On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
eada Gdier * i tSKin * * MKAMik » ito $ m beoawse &yjm&fami 1 ^ fa $ hMi -some other established truth , with u * teh ^ Jr ^ d'i « ffi 3 ft atedba oJ viiftfcfiBcnivriKMI * n * ««* pteafig $ vrith ^ i ^ WiiiiW )^ SficP ^ linMQny Lhafc tam ^ teady to r ^ t the question eririrety ufk ^ ti \ vb at yoivhave tiow [ ¥ tHt ^ & YcavtheB maintain tlwt the acceptance of Jesue Christ as a substitute for tire guilty is a doctrine which is true , although with regard to its ti ^ th at | d ^ tener it be incomprehensibly , by which you mean that it is aboVe ^ & ^ rti ^ Is
thisaiairfct&emeat of yout meaning ? , r ; .. *> , ? MXtn * V ) ... ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ . ¦ " / - - ; - A * Now , oti the contrary , I maintain that the said doctriae is conjrarj to reason * because I do comprehend IT to be false or impossible ^ % offi on account of the ideas of it not coalescing among themselves , and oftR&rbp * position to other truths which are firmly established * The proposition theti at issue is this , Is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the substitute of the gutlM above reason , or eont ^ ryHtftk ^ iii * ^ % ^ bd ^ e ^
O . It lainirarin to ( Kitef on ^ y ^ d&imssio ^ ^ b ^ "doctritie , b ^ i ^ acknowledged to be incomprehensible and above reason , cannot be submitted t <> its fesV fttorms m ® M ^ wm&mindhpv ^ ; i i ? Al would observe , that 4 t a ^ ard ^^|^ ii ^ &i ^^ t ^^ T $ m& iti milker sense than an &bsur&p # m&s&M % ^^ ^^ reason . > iS \ jq > posQ it were ^ an ^ uiiee ^^^ -ydtf 4 $ io ^ r # ^^^ n | fHlfe ^ authority , that two and two m ^ A ^ w ' -tMt ^^^ m mi ^^ ^^^ HE ^
whole : these propositions you might'pronounce to b& in ^ nrbftFferfsime ; biUtilhejmiad wiU not rest herei but !^ jec ^ 4 h ^ n ? M &&m M ^ sS ^ Bm sible . If , therefore , I can shew that the doctrine und $ ? m&&Wffl& ^ % ftr false and impossible ^ it is incumbent on you eitk&t W £% pb 9 & flie ^ llacy ^ Df m $ ireasoaing , orito acknowledge its validity . I tdncdve 4 t th % ^ Wtfe ^ ott 2 3 trauy toiEeasbh that God should accede to a ptbcedure ih € 6 h $ « ieHt : Wiffirl ^ S ?
perfection of his nature . If his violated law requires satisfaction ft ) FWe support of its dignity , that satisfaction neither can be given by , nor accepted from , iJan innocent individual , because "jugtice required that th (^ iqntic ^ ht Jh& ' pr <* tec 3 tec ^ > aad ; the guilty alone be punished . Were the innocent to ^ ujff ^;' tor the guilty , this would be , according to your own representwi 0 n ; tt Satisfy th ^ rla ^ tnth the shadow without the substance—with the figure without the subject whichsitfigaresents—with a mockery of justice—with a couj ^ erfeit o % uoahment . Though Jesus Christ should have voluntarily projpdsed to d ^ i d » s makra no alteration , because where there is no guilt , there can be he be to the
no j »^ ashmeht- * -n either can supposed take guilt upon himsel f , , bec ^ dse ^ guiit in its own nature is intransferrable . y > -- i - - ti Ot How then is it said that " God made him to be sin for us , whokneW " " nQtsinB ^ : iif ^ itt this there could be no transferrence of guilt ; there Was" ^ t ^ lea& to imputation , for he was considered and declared as guilty , i ^ ; ^ ii ^ ow ^ Sir ^ I call upon you to mark in your statement a proposition conti ^ # to reasott—not above it , because as a reasonable being wow cannot it to be and
do mh ^ ise ika n comprehend both false impossible . Your dectrine , then , supposes Jesus Christ guilty of the sins of mankind by irtyp ^ tatiofts ? 4 tafc UOliia teality--4 httt is to say , that he was guilty of those very site of which « t th $ same time he was innocent . Now , tp msdntain such % ti $ r ' trineii tt > contradict a first princi ^ , it is to cbntradict th ^ i : &M £ * titat k is impossible for the jamb thing fa % W $ ^ 0 < * ^ 'W , io * l ^ il ^' ' % » ., '" Butii ^^ pSy ^ youi is itrip ^ talicb ^^ Baf ^ Mf ^ fam& un ^^ tdin ^ fip
Untitled Article
^ warwuiM ^ uniikmeftt . ^ 1
Untitled Article
vol . i . 3 a
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1827, page 801, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1802/page/17/
-