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
" ^ ni r ^ Emiyn to Mr . Manning . ' SnC April Z , 1704 . T ^ V yoar s T find you wish I had not JL 3 discover ed any thing of the Arian principle , which yet I think I have but barely intimated , and that rather by way of supposition than of assertion ; but ff I must be put on it in iny defence , I judge it the same thing . It
may be , none will defend the controversy as stated in all points , but that will only concern the argument from the creation , not any of the other matter in the Answer . I don't think it difficult to give a reply if I had the use of some few books , or if it cou'ri _ t _ . « ... / % .
be done without suspicion of the author , which would be prejudicai at present . I find one great inconvenience wouM attend a reply , viz . the bulk and tediousness of it , which has been no advantage to the Answer itself with many . I have been thinking on some general reflections on the nreface and book , in which I I vvou''d preface and bookin which vvoud
, shew two things . 1 st . That the Father and Son are two distinct beings or persons in the vulgar sence , by the scripture account , and that this will follow Cas you observe ) from the several parts assigned to them by the Answerer himself , and other such , which are most inconsistent with a
numerical unity of being . 2 d . That the distinction between ' em is that of a greater and a less , and that the Son is a derivative , dependent being , as to his nature , which the Answerer allows , and therefore infinitely different from the first Original Cause ; and here I would consider the business of emanation , as no better than creation , which is by emanation of power arid virtue from the Father , tho' it may he remote and mediate , also the
unreasonableness of asserting a necessity upon the Father for such emanation , and then the little relief this itself will give towards the proof of an aequality between the necessary cause and the caumtum and wou'd intersperse some other occasional remarks on the
Answer , and in relation to the supream deity of the Son . This wouM be enough for one part , and might strike more at the bottom of the controversy , about the Unity , which he has left so obscure and uncertain , , Then one may hereafter consider his principal arguments apart , espe-
Untitled Article
cially about creation ( which , I think , may be dispatch'd in a little compass on my principled ) and religions worship , where he has not done so Well a 3 he seems to imagine : for this latter also there are some rude materials at hand . *
As to the Nestorians , I think they will be answered by proving the Son of God in the highest sence not to be the Supream Being . But , indeed , as to the deity of Jesus Christ who lived on earth , I take thetn to be a real branch of the Arians , and as much to deny
the deity of Christ as the Unitarians do ; I find many of the Trinitarians are aware of this , not only the animadverter on the Bishop of Sarum ' s Exposition of the 2 d Article , but also Mr . Jurieu , who says , in denying a personal union they can only be for a
union of grace and assistance as Photinus and Paulus Sarnosat&hus ; so that one may instance in their vast numbers and long succession in the East , in answer to the popular argument against the Unitarians from their want of visibility and succession .- !*
Next you give me an account of what you take to be my scheme in these matters , as to which I wou'd give some remarks that may better illustrate it , and obviate many of
those objections you suppose it attended with . As to the praeexistence of all human spirits , I see not that it must follow from Christ ' s praeexistence ; there is no necessity that his ence ; there is no necessity that his
original must be the same with others ; 'tis certain it was not . ! ) You say mens generat mentem ; but sure Christ's soul cou'd not be generated as others , when he had no human father . So that he must differ . So
that no more may be intended by the Scripture account of his likeness to us , but that he was really such as to his natural passions and infirmitys and temporal condition . ( ) The matter of the origine of human spirits is in the dark , and the Scripture enters not into the philosophy of that point ,
* An Answer to Mr . Boyse was pub-Ji . shed in the year 1706 , and called a Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ on Unitarian Principles . H . R . B » -f ~ Not so ; the Arians were for an information by the Logos , the Hypostatic Unity ; the Photmians not . M .
Untitled Article
&or despondence between Mr . Emf yn and Mr . Manning : 87
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1826, page 87, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2545/page/23/
-