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
work is said to be op ^ a to sei ^ iinents contrary to your own , it appeared to me proper to present roy defence of the Trinity on the same arena £ s was chosen for the attack . Your insertion , therefore , of the following remarks , will much oblige you * humble servant , An Inconstant Reaber *
i . The only remark which the first paragraph requires is , that it "was useless to prove the being of a God , hy way of exordium to an argument against the Trinity . At the close , however , the writer seems adroitly to avoid raising a difficulty which he could not lay ; for
while he professes to prove the goodness or ^ ene&cence of the Deity , by the felicities which he has diffused through his works > he has cot tohi as how we are to . answer those who would attempt to shew that we may equally prove some badness , or malevolence in the Deity , by the evil which not only exists , but abounds jr . his creation . He was
doubtless , wisely aware , that to start this difficulty might lead to the reflection that even his own system contains insoluble mysteries , which would sap the foundation of all his reasoning ; for the utmost which his piece amounts to , is- — tliat there are in the doctrine of the Trinity difficulties which he supposes we cannot solve .
a . In his entrance on the second paragraph he proves himself reduced to play the old game of mls-stjat ; ejnent . Is it that anti-trinitariaus are ignorant of their opponents * sentiments ? Then Solomon pronounces , that ' "he who answers a matter before he hears it , it i& , folly and shame to him . " Is it that they are so . dull as not to be able to understand the
invariable statement of the Trinitarian doctrine ? Then how incompetent must they be to the discussion of so abstruse a subject ! Is it that they both know and understand , but chuse to keep our real sentiments out of sighf , and obtrude a false statement of their own creation ?
Thej ) how evident is it , that they are conscious of their inability to confute our real sentiments , and therefore frame a man of straw , which they call by their . opponents' name , that they may enjoy the profitless pleasure of an imaginary triumph . All tiie argumentation which
Untitled Article
this writer brings forth with so much gravity against many gods , is ridiculous when considered as an attack on those who maintain , that while there is but one God , he ( who best knows himself and from whom alone any real know ' ledge of his nature can be s derived , ) has revealed himself to us as existing with the unity of his essence in' the three-fold distinction of Yather , Son and Spirit .
3 . The unity of the Deity is argued out in such a loose unsatisfactory way , that if I had no better evidence for the Trinity , I should easily abandon tbt doctrine . I believe both the Unity and Trinity from the word o £ the very bekg
whose nature is the subject of di&pute * while this writer rests the XJnity upon the credit of such speculations , that if 1 thought it lawful to argue against a sentiment wjiich / l believe , I should not be afraid to attempt their confutation .
4 . For his principal proof of the existence of but one God , is derived from a sophism ,-slipping into the argument by a . logical legerdemain , the term zafiniUy without ; any thing to introduce or to authorize , it . The infinity of this one being is with him a mere unfounded assumption ; for though he appeals to the works of creation , to be sure he will
not pretend that this visible universe is itself infinite , and if it is noty how caa the formation of a finite machiae prove the artificer infinite ? Yet upon the infinity of the creator rests his proof of the divine Unity . 5 . In the progress of his argument he confounds the terms being and person ,
which neither are syttonimous , nor are considered as such-by Trinitarians , but carefully distinguished . But while a man confounds the very difference in dispute , what is he fit for . but logomachy ? , 6 . He affirms , that a plurality of persons could do no more than one . But
the plan of human redemption , -which was altogether designed to illustrate the divine nature , and in an especial manner the grand peculiarity of the Deity , shews that the Trinity has infinite advantages in that moral' government of the universe ; for while one of the divine persons maintains the rights of the divine throne , as the guardian of justice , another reconciles this with mercy , even to the guilty , by making atonement , and the third restores to holiness the polluted creature by mean * of that atonement . >
Untitled Article
49 S Defence of the Trinity *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1809, page 492, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1740/page/18/
-