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

    Christ either in person or in vision ; if he meant thereby to recommend his proposals . " ( Must not Mr . F . then make the author of th 6 -vision represent the devil as

    acting out of character , contrary to what he elsewhere supposes ? See No ; 11 . ) " But what would have been absurd in this

    malignant spirit , whose business it is to stdncey was a wise conduct in the Deity ^ ( the autho r of this vision , ) because his intention was ^ o forewarn Christ of his danger , and to

    arm him against it . " . And Mr . F . as if he had thought this to have been the whole of the divine intention ^ adds , " It was on purpose to lead Christ to regard the present proposals , ( which were afterwards to

    occur in real life , ) as highly criminal in their nature ; that the vision represented them as made to him by the devil , as the temptations of that great enemy of Gocf whom it is virtue to resist But

    always . the premonition of approac / w / g trials , is a different thing from a present trial , which latter it was his business here to show the temptation to have been , according to positions laid down b y himself , but which it will be evident to

    the reader it could hot have been , if he will look back to Nos . 4 and 5 , and attend to what is said at the top of p . 177 . Accordingly , Mr . F ' s next sentence is quite irrelevant to the subject immediately before him , which was , not to prove that the appearance of tlfe devil in vision was proper

    Untitled Article

    the vision being considered ag prophetical of future trials , but that it was Consiste ? it with the vision ' s beiiig a present trial ; which ihe places just referred to

    show it not to have been , as truly on Ids hypothesis as on the common one . The sentence is . * ' Thus the very same circufristanCe , ihe

    appearance of the devil which was proper in the vision , suitable to both its divine author , and benevolent intention , would have been absurd upon the common 1

    hypothesis . ' Presuming that it must now he sufficiently manifest ? that Mr . F . has been unsuccessful in proving the supposed vision to have been a present trial ,

    I proceed to examine his reply to an objection , which it seems ^ had been made to his hypothesis * —viz . — That the apprehended presence of Satan in vision would produce the same general effect ,

    as his real presence at a » y other time . 'V p . 176 . Unless I very much mistake the meaning of our author in some of lm position ^ already quoted , the . objection asserts no more than he had hinw

    self allowed and advanced . JIow ^ ever , as he must have entertained a different idea of the import q £ those positions , it is but fair to give his own statement of the * oh * jection v and to let the reader see how he endeavours to parry iu cc is farther urged , ( he says ^ p . 177 y ) that the reasonings em- * ployed to abate * the force of the second temptation , upon the com *

    * He should have used a stronger word than abate . For where he is considering this temptation on the common hypothesis , he asks , " What inducement coulcj Christ have for a compliance with the proposal suggested ? Would hq be ; disposed to gratify Satan , by doing an act at his mere motion ? It is absurd to suppose it ** ( p . 10 . ) According to this remark , the force of the second temptation would not only have been abated , but entirely destroyed upon the common hypothesis the proposal havipg nothing in it , which could operate on the mind of Christ in the way of inducement . Neither could it hare any force on Mr . F * 6 , ajs mu ^ fye manifest from Nos * 4 , and 5 .

    Untitled Article

    74 Objections to Mr . Farmer ' s Hypothesis * — Letter II .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1810, page 74, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2401/page/26/