On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
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
attft seems then to " explain its sense " most iatelligSibly , as well as then only to " explain its sense" authoritatively , when it " uses words" which are scriptural , not when it " uses words " which are not scriptural * How much the introduction of any other " sense " or " language" may have prevented * wrangling to no purpose , " let the records of ecclesiastical history , not your Correspondent ' s ipse dixit , determine * T . T- CLARKE . i
Untitled Article
_ —^ Bath , Sir , March 6 , 1820 . AM sorry to observe that an erra ~ I tur n has been copied from the ** JiaUamshire" into the present Number of the Monthly Repository . Seeker , newly made a bishop , writes to Mr . €€
Milnes , If you write to me soon , make no change on the outside of your letter , nor in the inside even" ( p . 69 ) . It ought to be ever : meaning , I suppose , that the term of relationship which had previously appeared at the
beginnings and ends of his epistles , should not give place to those terms of honour to which the newly-acquired rank qf the bishop entitled him . You will agree with me that it is but justice to the memory of this eminent prelate to make this correction . It was a mere
error of the press , and received its correction amongst some other errors of the same kind , on the last leaf of the " Hallamshire . " J . H .
Untitled Article
Sir , IT was not my intention to say any thing more on the doctrine of Necessity , but I seem called upon to add a few words upon the subject ; and they shall be as few as possible . Your ingenious Correspondent Homo [ p . 93 ] is of opinion that the question is to be
resolved into consciousness . But I conceive that , without an appeal to consciousness , we may pronounce upon the truth of the following proposition , that a definite effect must have a definite cause . But your Correspondent farther observes , that the doctrine of
Necessity seems to exclude accounta bility altogether . To this I reply , that tbe doctrine of Necessity appears to me demonstrably true $ mAfact proves Ihitt man is an accountable being . In hi ? jounfey through life he tak e * the
Untitled Article
consequences of his own condiict , aatf is in an important sense the author of his own happiness © r misery . And what more than this need be understood by accountableness ? The fol , lowing observation or Dr . Jebb seems to be rational , and , if just , is much to
the purpose here : " Punishment ( the Dr . means in the common sense of the term ) is the annexing of something over and above the natural consequence of an actiofr . But this addition , let divines say what they : please , obtains 9
not in a future state / ' But granting that this observation is not just , does accountafoleness , in any sense of the term * imply that the actions of men proceed from a self-determining power of the will ?
With respect to the objection of my friend Dr Morell , ( p . 86 , ) for the convenience of replying to it , I shall state it in the following terms : The moral feelings of mankind teach them that it is just that punishment should follow guilt , and therefore that man cannot be what
the Necessitarian represents him . But do the moral feelings of mankind teach them that justice would demand the punishment of guilt , if the piujpunent could produce no beneficial effect ? Then their feelings , I conceive , reason faster than their understanding . See note in p . 70 of your last Number . But do their feelings teach them that punishment would be more justly
inflicted on a being constituted upon the principles of philosophical liberty , than on what is termed a necessary agent ? Then their feelings t&ach them what is not trae . The fact seems to be , that observation and experience have caused
the ideas of guilt and punishment to be so closely associated in our minds , that we may imagine that we see or feel a connexion between them which does not rest on the basis of utility , and which cannot be proved to exist—Is the moral consciousness of which
Dr . Morell speaks , an innate feeling ? Is thera reriscm to t&iiik that , if wan had never seetf pHnlShfltient follow guilt , he would Kme iiidferHed from his nioral constltiitkm Ohm it ought to follow it ? TfflO . 'titoftrifed ' ntot , I think . ot
object altogether % 6 the doctrine innate prmcipf&s . But fc this feeling the result * of fcN ^ eWetu *? Then * cannot teadi us urttet experience aoe « not teach 5 artd if <\ # e < ft * l coriv ?*^ that justice calls for ^ ptfrirttf **
Untitled Article
152 Mr . Cog-on , on the Doctrine of Neo&S 9 ity ~
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1820, page 152, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2486/page/24/
-