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
vate life * might possibly have been less pure and unimpeachable than his public conduct !"—Pp . 104—108 , These , be it considered , ar £ th 6 wards of the Archdeacon of Cleveland ; and this is the Charge which he
now prefers against Mr . Belsharn , who shall therefore speak for himself : we quote from the former edition of the Calm Inquiry , pp . 190 , 191 : * ' The moral character of
Christthrough the whole course of his public ministry > as recorded by the evangelists , is pure and unimpeachable in every particular . € ( Whether this perfection of character in public life , combined with the general declarations of his freedom
from sin , establish , or were intended to establish , the fact , that Jesus through the whole course of his private life was completely exempt from the errors and failings of human nature , is a question of no great intrinsic moment , and concerning which we have no sufficient data to lead to a
satisfactory conclusion /' We make this citation for two reasons ; first , to convince our readers that what Mr . Belsharn has written , refutes , and should have obviated , Archdeacon Wranghara's gloss and animadversion ; secondly , that we
may appeal to them , whether Mr . Belsham has here done justice to his subject or to himself . His proposition , we think , is not enunciated with the precision and distinctness which usually characterize him . We have no doubt that by " errors and
failings , " errors and failings not sinful must be intended ; and the epithet not sinful should , accordingly , have been added . Of our Saviour's perfect virtue and piety in every relation of life , who that reads the memoirs of him , can harbour a suspicion ?
In the third of these " Letters , " Mr . Wellbeloved examines the Archdeacon of Cleveland ' s defence of the creed of the Established Church , so far as it relates to the doctrine of the Trinity . The dignitary exclaims , < c Shall we not teach them [ the Unitarians !
that what they simply regard as their exclusive and self-evident tenet , the Unity of the Godhead , depends for its certainty upon the testimony of the Scriptures ; and that the unity of design which pervades the natural world , proves only—to adopt the defu
Untitled Article
nitron of our oWn luminous PaleVa unity of counsel ?" Now the testimony of the Scrips ttires , is one thing ; the definition / or rather the conjecture , of Paley , is quite another . Where can we discover etii
dence that the Scriptures put any distinction between the Unity of the Creator and the unity of a mere creature ? Independent proof must be given of the doctrine , of the Trinity , before such comments are admissible .
Let it be established that three persons actually co-operate with each Other in a design and undertaking , previously to an attempt at shewing that these persons form only one being * The author of the " Letters" before m ,
properly speaks of Paley ' s definition , or concession , as relating father to the question "between Monotheiste and Polytheists , than to that between Unitarians arid Trinitarians . " This , it would seem , is its true and natural
reference . Not that Paley so employed and limited it : there can be little doubt that he glanced at the Trinitarian controversy ; and our Highly valuable correspondent Mr . Cogan >
whose powers of estimating and of conducting metaphysical and moral reasoning , have rarely been surpassed * has in this view , completely destroyed Paley ' s inference . *—Pp . 109 . 110 .
ArchdeaconWrangham asks , " Why are plural appellations so frequently employed , in the original Hebrew , to designate the Godhead ? " He informs us too , that " in the very first page of the Bible we meet with terms applied to the Supreme Being , which
inseparabl y combine the ideas of Plurality and Unity ; terms which gratuitous hypotheses of Orientalism , of the ordinary style of royal proclamations , or of the association of angels , In the acts and decrees of Omnipotence , are vainly adduced to explain . "
If , after what we have already perceived , we could be astonished that the Archdeacon of Cleveland relies on an argument like this ; if , under such circumstances , we could exclaim , " Hroc non modo nlirttbilia sunt , sed
prodigii simile est , quod dicit ! " our wonder , nevertheless , would give place to our gratification at the opportunity with which Mn Wellbeloved has been furnished , and of which he has availed Mpjdl . Jftepo * . XVIII . pp . 694 , &c
Untitled Article
i& Review . —*~ fPeltbelwed& ' Letters to Archdeacon fflTVfog ftf tfo *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1825, page 96, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2533/page/32/
-