On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    ru 3 es aloft ^ jrre at , inrmortal , heavenly ; _* nibe Sto ^ f the Father ^ - ^ tfte Spirit proceec&rig feom the Father , three making' one , and one three , l *> sx tj > i&v , k < & 4 r && $ Tfia . Luc . III . p . 596 , ed » Heoaster . Here a God is solemnly

    appealed to as witness ; he is in the heavens : he consists of three , Father , Son and Spirit ; these three make one . This is the caricature ; and the original , beyond all reasonable doubt , is the Apostle Jahn . € £ lq eiuxi rr } fxeu vqsQ ^ acrBt rp vz , rrj Se < rvfA . ( pwyip Jy , are the ivords of the Arian-Council at

    Antioeh in 431 , which I have already shewn to be founded on the disputed text . Traces of the veree might be pointed out in Frenceus and Athenagora 8 . But I pass jjver these , and just mention that 'Theophilus of Antioch % in 181 , who is supposed to be the first

    tlat has used the term Trinity , thus connumerates the three persons , as they stand in the text of John : " These are certain types of the Trinity , —of God , his Logos and his Wisdom /* Ad Autolychum , Lib . ii . p . 96 . This is noticed by the Bishop of St . David ' s in his Letter to the

    Clergy , p . 20 ; who justly observes , that the term " Wisdom" is often put for " the Holy Spirit . " la this connumeration Theophilus follows the Apostle in using Logos , the Word , for Films , the Son , as is generally done by other writers .

    Tertullian wrote about the end of the second century . His reference to the text would hardly have been questioned , if the true state of the dispute between him and Praxeas had been ascertained . That heresiarcb , as he has been called , maintained that the Father , the Word and the Holy

    Spirit were but one person . This shews that he considered the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of God , and the Logos to be the attributes of God , as displayed m nature and revelatfon . From this it is clear that Praxeas

    distinguished between the Logos and the Son , and that he took the latter to mean the man Jesus . Yet Tertullian takes occasion to say , that Praxeas confounded the Son with the Father .

    and hence gives him the name of Patri passian , as if he believed that God the Father suffered with the Son . Now what ground was there for this representation ? It h undoubtedly a

    Untitled Article

    gross calumny , as Lardrier ' ' tefc ^ ii to be : s <* e ht ^ Histdty ^ W ^ Mc ^ W ^ 7 . Y <* £ there must be some fouodfition for it , beyond wW ^ t ^ et ^^ Wl f and we shall at once discover tM ground for it , if we assume , what fe

    certainly true , that the text of John was not only known to Praxeas and Tertullian , but that it was the principal cause of their disputes . The former maintained , that the Logos meant emanations of the Divine attributes communicated to the man

    Jesus , and yet he must hare allowed that in the disputed text it is synonymous with the Son of God , or Jesus endowed with authority from God . This furnished his uncandid adversary with a fair handle to fasten on him the

    epithet of Patripassian ; because , on one hand , he believed the Logos in the strictest sense to mean God the Father ; and , on the other , he interpreted it as meaning the Son , whom he expressly defines to be flesh or the

    man Jesus . With regard to the text of John , Praxeas must have explained it , as any Unitarian would have dome , as taking the Logos to mean Jesus in his official capacity , and the expressed unity to intend unity of consent , not of substance . But this did not suit

    the views of Tertullian ; and 4 ie artfully pins down his opponent to an absurdity arising from the two different acceptations which he assumed to the term , by substituting , what

    Praxeas would not have allowed / the Son for the Logos in the connumeration of the three persons , and insisting on the intended unity , as meaning unity of substance . Thus the controversy turns on the text of the three

    Heavenly Witnesses . I will quote the * passage of Tertullian , as it is correctly translated in a recent production of the Bishop of Bristol , who sides with the adversaries of the verse : " Of this Comforter , the Son says , he shall take of mine , as the Son himself had taken of the Father ' s . Thus the connexion

    of the Father in the Son , and of flhe Son in the Paraclete , makes three coherent persons , one in the other , which three are one in substance , unum , not one in number , units ; in

    the same manner in which it is said , I and my Father are one "—Adver . Prax . c . xxv . —that is , not unus , one person , as Praxeas maintained , but unurn , ty , as asserted in 1 John v " . 7 .

    Untitled Article

    Ben DavhJ bn 1 J&hk v . f . 0 &

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1826, page 275, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2548/page/23/