On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
ul rmt ? l&tafe 9 juvems > r *~ $ r \\ etk scito * ¦ L e . si laet&ri $ » ttttnscias , Eqcles . xi 9 . . uttsritf Vfci -jwi Ifaseimim * sed nepecceUez i . e . si iraseamini , tie peccetis . P »* isv ' , 5 .. x
The aiwpient Greek Vemian trans * lates David ' s expression literally , and St . Paul has quoted this translation The Syrfee translator has preserved the same construction , since indeed his language required it as much as
the Hebrew , being alike destitute . of a form analogous to the Greek participle of the Aorist ; and the Syrian translator ofJ ? aul * s Epistle has qtiot&d the- Syriae translator of the Psalm . Most of the other ancient versions
have preserved the Hebrew idiom in both places . The Chaldee , however , seems to have takenthefirst Word in a wrong sense , and has thus led the way in introducing the version of Ps . iv , 5 , in our Bible , " Stand in
awe and sia not : " I submit these remarks to the candid consideration of your correspond- ? cnt ,. and to the indulgence of your readers in general . ? A YORK STUDENT .
Untitled Article
Mr . JFrend on a recent Notice of him in the British Critic . Sir , TpERMITflie to solicit a place in JL your Repository for some remarks on the notice which the BrU tish Critic has been pleased to take of me in a late number of his work .
It may not be deemed an improper intrusion on your valuable pages , as through me an attack is made on all Christians whx ) reject the doctrine of the Trinity . The passage , after some complimentary phrases to myself , for which I beg the writer to accept of my best acknowledgments , rtins as follows :
< c The same individual ( meaning myself ) -who , denies the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ , denies also the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation . If we ask on what grounds , we shall find that both
doctrines are denied on precisely the same grounds . The one doctrine , though confessedly asserted in the literal sense of scripture , is yet rejected because it is incomprehensible to the human faculties . To the other doctrine this author does not object , because Newton has not sufficiently demonstrated it : he does not find or pretehd to find any fault or erroneous
Untitled Article
1 . \ Mr . Frend on a recent Notice of htm in the British Critic . 6 OSt
Untitled Article
$ J ; e |* in the processes of Newton ' s demonstrations . ITbtis is not his ground . But he rejects wtiafc . is deniOBstrated tot be the fact ^ because it is beyond the limits of the human faculties to conceive how a particle of dust on the surface of the earth can
gravitate towards a partible of dust on the surface of the moon . - - Tius is Xruly ^ oasiste at . We do not wish for a better iHustration of Unitarian principles , 'fhe dqctrine of
Monotheism and the rejection of revealed truth j a ^ ay be worthier professed by those who reject the doctriue of Gravitation , and deny that two and two ip&k ^ fQufv' * ;
The drift of this passage is , that the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation arises from the same aberration in the facilities of the human mind , by which it ist rendered incapable of discovering truths supposed hy the Critic to fee equally well-Ikmnded and demonstrable in each .
But surely it has escaped the recollection of the Critic that I am not sinr gular in the rejection of Newtoji * $ aoetiine of Gravitation . Many clergymen , whose attachment to tlie ttih > ty-nine articles was never called iipL question , have , equally with mysel £ >
opposed this hypothesis of pur philosopher , ami I shall content myself with mentioning one whose wort on the Trinity was , when I was a student at Cambridge , put into all our hands , and I believe remains at present a standard book for candidates for oiv
ders . The clergyman ' s name is Jones , a late very worthy divine , and an intimate friend of Bishop Home , who , I have reason to believe , entertained the same opinion with himself on the Newtonian philosophy . His works have been , I believe , collected , and occupy several volumes , and the small tract to which I allude is entitled , I
think , The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity , in which he attempts to demonstrate its truth by a collection of a great number of texts of scripture . It is many years since I saw the work , but aa far as 1 can
recollect ,-it seemed to me ( born and bred in the sect established by law ) in my youthful days to carry perfect conviction with it . I need not say that a fuller investigation of its content * led me afterwards to a very different opinion of the merits of this work .
Untitled Article
vox ., xix . 4 i
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1824, page 609, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2529/page/33/
-