On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
of the story , or a conviction that it was not true / ' Every sentence of this paragrap h , is confident assumption , without the shadow of proof . Many eminent divines , Dr . Lardner amongst others , have been finmVof opinion ,
that the relation of the birth of Christ by Matthew and Luke was not written with any intention to prove his divinity ; and your readers will , I doubt not , agree with me in affirming , that it was by no means < r imperative" on Mark and John to record all the
circumstances of the birth of Christ , related by the two other evangelists . Nothing appears to me more absurd in itself , and more dangerous in its consequences , in our inquiries after truth , than the
following mode of reasoning , if reasoning it can be termed : —A fact is stated by one or two of the evangelists , of vvhose general credibility or inspiration I have no doubt ; but / deem the fact stated to be inconsistent with the
system which I have adopted , or of little importance ; the other evangelists have not recorded it , " therefore they were ignorant of it , or , not believing it , set it aside as a falsehood" 1 To what a dangerous length such
fancies may lead us , your readers had lately a remarkable instance in one of your correspondents , ( XV . 527 , ) who rejected one of the most important and consolatory facts recorded in the New Testament , that of the
resurrection of Lazarus , merely because he did not like the story , and it was related by John only . It is a question demanding our most serious attention—To what shall we reduce the Gospels if we are to proportion our faith to the different
degrees of evidence arising from the repetition or not repetition of the same facts ? One fact , as is often the case , is related by one evangelist only ; another by two ; another by three ; another by all four . We are then to proportion
our belief , and to be influenced by such belief according to the various degrees of evidence . Sincere Christians , who dsein the gospel to be something more than a system of speculation , may
indeed be thankful that they are not thus left to a system which , so far from being stamped with the glorious characteristic of Christianity—plainness , would involve them in the thick
mists of difficulty and doubt , rendering it utterly unfit for the reception of the
Untitled Article
great majority of the human race . On the ccrotrary * if we are convinced , of the credibility of any one of the four evangelists , we may safely give full credit to the facts he relates , although they may not be related by either of the remaining three 1 and the man who
examines with that disposition indispensably necessary in all inquiries respecting revealed truth ; with that sincerity and humility which can alone inspire proper confidence , will with much greater readiness part with even a favourite hypothesis than with inspired authority .
But , Sir , we have a still more extraordinary instance of the abuse of criticism in the unpardonable liberty which the learned Doctor has taken with the Apostle Peter . He adds , " / have said that the object of the supernatural birth of Christ was to prove his divine nature" [ the reader will bear in mind that " A have said" is no
proof ); accordingly the first teachers of this cunningly-devised fable , as Peter calls it , consistently enough supposed that Jesus had a supernatural power when he was a child , and represented him as actually having wrought many miracles in his infancy . "
Dismissing the greater part of this paragraph , not as a cunningly-devised fable of Matthew and Luke , but a clumsily-devised fable of the Doctor ' s , I hope the reader will pardon me for calling to mind the remark of that humourous critic , Sir John Falstaff , in a debate with Prince Hal : — " Your
if is a great peace-maker . " I , on the contrary , must observe , that the twolettered monosyllable of the Doctor ' s , his it , is a great war-maker , and that in the present instance it wars against Peter , against criticism and against
common sense . If any one of your readers entertains a doubt on thi 3 subject , he has ( Inly to turn to the passage alluded to ( 2 Pet . i . ) . In the greater part of the chapter , the apostle , in the most energetic and affectionate manner , enforces on the primitive Christians the importance of
practical Christianity , considering the various virtues of its professors as the only evidence of their sincerity . He closes his exhortations by the sojemn declaration , For we have not followed cunningly-devised fables when we made known unpo you the power and coming of our Lvrd Jesus Christ , but
Untitled Article
Mr . ff . Flower on £ > r . J . Jones e s Hypothesis . # 09
Untitled Article
VOL . XVI . 2 E
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1821, page 209, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2499/page/17/
-