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
damnation , and what knowledge is necessary to life eternal" A solitarypassage from this letter is laid before your readers in the same page as the one I have above endeavoured to
elucidate , by adducing its context . I must do th $ same in this case , in order that Penn ' s letter may more fairly and fully " speak for itself" the real sentiments of the writer . "The matter insisted upon , relating chiefly to
us on this occasion , " says Penn , was , "that we , in common with Socinians , do not believe Christ to be the eternal Son of God , and I am brought in proof of the charge . The Sandy
Foundation Shaken touched not upon this , but Trinity , separate personality , &c . I have two things to do ; first , to shew I expressed nothing that divested Christ of his divinity ; next , declare my true meaning and faith in the matter .
" I am to suppose that when any adversary goes about to prove his charge against me out of my own book , he takes that which is most to his purpose . Now let us see what thou hast taken out of that book , so
evidently demonstrating the truth of thy assertion . I find nothing more to thy purpose than this ; that I deny a Trinity of separate Persotis in the Godhead . Ergo , what ? Ergo , William Penn denies Christ to be the
only true God ; or that Christ , the Son of God , is from everlasting to everlasting , God . Did ever man yet hear such argumentation ? Doth Dr . Collengea know logic no better ? But ( which is more condemnable in a
minister ) hath he learnt charity so ill ? Are not Trinity and Personality one thing , and Christ ' s being- the eternal Son of God another ? Must I therefore necessarily deny his Divinity , because I justly meet the Popish School Personality ? This savours of such weakness or disingenuity , as can never stand with the credit of so grreat a
scribe to be guilty of . Hast thou never read of Paulus Samosatensis , that denied the divinity of Christ , and Macedoriius , that oppugned the deity of the Holy Ghost ? And dost thou In good earnest think they were one in judgment with Sabellius , that only rejected the imaginary personality oj those times ; who at the same instant owned and confessed to the eternity and Godhead of Christ Jesus our
Untitled Article
Lord ? 11 is manifest , then , that though I may deny the' Trinity of separate Persons in one Godhead , yet I do not consequentially deny the deity of «/ esus Christ . " Penn ' 3 Works , I . 165 . The paft of thi 3 letter selected for
your readers , ( p . 272 , ) directly follows the above passage . From the whole of the letter it appears , that Penn rejected the doctrine of the Trinity , and that he held that of the divinity of Christ in the 3 ame sense as he
conceived that Sabellius did ; the accusation against whose followers , previous to the Council of Nice , according to Novatius , was , that they , " the Sabellians , make too much of the divinity of the Son , when they say it is that
of the Father , extending his honour beyond bounds . They dare to inake him not the Son , but God the Father himself" And again , ** They acknowledge the divinity of Christ in too boundless and unrestrained a manner . "
Ch . xxiii . The same writer also says , " The Son , to whom divinity is communicated , is , indeed , God : but God
the father of all is deservedly God of all , and the origin of his Son , whom he begat Lord . " Ch . xxxi . ; or , History of early Opinions concerning Christ , by Dr . Priestley , I . 47 , 48 .
In later times , since the doctrine of the co-equality and co-eternity of the three supposed persons in the Trinity has been a professed article of faith in many Christian churches , those who are known to reject the notion
of any distinction of persons in the Deity , and yet continue to use such seemingly orthodox language as the foregoing , are generally understood as asserting only the divinity of the Father dwelling in Christ , and acting by him , as Unitarian Christians also do .
What else , indeed , can such persons mean ? And what definite ideas can they annex to the terms they use ? That such was in substance William Penn's meaning , when he used the strongest expressions of that kind he ever adopted after quitting the Church of England , I have no doubt ; and
especially when I consider how forcibly a man of such piety , sterling integrity and good sense , must ^ otherwise have been impressed with the sacred obligation of expressly recanting the doctrines he had ao clearly and definitely asserted as sound and scriptural \ n his jSandy Fow ttltttiw
Untitled Article
468 Penn y s ' € i Sandy Foundation . "
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1822, page 468, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2515/page/12/
-