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
offices which nothing but an intelligent agent can discharge , is only to shewthat unless the term person is used to denote such an agent , it is egregiously misapplied . Nothing more surely need be said on the subject , until the meaning of the term person shall be distinctly specified . And there will be no temerity in predicting that whenever this shall be done , the proposition
of the Trinitarian will either resolve itself into Unitarian ism , or prove itself to be demonstrably false . One plain question , however , shall be asked in the mean time . Are the three persons of the Trinity to be considered as each possessing a separate and individual consciousness ? If so , the three divine persons are , to all intents and purposes , three Gods . If they do not
respectively possess a consciousness of their own , then either the consciousness of the Father is the consciousness of the Son , and the consciousness also of the Holy Ghost , and in this case the three persons are strictly identical , or the Divine consciousness must be possessed exclusively by one of the three persons of the Trinity ; in which case the other two are neither persons , nor any thing else which the human imagination can conceive .
Will the Trinitarian say , that though human language does not furnish terms which may express his doctrine with sufficient clearness and precision , * the doctrine itself may still be true ? I ask , what doctrine ? The proposition which he has usually maintained , when the terms of it come to be considered , either melts away into simple Unitarianism , or resolves itself into two propositions which contradict each other , and by which , therefore , nothing is conveyed . But the Trinitarian will still urge , that as his doctrine
respects the mode of the Divine existence , the human mind cannot expect to fathom it . I might still ask , what doctrine ? But waving this question , I observe that though the mode of the Divine existence is incomprehensible by man , it does not follow hence that every proposition which shall be advanced concerning it may be true , or that no proposition can be laid down respecting it which the human intellect can with certainty pronounce to be false . In fact , a proposition the terms of which contradict each other
cannot be true , whatever be the subject to which it relates . As I formerly remarked on the subject of Mystery , there is a great difference between not seeing how a thing can be , and seeing why it cannot be . And this is a difference which has been generally overlooked . I once heard a preacher of distinguished talents remark , that as there are mysteries in nature , as , for instance , we do not know by what energy a blade of grass is made to grow ,
we might antecedently have expected mysteries in the dispensation of grace , and may therefore safely admit what have been termed the mysteries of the gospel . I considered this as a specimen of that loose mode of applying analogical reasoning by which men contrive to deceive themselves and to impose upon others . On this subject much might be said , but I will content myself with observing , that an analogical argument which brings forward a
* Some have intimated that they are Dot bound distinctly to define or comprehend the terms in which they shall express so sublime and mysterious a doctrine . No doubt , if a man chooses , for his own amusement , to use words without ideas , he has an unquestionable right so to do . But if he comes forward to explain to his fellow-christians in what sense a fundamental doctrine of revelation is to be
understood , and especially if he demands that an asseut should be given to his explanation , he may assuredly be called upon to define his terms . And if he refuse to da this , he has no reason to complain if otliers will not admit that which he does not himself profess to understand . He may choose to satisfy himself with a persuasion that a proposition which is expressed in terms that convey no definite meaning may be true in some sense or other ; but the intelligent inquirer will ask , in what sense T
Untitled Article
3 Q £ Remarks on the Trinitarian Controversy .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1829, page 304, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2572/page/8/
-