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
every living creature , haw it is made capable of enjoymeht , and how the means of enjoyment are provided for its use % how can we but conclude that the Autlu r of
all is a benevolent being ? and if benevolent , would he not confer happiness on his creatures and exclude misery as far as it was practicable ? What he has up * pointed is therefore best .
But " A Churchman" observes . ic this mass of evil pervading all the pavts of nature which we see * , exists then in opposition t'j the will , and in contempt of the power of Almighty God ! If any reader be shocked at this statement , so am I , " Would he not then be shocked at the idea of
ascribing the existing evil to the pleasure of the Almighty ? Would not that be a greater reflection on his goodness , than not being able to perform contradictions is on his power ? Yet if he neither ascribed evil to unavoidable necessity nor to the will of God , to what would he maintain that it ought to be attributed ?
I am not so sanguine as to imagine that I have cleared up every difficulty respecting those much disputed and difficult points ; but would only request the reader to consider impartially and judge for himself whether those which have bee a alleged be of sufficient weight to overthrow the principles against which they are brought
forward . And lest it should be thought that these principles are liable to greater objections than any others , I shall now briefly attempt to shew the unreasonable * ness of orthodox Christianity , of Deism , and of Atheism . As our opponent suLscribes
Untitled Article
himself " A Churchman ^ an 4 se < Miis to be aware of ' * contradictions that are said to occur in the creed of St , Alhanasius , " he
wiJI naturally expect to find them enlarged upon in reply to his observations . My remarks however shall be as brief as possible ; and con lined to one doctrine com .
mon to the established church and to all orthodox dissenters I mean that of the Trinity . According to this doctrine - there are three distinct persons in the Godhead , co-equal and coeternal . One of them is both God
and man , though but one person . It is not determined whether by the term persons in the divinity is meant distinct minds pr agents , or only an incomprehenU sible distinction represented to us under such an idea * If the first
explanation ot this doctrine be admitted , it is impossible not to perceive its absurdity ; for how can three individual beings , each of them possessed of divine aU tributes ,- be only one God ? Caii they be really distinct from each other and yet each not able to
act indi pendenty of the others ? But if each of these beings or persons can effect-what he pleases by his own separate power , is he not properly a God by himself , and if so , are they not evidently three Gods ? Yet is H strenuously asserted that they are but one *
\ Besides , is it not an evident ; And palpable absurdity to affirm that there can be three infinite minds or persons ? Does not one fill the universe with his presence ? If not how can he be infinite ?
If he does , where arc the others ? Is not one being of infinite power , able to accomplish every thing
Untitled Article
432 M >\ AUchitis ' Answer to the Churchmam
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1808, page 432, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2395/page/32/
-