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

    th ^^ j ^^ i ^ ^ ft % 0 &Mtyme alread y % i $% 1 % ¦ 4 * yjgfiwi ^ i £ e $ h ' & $$ btaiOfU life . c ^^ 4 < # ^ kfMw ^<^ uit 0 adedv that they nugbt f be ^ ofcdne substance with him ^ self ; forith ^ t also they were already , in his being a partaker of flesh and blood ; an&he could not have intended that they might be one in substance \ nth G 6 ^; f ^ t was impossible . The beMMfeMH Oddthereforehas

    . , no ir 0 f ^ 4 g # y t ^ substance , arid if you say tka ^ Gigia and Christ are one ii * substance , mid coequal in all possible perfections belonging to the Divine Natuise >; h&w will you be able to

    reconcile the eternity which you must thus ascribe to Christ , with tne declaration of Ids being the only-begotten Son of God ? Is it not an absurdity to say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father ?

    Oxen . It is rip absurdity to say that the Sop is co-eternal with the Father ; for it is only in effects that are voluntary , that the cause must be prior to the effect ; but in effects that are necessary , the effect is coeval with th& cause .

    Med . Instead of entering into any laboured discussion to refute the metaphysical argument which you hatfe now advanced , I will only recommend to vou a strict $ nd rigid scrutiny and definition of your terms , and I will

    venture to foretel that , instead of your having any fair and legitimate evidence of the truth of the doctrine which you are now endeavouring to establish , you will not have even the most distant idea of an effect such as you have attempted to describe . Consequently you cannot yourself believe the doctrine which you profess to hold . For , we have it from

    a great and learned authority on your own side of the question—that " where there is no idea , there is Ho assent . " Besides , you have yourself subverted the foundation of t ^ e very superstructure that you have b « een labouring to

    erect . You have said that the Father , Son , and , Woly < xhQSt , && identical j from . M fh ^ fr ft wilL f p ^ low , npf onty that they ai ; e << W ^ W » , , ^ WiM > Wp * % fft ^ mwMm ^ mMi tM u ^ i ^ rhw ^ W jy ^ WikRteMM

    s ^ ' ^ m ^ - ^ w ^ m ^ W ^^ w

    Untitled Article

    ^ u ,. ^ aveE ; al 39 , j »§ | f | te ? rp gibat F apc , ^ and person . MJ $ W ^ % Wr ather , Son , and Hply XwQ *|» - 'ffH » . | ft be understood to expr ^ : J ^ 6 Mn ^ S 9 natare and divinity , with peirspnalj istinctions . This is Tntheism ^ , m 4 ^ dividing of tlie snbst ^ c&g M $ m & a p ^ rs ^ n if not a <^ sjgn ^ t mdiyi&ial ? Supjposipg I put the case ^ 9 follQWS : Ifetei ^ ; James and John empy a c ^ m ^ mon nature and manhood , with per- <

    sonal distinctions . What is to be inferred from my language ? Neither more nor less than that Peter , James and John are three distinct individuals , enjoying tlie common naturje of ^ Boi ^^ or , m pth ^ r words , th ^ it JB ^ ter , James

    and Jomiare three distinct Hj&bfe ? Tub inference is irresistible ; © irfff I ain told in reply , that the eipression is not to be understood as signifying the same thing when applied to God and when applied to man ; then I vtfXb desire to liiave the terms explicitly and categorically defined , that I may know in yrhat respect the sense you attach . to them differs from that of their

    common acceptation— -and till that i $ done , perhaps it will , ; at any rate , be prudent to put a stop to all further dispute . Oawn . I have stated my arguments on the subject of the Trinity with as

    much plainness as the case admits ; and you have met them only with assertion . I have expressed myself in terms taken in their common acceptation , and you have said that you

    cannot understand my meaning . I have adopted such expositions v > f Scripture as have been sanctioned by the most orthodox authorities ; and you h ^ ye

    given a new and unauthorized interpretation to all such passages as are hostile - to your own opinion ; or you have followed the decision of authori ties which I disclaim . I cannot ,

    therefore , have any wish to prolong a dispute which is . fco very unlikely to come to anybro ^ taMe i ^ siie . T ht ^ s , ^ ryjej l \ fM di ^ cussipn on $ h pf subliine ferine of the Trinity . Tik

    yow ^ jOxofi ipi wa ? e ^ e ^ Iy ^ IS ^ quaint ^ d nglt h tbe argumep ^ miiqMffift usually adduced oa the onhow ^^ M of the question , and seemed tQim ^ i ^* ^ haVe J&mtiweA mmy of th ^> fio 6 n *» later publication on tlie sii ^ cM bjn ^ i i ^^' Do 6 t € ir # / - ^ JHMf ^ % * ^ R % P ^§^ S ®^^ WTO ^ . ^ SJ- 'j ' . jp iWfl V 5 y . it' ( , ' r fT " *^'' r ^' i ; ' ^ ^ vt >^ ' ^ y */ > . i ^ t' f ' i

    Untitled Article

    _ . , ( VV , ; . _ ^^^^«?^^< Aft ^^^^ te ^ 4- . . . y , — ,-, «/ A iM

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1820, page 403, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2490/page/23/