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
c ' ttser , the Bishop of London , that he never woiitd r ^ eaiiti €€ though his pri * son shctold Whts grave . " The other alleged instance of < € an entire want of candour , " is a charge not only unfounded , but it also completely disproves the writer ' s otii&r
accusation , of disingenuous and unjust" conduct , by testifying- to your readers , that the said Apology is expressly noticed in that preface . The editor has even described it , p . vii ., as obviously favourable €€ to the Sabellian hypothesis ; " which constitutes its nearest approach to reputedly orthodox doctrines . He has also noticed
Penn ' s eulogy on Socinus , in reply to a charge of " being a Socinian . " This could not be designed for " a recantation ? ' and five years after this , Penn declared thkt Thomas Firmin , who
said he had retracted , was " shamefully mistaken . " See the Sequel to my Appeal , pp . 4 ?—52 ; or Fenn ' s Works , II . 453 . Whence , then , these groundless , injurious and contradictory accusations ? It cannot be amiss for the € t intelligent" writer calmly
to inquire . "In this very Apology , " adds the writer , " are to be found these unequivocal expressions . " They follow p . 272 , but are taken not from that tvwk , but from " an Apology , " published several years after , "for the Principles and Practices of the Quakers / ' yet not quite correctly . And though the Editor truly declared in
his preface , that he was " not acquainted with a more manly and able vindication in that peculiarly fanatical age , of the pure Unitarian doctrine , than the Sandy Foundation Shaken , " the writer is much mistaken in
concluding , that " then it necessarily follows that the Apology is a recantation , ; " or that it is •« in direct apposition to the principleswhich constitute Unitarianism . " To prove these positions it is necessary to shew , which the writer has not even attempted , that Peftn ' s Apology * for his former work ctwatalns u ' * disavowal of his
former sentiments , ^ Sand-that . M » very sf poio&u asserts principles which are " in direct opposition" to the doctrihe of brie phly trite and living God , who iMeBfcribed in the Scriptures as " the G * jtd and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ : " such as the doctrine * f * the Trinity of distinct and aepa ^
Untitled Article
rate persons ia the UnHy , <) f ess £ pce , ^ or of ao gj e other p lurality of persons in the Ddty , neither of wbfeb « an J find that Penn . since ihe became ^
Dissenter , ever acknowledged . Safreliius and his followers , in t& £ third ceritujry * ascribed " eternal Ite&y '' to Christ , as expressly as Williiun Penn ev ^ r ]( Jid > and yet they were always justly kerned Unitarians .
In the page preceding tliajt irpo > which the extract supposed to t > e sq " unequivocal" xv % & s ^ letted , Penn challenges his Trinitarian opponent to adduce *' ojne scripture that has directed him to anch a phrase as
distinct person , or that says , T and my Father are two , instead of * I and my Father are one . 2 ndJy . If . be > vill but bring me one piece of antiquity for the first two hundred years , that used any such expression . 3 rdly .
And if he can deny that the Popish schoolmen—were the grandfathers and promoters erf such like monstrous terms and uncauth phrases , I will be contented to take the shatne uppn joae of denying proper , apt aud si ^ ufi c ^ li t phrases .
" But till then I wili tell him , that if the Son of Gad did purchase our salvation distinctly from the Father , the Father was not concerned in onr salvation , Uut Christ onl y * And if he did so purchase it as God the Son , ( distinct from the Father , ) then God
the Sun ( by his principles ) cannot be the same with God the Father ; and ail the eartli , with all their idle sophisms arid metaphysical quiddities , shall never be able to withstand fehe conclusion to be two . Gods ; otherwise , if the purchase was by God the San , then God ihe Father was concerned
as well as , God the Son , hectiu&e the same God . If not , then either Christ' * Godhead was not concerned dn jthe purchase , or there must be two Gods ; so that which he calls a personality distinct from the essence , eomld not
do it , and if the dinne essence ! did it , then the Father and Spirit did it as \ yell as the Son , because the skme individual , eternal essence . ^ Penj&'fe AVorks , II . 65 . ,
About two years after this " Apology for the Principles of , tfye Quakers" was publiskcq , sPenn addressed a letter to ^ BiuilColleufees ^ a clergyman who hud alternated "to shew ; tnha / ignorance puts ixian under the state of
Untitled Article
Penh ' s " Shnfy Foundation ? ' 403
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1822, page 467, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2515/page/11/
-