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
lions as his own , ( for some of theti * would be inconsistent "with his character as ¦** A Churchman" ) but as purposed by " tb-e adversary of this deduction from testimony merely huntau" Very ^ ood r J he objections are oi equal weight proceed from whom they may ; and remain to be considered .
He greatly mistakes my meaning , when he conceives me to admit that the genuineness of the books which constitute the New Testament " is impossible to be proved . " In his first letter he contended , that the historians of J esus , if uninspired , were inadequate to the task of writing an account of him , because they were unlearned , and
therefore incapable " of storing a discourse in their minds and reporting it with accuracy and precision . ' * In reply , I argued that their minds were so fully occupied , with \ rhat they saw and heard relative to their master , that they could not easily forget any thing of importance ; that probably , the discourses of Jesus , or the substance of them was
committed to writing at a very early period , that the accounts which are now received , might be compiled from such memorandums ; and that the beginning of I ^ uke ' s Gospel seems to countenance such an idea . If this were the case , at least Matthew , John and Peter , the supposed
dictator of Mark ' s Gospel , would be able to judge of their correctness . Supposing this to have been the fact , which I do not affirm , nor consider as essential to my argument , we know not by whom those original documents or memorandums were composed . This is all I have admitted .
In what age since the commencement of the Christian « ra has Christianity been free from the attacks of its enemies ? Yet when was it ever denied that the Gospel called Matthew ' s was written by him ? or that the book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by . Luke ? Soine additiors or alterations
may possibly have occurred in the numerous transcripts that were taken from the originals , but do not all the manuscripts which have been examined by the learned , concur in the accounts of th ; doctrines a « d miracles of Christ and
his disciples r and if so , when they have been universally received and acknowledged by Christians who have constantly appealed to them as the standard of their faith and practice , may not their genuineness be considered as sufficientl y
Untitled Article
established by the * testimony of friends and the concession of enemies ? in short by universal consent ? What greater evidence can we expect or desire in favour of any ancient book that challenges our assent ?
Besides , these books contain such an account of the ofigin of Christianity as may satisfy the reflecting mind , respecting the cause of its very extraordinary success . For surely it must be
considered as extraordinary that a few obscure and illiterate men , should be able to establish a new religion on the ruins of every preceding one ; and this in opposition to the vigorous efforts of every civil government .
But much it is said may be ascribed to enthusiasm ; and unless we possessed more particular information respecting the circumstances , characters and conduct of the first Christians , we
cannot say but they might be enthusiasts ; or there might even be a mixture of fraud and enthusiasm in their composition . But what ground have we for suspecting the founder of our religion of either ? If the received accounts of him
be in any degree to be depended upon , he was far remote from both . They represent him as mild , unostentatious and unwearied in doing good ; prudent and cautious in his department , and though fully aware of the sufferings which awaited him and acutely sensible pf their severity , patiently enduring all , rather than the design of his mission should be frustrated . As these accounts of him
have always been received by his fol * lowers , and as there asre no other accounts either of him or of the times in which he lived inconsistent with these , it seems very unreasonable to suspect him of either fraud or enthusismij when every information that we can obtain relative to him is an argument of the contrary .
Nearly the same may be said of his immediate followers . If we niay rely on the . accounts of them which are contained in the New Testament , there is no reason to question either their integrity , or the soundness of their understandings . They were at least capably
of perceiving whether or mxf a man , univereally known to have been born blind , was instantaneously restored to sight , without thue application of any piobabie means ; or whether a putrilied corpse was restored to life by the speaking of a word . There certainly is Jtf >
Untitled Article
^ 564 Mr . Alichin ' s Answer ^ to the Churchm / in ^ s Reply .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1808, page 664, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2399/page/28/
-