On this page

• Text (3)

  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

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    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

    cipJes . Let us kave all extm-christoaft devices to the moles and the bats , to ike tenbparal priest and to the furious zealot , with , whom ( i . e . the zealot ) the eud sanctifies the means , and

    whose profit and boast as the increase of his sect . Let not Unitarians , I obtest them , adapt any measure , how * ever speciously it may be advocated by a general muster of the argumenta

    ad hominem * # nd which ia dictated by a worldly and compromising policy * but which will eventually do more in ^ jury Co their cause , and that of truth * than any opposition , however violent , H < & won voiis erunt artes . % . ¦ . RURIS COLONUS ,

    Untitled Article

    seete ; of Christians * I am quite at a tosa now to reconcile your statement in your advertisement with truth . H .

    Untitled Article

    To the Rev * John Maker > onhis " Br # i / er + 8 wk" * 2 ®

    Untitled Article

    To the Rev . John Baker , on Ms " Prayer-Book . " Twnton , Sin , January & , 1825 *

    SEEING your advertisement on . the covers of the Monthly Jtepository and Christian Reformer for last month , of a pew work by you , entitled * The Family Prayer * Bopk , " &C-, in which you state that M it will be found

    perfectly consentaneous with the opinions of every religious sect > and calculated to promote the best interest 3 of man * kind , "—feeling desirous to possess and promote the sale of a cheap work on sucli a basis , I purchased a copy ;

    and when I tell you that my sentiments on religious subjects are in unison with the Monthly Repository and Christian Reformer , you will perhaps guess my surprise when 1 read the following lines from this work , at p . 162 :

    " O Love divine V what hast thou done ! Th' immortal God hath died for me 1 The Father ' s co-eternal Son Bore all my sins upon the tree : Th' immortal God for me hath died ! My Lord , my love , is crucified .

    c O see , and to the Cross draw nigh , The bleeding Prince of Life and Peace ! Come , see , ye worms , your Maker die , And say—was ever grief like his ? " &c . Your statement , that these Devour

    tionai Exercises * ' would be found perfectly consentaneous with the op l * nions of every religious sect , " led me to suppose that you were not unacquainted with the views of the various

    Untitled Article

    Sib , Dee . 6 , 1824 / IN your last Number , ( Vol . XIX * p . 649 , ) Mr . Cogan admits that the canon , which he has quoted from the Classical Journal , holds good m the following expression , — -0 Kvpt ** yfAWV KQU CCtfTVjp lrj < T 8 £ X ©* r ^« No ttf

    this expression is , I believe , peculiar to the Second Epistle of Peter . See i , 11 , HI 18 , and , with the exception of the word 4 fft « r , »• 20 . But ; if JVJjr . Cogan admits that the canon holds good in this expression , how will he explain the words o & $ q <; yuawkw < r ® rng

    lri < r $$ Xpi < rQ <;> which occur in the first verse of the first chapter ? Both ex * pressions are used by the same writer , within no great distance of eacjh other j and , if the canon holds good in the one case , why should it not hold equally good in the other ?

    Three ways , present themselves to my mind of getting rid of the difficulty . The first ia by denying that Peter was the author of the epistle , and attributing it to some later and more orthodox writer , who regarded the two expressions as conveying in

    effect the aame idea : the second is by supposing that the author , whether Peter or any other person , was not sufficiently skilled iu the Greek Ian- * guage to make the proper distinction : and the third is by considering" ( rwryp

    as sustaining the same relation jto 0 KvpLoq , ia the three passages first men ** tioned , as Kvpioq , without the article , does to Qeoq or a ® eoq , in the passages to which Mr . Cogan has principally confined his remarks . This last

    explanation , however , is scarcely ad misaible , because , among other things , the pronoun avrcp , in the last clause of chap , iii . ver . 18 , seems to require that Kvpioc ; and ctojttjp should be understood of one and the same person . Of the ftrst and second explanations ,

    I feel inclined to give the preference to the latter . It is no new thing to call in question the genuineness of Uiq epistle in which the above expressions occur y jand the argument furnished by the difference of style between this and the First Epistle of Peter , which ia uuiver&ally acknowledged to be genu-r

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1825, page 29, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2532/page/29/