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
# f them te pp impersaml w * n& 5 . ^ or w ® Jfce . theee ^ fiid to be # ne 6 » M » one of the persons mentioned \ n it is said to be the Son- The wrpird son is 9 term of relation expressive of the relation whict * Jesus Christ bears to
God as his Father * which relation implies iiMt derivation apd dependence ; but God ' caaaQt stand in the relation of son to stny beipg , or be derived from or dependent oil any o % \ e . Deify malt necessarily be self-existent , underived and independent : the tenn w »
then , iu-tikis , passage , cannot be the name of a divine co-equal person in God-, ^ o that of the thr ^ e names here tnentioued , two of them only are descriptive of proper personality , and but one of them of 9 . Efivine person , truly and properly God ; the other
being evidently descriptive of a derived , dependent and inferior being . If then none of the terms by which those doctrines are expressed are to foe found in the passage * .. how , in the nature ' of things , can it prov $ those doctrines ?
Mr , Ward-law himself , however , seems to fed that his «* standing in this text" is not very firm , for he immediately adds , * It would , perhaps , be going too far to say , that I should of
be ^ firm believer this doctrine , ( that is the doctrine of the Trinity , ) if there were not another passage in the Bible affirming it . " This is a pretty clear admission that it is not affirmed in this text , for if it was , tie
could not have had any hesitation in believing it on such evidence $ but If this ' passage daes not affirm Jt , yve may venture to , assert , that there Is not any passage in the Bible th ^ t does , because as the terms of it are not to be found here * so neither are they to be found in any other part of . ' the sacred writings .
But in farther proof of the doctrine of the Trinity from these words , Mr . Wardlaw assumes , that the ordinance of baptism is an <\ ct of solemn worship to the three persons in the Godhead . H } s words are , " That the initiatory
ordinance of baptism , prescribed in tfaese words , involves in it 311 act of solemn worship , an invocation of tl ^ e thrice holy name , in which it is administered , seems to be beyond dispute / ' That this matter is mot beyond dispute is manifest , tori , thyself * cer-
Untitled Article
tainly dispute it , -9 . 8 , , ¦ I believe ,, all Unitarians ( or * as he styles them , Sacinians ) also do . Baptism is no more 3 , p act of worship th ^ tii circumcisip ^ o They are both acts of obedience to .. $ . command . Jesus Christ h $ re gives a
commission to his disciples to teach a , ad baptize , at ^ d instructs them how they were to perform the latter $ but this does not necessarily involve iii it &ny act of worship , much less an invocation of the thrice holy name in which it is administered . If baptism involves
in it an act qf solemn worshi p * an invocation of the name in which it is administered , then must Moses have been to the Israelites an object of solemn worship , fqr they were all baptized , £ i 49 iato Moses , * and that act must have involved in it the invocation
of his name . But it was not my design to enter upon a discussioia respecting the doctrine of the Trinity : I have beea led into it by the above passage in Matthew being selected as the foundation of the ninth discourse * which
was professedly delivered for the purpose of establishing the doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit ; and I have etitered no farther into that subject than as it stands connected with the text , and forms the introduction to the main
subject of the discourse . My object is to shew that tbe Holy Spirit is not , nor can in the nature of things be , a proper person , and that the reasoning in this discourse is utterly insufficient to support such an idea . In order to this , before I enter
ob the argu meats io support of its personality , I shall make the following observations : 1 . I observe that the proper name of . the Holy Spirit , is the Spirit of God *
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God must be admitted . The Scriptures are so express an this subject , that a doubt respecting it cannot b © entertained for a moment *
2 . If the Hojy Spirit be the Spirit of Godp it h the spirit of a person , and nat a proper person itself . This I shall attempt to prore by the clearest and most direct evidence . That God is a person , the Scriptures expressly declare , " Will ye speak wickedly ? 1 € oi \ X , Sk
Untitled Article
M *« : Mmiw , m : ^^ ^
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1818, page 35, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2472/page/35/
-