On this page

• Text (1)

  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

• 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

    they call themselves ) have prudently quitted the 'Socinian scheme and embraced the Arian , as much more plausible and defensible , but there is no essential difference between them , both denying . Christ ' s divine nature , and acknowledging him to be no more than a made or created

    Godthe Arians holding him to be an older—the Socinians a younger God , havinsr no existence before he was born of the Virgin . ' I think it probable that there were Arians in the congregation at

    Walpole in Mr . Cromptou ' s latter days . I knew and visited an elderly gentleman of that denomination among them , and often heard Mr . Walker speak highly in his commendation for reading , information , good sense , firmness of mind and power in

    argumentation . Mr . C . proceeds , " And here , 1 . I considered with myself that the proper Deity of Christ must either be an important truth or an important

    error ; either one side is gmlty of blasphemy or the other of idolatry . 2 . If Christ be not God by nature , I < could not see how with any propriety , there cou ^ d he attributed to him the incommmunicable names and

    titles of Cod . " But after all , my reason opposed the doctrine . Here are two , the Father and the Son ( I may add three , and the Holy Ghost ) distinguished from each other by personal properties * acts and operations , and vet all

    three partaking of the Godhead , or ^ communicating in the same divine infinite nature ; whereas both Scripture and reason assure me , ' there is but one only living and true God / so that I was ready to cry out with Nicodemus , How can these things

    be ? * Hie labor , hoc opus-est ! Here I found the greatest difficulty , and indeed a very painful one , which I would gladjy have got rid of . What shall I do ? Often 4 kLJL ~ spread my case before the Lord , pleading with him to net me right it ) this important

    point , for 1 looked upon my eternal interest to be concerned therein , and therefore dreaded leaning to my own understanding . And that which at last gave me satisfaction , to tfie sett ling of my mind , were such as the ^ following considerations : — ** i . Supposing only the doctrine of

    Untitled Article

    the Trinity to be true , arid expressed in the most clear , plain and intelligible terms imaginable , yet it is not possible we should have clear and distinct ideas of it for want of faculties equal to the object .

    € < 2 . I thought it highly unreasonable to reject a doctrine ( for which there is so much evidence ) on account of insuperable difficulties attending it , specially when those very difficulties naturally and unavoidably arise from the sublimity of the doctrine , and the weakness and scantiness of our

    capacity , which is here the case . " 3 . I further considered that we ought to distinguish between the doctrine itself , and the evideiwe of it . " The doctrine may be of so sublime

    and mysterious a nature , that it may be very difficult to conceive of it , and yet the evidence clear and full . Pure faith is founded only on testimony . When once therefore it is made to

    appear that , * thus saith the Lord , * reason ought to be silent , and give place to faith . " 1 have , Sir , enlarged the more on this head , because 1 think it is of

    great importance in deciding this and other points of revealed religion , though 1 think not duly attended to by many of the present age , who would have all things demonstrated by reason .

    ** I speak my own experience , having observed in conversation with those of the opposite opinion , that all" their arguments from Scripture centred here . The doctrine is

    contrary to reason , and therefore cannot be true . What is the consequence ? Wliy , such an interpretation is to be put upon tile text as is consistent with their reason . Yea , I have been told

    to my face by my antagonist , when pinched with an argument from Scripture , that were the proper Deity of Christ delivered in the most plain and express terms imaginable , he would not believe it , because con * -

    trary to all reason , and this by a person who professed a great reverence for the Scriptures , and a willingness to be determined by them in this point . This , you will say ,

    was plain dealing , but knowing the man , his meaning was , as I charitably Relieve—the doctrine is contrary to all reason , i . e . to his reason , and therefore it is not at all revealed in

    Untitled Article

    SAb Some Account of Mr . William Manning .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 380, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/4/