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
of the ifcOtftet aflfid her two sons incited them to prefer this important petition , they addressed their petition to the entire nature © f . t > hrftt t fctow exalted soerer it might be , praying him to grant their request to the utmost extent of his power , whether as God or man ; Matt . xx . 20 ,
Worshiping him , and desiring a certain thing of him > and ver . 21 , Grant that they map sit- Christ also answers with reference to his whole nature , — ft is not mine to give / and lest for some reason they might still fancy the gift belonged to htm , he declares that it was altogether
oat ef Ms province , and the exclusive privilege of the Father . If his reply was meant solely to refer to his mediatorial capacity , it would have bordered on sophistry , which God forbid that we should
attribute to him ; as if he were capable of evading the request of Salome and her sons by the quibble which the logicians call expositio prava or ceguivoca , when the respondent answers m a sense or with a mental intention different from
the meaning of the questioner . The same must be said of other passages of the same kind , where Christ speaks of himself ; for after the Jiypostatical union of two natures in one person , it follows that whatever Chmt says of himself , he says ; not as the possessor of either nature separatel * but with reference to the
y whole ^ f his character , and in his entire persopL , exc ^ p £ where he hiniself makes a djgtiii c ^ iif "l ^ osie who divide this ^ hypostatfca , ! Union at their own discretion , strip the discourses and answers of Christ of all their sincerity ; they represent every thing as ambiguous and uncertain , as true and false at the same time ; it is
not Christ that speaks , but some unknown substitute , sometimes one , and sometimes another ; so that the words of Horace may be justly applied to such disputants : Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo ? —Pp . 101 , 102 .
" With regard to divine honours , ** he shews , p . 105 , that 4 as the Son ttnifqrtnly pays worship and reverence to the Father alone , so he teaches us to follow the same practice . " His interpretation of the word
Elohitn , and his exposition of various passages commonly adduced in this controversy , prove him to be an erudite , sagacious and sound biblical critic Take for example his observations on Thonias ^ s confession , John xx . 28 :
, H $ auist have an immQderate share ° V credtuKty who ^ iltentpta to elici t a new confession 6 F faith , unknown to the rest ° * the disciples , from * thts abrupt excla-^ K ^* ojf tfee apo « tle >; : who invokes in his
Untitled Article
surprise not only Christ his own Lord , bat the God *> f his ancestors , tmtnel y * God the Father ;—as if he had said * Lord ! what do I see—what do I tearwhat do I handle with my hands 7 He whom Thomas is supj > osed to call God in this passage , had acknowledged respectiug himself not long before , John xx . 17 , / asverid unto my God and pour God .
Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is . On whose word therefore can we ground our faith with most security ; on that of Christ , whose doctrine is clear , or of Thomas , a new disciple , first incredulous , then suddenly breaking out into aa
abrupt exclamation in an ec&tacy of wonder , if indeed he really called Christ his God ? For having reached out his fingers , lie called the man whom he touched , as If unconscious of what he was saying , by the name of God . Neither is it ' credible thkt he should have so quickly
understood the hypostatic union of that pecsoa Whdjte resurrection he had Just before disbelieved ^ Accordingly the fait h of Peter is commended—Blessed art thou , Simon—for having only said—Thou art the Son o the living God , Matt . xvi . 16 , 17 . tJbefaitb of Thomas , although as it
rs coratnoely explained , it asserts the divinity of Christ ia a mudi more remarkable maurier , is so fa ^ r from b ^ ing praised , that it is undervalued , and almost reproved iu tlie next verse—Thomas 9 6 ecause thou hast seen me , thou hast be " lieved ; blessed are they that have not seen , and yet have believed . And yet ,
though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame , the testimony borne by him to Christ as God , which , if the common interpretation be received as true , is clearer than occurs in any other passage , would undoubtedly have met with some commendation ; whereas it obtains none whatever . Hence there is
nothing to invalidate that interpretation of the passage which has been already suggested , referring the words—my Lord —to Christ , —my God—to God the Father , who had just testified that Christ was his Son , by raising liim up from the dead in so wonderful a manner . "—Pp . 112 , 113 .
Milton gives the Unitarian sense of most of the texts alleged by Trinitarians . He was aware of a various reading in Acts xx . 28 , but he understands tlie word bfood of offspring or vr . .... « r'B ** • . ¦ > - » soni rimiii 16
.- H « interprets I . . , God manifest ihttie flesh , Of the Father , wlid ^ Wai manifested in the Son , his image ; who was justified , &c . Oik Titus iL 13 ^ lie says * ? t&at " the delinitive « riicle «» anr be ih ^ erted or omit-
Untitled Article
ReviewsMiiton ' t "Wrv&tiseyf Chrhii&n Doctrine . 691
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1825, page 691, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2542/page/51/
-