The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-09-11

II IL L. - 1850
biouous: consequently. that the Con-
fession itself is its " best and eN-
! elusive authority of construction.
The whole teaching referred to IS
short. and is embraced IN II PROPOSE
ton as follows:
Elect infants. dying in infancy. are
reoenerated and saved by ,nr1st
through the Spirit. Who worketh
when and where and how He pleas
eth"
Please bear in mind that the sole
question is as to the ambiguity OF TINS
nroposition. just as it lies in Chapter
X. Section , of the Westminster Con
fession of Faith.
Before moving forward to n positive
definition OF ambiguity. it is import
ant TO point out some things which
are not included within it, and. there
fore. cannot be adduced as proving its
existence.
II. EXAMINATIONS.
/. The mere fact that a proposition
has been misunderstood would not ne
cessarilv prove its ambiguity. The
question might 50 be raised but could
not 50 be settled. The aus Of mis-
understanding are very numerous and
each instance of it would need to be
examined. in order to be classed as
proceeding from the man o. the mat
ter: whether from inattentiOn. indol-
I ence. bigOtry, prejudice, unconscious
partizanship. educational bias. pop
uIar Misrepresentation: and so on, al
| most without limit.
?. The fact that a proposition has
TO be studied in order to be compre-
hended. by no means proves its ambl-
guilty.. All can recall how blank some
of the propositions. and even the de-
tinitionS. of mathematics seemed
when the mind first tried to grapple
them. But the propositions were dis
tinctly true. nevertheless: accurate in
expression, fixed and definite in signi-
tication.
| ,. Closely related to this is the uni
versally admitted principle that the
use of technical or scientific language.
or the language of art, by no means
necessitates ambiguity. Theological
terms may embody an affirmation as
ADVANTAGEOUS as any ever written. 1t
with these terms as with all others:
the ambiguity in sense and in parti-
cular use, must be proved, not as
sumed.
f.. \ word, phrase, clause, or PROPOSE
ton. is not proved ambiguous merely
by tho fact that its opposite or CON
IL dSitd IlltdlIIIlS may 'IlOl lhlo tIC
mind. and be entertained by it. BY d
law OF mental association, the phrase
"a white man" may suggest "a black
man. but it would be wofully incon-
elusive to say that the first phrase is
therefore ambiguous. The thing that
suggests the idea in the second phrase
is, not the ambiguity, but h very
definitenesS Of the idea in the first.
). Equally inconclusiye is the no
ton that a clause, of two phrases. is
proved ambiguous by the fact hat
the mind can conceive and entertain
two contrasts, one for the idea Of
each phrase. The possibility of the
two contrasts in the clause Elect in
fants. dying in infancy"-"not elect
infants,' as one. and "infants not dy-
not prove any ambiguity in the
original positive clause.
The question is as to what this
clause has here expressed as in mind.
If some curious soul should spring
the e~Xtraneous question. which of
these two contrasts do YOU include as
the meaning of your language? the
Confession would very promptly and
properly nswer | have said not one
SYLLABLE about either and you nave no
right to infer from my language that
! have any design to include either as
part of my teaching in this clause.
There is no more ambiguity in the
clause. Elect infants. dying in in
fancy than in the clause. Ripe APP
piles, hanging on a tree What would
be thought of n who would profess
that he could not tell the meaning of
this clause because, forsooth, he avow-
ed himself in doubt as to whether
YOU intended to put a mot" before
the word ripe" or before the word
"hanging??' How quickly would you
retort: Ny kind friend, who told YOU
that I intended to put it any
where? | am talking about s'ripe
apples, hanging on a tree; and You
know what | mean we'll enough: the
language is not ambiguous.
6. It scarcely needs to be added that
q question as to ambiguity Of a docu-
ment has nothing to do with the mer-
its or dement's of its subject-matter.
Whether it ought to have said more:
whether less: what differences may
flow from it: these are questions for
argument. But they do not belong 10
this discussion which is solely as to
intended meaning.
1t is hoped that the foregoing eyclu-
sions make lighter the work of posi-
tive argument. The question next re-
curing answer is: What is ambi-
guilty?
III. DEFINITION.
The answer must be drawn princi-
pally from two sources. The first is.
the dictionaries. Probably that of the
Standard Dictionary is as good as
any: "Cncertain in meaning. esDeci-
ally where either of two interpreta-
tons is possible Similarly, the In
ternational: "Doubtful or uncertain.
particularly as to signification: capa-
BILE of being understood in either of
two or more possible Senses"
The other source Of information is