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

    ment , ( p , 345 , ) you will , perhaps , deem the following brief suggestions not tin-Worthy his notice , and that of your readers . I must , of course , be understood sis expressing the sentiments merely of an individual Unitarian , and not as undertaking either to explain or vindicate those of others .

    The scope of R . M . 's first query appears to be this : Why should Unitarians object to God ' s having imputed guilt to Christ , though innocent , when they do not object to his imputing righteousness to man , though guilty ? The answer , as I conceive , is simple . God neither imputes unreal guilt to Christ ,

    nor unreal righteousness to his disciples . Would it not be strange if he who sees all things as they really are , and whose judgments are pre-eminently , " according to truth , " were to impute either guilt or merit to parties to whom they did not really belong ? That cardinal doctrine of both Old and New

    Testaments , that " God will render to every man according to his works , " is directly opposed to every such notion . I see no exception to this statement in the apostolic doctrine of justification by faith . The faith of the true Christian is

    imputed to him for righteousness ; that is , although he has in many respects transgressed , and rendered himself guilty before God , yet a practical belief in Christ is so sufficient a test , in God ' s eight , of a pious heart and principle , that wherever it is found he declares his

    forgiveness and favour . He holds the belief to be righteous . But by what righteousness ? That of works , which he does not really possess ? Then , indeed , were your correspondent ' s objection just . Nay , but by the righteousness of faith , which he really does possess . God does not herein reckon with us as if we were

    something which we are not , but with a just respect to what , by his grace , we really are . Your correspondent draws a distinction between forgiveness and justification , * " clemency , " says he , " frees from punishment , but does not make the subject of it just . I am not , however , aware that there is any scriptural ground for this distinction . The apostle does

    not appear to speak of our being made just in any other sense than that of being pardoned . We are not , properly speaking , acquitted : on the contrary , the charges which the law makes against us are held to be proved > but our faith being considered in our favour , we are deemed iit objects of mercy , the sovereign prerogative of the Deity .

    Untitled Article

    The second query respecis a subject than which none can be conceived more solemn and mysterious , the immediate cause of our Lord ' s deep mental anguish at the period of his final sufferings . Your correspondent asks , * ' How can all this be accounted for on the consideraof his merely suffering as a martyr ?" In reply , I would observe to him , that I believe that there are but few

    Unitarians who are of opinion that Christ suffered merely as a martyr . I have not known one who entertained such an opinion . Unitarians profess on this difficult subject to adhere simply to Scripture ; and the Scripture testifies that the end of Christ ' s death was the forgiveness of sins , which is a thing not said of that

    of any martyr whatever . It is evident from Scripture that Christ ' s obedience unto death was especially required and appointed by God as necessary to that dispensation of mercy which was to follow : the design of his death was as distinct from that of any common martyr , as the dignity of his person and office was superior to theirs . I little doubt that his

    extreme mental sufferings were not unconnected with this circumstance , but in what particular manner I will not presume to inquire . As regards the third query , it appears to me to be grounded on a totally erro neons basis ; namely , that the sufferings of Christ were inflicted by the Father , Some texts are , as usual , brought to

    prove this , and if any one thinks that they do prove it , he must , of course , draw his inferences accordingly . I must be allowed , however , to express my wonder that any one should put on them a construction so extraordinary and shocking . It appears to me very obvious and undeniable , that the sufferings of Christ ere no otherwise to be attributed to the

    will of God , than are those of any other person who is called to the discharge of painful duty . They were not inflicted by God , but arose from second causes , under the appointment of his providence : they were inflicted by cruel , enemies , by mental anxieties , and , perhaps , by some

    malignant influence of the powers of darkness ; but not by God , except in the same remote sense in which all the sufferings of virtuous men are said to be his chastisements * It was evidently one part of the design of these sufferings to perfect the character of Jesus : for

    innocence ts not perfection ; nor does it appear taoi ally possible that the perfection of virtue should be attained without such trials . Hence the writer to the Hebrews

    Untitled Article

    490 Occasional Correspondence .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1828, page 490, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2562/page/58/