On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (3)
-
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE.
-
Untitled Article
-
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.
Miscellaneous Correspondence.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE .
Untitled Article
On the Proem of John ' s CrospeZ * To the , Editor . Exeter , Permit me a few words in reply to the rein arks * which have been made on iny observations ou the opening of John ' s Gospel , lately favoured with a place in the Repository ( p . 284 ) . I was a little startled , 1 confess , at seeing a quotation from them at the head of an article
inscribed " On the Divinity of Christ ( p . 325 ) ; although on proceeding with the perusal I found that the fear , which I at first entertained , of having been seriously misapprehended had but little foundation . Jiideed , while the epithet divine is bestowed on so many things , as , for instance ^ on poems , bards , and
theplogiaiis , and scarcely withheld from any thing whiciican boast , in its own line , of extraordinary excellence , no grave objection can surely be taken if Christ should occasionally be called our divine Master ^ or our divine Saviour . And if he may tie called divine , we cannot in consistency deny his divinity . As implying ( his divine mission , and the
extraordinary spiritual excellence and dignity of his . per&on , I should neither scruple to use the term myself , nor blame its use in anbther . A teroi , indeed , so little definite in its meaning , does not seem very well suited to express a point at issue / between two contending parties , and this is probably the reason why some late judicious defenders of the Divine Unity have chosen to express the
doctrine to Tfvhich they are opposed , not as that oftthe divinity of Christ , but as that qf his < fc % orproper deity . This is well , because it obliges the advocates of what is called orthodoxy to speak out , and come fairly to the real point in question : it obliges them to quit a phrasing of their doctrine , so lax and ambiguous , that it may always , be plausibly
maintained , and to substitute one which may perhaps startle them a little even while it is in their mouths . While , however , we do well in ceasing to proclaim the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as that which we oppose , it is not , I think , quite so clear that we ought to be found inscribing this very same motto on the banners for which we contend . In short , this expression , both as conveying no
Untitled Article
definite truth in itself , and as being . so completely entangled in the language of polemics , does not seem nt to be made prominent in any way , either for attack or defence , but rather to be laid aside like a clumsy tool to rust in oblivion . ,: For my ovyn part , at least , I must be allowed to say that I certainly did tiot intend to advance auy doctrine commonly described under this title . In my huinble opinion , the doctrine of the New
Testament concerning our Lord , sajcir as respects his own proper . person uni % nor ture , is , that he was truly , and therefore simply , a human being ; one of the race of man ; and that both in body and * j ^ i mind . What remains is not , as I apprehend , that he had belonging to himself a second nature , but tl \ at ; his human nar ture existed in a peculiar and most intimate union with his Father , Go ^ J Tfi&t in him which was divine , was not , as t
conceive , proper to himself , but essentially inherent iu another , even in the Father , Who dwelt in him , and spoke ith ^ words , and did the Works . It will surely be allowed that the highest conceittion which we can form of the Indwelling of the Father in the w # » Christ Jesus can never fairly iu volve any ; yie ^ s > $% t k are not consistent with the strictest maintenance both of the tinrty of 6 'dd . and of the true humanity of Christ ^ or ; tn other words , that are not strictly Unitarian . Whether such conception shall alse be said to involve the divinity of Chrjst is not , as far as I see , a point of much moment ; provided that battered phrase be properly understood .
I am , in the next place , called on to make some reply to the , strictures of your Reviewer ( p . 577 ) ; au < i fhis J shall do , as I trust will be perceived , not in the temper of a polemic , but as one in earnest to find and further the truth ' . Before proceeding to notice my opponent ' s objections in detail , it way be well to remind the reader that the difference in the modes of interpretation in question lies chiefly in thisft th&t tlie iTord , in my opponent ' s view , signifies the system or scheme of revealed truth it 8 e ( f ± and therefore something apart and distinct from the Deity ; while , according to that which I advocate , the Word is to be regarded as a principle inherent in the Divine nature and part of it , something
Untitled Article
( 713 )
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1829, page 713, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2577/page/41/
-