declined entering into an argument to the detail of which he might possibly conceive that his opponent would not listen ., or the force of which he might not comprehend .

    Previous to the exhibition of what my friend calls the grand arguments" for the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ , he makes a very remarkable and important concession ^ which however creditahle to his candour , is , I scruple not to say , fatal to iiis arguments " I sh ^ U readily acknowledge , " says he , p . 157 ,

    * that there is nothing decisive upon this subject in the three first evangelists /* And again ., p . \ 5 By u I do acknowledge that if there wgs no other part of the New Testament extant , but the three gospels of Matthew ., Mark and Luke , I could not find sufficient evidence for the doctrine which I am now main tainimr . "

    With much savg froidy my friend declines to answer the questions which to say the least , very naturally offer themselves upon the subject : " Were these evangelists ignorant of the pre-existenge of Christ when they wrote ?¦ or , if acquainted with the doctrine ^ why did they not insist upon it in their writings ? These are questions / ' says he , " which—I am not solicitous to answer , let those answer them who maintain that a

    belief in this doctrine is necessary to salvation / ' p . 1 . 59 . Withoutj however , pretending to this qualification , I will take leave to volunteer an answer to both these important questions which my friend ' s modesty or prudence has left untouched . In the first pfece , I affirm without fear of contradiction , that if

    Christwas , as my friend maintains , ** the-grand agent employed hy the Supreme Being in creating and governing the world , and the immediate dispenser of all things / 1 the evangelists must have heen well informed of this fact at the time they wrote their

    respective histories . Matthew was himself an apostle , Mark was the companion of Peter . Aind Luke was the associate of : Paul in all his missionary labours , and did not finish his beautiful history till after Paulas imprisonment at Rome . It will not then fora mornent bear a question whether they knew of tin ? pre-existent dignity of Christ if that doctrine were true . Nor has it ever been disputed by those who b ^ ve believed the fact .

    \ But is it possible that the evangelists could have known these amazing facts and yet that in their histories of the life and ministry of this extraordinary person they should pass them over in total silence . Is it possible that a historian , with the feel * ingsof a man , should sit down expressly to write a circumstantial account of the transactions of the Creator and Governor ttf

    Untitled Article

    « 40 Mr * Belshvtitfs &Wicture $ otr Carpenter ' s Lectures .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1807, page 540, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2385/page/32/