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
and that it is not in . the power of my judges to rednce It , but absolutely in the hands of the government , nor doe there want several petitioners who have tryed to beg it for some publick
uses and some for private , so that I suppose it either is or will be granted , though I know not to whom . The way you mention of getting some friend to beg it is what I long since suggested to our friend Mr . H . at London , ( for
I cannot pretend to any such here who have interest enough , ) but I perceive there is nonp will use their interest at Court that way , or * care to appear in so despised a cause . I hear 'tis said by some of the great ones , that if I were released I should be
but further troublesome ; indeed I know not what way to attempt any thing more to any purpose , and therefore intend to sit down in silence , being determined to spend my few days in a prison , rather than to pay
any thing considerable to the impoverishing myself and the prejudice of my child . 1 hope I can be content with my confinement and solitude , though having sold my books I cannot improve it as else I might .
Notwithstanding the difference between my sentiments and Dr . Cudis , * Fowl , ^ &c-, which you mention , yet I conceive they have in effect said the same with me , though they wou'd fain bring themselves off with a few healing expressions . But as they
directly deny the essence of Father and Son to be numerically one and the same , so I think they deny it to be of the same sort , or to have the same or like propertys , for what can make a difference in species if not this , viz . that one is self-originated , independent and supreme , and the other a derivative depending Being ? These are very different , nay even contrary
propertys- As for a likeness iu power and knowledge , fib ewtrH , commensurate to the world , I have not denyed it more than they ( I take the Father ' s secret purposes to l > e ab injrd , Acts i . 7 ) . I avoided assertions that Christ
was created , not knowing what other ways of production there may be , nor do I see any difference between creation and emanation , only I fear to assert with them a necessary emuna-* Qu . Cudworth ? Eu . + Qu . Fowler ? Ed .
Untitled Article
tfon from the Father , lest it haply imperfection in the Father * for since nothing more than all perfection can be necessary , if the Father have all perfection in himself , what necessity
is there on him to produce more , any more than there can be that ; he should create other beings ? In short , I am not concerned about his origination as to the modus , ( supposing his preexistence , ) ' tis enough that he is begotten or produced from the first original Being .
I grant indeed that many controversys have perplexed the church when the preexistence wa 3 granted by the Arians , but as there will be more difficult controversys ( I judge ) if it be denied , so I do not think those ancient controversys about the unity
of the two natures to be any way depending upon the preexistence , which needs suppose no more of two natures in one person than is in every man : all will grant Christ consists of soul and body , whether the former preexisted or not , and there may be the same questions also put as to his
origination , either way . —The question is only whether his preexistence be proved from Scripture : you think no proof but a priori is sufficient : you require it to be proved that any part of Christ's nature or person did preexist to the union to flesh ; to this I think it may be replied , that most of what we know even bv revelation
itself , is known a posteriori by consequences . Perhaps I could not know from Scripture that man has a soul distinct from the body but by implication and consequences , but in this case I think the Scripture asserts Christ ' s preexistence to his descent on earth in express terms , particularly
John xvi . 28 , eh . i . 17 , Col . i . 15 , 17 . I conceive his coming from the Father was in a literal sense , else there was no antithesis between the two parts , and nothing could be more violent than a metaphorical sense of such places ; but as to any other ascension than one to his Father , I think there
is no pretence for it either a priori or a posteriori , except John III . 13 , which is far from asserting it , only it says , be had been or was there ; no m else had been there ( which must be by ascending ! but he who ( not ascended , but ) was there . I do not think that the bare predications of the propertys
Untitled Article
706 Original Letter of Mt . Emlyn ' s to Mr . Manning ,
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1825, page 706, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2543/page/2/
-