On this page

• Text (1)

  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

• 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

    QfiBen J > av ^ l on 1 John v . 7- Very ] arned * but I am unfortunate in not al ways distinctly perceiving the conatenatwn- between his premises and conclusions . The facts adduced by Ben David illustrate , and are

    consistent ivith his hypothesis , if it be true , but they do not independently and convincing ly prove it . Undoubtedly , many a fervent Unitarian will go along with Ben David to the full length of his sanguine speculations , but it is Trinitarians principally that we wish

    to convince—and is this the kind of writing most calculated to produce conviction on their minds , or rather will they not turn away from it very often with incredulity and contempt ? One point , however , must be allowed

    by every candid reader , viz . that the declaration of the ninety-seven bishops at Antioch , A . D . 341 , quoted p . 150 , is a pretty convincing proof that the disputed text was either known to them , or that phraseology founded on it had been handed down from their

    predecessors . O si sic omnial Why will Ben David insist , as an essential part of his argument , that the Apostle wrote the verse against impostors , for denying the simple humanity and divine mission of Christ ? Had he

    disencumbered himself of this unessential clog , his task would have been plainer and easier . It is so clear , on the slightest inspection of the passage , that the unity between Father , Word and Spirit , is only one of testimony , and not of metaphysical essence , that there is nothing in it at

    all formidable to Unitarians , except that mere jingling of words , which persuades and mystifies the popular

    ear Ben David ' s theory of the motive for changing or suppressing the text appears to me altogether bald , gratuitous , intricate and improbable .

    In making the foregoing remarks , 1 am b y no naeans disposed to assert that this learned writer has not mainline d the very truth itself in these speculations . His vast familiarity with the ancient theologians may cause him to advance assertions which

    h ^ n \ t the ordinary reader , hut which ^ " Ppeur to himsel f almost unworthy ^; l abour of proof . yr . Ca rpenter on ( he word " Evan-* *( ical . » This letter wiU fiI | ( l ) ut

    Untitled Article

    loag ^ hence may it do ml ) a beautiful page in the biography of its writer . Mr . Holland in Answer to Mr Jones . It is a little remarkable that

    Mr . Jones should have advanced a proposal which I believe has never been , acted upon or suggested in Calvinistic congregations ; at least I can speak to that effect of many in my own country .

    English and American Unitarians . What measures shall be taken for the increased mutual intercourse here recommended ? Might not one be , for the ministers of the two countries sometimes to interchange parochial services perhaps for a year together ?

    Some of the advantages attending such a plan would be , that the ministers could thus sojourn in countries foreign to their own , at no other expense than the passage-money , indulge their laudable interest and curiosity ,

    confirm their health and promote longevity by a change of air , scene and avocations , relieve themselves for a period of the exhausting burden of composition , and extend and rivet the chain of Christian affection and sympathy between distant bodies of

    Unitarians . Review . Art . I . Lamport ' s Sacred Poetry . Dr . Johnson ' s argument against devotional poetry has always struck me as resting upon

    factitious and exaggerated grounds , and written as if to gain a prize offered for the best maintenance of a paradox , or after the author had been

    compelled to choose sides in a literary dispute . The whole complexion of his remarks on the subject is no more than ingenious , never convincing . Nominibus mutatis y his strange reasonings could be applied as well to many

    other subjects as to religion . Why , for instance , might it not be said against patriotism , as a subject of poetical composition , that * ' the topics of patriotism are few , " that " they can be made no more , ' that < c it cannot be

    poetical , " that it " enforces perpetual repetition , " that * ' suppression and addition materially corrupt it , " that " such as it is , it is known already , " that " it is to be felt rather than expressed , " and a number of other irrelevant and wide-sounding phrases ? May I take the liberty of dissenting

    Untitled Article

    CfHiealvS ^ mpdi -pfthe Monthly Repository for Mutch , 1826 . T $ 7

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1826, page 747, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2555/page/47/