« ПретходнаНастави »
hold, if, when interrogated by a judge concerning facts which are very well known to me, I should reply, that they were unknown to me, under pretence that my body had no knowledge of them. It is as if, when one asked me if I had seen such a person, I should answer, no; because when I saw him, I had one of my eyes shut, and did not see him with that eye. It is as if, when one should desire me to write upon some subject, I should reply, that I was not able to write, because
mind could not hold a pen. There is nobody, who does not see, how absurd such a mode of speaking would be.
If we examine the passages, to which the orthodox apply this distinction, we shall find that it cannot take place. In effect, Jesus Christ is most frequently represented here as the Son of God, i. e., according to the system of the Orthodox, as God. One cannot therefore say, that it is as man that Jesus Christ speaks on these occasions; for example, in the passage we have already quoted, Jesus Christ says, 'as for that day, and that hour, no man knoweth it, not the angels who are in heaven, nor even the son but the father.' No man knows it, neither the angels, nor even the son, that is, not Christ himself, considered as exalted above the angels, considered as the son of God; as God, according to that system ; one cannot therefore say, that it was as man that Jesus Christ speaks in this passage. He excludes even this, when he says, no man.
In effect, when the disciples addressed this request to Jesus Christ, “Tell us when these things shall come pass,' they did not merely ask himn what he might know of them, by lights natural to humanity ; they addressed themselves to him, as the son of God; they wished to enjoy a share of that knowledge, which Jesus might possess in this regard, in consequence of his intimate union with the Deity. It follows, therefore, that Jesus Christ must be absolutely ignorant of the time of the last judgment to answer as he did; and that there is not in Jesus Christ those two natures, which serve for the basis of that distinction they have systematically framed; and that this distinction must be vain and chimerical.'
IN FAVOR OF
UNITARI ANIS M.
The object of the ensuing essay, is by a comparison of Unitarianism with the popular system of orthodoxy, in some of its leading doctrines, to point out the probabilities in its favor. The probabilities, we mean, antecedent to any direct proofs derived from the authority of scripture. These probabilities we denominate presumptive arguments.' We regard these as highly important, and worthy of deeper attention than the seem to have generally received. In our view they are decisive of the question at issue. For, unless we are altogether deceived, they throw on our opponents a burden of proof which they cannot sustain. They will hardly deny, we think, that our scheme of interpretation, as applied to the New Testament, is at least a plausible
They will not deny that there is a show of reason in the solutions we give of the debatable points between us; or that the general tenor of this book may be regarded as consistent with our views of divine truth. Thus much, we believe, they must, in common fairness, admit. Now this admission, as we hope to show, will