On this page

• Text (2)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    Ail these , to which more might be added , are so many characters or aspects of Deity towards his creatures : but to insist on his having precisely three , neither more nor less , as a great and formal doctrine , is really trifling with a sacred subject . It is true that the Father , the Son or Word , and the Spirit , are three names under which we recognize very especially the Divine

    agency towards us in the New Testament ; and that the vigour of Christian doctrine hinges very much upon our so doing . But really there is in this no matter of controversy : Unitarians make no serious objection to this kind of Trinity , and it is ungenerous and unjust to represent them as aiming at the shadowy , and therefore invulnerable , doctrine , those serious and earnest remonstrances which they direct against the truly tri-personal Deity of the

    popular faith , and against those forms of doctrine and worship which are calculated to convey a real tri-personal idea to the people . There is a want of fair and open dealing in this matter . Trinitarians keep two forms of their doctrine on hand , like two sets of weights in a shop : in practical and devotional religion they prefer the use of the solid and substantial one , but when controversy begins , this is popped under the counter , and assailants are allowed no object of attack but a baseless shadow whi $ h wears its

    resemblance . Those that find edification in this kind of religious tactics do well to avail themselves of them . I make these remarks because Mr . Elton , in taking his stand on the merely modal or nominal Trinity , ought in fairness to have observed , both that it was different from the popular creed , and also that it was not that to which Unitarians object . But although this nominal Trinity may be allowed to pass as a thing of little moment when considered only as an abstract distinction in the Divine

    Nature , what are we to make of it when taken , as we must take it , in connexion with the doctrine of the Deity of Christ ? The Divine " Word which from the beginning was with God , and was God , " may , indeed , be represented as an aspect or power of the Deity ; and so may the Holy Spirit . But can we say the same of Jesus Christ ? It is impossible . No sophistry nor subtilty can prevent the reader of the New Testament , nor the Christian world at large , from thinking of Jesus Christ as truly a distinct person , a distinct intelligent agent , from the Father that sent him , and to whom he

    prayed , saying , "Father , not my will , but thine be done ; " and of whom he said , " Of that day and hour knoweth not the Son , but the Father only . " Not all the half-meaning and no-meaning terms that have been devised , neither substance nor essence , nor mode nor aspect , will ever help common sense out of this dilemma , Jesus Christ is most prominently and unequivocally a distinct being , and person , and agent , or whatever other term may be preferred , from God his Father ; and , therefore , those who contend for

    his proper deity , that h £ is in himself , without reserve , truly God , can have no fair refuge from the charge of polytheism in the Sabellkui scheme of the Trinity ; and if they could , would only lapse into the Patripassian heresy . I must insist oti it , then , that it is not the doctrine of the Trinity so much as that of the Deity of Christ , ( in a strict and proper sense , ) that is the main

    question between Unitarians and their adversaries . The doctrine of the Trinity is an abstract , scholastic subtlety , which it is scarce worth disputing about ; but that of the Deity of Jesus Christ , roundly and popularly taught , it a very different thing ; it is a broad and palpable conception , and , notwithstanding what Mr . Elton says , does inevitably introduce a second object of worshi p , clothed in all the attributes and honours of the Supreme , ana com--monly drawing to itself by much the larger share of the affections of the worshipers . Here , it is that the Unitarian finds the occasion Q § Ms uncoa

    Untitled Article

    On Mr . Elton ' s " Secdnd Thoughts . * ' 565

    Untitled Article

    2 o 2

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1827, page 555, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1799/page/3/