« VorigeDoorgaan »
Totoo run noi que cxh.sti Osos, is translated, the word which was God in the Father, descending from the right hand of the Father, is yet God in the fashion of man. P. 254. Demus operam, is rendered, Let us then allijt ourselves. P. 286. Incarnatus eft cum Deus esset, et homo manfit quòd Deus crai, when he was God be became incarnate ; because he is God, the manhood has obtained eternity. P. 294. Filii excelfi omnes, quoted by Origen from PC. Ixxxii. Mr. B. translates, Ye are all exalted fons. P. 345. Clauduntur terræ, the earth is hout out. P. 349. n. from whom they hoped for eternal salvation, has nothing to answer it in the original. What dependance can be placed upon such a translator?
Mr. B. throughout his work confounds Unitarianism with Socinianism; so that if a writer speaks of the pre-existence of the Son, or confiders the Son and Spirit as objects of worship, even though in the very passages quoted he affert their inferiority to the Father, and represent them as deriving their powers and their being from God, he is boldly declared not to be an Unitarian, and Mr. Lindsey is insultingly asked, whether he can adopt such language.
Among other arts of controversy Mr. B. has not forgotten to load the person and the cause that he opposes with opprobrious epithets, and to throw out groundless insinuations against them. We scarcely remember a writer who has indulged himself in the use of such acrimorious language, or betrayed such an unchristian spirit. Speaking of Unitarians, he says, P. 23, “ This their reason working upon premises of its own making is pronounced competent to the knowledge of a God, with whose nature a Trinity is altogether inconsistent; the deifm of their own imagination is acquicsced in, and revelation rejected by whole. sale--the utter extirpation of Christianity is visibly the consequence, and I must go so much farther as to say that it is visi. bly she object. But let it be observed that their very rejection of the Bible is a proof of my point. They reject it only because it teaches the trinal unity of God.” P. 109. He speaks of “the stratagems of a modern apoitate," meaning the author of Remarks on his former work. Unitarians in general are, p. 144, priests of infidelity; and p. 372, modern God-denying apostates. P. 295, he says, “my Remarker, with the renunejation of Christ, renouncing every degree of Christian moderation, has, in terms of the most virulent obloquy, reproached me.”- And p. 236, 237, he thus labours to deprive all who agree in sentiment with Mr. Lindsey of the title of Chriftians, and even of Unitarians,
" I have throughout, because I think more words but a tri. fling ground of difference, admitted Mr. Lindsey and his feet to call themselves Unitarians. But as it frems to throw a charge
of polytheism upon all who differ from them, I now deny their exclusive right to this denomination : we also are Unitarians.
" But this is not all; for I do not mean to rest contented with a joint possession of this title, I demand the entire resig- nation of it to us exclusively. Nothing less than the absolute renunciation will satisfy me. Shall they who concur with a Jew, “ who crucified the Lord of Glory,” and with the Muse fulman, to whom the name of our Redeemer is an abomination, make pretensions to the title of Christians ? shall they pretend that they worship the Father, and are therefore Unitarians ? Our Lord himself thall put them down, who says, “ He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.” John xv. 23." . Surely Mr Burgh, of all men, has no right to complain of
virulent obloquy. The abuse that he has thrown upon Mr. Lind- sey, Mr. Temple, and Unitarians in general, and the disingenuous manner in which he has conducted his Inquiry, betray a mind filled with prejudice and partiality, are a discredit to himself and to his cause, and can be pleasing to none but the more bigotted and violent of those who hold the same opinions with himself. Yet the university of Oxford has thought proper to compliment him with an honorary degree. Of so great account, in the estimation of that celebrated body, is a blind and furious zeal for established tenets, as to compensate for the want, not only of clear ideas, and just reasoning, but also of ingenuity, candour, and charity. How prudent the advice of Bishop Hare to a young clergyman *:“ Whatever therefore you do, be orthodox : orthodoxy will cover a multitude of fins, but a cloud of virtues cannot cover the want of the minutest particle of orthodoxy.”
• Dificulties and Discouragements, &c. Eighth Edit. p. 20.
ART. XI. Letters to ibe Rev. Thomas Randolph, D.D. President of
C.C.C. and Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in the Univers sity of Oxford. Containing a Defence of Remarks on the Lay. man's Scriptural Confutation. By A. Temple, M. A. With an Appendix, in which the Tendency and Merits of Dr. Burgh's Publications are more particularly considered. 8vo. 3 s. 6 d. sewed. Cadell, &c. THIS is a sensible and judicious reply to Dr. Randolph's
1 animadversions upon Mr. Temple's Remarks, in which the Doctor is fairly convicted of misrepresentation, and juftly reproved for the want of that candour and charity which equally become the Gentleman and the Christian.
In such an hacknied controversy as that of the Trinity, it cannot be expected that much new matter should be advanced Rev. Nov. 1779
on either side: old arguments will be continually revived, an] old answers must be repeated. Mr. Temple has, accordingly, many extracts from former writers on the subject, by whom the arguments alleged by Dr. Randolph have been particularly considered and refuted ; and he refers, on several occasions, to An Inquiry into the Opinions of the learned Christians, both ancient and modern, concerning the Generation of Jesus Christ, by the Editor of Ben Mordecai's Letters; a writer whom our modern ad. vocates for the doctrine of the Trinity appear loth to attack. That they have permitted his publications to remain so long unanfwered, is a proof that they feel the superiority of his abilities, and the strength of his argument. Our sentiments on the subject of the Trinity are well known: and we scruple not to affirm, that the more we read and relect upon it, the more firmly we are convinced of the falsehood and absurdity of the Athanafian doctrine. Mr. Temple has, in our opinion, unde. niably proved that “the Supreme God, he who was before all things, beings, or persons; and was himself the cause of every thing, being, or person, of which no one could exift, but as it pleafed him to give him existence, must be underived and felfexiftent; and consequently that Jesus Christ, whose attributes and essence, according to Dr. Randolph himself, are derived to him from the Father, cannot be the Supreme God.” In his fourth Letter he has shewn, in a masterly manner, that upon the Athanafian scheme it is not possible to vindicate our Saviour from the charge of prevarication, when he declared, Mark xiii. 32, Of that day and hour knoweth no man (according to our translation; but in the original it is udsos, none, no pero fon) no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ; the Father only, Matth. xxiv. 36 : and has pointed out, in par. ticular, the weakness and insufficiency of Dr. Randolph's evafions on this subject. The reader will find many critical remarks and ingenious reflections on pafTages of scripture, the
fense in which the term Oos is applied to Chrift, John i. J, - and in which it is said that all things were created by him, and for him (according to that which is termed the Arian bypothesis), the worship due to Christ, and other important topics, fcattered throughout the work; which we think cannot but give satisfaction, as far as relates to the inferiority of the Son to the Father, to every one who dares to think in oppofition to the creed of his nurse *, and the decisions of authority.
The Appendix contains some just and pointed observations on three passages extracted from Dr. Burgh's Scriptural Confutation, and on the conduct of the Univerlity of Oxford in con
• See Dr. Burgh's Scriptural Confutation, p.193.
ferring an honorary degree upon such a Writer. The passages are the following:
First; “Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God : from whatever ultimate maxims Reason may proceed with relation to scripture truth, she is debarred of any appeal to God himself, or to any imagination she may conceive herself able to entertain of him." Page 28.
. Secondly; “ God (Dr. B. means the one living and true God) took manhood on him, in order to give a sensible object of worship to mankind. And to this object of sense worship may he preferred without the imputation of idolatry.” Page 150.
• Thirdly; 56 All that it (holy scripture) contains, was as perspicuous to those who first perused it after the rejection of the Papal yoke, as it can be to us now, or as it can be to our pofterity in the fiftieth generation.”' Page 220.
If it was thought necessary, says Mr. Temple, to compli. ment Dr. B. for any part of his performances, it can never be fufficiently lamented, that a mark of reprobation was not set on the above-cited paffages, and much is it to be wished, on account of the respectable authority which, one would hope, has unwarily recommended them, that the most explicit detestation of the doctrines they contain may no longer be delayed. They are not night and trivial mistakes, but capital fallities, which though charity may pardon on account of the peculiar prejudices of the writer, yet it is every man's duty to expose ; be. cause they are fubversive of every thing rational and valuable in religion; and he who maintains them, is endeavouring, however undefignedly, to blow up the very rock on which true Protestantism, and true Christianity, is founded.' • Mr. Temple has added some general remarks on Dr. Burgh's. last publication, of which we have given an account in the preceding Article; and has produced a number of passages from the writers of the first three centuries, which are altogether ir. reconcilable with the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity. It is observable, that some of these passages are the same that Dr. Burgh, in bis hasty zeal, had produced to prove that they were not Unitarians.
Art. XIT. A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Labours in the Work
of the Ministry of John Griffith. 8vo. 45. Phillips. 1779. THIS honeft man was an itinerant preacher among the
Quakers. He appears to be a staunch friend to his sect, and thoroughly to have imbibed the spirit of George Fox. He will not bate an ace to the steeple- house; and would consider it as a species of Anti-chriftian profanation to sacrifice the diftinguishing prerogatives of THEß and Thou. The flesh (lays our Journalist) warreth against the spirit. Its language is quite
opposite thereunto. The Aeth says, “ there is little in dress : religion dorh not consist in apparel : there is little in language: there is little in paying tythes, &c. to the priefts : there is little in carrying guns in our ships to defend ourselves in case we are attacked by an enemy.”- To which I think it may be fafely added, that there is little or nothing in people who plead as above hinted, pretending to be of our society : for if they can easily let fall the before-mentioned branches of our Christian testimony, they will maintain the other no longer than they apprehend will suit their temporal interest. I have often wondered why fuch continue to profess with us at all.'
Mr. Grifich was born in Radnorshire, in South Wales, in the year 1713. He was favoured, he says, with the heartmelting visitations of God's love, when he was about seven or eight years old : but like the prophet Samuel, he did not know from whence his precious consolations came.' He proceeds to give an account of his awakenings, convictions, relapses, horFors, recoveries, &c. &c. till he brings us to his conversion
the Lord, says he, teaching my hands to war, and my fingers to fight under his banner, through whose blessing and assistance I found some degree of victory over the beast, viz, that part which hath its life in fleshly gratifications.' When Mr. Griffith had broke in his own Beast, he thought he could not be better employed than to assist others in performing the same kind office on theirs. " As I remember, says he, I was twenty-one years of age the very day I first entered into this great and awful work of the ministry, which was the 21st of the fifth month, old ftile, 1734.' A matter of such consequence undoubtedly deserved to be recorded in the most particular manner, to pre. vent debates in future times ! We have heard that seven cities were together by the ears about the birth-place of Homer : and all this contention arose from a deficiency in biography that cannot be charged to the account of Mr. Griffith,
His conflicts with the beast, indeed, were not at an end, 6 notwithstanding the Lord had committed to him the dispensation of the gospel, with the incomes of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Great, says he, were my temptations, and va. rious the combats I had for divers years after, with my soul's enemies. Oh! how hard I found it to keep from being defiled, more or less, with the polluting floods which were almost continually poured out of the great red dragon's mouth, in order to carry away my imagination into unlawful delights, from which I did not always wholly escape !
But amidst the actings of fin he found the counter-actings of grace. It was frequently hot work; for he informs us,
that he often found, that when the Judge of all hath been pleased to arise, and to find him out with his fig-leaf covering