« PreviousContinue »
THE Possessors of the former Numbers are requested to make the following Corrections:
Page 54, for bhim read Alehim.
Page 94, put the asterisk after the word "punishment," instead of "dominion."
Mr. G. was not aware (till it was suggested by a friend) of the necessity of a Note to the quotations in pages 95 and 96, to state, that although the words, Satan and Devils, in some of the quotations, be not found in the common version, they are in the original. Thus, if the word be translated Adversary in the Old Testament, it is invariably the same word as in other instances, without alteration, is Satan.
In the quotations from the New Testament, page 96, 1st Tim. iii, 11, the common translation has, "not slanderers."
2d Tim. iii, 3, it has "false accusers," or in the margin "make-bates."
Titus ii, 3, it has "not false accusers," in the margin "make-bates."
In each of these passages the word used is not that which ought to have been translated Dæmon, but that which is peculiarly rendered Devil.
N. B. The Subscribers will be aware, that in a manuscript of such extent as each lecture is, some mistakes are unavoidable; and that the shortness of the time of publication between each number, renders it impossible to have a proof sheet for correction. A list of the principal errata will be given at the end of the volume.
The Subscribers are also informed, that a Supplement is intended to follow each of the Nos. 6, 7, (and 8, if it can be prepared in time) to be given to the Subscribers on the Monday after the delivery of each of these numbers.
THE IMPERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
It is with a degree of pleasure difficult to be expressed that I meet you this evening. From the time of the first notice of the intended delivery of these Lectures, I expected that dark insinuations would be spread abroad, malignant whispers would be circulated, injurious designs imputed to me. With doubt and suspicion harbouring in your minds, you attended the first and second Lectures. It was therefore natural that I should feel a degree of painful anxiety in meeting you. But I had pledged myself to undertake the task. To whatever obloquy or opposition, therefore, I might have been ex
posed, I was determined to persevere. ✅ I now trust that you no longer harbour a suspicion of sinister designs; but, whether the arguments appear more or less iconclusive, you begin to give us some credit for meaning well. The task, therefore, to me, ceases to be a painful one, and is now accompanied with sensations of pléasure. Only two observations strike me as necessary or highly important, at present, before I proceed to our principal subject.
You are told that we have no right to the appellation of Unitarians, for that you yourselves are equally entitled to it. Let me ask a question or two. Would you really thank any man who told the world, that you were Unitarians, and attended a Unitarian place of worship? If not, why cavil and quarrel with us for being willing to adopt the term? For what reason do you deny us the use of this term, and lavish upon us an abundance of other epithets? With Christian sincerity exa mine into your motive. Can you seriously lay your hand upon your heart, and say, there is no secret wish that the epithets may carry some stigma with them: con
vey some reproachful ileå which may personally affect us? If there be a lurk ing wish of that kind, my friend, be ase sured it is not Christian, and, for the sake of thy religion, be prevailed upon to discard it.
20 You call yourselves Trinitarians. We only apply to you the term you have. adopted and we use it too in the same sense you affix to it, worshippers of one God in three persons. Now the term Unitarian is used only in contradistinction to your explanation of Trinitarian. It does not mean a worshipper of one God in opposition to a worshipper of three Gods; but a worshipper of one God without any division into persons, opposed to the worship of one God in three persons. In this sense,which is all we contend for, you will allow that the term is applicable to us, and if you yourselves will not use it, upon what Christian principle can you refuse it to us?
Another observation it may be wells to make. Some few have hinted that I converted the Trinitarian belief into an object of ridicule, by the statement which I