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

    open more fully ar > d luminously upon you , than if previously or conjointly you had studied the most celebrated commentators . We do not mean to imply that commentators are useless . In difficulties their aid may be occasionally used with advantage . But in all cases the Bible must first be consulted— consulted long and carefully—and if needs be , afterwards , and not before , recourse may be had to the writings of men . In respect of the essential doctrines of the gospel , such need will not be of frequent

    recurrencefor as to the poor the gospel was preached , so may the poor understand by studying their Testaments all its essential and leading truths . In accordance with these remarks , we deprecate the practice to which we know that some biblical students are addicted , of sitting down to read through a commentary on the sacred records . A commentary is not to be read , but to be referred to . The Bible is the book of study ; the comment the work of reference : and much more rational would it be to attempt the learning of a language by perusing the dictionary , than to attempt to understand the scheme of divine revelation by studying Hammond or Rosenmiiller .

    The same Catholic Bishop has , in a work entitled Christianity , or the Evidences and Characters of the Christian Religion , attempted to shew the inconsistency of orthodox Protestants in rejecting Transubstantiation , while they retain the doctrines of the Trinity , Original Sin , and a Vicarious Sacrifice . To this the British Critic , in a review of the work , attempts a reply . Of its validity our readers shall judge . For ourselves we are fully convinced , that to the charge of inconsistency no valid answer can be

    framed ; and were we obliged to defend either the Trinity or Transubstantiation , we should prefer undertaking the advocacy of the latter . On the ground of reason they are both indeed equally untenable , but far greater is the show of scriptural argument in favour of the Catholic than of the Protestant absurdity . Let us , however , listen to the Protestant advocate . He rejects Transubstantiation because " it is but obscurely and uncertainly revealed in Scripture , and is certainly repugnant to some self-evident propositions and acknowledged principles of natural science . " He further contends , that the question does not involve a consideration of the qualities of spiritual bodies , of which we know nothing , but of natural bodies , the nature and component parts of which may be learnt by chemical analysis ; and on physical principles the doctrine of Transubstantiation can be clearly demonstrated false . First , then , as to the scriptural evidence . Where is it declared in express terms that there are three persons in the Deity , and that there were two natures in Christ ? Where , that the merits of Jesus were

    reckoned to our account ? All the evidence adduced in favour of these doctrines is , by the acknowledgment of their advocates , purely inferential . But for Transubstantiation the direct and positive declarations of Scripture can be cited : " Take , eat , this is my body ; " " Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood . " The body and blood of Christ are identified with the bread and wine of the Eucharist , and this not once , but repeatedly . Far superior , therefore , is the show of scriptural evidence on behalf of

    Transubstantiation than can be alleged in favour of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ , Let us then advert to the intrinsic absurdity of the doctrines of the Catholic and those of the Protestant ; which is the greater ? To measure absurdity is something like an attempt to measure miracles ; greater and less are terms that are not \ ery applicable to subjects of such a nature . But we maintain , however these doctrines may appear to their professors , that the Trinity and the two natures of Christ are on a par with any absurdity that was ever broached . Softened down we know these doctrines , and espe-

    Untitled Article

    392 The fVatchmun .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1829, page 392, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2573/page/24/