On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
. 7 . When lie afiutns ^ that difficult . If not impossible , to form distinct ideas of three infeiie persons in one divine essence , this is no real objection to t ^ te Trinity , but rather a proof that it accords with every thing in JDeity ; for is it not difficult , if not impossible , to
form ideas of the Deity , or , any of his attributes . Is he d spirit ? What ideas will you form of him?—Is he matter ? What is the solidity , shape , length , breadth , &c . of this divine matter ? What distinct ideas can you form of an eternal being -who © cither made himself , nor was made by any other ?
8 . When this " Constant Reader" asks what is a distinct person but a-distinct intelligent being * , he seems to suppose that the orthodox maintain tlie absolute propriety © f the word person to express the distinctions of the Trinit y * But a disputant on the subject 6 ught to lu ? ow , that they only adopt the word as the
best which human language affords to ccaivey the scriptural idea . This is all that can be said for any term when applied to the Deity . For it would be easy to shew , that the -word person , though not strictly proper , is as much
so as the term knowledge , prescience , power , seeing , liking , disliking , or any ether by which we . express any- idea concerning God , But if the language of mortals cannot define infinity , is that the fault of * the Trinity , or its friends ? 10 . The assertion " ¦ If in the divine
essence there are three distinct persons , they must either be independent of each ether , or two of them at least be dependent on the other , ** is illogical ; for is there not another supposition -which paay fee made , that they are all mutually dependent ? But before any distinct reply c « uld be made , he should say what he
means by dependent and independent in this case . For we might say exactly the same of the divine attributes , as is here asserted of the divine persons ; but would this induce the " Constant Reader" to deny that there was any real difference in the divine attributes of wisu 1 * P ower > benevolence , or to assert that there is but one attribute , as well as one person in Deity ? This indeed , would make his favourite Unity complete . *
U . When he asks , " Is it not unaccountab le that unity of design should JPpear in the universe ??> I answer , No ; because each of the three in the divjme fcsence will mid do the same things ;
Untitled Article
thctdfa ^ . a&Bwma&f . of Resign ai ? & operajjon fea $ pri * daqe < £ nn unity of effect . ¦ *» . * ' if each be-the creator , how c at * creation he the work of one being ? * He again rcci » rs to the stale artiike of throwing dust in tfee opponexHs * eyc §* t * y confounding the terms person and being " . But while we believe , what ]>« has not pr < y * e& 9 and never can upon liis principles , that creation is the work of
one being-, we maintain that the scriptures , which convey the only-real knowledge of the creation , ( for every thing else is mere guess , ) these sacred records leach us that a plurality exists in that one being who was the creator . The Hebrew ' word by which he is designated signifies a ' plurality , and might be
translated , as it sometimes is , godst and Moses teaches the ancient chore h , wKo well understand thi language , ths doctrine of the Trinity with the Unity * when he says , Deut . vi . 4 , ** Hear , O Israel , Jehovah our Gods , is one
Jehovah . ** Out English translation teaches the same truth to . every attentive reader , when it says that the language of the creator was " let us make man , its eur image , after e-ur likeness ** " ** Behold the man is become as one of « j . * '
Innumerable passages of scripture speak q £ Jesus Christ as the creator , that all things , in all parts of the universe , were created by him , and for him , and that without him was not any thing made ; so that he himself could not be made , or a creature * but laiust be the uncreated Deity . The Holy Spirit also is said to have concurred in the creation .
But the Unity of essence still renders it true , that one being created the wnrJcL 13 . When the "Constant Reader asks , if all he self existent and co-eternal , how can one be Father-, and another Seat f be seems not to know that the scriptures refer these terms to the relatkm which subsists after the incarnation yfor before that event the Saviour is called the
Word , who was God ; but "when it is saieji the Word was made flesh , then his glory is said to be tjiat of the only begot * ten Son * John , i . 1— -14 . 14 . When this writei * tells us that all the difficulties which he has raised ought
to be solved , before we admit-the doctrine of the Trinity , is he ignorant that a deist , co Id raise more and greater objections to revelation , and say " all these must be solved before we admit the claims of Christianity . " , 15 . As to believing inore thfcn bn $
Untitled Article
1 Def&net vf tfaj&rim / y * ^ , » . 493
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1809, page 493, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1740/page/19/
-