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
the limits prescribed to it : and this , we hope , ts not necessary , since what we have already said , must be sufficient to induce those who place any
confidence in our recommendation , and who feel any interest in the subject , to consult the works themselves . We shall , therefore , rest satisfied with quoting a single specimen of the manner in which Mr . Yates has conducted
his reply , and which will at the same time afford an example of the kind of arguments advanced by both writers : and then we shall proceed to state an observation or two which the perusal of the controversy has suggested .
" Mr . Wardlaw writing in the treatise before us upon the Doctriae of the Trinity , repeats what he had asserted in his Discourses that he * believes tkejact , althoug-h he is ignorant respecting" the mode or manner of thefact . '— -The fact stated in his awn language is this ; that ' in the Unity of the Godhead there are three distinct
Subsistences or Persons , the Father , the Son , and the Holy Spirit . ' This fact , he wishes me to believe . Before assenting to it , I am desirous , as in every other case , to understand the meaning * of the proposition . —You repeat to me a fact which you say ' is of superlative importance ; ' before I can
believe il , I must know what it is : you announce a proposition , I wish to be informed what ' ideas you annex to the terms of the proposition . *—To this query Mr . Wardlaw appears to me to return two different answers , varying his explanations according to the purpose , which he has in view in each particular case .
' * In the first place , he replies , that * the subject is so completely removed beyond the view of the human understanding * , that it is impossible for us to form upon it any clear or accurate conceptions . —Of the precise import of the terms * TJnityy c Distinct 9 y 6 Person ^ and ' Subsistence * which
are employed in the proposition , ' I shall not attempt , ' says he , ' to convey to your mind any clear ideas . I cannot impart to you what I do not possess myself . I however assert , that the proposition contains an important truth , because the truth is declared by divine authority . ' " *
u I answer , Shew me that it is declared by divine authority , and I shall assent to it with submissive reverence . But observe , that , in order to do this , you must shew me in the word of God the identical proposition which you have announced . For , since no distinct ideas arc annexed to the terms of
the proposition , we cannot prove its truth by * Discourses , p . 11 . 19 . 26 . 30 . Unit . Ineap . of Vlnd . p . 03 *
Untitled Article
any comparison of those ' terms with ottier phrases to which distinct ideas are attached . " f " It , " says Mr . Wardlaw , " the terms themselves are unintelligible ' , you ai * e clearly right ; for in that case it would be
impossible for us to substitute other terms , with any degree of certain assurance thai we were enunciating the same doctrine-The man who knows not at all the meaning" of the words Ellipse , Conic , and
Sections , would in vain endeavour to convey in other terms than those , in which it has been announced to himself , the proposition that an Ellipse is one of the Conic Sections . He must satisfy himself with repeating' the ipsissima verba" J
** Shew me then , in the word of God , the identical proposition , which you have announced . "—At this point of the argument Mr . Wardlaw changes his ground . The proposition in question , he knows , does not occur in the Scriptures ; he is therefore obliged to
maintain only , that it may be proved from the Scriptures . But proving implies distinct idfas ; and hence he is under the necessity of representing the proposition as not merely true , but intelligible , and the ideas suggested by it so clear , the conceptions so accurate and distinct , that the truth of the
proposition may be inferred with absolute certainty from a great variety of phrases and declarations contained in the Sacred Scriptures , all of which may be shewn to have a manifest bearing upon the subject , and to contribute testimony , more or less abundant , in support of the proposition .
iC The terra * themselves , * says he , are not unintelligible . The fact , stated in the proposition , is revealed , although the mode of the fact is not revealed . Reasoning * from the Scriptures is , therefore , the proper mode of establishing the fact , or proving the truth of the proposition . ' §
< c With the mode of the fact , I answer , we hare , as is admitted on nil handy , nothing to do . The Scriptures , you say , assure us of afact , and you maintain , that the terms of the proposition , in which you announce that fact are intelligible .
Permit me , therefore , to repeat the question , with which I set out , and to ask again , What ideas do you annex to the terms of the proposition ? In the first place , what do you mean when you assert the Unity of the Godhead . "
• f- Vind . of Uiutarianisin , pp . 41—44 129—132 . t Unit . Incap . of Vind . p . 52 . § Unit . Incap . of Vina . vp . 52 , 53 .
Untitled Article
Review *— -Unitarian Controversy in Scotland . < £ § £
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1817, page 365, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2465/page/45/
-