Rutgers essay help
Such is the practical result of this " free handling" of sacred subjects. If the conclusions to which the Essayists would lead us were true, it would be our duty to accept them, with all their awful consequences, with all the confusion they would bring into our AND DR. But as these views, instead of being an advance on our present knowledge, are really a miserable return towards ignorance and heathenism, every Christian man, who can examine and expose them, is bound to the utmost of his power to oppose them. Neither the knowledge nor the judgment shewn in any of the Essays appear to me to warrant the tone in which the volume is written, for the knowledge of the subject shewn in the Essay of Dr. Williams ap- pears to be of the most rutgers essay help superficial kind, and the judg- ment for the most part seems to lead the author almost invariably to embrace the weakest side, and where I have given any time to the examination of the rest I have found that they have no superiority in these respects. For instance, in the Essay on the " Eeligious Tendencies of England from 1688 — 1750," the whole weight of the argument, such as it is, is produced by ignoring the literature of that period which was not devoted to evidences, and a great deal of its infidel literature. No notice is taken of the " Oracles of Keason," a book con- stantly referred to in the earlier part of the last century, and very little is said of the various works of Collins. The author attributes to the age a sort of rutgers essay help monomania for manufacturing evidences, and of course with such a theory it is very convenient to ignore almost all the infidel literature which called forth these replies. These may be slips of the pen, but there is too much besides in the Essay which indicates a very hasty and superficial view, to permit the author to escape censure under this plea. For, after all, it is to these classes that the mischief is done. For myself, I am happy to have been obliged to examine very carefully some portions of the evidences for the truth and the inspira- tion of Scripture, because I bring from that examina- tion the most profound contempt for arrogant asser- tions, and the most convincing proofs to my own mind rutgers essay help that they alone who build on Scripture as the only solid foundation of religious truth, are like the wise man who laid the foundations of his house in the solid rock.
Williams to dis- parage Scripture as an inspired book which I have been obliged to examine, has only impressed on my AND DR. The endeavour to reduce it to a mere moral phenomenon, and to reject, as Bunsen professes to do, all external revelation as a fable, appears to me to rest on nothing but the determination to resist all evidence, and to discard all the rules of sound criticism in interpreting a volume which is still in some unaccountable way sup- posed to represent the will of God. We have no right to attribute the opinions of Bunsen to Dr. Williams, for he carefully abstains from making himself directly an- swerable for them, however strongly he may indirectly recommend them to the unwary. But we have a full right to bring him face to face with the consequences of that system which he thus indirectly and by inference supports, and to those whom he is misleading we are bound to present the contradictions and absurdities in which they involve themselves by following such prin- ciples.
He declared that the prophets predicted His coming, and they declare that they did not! We must make our choice between these two authorities, and I trust when this issue is fairly tried that there will be very few, who know rutgers essay help and understand the state of the ques- tion, who will not exclaim with a holy man of old, " Let God be true and every man a liar! Since the publication of the "Essays and rutgers essay help Reviews," a defence of them has been attempted in the " Edinburgh Re- view," No. It would be unnecessary to buy a research paper cheap offer a single remark on so feeble a performance, if it were not desirable to correct one or two misrepresentations which occur in it. The first passage on which we shall offer a few remarks is the following : — " The relative importance of the moral and predictive elements in prophecy, and again of the historical circumstances to which, in the first instance, the predictions were applied, have been discussed by Davison and Arnold in a style hardly less repugnant to the literal views of Dr. Bishop Pearson ac- knowledges that prophecies which are real predictions of the Messiah may be applicable, in the first instance, to some other person, although intended to testify of the Messiah NOTE ON THE "EDINBURGH REVIEW. He also seems to consider an assertion that the moral excellence and beauty of the New Testament are the fulfilment of the prophetical ideas of the Old, to be equivalent to a belief that these prophecies were inspired predictions which were lite- rally fulfilled in the facts of the New Testament.
Williams is, not that he maintains that the prophecies may primarily Tbe applied to some other person, but that he denies that they are intended in any way to be predictions of Christ. Until the Reviewer can see the difference between these two pro- positions, he will do well to abstain from theological discus- sions, for which he is evidently unfitted. Williams is compelled to acknowledge that, although spoken in the first instance of other persons, these prophecies were still intended as predictions of the Messiah, we shall have gained something by the controversy.