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
redundant if of the essence , ) of God the Father . The idea of substance , the substrate to \ S * % ~ ftictftties of the form , or jp ^ ial essence of a spirit , none pretend ^ to conception of , not of our own soul , wlose powers we
certainly know . Of that wjll be the question touching your Logos praeexistent . And a . king ' s son may be of the same supream essence in specie with his father ; and is so a man , tho * as originated from him , and in
other respects he has not the same supremacy , but no argument from the ^ ij ^ lii ^ hrist Jesus reaches them . Your adversary , most inconsistently with himself , takes his hold of that handle ,
for having- espoused the common doctrine of the hypostatic union and a God-man , and making the term God , ilcts xx . 28 , Son , Heb . i . 1 , and man , 1 Tim . ii . 5 , yea , and the Son of Man , John vi . 62 , to be concrete terms , denoting the person of Christ
by either name , whole Christ , tho * not wholly either of them aloae the vhrist ; but when your allegations pen'd him , then the " Son absolutely put , and Son of Man shall be abstract natures , Mark xiii . 32 , John v . 29 , 1 Cor . xv . 28 , &c ., no more concrete names , with him expressly two Sons , the one the Son of God himself , and
the other the Son of Man . He , himself , ( like as with him , God is but one of more , the Father only , 1 Tim . ii . 5 , Heb . ix . 24 ; and the Father only . Matt . xxiv . 36 , shall not be exclusive of the Son , Mark xiii . 32 ); but the distinction comes ia too late for him an Athanasian .
Then , again , you have yet to refute both the Arian opinion mostly , and the Socinian , touching the person of Christ , however these accord with you as to the unity of God , and denial of
the deity of the Son of Man , as having no God above Lira . Your hypothesis , I take it in its connection , proceeds on these principles—( 1 . ) That the Logos or Son of God praeexisting before the world , was the Messiah ( not
yet incarnate ) , a person , not a derivative , dependent Being , finite and of a created capacity , but that He , God by him , or under God , could give being- to all things out of nothing , lay
the foundation a of the earth , &cc , Job xjexviii . 4 . Such capacity no Socinian will grant communicable to any created bfeihg , no more than a Trini-
Untitled Article
tarian . ( 2 . ) That the same Logos * Christ preexistent , was of the same species of being with all human spirits , ( if those be distinct from the angelic
nature or not , Heb . xii . 22 , 23 , ) who likely may , for all that appears to the contrary , preexist likewise . However , the word an human soul or spirit , you take for the soul of the man Christ Jesus , and that he has no other nature of which the Christ consists
but the human , like to his brethren , Heb . ii . 17- ( He is no God-angeUman with Mr . Sterry , to reconcile all texts and parties . ) The Logos is his soul ( and passible , John xii . 27 * 'Tis not the flesh itself that feels or is grieved ,
Matt . xxvi . 38 ) . The Arians , who make the Logos a super angelic , or angelic spirit at least , appearing to the patriarchs of old , will not agree to all that . ( 3 . ) That consequently the preexistent Logos ( the Son of God ) assumed no manhood , but a
corpse or inanimate flesh only , into a vital unity of person with him . AH that was begotton of the Virgin Mary , Luke i . 35 , that holy thing , was flesh only , but what was born of her was her Maker . ( 4 . ) That the union of
these two natures , flesh and spirit , was truly hypostaticaL Such as that a communication of properties belong * ing to either nature apart , are really and truely predicable of the concrete person , ( not metonymically or
verbally only ; so as omnipotence , yea , and as well eternity and immensity may be also predicated of a finite being , interpreted not of that being , but of God specially in him , no , but ) so as that things acted and done by either nature , as the immediate subject
or principle a qud may be verified of the person , the swppositum ut quod : yea , tho * done of old by a part before , such union you say is peculiar to the human nature , supposing the soul ' s preemstence ; but of the latter you can give lid parallel instance of any one , that a man should te said to do this
or that before he was born , or was a man , or to have done it , in an after predication of him existent , at which the Socinian sticks , * denying as well the preexistence too of the Son of
To stick at any thing seems to have been an usual method with JVlir . Manning of expressing a difficulty . So in his notes on Emlya ' s letter of Dec . 23 , when
Untitled Article
34 Correspondence between Mr . Emlyn and Mr . Manning .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1826, page 34, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2544/page/34/
-