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
Divinity and Sorrship of Christ , published in the year 1805 , speaks of some having handled the personal distinction of the . Divine Three , in such a manner as to slide insensibly into the doctrine of three Gods ,
though the Scriptures clearly declare there is but one . And allow me to ask , Rev . Sir , who has handled , or who indeed can handle this distinction without insensibly sliding into the same doctrine ? Mr . M'l ^ ean himself ,
though he blames others , has been guilty in this respect , as will appear from the following observation , which occurs in his letter on the Sonship of Christ , published in the year 1788 . After expressing his belief in the important doctrine of the Divine Unity ,
he proceeds , page 2 , to state his sentiments on thedoctrine of the Trinity , in the following manner : —• The same inspired writers , ' says he , * also hold forth a plurality of subsistents or persons in the one undivided Godhead ,
who equally possess the whole of the divine nature in all its boundIjess perfections . ' Now what is this but sliding insensibly into the doctrine of three Gods ? For if the subsistents or persons in this plurality be distinct , the one from the other , and Mr . M'Lcan
admits that they are , then to all intents and purposes they must be three distinct Gods . Mr . M'Lean , in the fourth page of his letter , has another observation which proves , if it prove any thing , the same doctrine of thn e distinct Gods . * We must not
imagine , ' says he , * that the Godhead can be divided , so that each person should possess a part thereof , for that vrould destroy the divinity of every one of them : for whatever is imperfect or partial cannot be God . If , then , the whole undivided Godhead , in all
its perfection and fulness , be possessed by each person , it follows /—what follows ?— 'it follows , ' says he , 4 that each of them must necessarily be eternal , unoriginated and self-existent ; and he might have added , that each of them is necessarily a distinct God . How absurd is it then to say ( as the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England does ) , that the Fatjier is God , that the Son is God , and that the Holy Ghost is God , yet that they are not three Gods , but one God ! If this be not as absurd aet if I were to assert that Paul was man ,
Untitled Article
that John was man , and that Peter was man , yet that they were not three men , but one man , I leave you to judge . " Another query , which I would propose to your serious consideration , is suggested by the following passage of Scripture , Acts x . 38 : * God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost . If by God , in this passage , we are to understand th «
Father , and this I suppose will be readily granted , then -we have the whole three persons in the Trinity di&tintly mentioned ; and the apostle Peter ' s assertion ( upon the Trinitarian hypothesis ) will amount to this , that
the first person in the Trinity anointed the second person with the third person . Now my query is , With what propriety can one person / be said to be anointed with another person ? I can easily conceive of one
person anointing another with oil , as Samuel did Saul , when he anointed him to be a king ; but to say that one divine person anointed a second divine person with a third divine person , appears to be as absurd as to assert , that the apostle Paul anointed the apostle Peter with the apostle John .
•« If it should be said , that by the Holy Ghost , in the above passage , is intended not the person , but the miraculous powers of the Holy Ghost , I would ask , If Jesus of Nazareth had
a divine nature , what powers could the Holy Ghost communicate to him which he did not possess before ? Was his divine * nature , in consequence of its union with the human ,
incapable of working miracles without the aid of the Holy Ghost ? If the doctrine of a Trinity , or three person * in the Deity , the same in substance , and equal in power and glory , be once admitted , it will be difficult to
attach any meaning to the apostle ' s assertion in the above passage . But if we consider Jesus Christ a $ simply a man—* A man ( as Peter elsewhere expresses himself ) approved of God among the Jews , by miracles and
signs and wonders , which God did by him * —and the Holy Ghost as the power of God communicated to him , then the apostle ' s assertion is easily understood . This , Rev . Sir , is the light in which Unitarians view the apostle ' s assertion * and this view of it
Untitled Article
Letter to the Rev * U . Wardlaw * 421
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1819, page 421, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1774/page/21/
-