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
ceive others , but often impose upon themselves > Certain it is that mystery is a word of very convenient application , and which theologians can employ or not , according as they wish to defend or refute a particular article
of belief . Thus the Protestant tells the Catholic that his doctrine of transubstnntiation involves absurdity and contradiction 5 but when the same charge is brought against certain dogmas in his own creed , he finds in
them nothing absurd or contradictory , bat sees only certain sublime mysteries , into which , as they are not to be comprehended , it is impious to pry . Thus mystery , it seems , is a term which is conceived to afford a retreat from the
persecution of argument , and is employed to soften that which ought to go by a different name into something which , with the appearance of falsehood , possesses the reality of truth . But are we not obliged in many cases to admit what is mysterious ? When I am informed what is meant
by mysterious in this question , I shall immediately be able to ' give an answer to it . If by mysterious is intended simply that which our understanding cannot grasp , I reply that we are often compelled to admit what is my steriousj for instance that the great First Cause is self-existent ; but if by mysterious is meant what is self-destructive and
contradictory , as that . ageing who is infinitely benevolent should act the part of a cruel , arbitrary tyrant , we are not and we cannot be compelled to admit it . When therefore any proposition is set before us which seems to come under the general denomination of
^ comprehensible , we should carefully distinguish between that which surpasses our reason and that which contradicts it . Great care should also be taken lest we receive what is
self-contra dictory , while misled by the vague wd ambiguous use of language . Were these simple . rules attended to , I . conceive we should soon hear no more of what have usually been termed mysten ** in religion .
. But is it not an evidence of becomlr » g diffidence and humility in fallible man to receive on the authority of delation a truth by which the ordinar y conclusions of the hurnan mind pre set at nought and confounded ? If the authority of revelation were clearlv * Me out on the one side , and on the ° ther " a proposition were laid down to
Untitled Article
be admitted on this authority which should involve a contradiction , this would be a very perplexing case indeed ; but until God can 1 contradict himself this is a perplexity to which we can never be reduced . We may
indeed be called , on the authority of revelation , to admit truths which surpass the apprehension of our limited faculties j and that this is perfectly reasonable may be shewn by such a case as the following . A child shall be informed by his father that the
three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles . Conceiving his father to be wiser than himself , and that he has no intention to deceive him , he will naturally give credit to this proposition , though he cannot comprehend the evidence on which it rests , and has no reason but
authority for believing such to be the fact , But let the child be told that there is no angle , or only one angle in a figure which is affirmed to have three angles , and he would be no very promising child if he did not immediately perceive that there must be some error
or equivocation in the use of the terms in which the proposition is conveyed . There is an important and obvious difference between not seeing how a thing can be and why it cannot be . I do not see how God should have
existed from eternity , but I seem compelled to admit this , that I may not he obliged to admit what is more inexplicable . But I do see why God cannot be eternal and not eternal , selfexistent and not self-existent , omnipotent and not omnipotent . Had this distinction , which it has sometimes
been very convenient to overlook , been always attended to , certain religious controversies might have been brought to a speedier termination . It deserves also to be remembered that there are certain propositions which though they cannot perhaps be reduced in form to a contradiction , are so repugnant either to our reason or to our
moral feelings , that nothing but the most irresistible evidence would lead the thoughtful inquirer to admit them And yet propositions of this kind are thrust upon us on the faith of detached
texts of scripture , which either imperiously demand or easily admit a more rational interpretation . I was next goings to inquire into the practical utility of mysteries * but as this appeared clearly a non-entity * I
Untitled Article
Mr . Cogan on Mysteries . 501
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1815, page 501, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1763/page/37/
-