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
Prefixed to the Bishop ' s Memorial is « A Demonstration of the Three Great Truths of Christian ity—that there is a God , that there is only one God 9 and that the three Divine Persons , Father , Son and Holy Spirit , are God and only one God : ' ( Pref . pp . 19 , 20 . ) But alas ! this demonstration consists
in the Bishop ' s assertion , and moreover his assertion of what is palpably erroneous : e . g . " The Scriptures declare that there are three omnipresent Persons . ' ( Pref . p . 21 . ) Let the Bishop point out this declaration in the Scriptures or confess his presumption - He adds , ** and as there cannot be two omnipresent , that is , infinite Beings , the three omnipresent Persons can be oulv one God . " Here Mr . B . asks I u Do I rightly understand his lordship ? There are three omnipresent Persons ; but
there cannot be two , much less three g \ x \ x \\ presentBeings . Does it not directly follow that persons are not fieing's , and consequently that the three persons of the Trinity are three non-entities ?"
The baptismal commission is a part of the Bishop ' s demonstration . If baptism were aot to have been administered in the name of three divine persons , it would have been , he argues , " in the name of God , of a man aud an attribute ; " upon which his acute
Resays , " But perhaps this observation would not appear so conclusive to a person aucustorned to the idioms and peculiarities of the Jewish writers , as to a common English reader . When it is said 1 Chron . xxix .
20 that the * whole congregation worshiped the Lord and the king ' , 'it by no means proves that the two persons so associated were equal in their nature , or that the same kind of homage was paid to hoth . Nor , when the apostle Paul commends his Ephesian friends
( Acts xx . 32 ) " to God , and to the > word of his grace , " does it at all follow that because God is a person , the word of his grace ? s so likewise . The argument therefore from the text in Matthew , for the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit ^ and much Wore for the proper deity of the three persons in tfte Trinity , is very infirm , even adttitting the text itself to he genuine . The authenticity of this text is however liable to considerable suspicion from the circuinstance , that all the baptisms of which we j ^ ad in the . New Testament appear to have been administered into the name of Christ ° ly , and not into those of the Father , the ' >* , and the Holy Spirit , according to the lorm prescribed in the gospel of Matthew . This reply i « satisfactory - but we
Untitled Article
have often doubted , and , with deference to Mr . Belshana , we still doubt whether Unitarians do not rather lose than gain ground with their opponents by suggesting the spimousuess of difficult texts , which are established upon the same external evidence as the whole of the sacred volume . If a rational
interpretation can be given of a passage which is alleged against us ^ . nl which we have no authority to exclude from the text of scripture , it is surely sufficient . To throw out doubts at the moment that we are hampered with difficulties , exposes us to the charge of cutting the knot which we cannot untie .
Mr . B . has one short but all-sufficient chapter ( iv ) to vindicate the claims of Unitarians to be considered as Christians . We fear , however , that they , whether bishops or curates , who stand in need of such an argument , are impenetrable by it . What reasoning
can be expected to reach such a writer as the bishop , who , fearing that he may not succeed in persuading the legislature to go back a century and re-enact persecuting statutes , has another string to his bow , and contends that , in spite of the Trinity Bill ,
Unitarians may yet be convicted on the Blasphemy Act ! He is ten years older than when he published his notable " First Principles , " which underwent examination in our First Volume ( pp . 425 and 633 ); how much wiser he has grown , let his latest works
determine . Mr . B . has the honour of being singled out by the bishop as an object of attack . His lordship even boasts of being " well acquainted with Mr ,
Belsham ' s writings . " He must have formed a very inadequate estimate of his antagonist if lie supposed that he was to be silenced or confuted by the " demonstration' * propounded in the Memorial .
In the " Calm Inquiry , " Mr . B . had said that " the inquiry concerning the person of Christ is into a plain matter of fact , which is to be determined ,, like any other fact by its specific evidence , the evidence of plain unequivocal
restimony ; for judging of which no other qualifications are requisite than a sound understanding and an honest mind : " at this assertion the bishop starts back : his opponent justifies himself by the following statement of the case of « ' ft man 6 > f sound under-
Untitled Article
Review . —Belsha ? rts Reply to Burgess- 5 \
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1815, page 511, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1763/page/47/
-