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
Trinity of Father , Son , and Spirit . May he that gives liberally give us the wisdom we lack ! - —ana at least afford us so much of his counsell as may guide to his service here , and his glory for ever hereafter .
I am in all sincerity , Yours . For The Rev . Mr . Willin . Manning , at his house in Peasenhall , near Yoxford , Suffolk . Per London .
The Notes are jas follows : Here is nothing stuck * at of the common doctrines but only the coeternity and co-equality of the Father and Son , and the necessary existence of tlie Son ( indeed not answering to
the term begotten ) . His creation out of nothing is not asserted , and of such as hold him to be v § ry God of God , consubstantial with the Father , many deny the equality , all of them own his
subordination economical by dispensation and voluntary submission . The dispute then is only of his formal nature and substance . Why not begotten of the Father ' s substance then , with Dr . Fowler ? But for Philo he
disowned of the Logos ( or Messiah ) that to him was to be attributed the creation * And why not attribute it as well to the Holy Spirit distinct r as well to make three Creators as two . And how came the world so soon to
outstrip Justin and to conspire with Athanasius , ( as still do our most noted divines , ) not only to affirm the consubstantiality , but generally the coequality , to this day the common belief ? The former led the way .
Grant but the Nestorian hypothesis about the incarnation of God the Son , and that the holy child Jesus , begotten of the Virgin Mary , was a person , ( called her Son and the Son of Man so often by himself , ) an human person
distinct , and that will avoid the force of all the arguments of the Inquiryjf And no wonder it is that the preexistent Logos , begotten Son , and subomnipotent Creator and Sustainer of all things , visible and invisible , should
* Qu . struck ! Ed . f The publication for which Emlyn was imprisoned was called « ' An Humble Enquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ . " This was printed in 1702 .
Untitled Article
obtain to be owned for very QefA * )* nature , as it ha * eventually rptoved , $ The hypostatical unity with God ( at least the Father ) must be let g <^ as greater than he distinct , viz . than the man Christ Jesus , if not in some respects than God the Son too . Ad *
tn it ting the personal union with the Son only , of the same substance but subordinate in office to his progenitor , ( as others speak that are for the substantial unity of person , ) and disowning the equality against Nestorms , but believing Christ to have the style of God by nature given him , what a confusion are we inl
As for the equality and personal unity ( both commonly held ) , the Scriptures confute it a hundred times , but granting the inequality or refusing the personal union especially , the confutation of the Godhead of the
Son is more difficult , admitting the hypothesis of Ariua for true . However the contrary may be nay opinion , I am not so certain about it ( the Scriptures being- dark in the point between , the Arian and Socinian )
as I am to myself about the falseness of the common doctrine , which subverts the unity of God most high and the simplicity of his Being * , void of eomponeitg , such as of a God-man , one subsistent with a communication
of properties in the concrete person between Creator and creature in true and very speech , as consisting of the two natures as to God the Son . Justin and Tertullian too with Eusebius were for the cmisnbstantiulity of the Son . As one luminary alights another without diminution of itself
( as one soul begets another ) , so the Son is proceeding from or begotten of the Father . While yet Tertullian , as Irenseus before him , owns the preexistence not to be contained in the ancient creed or rule of Christian
faith invariable ( from the beginning extending all the world over ) recited by them . Again , how came it to obtain in the world so universally , that the child so called the hol y thing , begotten miraculously of Mary , should be believed to be not an inanimate mass of flesh or corpse only , but a man child ? When began it ? Who was the first asserter of it ? The history of h ? begetting , Matt . i . 18 , Luke i . 31 , 32 , Gah iv . 4 , nothing like to the infill
Untitled Article
708 Original Letter of Mr . Emlyn ' s to Mr . Manning . '
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1825, page 708, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2543/page/4/
-