Page images
PDF
EPUB

Speaking of the doctrine of the person of Christ, he says, "Surely it must be owned to have been left in some obscurity in the Scriptures themselves, which might mislead readers, full of heathen prejudices (otherwise so many men, wise and good, would not have differed, and still continue to differ, concerning it,) and so left, it should seem, on purpose to whet human industry and the spirit of inquiry into the things of God, to give scope for the exercise of men's charity and mutual forbearance of one another, and to be one great means of cultivating the moral dispositions; which is plainly the design of the holy Spirit of God in the Christian revelation, and not any high perfection in knowledge, which so few can attain." (9.)

I may just ask, on this extraordinary passage, if the Holy Scriptures be so obscure on this subject as he supposes, how did he come to be so decided upon it? It is evident he must have obtained his "high perfection of knowledge" about it from some other source than the Holy Spirit speaking by revelation: and if he has, we have no further controversy with him; as, in what respects religion, we seek not "to be wise above what is written." And again, think what a heavy reflection this principle casts on the moral character of God; imputing to him that he not only leaves the most important doctrines in obscurity, but purposely so. God, it seems, designed that men should stumble on in ignorance, error, and disagreement; till, wearied with conjecture, and finding themselves all involved in one common calamity, they might at last shake hands, and become friends! Such is the sum and substance of what he states. Another writer of this class says,

"The nature and design of the Scripture," "is not to settle disputed theories, nor to decide upon speculative

D

controverted questions, even in religion and morality. The Scriptures, if we understand any thing of them, are intended not so much to make us wiser, as to make us better; not to solve the doubts, but rather to make us obey the dictates of our consciences." (10.)

If this be true, the Scriptures were never designed to be a rule of faith or practice, but to act merely as a stimulative; and if so, to what purpose are all appeals to the Scriptures on controverted subjects, and why do Unitarians appeal to them? And why all their outcry against interpolations, mistranslations, and misrepresentations, if the Scriptures, be they ever so pure, were never designed to decide our controversies? Hitherto we have been accustomed to think that conscience had but one master, and that that master was Christ: according to this view, conscience is its own master, and Jesus Christ does not pretend to dictate to it, but merely to assist in the execution of its decisions!

But if English Unitarians have gone far in these matters, they have not as yet exceeded, or even equalled those of the same denomination in other countries. George Engedin, speaking of the writings of St. John, says,

"If a concise, abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories, is to be called sublimity of speech, I own John to be sublime: for there is scarce one discourse of Christ, which is not altogether allegorical, and very hard to be understood." (11.)

Gagnieus, another writer of the same spirit, says,

"I shall not a little glory if I shall be found to give some light to Paul's darkness; a darkness as some think, industriously affected." (12.)

Steinbart, and other foreign Unitarians of later times, write in a similar strain.

"These narrations, (speaking of the Old Testament

narratives) true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion.”

"Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to one people, and hating all other nations." (13.)

I ask, is it any wonder, after such views of Scripture, that Dr. Priestley, should have affirmed "Christ to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other of the Prophets." (14.) It is thus that false religion invariably shows itself, in turning away from Scripture as the ground of final appeal and the source of highest authority. It is thus the Papist turns us away from the Bible, and sets up tradition as a part of the rule of faith. And thus the Irvingite turns us away, and teaches us to expect a present inspiration. Thus also other heretics, who have risen amongst ourselves in these latter days, turn us away, and direct our erring steps to what they call "Catholic antiquity," as the Bible's only safe interpreter. While the Unitarian in his turn leads us away from the safe and sure footing of the word of God, by telling us that reason and common sense must be taken as the bases and directors of our judgment in the understanding of it. I never yet met one solitary Unitarian, in this or any other country, who did not, before the conversation had lasted five minutes, virtually deny the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

But let me refer, before leaving this point, to another proof. It may not be known to many present, that the Unitarians, at the end of the last century, being dissatisfied with the authorised version of the New Testament, applied themselves to the task of constructing one

for themselves. I hold in my hand what is called their "Improved Version, with a corrected text and notes explanatory, published by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, 5th Edition, London, 1819." In the introduction, page 5, we are told, that "by divesting the Sacred Volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology which has no foundation in the Scriptures themselves, they will render the New Testament more generally intelligible, or at least preclude many sources of error." That is, in other words, we are told, that the great object has been, so to render the New Testament, as to empty it of all such expressions as might give support to any of the received and peculiar doctrines of Christianity. Further on, it is stated, that "In this Version verbal criticism has not been attended to in the degree that some might wish and expect." Thus we are fairly informed, that certain liberties are to be taken in the translation, to which the minuteness of verbal criticism might possibly present some impediment. That is, in a work, whose very object is to ascertain the exact meaning of words, the exact meaning of words is not to be attended to, lest it might embarrass the freedom of translation, and force upon the translator a sense different from that which he chooses to assign. (15.) We are further told, page 22, that "no superstitious regard is due to the mere language of the Received Text, which, like the works of other ancient authors, is open to rational and liberal criticism."

After this preparation, let us see how these "rational and liberal critics" have performed their task. We find, that with the exception of the first sixteen verses of the first chapter of St. Matthew, they have rejected as spurious the first and second chapters of that book, which contains the history of the Incarnation and the account of the

miraculous birth of our Lord. They have likewise thrown off, for the same reason, as of no authority, the entire of the first two chapters of St. Luke. In a note on Matt. i. 16, we have the distinct admission, that these rejected portions are "to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant." And in a note at the commencement of St. Luke, we have a similar acknowledgment.

Then the question comes, why reject these parts? Because the two first chapters of St. Matthew are not found in the canon of the Ebionites in the first century, and the two first of St. Luke were not admitted by the heretic Marcion, who lived in the second century! Therefore, it follows, that since the sect of the Ebionites, and the heretic Marcion, are against all the manuscripts and all the versions, it is impossible they can be received as true! But let us inquire a little about these authorities. Ebion rejected from his canon the three Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, and all the epistles of St. Paul. Marcion rejected the whole of the Old Testament, and every part of the New which contained any quotations from the Old. In short, he contented himself with the simple Gospel of St Luke, expunging from this also whatever he did not approve. On the authority of these two heretics, the Unitarians have rejected the two first chapters of Matthew, excepting the first sixteen verses, and the two first chapters of Luke, against the evidence above quoted. But why, professing to respect the authority of the Ebionites, retain the first sixteen verses of Matthew, which they reject? Because those verses are supposed to countenance the doctrine that Christ was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. Therefore these verses, containing the genealogy, are retained in rejection of the testimony of their own witnesses! That is, as respecting the first sixteen verses, the Editors discard the evidence

« PreviousContinue »