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
On Coleridge * s . Attack on the Unitarians '~ contained in his Second Lay Sermon . % Gq
Untitled Article
spoejidat ion * !~ f » n fchalr of rap ^ ivrcp- ; In cornirfori ; jnsnce yo » Wnf to have ailded these ; for , in that ca . , . the ** affirmative articles of otrr faith " would have formed a ' much longer catalogue .
In the second place , supposing a beffef in necessity to be justly imputed to Unitarians as part of fHeir faith , it is utterly false that rhey draw frcim it the absurd deductions whidh yon declare them to affirm . When and where , Sir , did Mr . Belshain or any
other Unitarian maintain that " the Christian religion precludes all remorse for our sins ? " When indeed was it asserted that necessity was a part of the Christian religion at all , except by the late eloquent Bishop of St . Asaph , who was no intentional supporter of Dr . Priestley ' s cause ?
Above all , where is the necessarian , or the writer understanding English , who ever maintained that sins were not guilt ? Perhaps he also asserted that guilt was not sin , and that sin was not sinful . But to pass by the absurdity of the expression , it is not true that the advocates of the doctrine of -necessity affirm that it-destroys all
moral distinctions between good and evilv Had you merely asserted that such a deduction would follow from trie admission of their premises , it would Have been a matter of argument , not of denial . But you have taken a different course ; you have declared that they maintain the conclusions in their most absurd and obnoxious fomi \ nay , that they derive them ,
not from the doctrine of necessity , but from their view of the Christian religion . This is a most important charge on a point of fact , and you have not the shadow of evidence to support it . You first unjustly represent necessity as a doctrine of Unitarianism ; and then put into the mouth of Unitarians at large , supposed _ _ & . a m m a > -
deductions irom it that even those ot them who received it never made ^ cio ' athed in language which no man of common sense could condescend to utter ! The third " article * ' is thus expressed : *• ¦ They believe the gospels ,
though not written by inspiration , to be authentic histories on the whole , th&igh with additions and interpolations . Anfd 6 ti the authority of these writings , , canfiwned by other evidence , they believe in the resurrection of the
Untitled Article
mOB JeSvs ? Olirjst 'frtfnV the <*< & <* " On the subject of inspiration tjhitarians differ . They also entertain various opinions respecting the extent of the additions made in the gospels t
but that some additions have been made to Scripture you will not venture to deny , until you think fit to take up the defence of the exploded passage respecting the " Three which bear record in heaven . *' The fourth " article" contains As strange a clustre of misrepresentations * as was ever found in the same rtumher of lines . It stands as follows :
" On the historic credibility of this erent ( the resurrection of Jesus ) tl \ ey believe the resurrection of the body , which , in their opinion is the whole man , at the last day : and differ from other churches iii this only , that while other Christians believe that all men will arise in the body , they hold that all the bodies that had beeu men will ari ^ e . ' *
Now Jirst it is not on the " historic credibility of Christ ' s resurrection ** only that Unitarians believe in the resurrection of man . It is impossible , that the mere fact , though ever so
clearly established , could prove even that another individual would be reanimated By a similar miracle . Thej . believe the resurrection of 3 TJ meijf because it was taught \ y Christ and his apostles ; and they believe C ^ t rj s £ and his apostles , because the fact of
his being raised set the seal of divinity upon his mission and proved tK ^ veracity of his character . They regard * it also as a visible symbol , as a ^ rri at * vellous and a prophetic sign , of tkel / redemption of all from the power of death and the grtlve . In this selpsjBthey agree with St . Paul that all wn 2 t have fallen asleep have perishe'df fifc
Christ be not risen ; arid that &i * a and hope would in this case be mer& delusions . But it has never / becii asserted that taken alone , tr ^ e j re ^ v starrection of one demonstrated 'Si ( L reanimation of all . The censure therefore , implied in this statement i | r utterly without foundation . Secondly , Jt is' not true that Uni ^
tarians as such believe the l > bdy to W ( " the whole main at the last day /^ Taking this proposition in its literal sense , it is' too absurd to have m $ t » with any sensible advocate . TKa * these our mortal frames which , ifi , this life , are perpetually changing .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1817, page 269, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2464/page/13/
-