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
has brought against them is , certain difficulties with which the question seems to be attended . That there are difficulties belonging to it I am ready to admit , and few questions of importance are altogether without them In < oming to a decided conclusion upon most subjects of moment , we have generally to strike a balance between contending claims , and to adopt that opinion Where the diffic ulues are the fewest and of the
least magnitude . Such is the case with the subject in hand . No view of it is altogether free from objections : the only question is , on which side do the objections range them
selves in the most formidable and appalling attitude ? In my estimation , decidely on that of the everlasting , unmitigated punishment of the wicked .
I will briefly notice the objections of Cantabrigiensis in the order in which he has put them . 1 . In one sense of the word , every thing which may be justly and truly
inferred from the Scriptures is a Scripture doctrine , though I own I had rather appropriate the phrase to 41 doctrines expressly and designedly inculcated , " and not to opinions which
are the mere deductions of our own reason . However high the probability may rise that we are right in our deductions from Scripture , still it is not equal to an express and positive declaration . To what is plainly asserted , we cannot , if we admit the assertion , refuse our assent : but to
what is only inferred , however clear to us the inference may be , the same authority cannot be attached . In logical strictness of speech , that only is a Scripture doctrine which the Scripture writers have expressly and designedly inculcated . Though there are many expressions in Scripture which harmonize more completely
YVLLll tilt ; uulliuic » i ir&Lii . uiiuu than with any oilier , yet I am not clear in my own judgment , that the doctrine itself was distinctly in the view of the writers , and was by them intended to be brought before the mind of the reader . It may be so >
but with the proofs of it I am not thoroughly satisfied , Mad they designed to teach and enforce the doctrine as a part of the revelation of Christ , I should say with Cantabri-
Untitled Article
giensis , that they would not have contented themselves with here and there dropping an expression in favour of it , but they would have brought it forward plainly , expressly and purposely . It is partly on this account that 1 am induced to think that the
writers themselves had no distinct contemplation of the doctrine . It may be thought rather strange , that a doctrine of so much importance should not have been made the subject of an express revelation , and truly it is a difficulty : but , both iu
the preaching of Christ and that of the apostles , the doctrine of future rewards and punishments is distinctly and plainly taught , and beyond this they are silent . They say nothing
about the peculiar character of the heavenly state or its opposite . They enter into no particular description of the one or the other . They simply announce the important fact , that man wil ] be raised from the dead and
receive his future reward of happiness or misery , according to what he hath done , whether it be good or evil ; and there they stop . Why they have gone no farther ; why they have said no more where we are so desirous of
knowing more ; why they have not told us something of the nature of future rewards , and the nature of future punishments ; why the secrets of the world to come have not been
in the slightest degree unveiled to us , we cannot say , except , that so it seemed good in the sight of God . But , does it follow , either with respect to moral actions or doctrinal
opinions , that we are to confine ourselves to the letter of the New Testament ? Nothing , it is . acknowledged , must be thought or done in opposition to what is there taught and commanded ; but are we to confine ourselves to this ? With respect to
morals , evidently not ; for many things are verbally omitted which , nevertheless , it is our clear and bounden duty to perform , and which we shall neglect at our peril . Where we have not the
letter we must consult the spirit , and abide by the spirit . This , in all cases of moral conduct , will be universally admitted . In matters of opinion the greatest caution must , no doubt , be used ; but still I have no hesitation in saying , that the Christian has a right to pursue the principles of Christianity
Untitled Article
740 Mr . Madges Reply to CoMtabriglensis on " 'Final Restitution ? '
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1818, page 740, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2483/page/12/
-