On this page

• Text (2)

  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

  • 

    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

    Creator and Governor of the Universe , but ) subordinate to that God ., who generated ^ or gave him being , with whom he was , and who constituted him before his incarnation , guardian of the Jewish nation * ; which sense of the word God 3 when applied to the Xoyos-, the Son of God , or Jesus Christ , as it is consistent with the principles of reason and natural truth s or with our natural ideas of One God ; so is . it , I apprehend , consistent with the whole stream of the New Testament , and

    leads us into a rational ^ consistent , and justifiable scheme of Christianity . But this which seems the most obvious sense of the Paraphrase , appears to me wholly removed and destroyed in yoi ^ r notes ; where you openly declare against taking the word God , when used of the Xoyo < r in a subordinate or inferior sense .

    Therefore , according to you , it must be taken in the most high sense ; in which sense I judge it to be peculiar to Gpd lh $ Father , to Him only ; and that to apply it , in that most high and absolute sense , to any other , though to the only begotten and well-beloved Son , is a great and insufferable affront , though not intended as such by those who do so . ^

    The reason you give for supporting this sense of the word Gody when applied to Christ , is as extraordinary as the notion itself is absurd , viz . That the doctrine of Two Gods , one snpreme ^ and the other subordinate , would have been laying a stumbling block before both Jews and Gentiles . But would it not have been a greater stumbling block to have asserted two supreme co-ordinate Gods , which , upon your hypothesis , St : John does ? For I apprehend your learning and candour will yiot permit you to take refuge in the contradictory and exploded distinction of two Persons ( one begotten or derived , the other unbegotten or underived ) and one Kssence ; or in the mean and

    senseless evasion of two Persons , both equally supreme , and yet but one God or Governor . Beside , does not St . Paul lay this very stumbling block be- ? fore Jews and Gentiles , when he says , To us there is but ** one God , even the Father , and one Lord Jesus ? " Do not

    all the writers of the New Testament lay this stumbling-block , who assert Christ ' s being God , and . yet uniformly assert a mission from , a subordination to , and dependence upon God the Father ? Is it not also a very intelligible and consistent scheme ( which I judge to be the Gospel one ) , that there is one God , even the lather , who has all perfection and dominion underived , and independent in hiiuself ; and one Lord Jesus , the Son of God ^

    Untitled Article

    * p . 8 . Note ( U ) ,

    Untitled Article

    294 Rev . S . Bourne and Dr . T > oddridge *

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1806, page 294, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1725/page/14/