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
style themselves Trinitarians , Arians , or Unitarians , they reject , with hardly a single disagreeing voice , the forgery in 1 John v . 7 .
Has Dr . Bruce no controversy except with Unitarian Christians ? The volume of Sermons , on a part of which I am animadverting , forbids this inference . Now is not Biblical
Criticism , in the correctness of its researches and determinations , one of his instruments of vindication or attack with reference to Trinitarians ?* But he seems to exult in the persuasion , that of the passages on which the Arian relies for his characteristic
tenet , none are expunged by means of this criticism , or differently read . Granting , for a moment , the soundness ^ of his conviction , I cannot therefore acquiesce in the propriety of his using such triumphant language . Arianism , under any modification , was no early or permanent article of faith in the Christian church :
and the state , nature and result of ancient theological controversies may , in some measure , be known through the history of the text of the New Testament . Passages , moreover ,
conceded to be genuine , will yet fall within the scope of interpretation . _ If then the Scriptures are left to expound themselves , the Unitarian Christian lias not more to dread from the
weapons of his Arian than from those of his" Trinitarian antagonist . That verbal and philological criticism on the Sacred Volume , which encounters Dr . Bruce ' s sneers , has exercised , and , by exercising , has invigorated , mighty minds . In controversies which this gentleman would describe as ' * abecedarian" and
interminable , such men a « Newton and Bentley and Porson have engaged ; liow honourably and successfully , no theological scholar can be ignorant . It is a mistake to conceive that the investigations of philology , whether they be directed towards classical writings or towards the Scriptures , can be pursued effectually by individuals of
narrow understandings , or that they have a tendency to contract and weaken the mental powers . To the great names which I "have mentioned , let
* Sermons , ut sup . pp . 302 , 303 . t Ephes , iii . 9 ( see Griesbach in ] oc . ) disproves the assertion of Dr . Bruce .
Untitled Article
those of Hemsterhuis and Ruhhken of Dr . Samuel Clarke and Bishop Marsh , be added , in refutation of this error . In the critic no ordinary good sense and penetration must be united with accurate and extensive knQw .
ledge : by these qualities essential aid has been afforded to the progress of scriptural learning and religious truth . There have been discussions which Swift and Pope attempted to ridicule
as < c abecedarian : " satire was levelled Ijy those authors even against persons whose memory every man of letters will revere ; and the most sagacious philologist of any country or age was pointed at as a
" word-catcher , who lives on syllables . " Can Dr . Bruce imagine that Bentley and criticism were degraded by such attacks ? Will he not confess that the dishonour belonged exclusively to Pope and his associates ? The best critical editor of the New
Testament , is Griesbach , Nor were his labours chiefly mechanical , or his merits little more than the merits of an indefatigable and plodding student . They who render themselves masters of his Commentarius Criticus , will
own the superiority of his intellectual character , will be sensible that the criticism of the Bible is no trivial and subordinate occupation . This department of theology , while it is far less precarious than interpretation , demands , however , equal , if not greater , discernment , and , in general , a more concentrated and fixed attention .
I take for granted that Dr . Brute employs the interpretation of Scripture , when he reasons against Trinitarian Christians , on the one side , arid Unitarian Christians , on the other . On controverted points of doctrine
and of duty , it is a copious and legitinpate source of argument . Yet how easily may a man of respectahle talent , who , nevertheless , little relishes the toil of scriptural inquiry , jeer at studies of this nature ! '" What / ' he
niny exclaim , " shall the questions , who is the object of a Christian ' s worship , and what are the tenets of the gospel—shall the faith and practice of Christendom , be suspended on the nicely-varying shades of Words and phrases ? Our scheme is consisten t and < rational , and requires no suca
Untitled Article
386 Accuracy in the Study of the Scriptures .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1825, page 386, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2538/page/2/
-