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
loose Sense to express some resemblance or approximation to the usual one , or we use it without any distinct meaning at all . It is very possible to use a word without meaning , as part of a formula which we have been early , taught , and which , without having been reflected upon , is associated , as a whole , with certain notions of sanctity and duty ; but we manifestly cannot so use a word as the result of our own observations or inquiries : it cannot ,
therefore , be in this manner that we ascribe unity to the Deity from the study of his works . Neither is it in the loose sense , for when we reason from unity of intelligence , design , and active power , to unity of mind , and therefore of being , the argument may or may not be conclusive ; but it has no meaning , no existence whatever , if we change the sense of the term . It is plain , then , that the unity of the Deity , as a doctrine of natural religion , ( whether established by sufficient evidence or not , ) is unity in the obvious sense of the term , and is opposed to plurality of persons , hypostases , or distinctions , of whatsoever kind , in the Divine Nature .
After some farther argument on our ignorance of the essence and mode of existence of the Deity , Dr . Smith proceeds to say , " These remarks have been made with a view to shew that there is no antecedent incredibility in the supposition , that the infinite and unknown essence of the Deity may comprise a plurality—not of separate beings—but of hypostases , subsistencies , persons ; or , since many wise and good men deem it safest and most becoming" to use no specific term for this ineffable
subject , —of distinctions ; always remembering that such distinctions alter not the unity of the Divine Nature . For any thing that we know , or have a right to assume , this may be one of the unique properties of the Divine Essence ; a necessary part of that Sole Perfection wni ? h must include every real , every possible excellence ; a circumstance peculiar to the Deity , and distinguishing the mode of His existence from that of the existence of all dependent beings /*
Now we have shewn that so far as the argument from Nature for the Divine Unity is good for any thing , ( we will not press it as conclusive , ) it is an argument for Unity , in the obvious and usual sense of that term , excluding and opposed to all plurality . No one . can say that any appearance of Nature sanctions the doctrine which is contended for ; and from the philosopher to the savage , no one ppssessing the use of his reason , ever heard it proposed for the first time , or first applied himself to study it , without feelings of surprise and of repugnance . It is hardly then too much to say , that there must exist in every unprejudiced mind a justifiable indisposition towards its
reception— an indisposition which may indeed be overcome by evidence , but which must require to overcome it evidence clear , direct , consistent , and abundant . We are called upon to admit this notion of plurality in unity on the authority of revelation , whilst , inconsistently enough , we are told in the same breath that it cannot be understood . It is represented that we may conceive it possible that there may be a sense of the term Unity consistent with such plurality as exists in the Divine Nature , though the term Unity is an arbitrary sign , unmeaning , except as it excites by association a certain notion in the minds of those who hear it ; and the notion which it thus
represents is , with equal correctness , represented by the phrase * ' absence of plurality ; " that is to say , we might as consistently affirm existence and nonexistence of the same thing , at the same time , as unity and plurality : yet every attempt at rendering the ideas at all compatible is ^ proscnbed as heresy . We cannot even know what to call the distinctions in the Divine Nature : if we use the common term persons , we must consider that term as having a
Untitled Article
4 Dr . J . P * Smith 8 Scripture Testimony to the Messiah .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1831, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2593/page/4/
-