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
. John u I , accords not with Gen . L I > no such instrument is there noted $ ii along , ch . iu 2 >> and the word only ia John . But if we have two Gre *
atO 9 & 9 the one primary or supreain * the other ina mediate , secondary and subordinate , by whom , &c . — how comes it to pass that our translators stuck at it , when in so many texts ( according to the Hebrew idiom ) we read ia the oriinal ( th' joyned with
g o a verb singular mostly ) of Gods ere * filing the heaven and the earth , Gen * ' ^| j ^ # 5 ?[ f and Gods our Makers , Job ^ K f ^ -iQ j Ps . cxlix ., 2 , and Creators , lEccles . xii- 1 , &c , all plural ; that they render such texts in the singular number , ( as in the Apostle ' s Creed
foo *) | f indeed we are to own more than one Creator or common parent , as being the immediate offspring of Christ ? Actsxvii . 26 , 28 . Where by the way it appears , that the assertion of Gods more than one were more
defensible from the phrase of Scri p * ture-writing , than that of divine /> rsons more Shan one , for that not only we find it no where so written as of the former , but for as much as the
latter exegetically added serves to ascertain and com pleat the notion or idea of distinct Gods being-the same thing in plainer terms . Three allknowing , all-mighty persons , are every such divine person , a God . If one such make a God , more such make
Gods . A Father and a begotten Son , either of them God Allmighty , is plain enough , but each of them a person fcy himself and to be God and Lord , speaks more out . The Sabellians of old , adhering to the numerical unity of God , ( as our nominal Trinitarians now , ) denied the
proper personality of the Son as a distinct intelligent being and agent . The Arian and Semi-arian party firmly asserted it , and became the most prevalent . Those again touching the substance and nature and essential
propertys of the person of the Son , fejl into three divisions , the Mono , the Homoi , and the Hetero-usion parties . The two former of the Nicene Council were at length forced to a verbal accord centering in the Homousios , an ambiguous term that might be construed to either of their senses , ( one substance in number or one ii | kind only the like . ) ' and so
Untitled Article
their forces united , they together over nuinbered the strict Arian party and there condemned them . Who soon after did as much for those in diverse greater following councils * But the Homousians afterward again getting up , and running down the Arians ,
quite divided between themselves , the greater part of them to this day are real Trinitarians , ( as all the vulgar , ) i . e . for three divine all-knowing persons , whereof the Logo ^ or Son is one . But then again owning the coik substantiality , both of them ; the greater number of them , in a subdivision , are for the coeteraity and coequality of the Father and Son ; the other , holding both to be very God Almighty , and each a person by
himself * affirm the coeternity of Father and Son , to that end explaining the procession of the Son from the Father , by the way of necessary natural emanation , as light , &c , but denying the equality with the ancient fathers , neither did those of Nice at all assert
it . This way goes Dr . Cud worth and of late Dr . Fowler , not asserting with the former the omnipotence of the Son to be ab extra only , or the Father ' s concurse at pleasure * My friend to whom this is directed , goes the Arian way in the main . He denies the consubstantiality , eternity , and coequality of the Son , as also the hypostatical unity with the Divine Being of the man Christ Jesus . But affirming the preexistence of the one
nature of his person and his instrumentality therein , in the creation of all beings and things under God , efficiently causing them to spring out of notliing ; he centers in a God of God , a begotten God , however produced , ( tho * a creature too , ) made omnipotent and omniscient potentially ,
( as Dr . Cudw ., ) the former de facto exerted in the creation , the latter when God pleases to concur with him . In short , God can make an infinite secondary cause , L e . that may or can know , effect and do , all that ever himself ( without him ) ever did or can do to make another world .
Nothing of immediate efficiency being his peculiar , besides the causation of an instrument , ( if the Holy Spirit be not such another as Christ too , ) a God Almighty from without , as to his capacity ever potent to all things
Untitled Article
39 Correspondenc * between Mr * Emfyn mi Mt . Mprming ;
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1826, page 38, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2544/page/38/
-