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
London , Sm , April 7 , 1826 L MIL NOAH JONES'S letter ( p . 72 ) appears to have answered the purpose for which he designed it , as far at least as inducing * a discussion on the treatment proper to be adopted by Christian societies towards such Deists as attend their places of
worship . Some of your correspondents have been very liberal of hard words towards that gentleman , and have endeavoured to raise a hue and cry against him as a persecutor . There is a great deal of this sort of
language in the letter of Theophilus , (|> p . 160 ^—164 , ) and in truth there is i » q £ much else ; not much , at least , which has any thing to do with the subject under discussion . The question is this , Are we to welcome Deists into * our churches , to speak of them as belonging- to us , and to allow them to interfere in the management of our concerns ? Is this the duty of a Christian society ?
As to excluding them from our places of worship , Theophilus and Mr . Jones equally know that this is impossible , nor was the latter so absurd a 3 to propose it . It is to be hoped , that such as do attend may be the better for what they hear , but it is quite
anotaer thing to associate such persons with you in the management of a Christian Church . Many Deists , we are told , are highly respectable persons . Who doubts it—who denies it ? But can they i > e regarded as fit associates of a Christian Church ?
Not unless Deism and Christianity are convertible terms . It seenis necessary in this controversy that the parties to it should come to some understanding about the sense in which the word " Deist "
is to be used , for Theophilus tells us that the Jews % xe Beis ^ s . Now I use the word as it is used in common parlance , as descriptive of those who deny and disbelieve revelation , altogether , Jewish and Christian , who look
upon the whole as a cheat , who either believe Jesus Christ never lived ,, or , if he did exi ^ t , that he was < an impostQFThat is what I na ^ au ^ by a Deis * , and Deists themselves int * &t allow the ( ^ fir > ition to be correct . There is no u tedium . Either J-escts- was the Mfessiub or lie was a cheat . The Jewish records either relate truths or lies .
Untitled Article
The prophecies were eitlier * efri anr fabrications . No man can believe a little of the one side and a little of the other ; he must be either a believer or aa unbeliever . What is called Anti-r supernatural ism is the most absurd of systems . To deny
that the miracles of our Saviour were indeed miracles , is to brand him as an impostor , and a person who can affect to believe in his Messiahship , ia any sense , after this , rau ^ t have a de ~ gree of credulity to which the records of Popish superstition afford no parallel .
Caa we go to the Scriptures for a proper definition of a Christian Church ? Fortunately we can . It is described as being " built upon the foundation of the apostles cmd prophets , Jesus Christ himself being' the
ehief corner-stone ; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord . " Now in such a community , what place can Hobbes , Collins , Voltaire and Hume have ? Can a building
which is composed of those who believe in the divine mission of our Sa ^ viour and those who deny it , be tffitly framed together * ' ? And what can Theophilus intend by seeming to appeal to Lardner and Priestley as advocating such a fellowship as thi 3 ? Where have they pointed out such
persons as the fit associates of a Christian Church ? But what says P&ul on the subject ? " Be ye no unequally yoked together with Unbelievers" " What part hath he that believeth with an Infidel ? " Certainly none as a member of a Christian
Church , that is , taking- Paul ' s description of a Christian Church to be correct . Loud complaints are made of the rudeness ana illiberality of ex * eluding * Unbelievers from our
societies . But is not he rather guilty of rudeness , nay has he even common courtesy and good manners , who thrusts himself into a society whose * principles are the very opposite to his own ?¦ His conduct is this :
after having deliberately rejected Christianity , after having renounced all subjection to and expectation from Jesus , believing him to be an impostor and his followers to be dupes , he joins himself to a Christian society , takes part in their meetings , throws out his sneers and scoffs against reli-
Untitled Article
Unbelievers in Christian Churches . 195
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1826, page 195, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2547/page/7/
-