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
tye , said , $ p excise , more $ for in former times it was chiefly eonfiued to divines , qr , to men of great learning ; \ m % flow its merits are known to many who are not professionally led to the study of polemical divinity . Of this I have had a very palpable
proof in a dialogue on the subject in question , of which I happened to be an auditor , # t the house of a literary friend with whom I wns lately spending a few days . It was about the time of Carlile ' s trial , which from its being detailed and commented upon in all the daily newspapers or other
periodical publications , was obtruded , as it were , upon the notice of almost every body , and consequently much talked of . A small party had one day dined at my friend ' s , and the topic of the trial was , as might ; have been expected , introduced in the course of the evening , which was devoted to conversation .
It suggested unavoidably the leading doctrines both of Deism and of Chris- * tianity , some of which were partially discussed without exciting any particular interest . But when the doctrine of thef Trinity came tfrfj > i | mentioned , two of the company w&nf soon found to have espoused veiy different opinions concerning it ; and as each of them seemed desirous to convince his
antagonist of error , the field of controversy was immediately left clear Jpr them . The one was an orthodox Trinitarian , and the other a Unitarian of the modern school ; but as the latter was professionally a physician , and the former an under-erraduate of the Uniformer an under-graduate of the
University of Oxford , I will for the future designate them by the Respective appellatipns" of Meaicus and Owoniensis . How t ) xe discussion originated , I cannot now distinctly recollect ; but what first attracted my particular notice was the following question put by Medicus to hi& opponent : r
i M , ed . Will you have ( he goodness to point out to me any text or passage of . Scripture , in which the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the Godhead is directly Mfirrnqd ? here
c ^^ % l 18 ^ perhaps , n ^ passage ^^^ p ifliye ii > wMpJk ft - T ^ j | to |^ , pei ? - 88 fi ^ & «} fa fcr ffJw ^ &tdSQi ^ ' ^ wS ^ W ff ^ Wm tMMMwMM
Untitled Article
name of the fisher , *« P oi ^ p S 5 f « k and of the Holy Ghost / ' , V ; , r 1 > .-,.,, Med \ I admit tb ^ t a Trinity iOf persons sterns to b ^ involved in the t ^ x * ; but I see no authority for supposing that they All subsist in the Godhead . Owon . It is no % x toube believed that
our blessed Saviour , in the ^ instjtution of the hQly s ^ qrameQt of baptism , would have associated any name vvdtU that of , the Gpd an 4 Father qf ^ un ^ less it had been of equal dignity and importance . ii . Med . If the mere association of a
name were enough to elevate any person to the rank of diviijiity , then I could produce proofs from Scripture to shew that there are other persons in the Godhead besides those you mention ; for in the noted overthrow of the
Midianites , by the three hundred men that lapped the water with their tongues , do we not read of " the sword of the kord and of Gideon $ *• but who from thence will infer that Gideon is a person in the Godhead > Ooson . If we had no further evidence
beyond that of the text which I have quoted , the doctrine of the Trinity would indeed be left doubtful ; but we have abundance of other proofs to shew that each of the persons here associated with the Father , is alsp ^ pod . Med . I shall be glad it you will specify some of those proofs .
Oafon . The first proof I shall specify is , that Christ i& called the Son of God , andielaiips that title . } W " Med . That is indeed true ; but how does it prove Christ to be God ?
Oxon . Because the Jews regarded his calling himself by that title to be the same as calling himself God 5 and such , consequently , must have bean the import of the phrase among them at the time .
Med . If the J $ ws regarded Christ ' s claiming the appellation of the Son of God , to be the same with his claiming to be Clod , that , \ yas only thekjiTO * - tnke ; for Christ meant n » iwise , by ^ e appellation th ^ merel y th %% r ft ^ did the works / . ^ wdfcleyed tne will of he
God . fgftfe is evident ffc $ m- '* w ] ta ! & ^ ays of 4 fe $ itfi ^ Sfim $ &W J ^ Mi 11 theii ? < $$ ib Htfqr ' k ^ M ^ Wil ^^ 3 ^ « Y ^ m ^ Qpy ^ m w ^ m ^ ft ^^ w yM $ h ^ ow ^^ m ^ iHwMWi ^ r ^ tte izwwmt iw * m&tojjl ^^ t # o $ w jfo ® ymMmm Bm ^^^^
Untitled Article
$ 9 $ The Bwt $ » £ *> f tk& &r $ fiU * hd 4 hmed
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1820, page 398, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2490/page/18/
-