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

    has God any external form ? Does lie appear unto men under any sensible figure , which induces them to associate that figure with him as an index of his nature and essence ? If not ,

    the maxim of Chrysostom is a piece of sophistry utterly unworthy of Dr . Smith . The form of a man may mean a real , perfect man , because that man and his form are in our minds the

    result of invariable associations : but the form of God cannot mean God , because no such associations could ever take place in the human mind . And there must be an end to all rational criticism , if a word that implies

    only a sensible appearance can be perverted to mean a Being who is infinitely remote from all perceptions of sense . And yet on this perversion , gross as it appears , is founded the interpretation of this passage given by the ortho'dox divines .

    Dr . Smith supposes , that if the apostle alluded to the transfiguration , he would have used the past participle , vTvotpZotq , instead of vTzctpxuv , the present , as necessary to mark the previous change which Jesus underwent before his crucifixion . The remark is

    ingenious , and argues a critical skill in the language . I will illustrate its justness by an example : —In the beginning of the Iliad , it is said of Agamemnon and Achilles , that , apio-oci / Sioc ^ rjTvjv , having quarrelled , they

    separated . Here the past participle implies that they quarrelled before they separated , and was the cause of their separation : and the phrase might be rendered , they separated in

    consequence of having quarrelled ; whereas , if tlie poet used ep ^ a / re , his meaning would have been that they separated while quarrelling . Let us * apply this remark to the disputed verse . The Doctor maintains , that while Jesus

    suffered and died as a man , he was still alike incapable of suffering- in his divine character . Now , if the apostle entertained this notion , it would have been indispensable in him to mark the difference of the two natures , and this would have been effectually done by the use of the past in the room of the

    present participle , as it would lead the reader to infer that Christ died on the cross in consequence of having previously disrobed himself of his divinity ; whereas the use of the present participle unequivocall y sanctions the

    Untitled Article

    conclusion , that he expired in the very nature and character which he possessed when in the form of God . This leads me to observe , that an obvious and marked contrast is intended between vTzocpxciov and ( Aopcpriy as the fo rmer comprehends the latent princi ples essential to the being and character of

    our Lord , while the latter denotes only an external appearance . These latent principles which constituted his nature remained till death unchanged , but his splendid form vanished away previously to his dissolution .

    The apostle opposes those men who taught the divinity of Christ . His reference to these impostors is certain , because he mentions them by name : " Many are now going about , whom I have often mentioned to you , and now mention with tears , as enemies

    of the cross of Christ , whose end is their own destruction , ( and not , as they pretend , the salvation of those whom they deceive , ) whose God is their belly , and who glory in their shame . ' * They were enemies to the

    cross of Christ because they maintained that he did not really suffer , he being a man only in appearance . But while they taught the divinity of our Saviour , they refused to acknowledge him as Lord ; in other words , thev

    denied any obligation on the part of the converts to obey his moral precepts and to imitate his virtuous example , the end of his appearance being not to preach repentance and reformation to the world , but to annul the

    righteous laws of the Creator , and to give full scope to the worst passions of the human heart . Their object , in short , was to neutralize the moral influence of the gospel , and this they sought to do by substituting in the room of its divine virtues the notions

    which the Pagan philosophers had ot virtue , and to class the Founder with the Pagan gods . The high reputation of Aristotle , and the Ode which , though composed in praise ot Virtue , breathes a spirit hostile to the peace and happiness of society , sanecannoi ¦

    turns an abomination that « - named , fell in with the views of the deceivers . They therefore introduced ^ into the church at Philippi . Of this the apostle , though at a distance , could not be long ignorant , as he corresponded . by every means with the several churches he had established . If tlie

    Untitled Article

    352 Dr . John Jones in ansioer to Dr . J . P . Smith

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1822, page 352, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2513/page/32/