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
supposing them not to be altogether false and unscriptural , why . do modern divines presume to attach to them an importance which apostles and evangelists evidently did npt attribute to them ? , It is chiefly in an indirect manner that I ) r . S . supposes the book of Acts to support his opinions . He has collected its testimony under nine heads . Some of his statements excite our extreme surprise , but we are under the necessity of confining our remarks at present to < one or two points . He tells us , first , that the real humanity of Christ is here ' stated in the clearest terms . " This , it seems , is perfectly consistent with the reputedly orthodox doctrine . Yet we certainly feel at a loss to understand how some of the texts here quoted are to be reconciled with that doctrine * We know it is held that our Lord was truly man as well as truly God , and , therefore , we might expect to find him on sonie occasions called man * but what is to be thought when he is said to be " a man proved to you to be from Qod by miracles , wonders , and signs , which God did by him amongst you ? " Jl man from God- — -not a God-man— -proved to be sent from God by miracles—which were not his own—were not effected by any part of his own nature , but which God ( plainly spoken of as a distinct being ) did through him . To us these words seem absolutely irreqoncileable with the
doctrine of the two natures , as directly opposed to it as if they had been designed to contradict it . Of this at least we are certain , that if the most perspicuous and appropriate language for designating a human prophet , divinely commissioned and attested , were carefully sought out , no words could be found fitter for the purpose than those which the Apostle Peter has employed in this passage , according to common supposition , with so
very different a meaning . Were it necessary , we might apply a similar argument to other remarkable instances in which our Lord is called a man but it would be useless to go on ; for those who do not see the force of the reasoning in the case we have been con . sidefing , will not be impressed by any thing we might add respecting other passages . We hope it is clear tp every reader that here and elsewhere our argument is drawn not from Christ being called a man , but from his being so called under circumstances ^ and with explanations 9 which appear fo us inconsistent with the notion of his having been more than man . It is , therefore , no reply on the part of believers in his deity to say that they also acknowledge his humanity . They are called upon to shew , by suitable and consistent explanation , that we have not good grounds fpr affirming the incompatibility of the language used with the admission of any other besides a human nature . This is what is required , but what we have seen no attempt to accomplish , and firmly believe that no ingenuity can accomplish . * * * * - * *
We must , in the next place , take , a specimen from the chapter on the testimony of the Apostle John . The elaborate dissertation on the intro-
Untitled Article
814 Dr . J . P . Smith ' s Scripture Testimony to the Messiah .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1831, page 814, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2604/page/18/
-