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
insist Ofiihfr miraculous birth of Jesus a 9 . a necessary article of faith ; nor Las the high orthodox party proposed a ^ y amendment to supply the omission . This is a remarkable fact , which cannot he accounted for , but on the
supposition , which I doubt not is the truth , that , at that early period , the Christian world in general were not yet prepared without abhorrence to regard a story so improbable and absurd in itself , so full of Heathenism , and so contrary to the tenour of the Christian Scriptures .
The immediate object of the Synod was to put to rest the controversy excited by Arius and his followers : yet the Creed of Eusebius is silent respecting * it . This shews that the author was not in the number of the
orthodox party , from whom the Arians had to expect no indulgence . Arius virtually denied the divinity of Christ , saying that he was not of the same substance with the Father , and that as he was begotten in time , there was a time when he did not exist . The
omission in the proposed creed was supplied by an appendix , which condemned these and similar sentiments , and anathematized the author with his adherents from the Christian Church . Yet the orthodox party felt the utmost perplexity to give any colour of reason or consistency to the
system which they opposed to the Arians . For if they asserted the divinity of the Son , and interpreted the clause , " And these three are one , " as meaning one in essence , and yet jrj aintairjed t $ e Diving Un ^ ty , the distinction ^ of ' "Father , Son and Holy Ghost were no other than nominal , and themselves real Unitarians . But
if they asserted the divinity of the Son without asserting also his identity with the Father , they were thrown on the other horn of the dilemma , and liable to the charge of Polytheism . Of this
we have a full proof in the example of Alexander , who , by asserting an unity in the three divine persons , incurred the immediate charge of £ abellianism . It is curious to see the
adroitness with which they extricated themselves from this perplexing dilemma . They declined to affirm in express terms the unity of the Son with the Father ; but invented anew epithet which , signifying an identity of essence , implied the unity which
Untitled Article
they wished , but dared not , to * affirm . The epithet thus invented is opoaaioy , and carries a tacit intimation against the Arians that the clause of the seventh verse , " And these three are
one / ' means one in nature or essence , and not , as the Arians maintained , one in consent or design . In this great council the Arians were defeated , Arius himself , and some of his leading adherents , being banished- They again , however , soon
became the ascendant party ; and A . D . 341 , ninety-seven bishops , who disclaiming to be followers of Arius , though professing his sentiments , because they had received them in regular succession from the apostles , met at Antioch , and drew up a long declaration of faith . This declaration .
as far as it bears on the subject before me , is to this effect : Ui ^ -evo ^ ev siq iva 0 eov—uq tva , Kuptov \ t \ o 8 v Xpjg-oy— ei $ to UvevjjLcx , to djiov—& > $ tivoci T 77 [ aw V 7 rog"a . a' £ i Tpio& ttj da crvfJLchooviq . ly , that
is , We believe in one God—in one Lord Jesus Christ—in the Holy Ghost —so that they are three ia person , and one in consent . " Here we clearly recognize the text of the three heavenly witnesses , inserted in his Epistle by the hand of John . For this text consists of three
parts , namely , three persons—three persons bearing testimony—and these three are one , that is , one in testimony or consent . This creed implies the same number of parts—three in person , one in consent , crvfMpai / ia . But if they are one in consent , then each of the three must have borne same
testimony , and the testimony meant is found expressed in the words of the Apostle . The o-vpfpooviq , kv of the Arians , is opposed to the scrip £ v , or the ofAo&o-iov , of the orthodox : and both are founded on the apostolic clause , " These three are one , " and both
intended as explanatory of it . If any doubt remain on this question , it must be removed by recurring to the state of the argument between Abbot Joachim and Thomas Aquinas . This was in the thirteenth century , when the verse was restored , aud its genuineness not called in question . Joachim was
an Arian , and thus argued : " As nothing more than unity of testimony and consent can be meant by tres unum sunt , in the eighth verse , nothing more than unity of testimony
Untitled Article
150 Ben David on 1 John v . 7 .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1826, page 150, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2546/page/22/
-