On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    " permitting" a voluntary sacrifice for the benefit of others , and " requiring" an innocent person to suffer before the guilty cart be pardoned ? To me it appears that these two propositions cannot be compared together ;

    they $ re not homogeneous . I find not a single point which they hare in common . I am more puzzled to feel the force of the writer ' s statement than to answer it . When I contemplate the

    first proposition , I feel a moral generous glow of sympathy , both with the Deity and with the sufferer . In looking at the latter proposition , I feel only a sensation of shuddering abhorrence . And that is all the account I

    can give of the matter . 2 . In the supposed vicarious sufferings which this writer and Dr . Butler see in the moral government of the world , they have , unfortunately for their argument , seized upon an

    exception , instead of & general rule . In arguing from the analogy of nature , as to the proper character of Christ's death , we must ask , not what happens u in many cases , ' * or merely in cc a variety of ways "—but what is the general principle on which the Deity seems to conduct his moral

    government . And , surely , no one can say that he generally punishes vice in this world by inflicting- pain on the innocent . See , then , the advantage which the Unitarian has in appealing to the analogy of nature . His first glance at it sweeps away the orthodox doctrine of atonement . And as he looks a

    little farther , he finds his own view of it confirmed . Because , generally , whenever he sees pain and suffering in this world , he sees a long train of good effects to be more or less connected with it , precisely in the way in winch he himself connects the benefits

    of Christ ' s deatli with that painful event . It is not till he looks much farther , and finds , by the exercise of his ingenuitv , a few anomalous cases or vicarious suffering , that he perceives any thing which can even remotely excuse the violent and unnatural

    doetnue of a literal sacrifice in lieu of the guilty human race . I trust I have here pointed out a fallacy , or at least a frailty in one part of Dr . Butler ' s excellent work . Whenever he fortifies religious truths by an appeal to the general analogy of nature , I think the argument is unexceptionable and

    Untitled Article

    successful . But with regard to the atonement , he had it not in his power to do that ; he could adroitly appeal to occasional exceptions in the course of nature , which , in truth , when properly considered , instead of

    confirming , only overthrow the doctrine they are advanced to establish . An opponent always has it in his power to say , and to say fairly , If you can prove your opinion , by referring to what the Deity sometimes * or " in many cases "

    performs in the course of nature , my opinion , even on your own principle , is so much the dearer and stronger to me ; because it is analogous to what the Deity almost always , and in a great majority of cases is constantly producing .

    3 . The subjection to pain and death of the whole animal creation , is not , I think , a similar anomaly" to the orthodox doctrine of the atonement . It might be easily shewn that the former law of Providence , produces , on the whole , the greatest quantity of happiness throughout the sensitive

    creation , while , at the same time , it certainly violates no moral propriety . Whereas , Unitarians profess to see in the orthodox opinion of the atonement , not merely the suffering and death of an innocent person , but such an application of it , as , when fairly reduced to its legitimate consequences , confounds all moral notions whatever .

    No one can say , that the sufferings of the animal creation take away the guilt incurred by some order of responsible beings in another quarter of the universe . But it could evidently be only such an analogy , that would give strength to the inquirer ' s third objection . We are too apt , in drawing

    analogies , to confine our attention to some single common circumstance between the objects of comparison , when , on a little nicer examination , other circumstances may be discovered , which utterly destroy the supposed relation .

    Apology for joining in the Church Service . Very well—very well indeed . It is a pity that so much can be also said on the other side .

    Extracts from Ancient Presbyterian Registers . There seem to be many marks here of the word Tchabod having been written on the Presbyterian Church of England at the time to which the extracts refer .

    Untitled Article

    Critical Synopsis of the Monthly Repository for September t 1824 * 547

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1825, page 547, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2540/page/33/