On this page
throughout . I refer to x&P ' S * grace , favour . According to Mr . Rennel , C * Ani ~ madv ., p , 48 , ) ' to the word grace , when used in theological writing , the general consent of our nation has attached the
idea of the favourable influence of God on the human mind , or the effect of that influence . * if this had been the extent of the common theological import of the word , I suspect that Newcome would not have left the usual mode of expression . Still it does not appear that favour
does , or ever can , express the frequent force of yjxyis , and I decidedly prefer reverting to the word grace , leaving it to the theologian to ascertain its import . In the religious application of the term , 1 understand % cxpiq to denote the favour
and mercy offered to us in the Gospel , the gracious benignity and favour from which it proceeds , und the various blessings we derive from it : and grace , in my judgment , much better expresses all this than favour /'—P . 294 , Note .
With his customary frankness , Dr . Carpenter expresses his dissent from most of the notes of the Improved Version on the Introduction of St . Luke ' s Gospel , and from some of those on the Introduction to St . Matthew ' s .
He thus explains his views of the famous chronological difficulty : u I quite agree with Mr . Belsham in rejecting the hypothesis , that St . Luke reckoned from the time when Tiberius assumed the proconsular government . in conjunction with Augustus . I have
repeatedly considered the arguments of Lardner , with a perfect wilJing ? iess to receive his opinion ; but I can see nothing amounting to proof , that St . Luke employed a date , which , to say the least , was extremely unusual at that period , and of which no clear instance is adduced .
The hypothesis is necessary to reconcile the date assigned by St . Luke to the commencement of John ' s Ministry , with the statements of the Introductory History prefixed to St . Matthew ' s Gospel ; but not with those of St . Luke ' s own
Introduction . If this be taken independently of the former , ( and to me it appeals that they cannot be reconciled in some other respects , ) the chronological difficulty vanishes at once . And when any one gives up the genuineness of the Introduction to St . Matthew , he lias no ground to employ it to invalidate the Introduction of St . Luke .
" Taking St . Luke ' s Gospel alone , ( considering it , for instance , as the < most excellent Theophilus * naturally would , an independent history , ) the case stands thus ; The Baptist began his Mi-
nistry in the 15 th year of Tiberius , which commenced Aug . 19 , A . U . 781 . If we place the Baptism of our Lord in the following January or February , A . U .
782 , ( which is the earliest date we can assume , ) and suppose that he was not yet thirty one years of age , ( as St . Luke ' s words , ch . iii . 23 , appear clearly to imply , ) we must place his birth in A . U . 751 .
cc Now there is nothing in St . Luke ' s Introduction inconsistent with this . AU that the statement in ch . i . 5 , requires us to admit , is , that the heavenly message to Zacharias occurred in Herod ' s reign . If Herod , as is most probable , died in March , A . U . 750 , St . Luke ' s Introduction renders it necessary to place our Lord's birth before the middle of A .
TJ . 751 . —Independentl y of the Introduction to St . Matthew , there is no chronological difficulty whatever in St . Luke ' s Introduction ^—Pp . 299 , 300 , Note . One Chapter of the Examination ( Chap . IX . ) is " On the Beneficial Tendency of Unitarianism , " which ( as oar author fully shews ) encourages and rewards the sound exercise of the
understanding in matters of religion , presents One Object of Religious Worship , One Object of the highest affections of the heart , throws no impediment in the way of the great practical principles of the Gospel or of Christian liberality and affection , and
shines forth resplendently in respect to the Character and Dispensations of the Great Father of all . Dr . Carpenter would , we think , confer a great benefit upon the Unitarian cause if he would
suffer this chapter to be printed in the form of a pamphlet for the use of our Tract Societies . It speaks at once to the understanding and the feelings , and is a beautiful example of the piety which it vindicates and enforces .
An Appendix to the volume contains a specification of the unnoticed departures of the Improved Version from the text of Newcome ' s revision , remarks on Bishop Magee ' s strictures on certain Unitarian interpretations of Scripture , observations on the use made by Bishop Magee of the
Unitarian reviewer ' s statements respecting the variation of the Improved Version from Griesbach ' s text , and on the system adopted with regard to the Greek text by recent critics , an original Letter from Dr . Priestley to Dr . Estlin , and a notice of the late Mr . Bretland . We close the volume , of which we
360 lleview . ' E —Dr . Carpenters #€ tminatw ? i of Bishop Magee *
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1821, page 360, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2501/page/36/