Imágenes de páginas

“ space, and in other periods of eternity. So far as I “ can judge, the power and knowledge of such an exalt“ed person may rationally be supposed to be not only limited, but also derived and dependent. It is only re“quisite, that he possess the knowledge and power essential ( to the execution of his office; how he possesses them, “ whether by his own nature, or by derivation from the “ Almighty and Omnsicient God, appears to be of no mo66 ment. I conceive, therefore, that no valid objection can 6 be brought, from the improbability of the doctrine in “the view of unprejudiced reason, against the plain and “ obvious sense of those passages of Scripture which de66 scribe the offices of Christ in his exalted state, and res “ present him as discharging them in subordination to God 56 the Father.” (Pages 219, 220.)

There are parts of this paragraph, which can hardly fail to force a smile ;-but it's general effect is, to settle both mind and countenance, in the gravity of serious thought.It is true, that the subject is “sublime and awful, and far 66 removed from our knowledge and experience.”. Yet who can forbear smiling, when he héars a Unitarian, with so much timid caution, and lowly reserve, expressing his great reluctance" "to argue this point on the ground of

reason?” When a RATIONAL CHRISTIAN speaks thus, we may be well assured that he is sensible of his ground being insecure; that he feels a secret consciousness, that the verdict of Reason must be against him, and, in spite of all the high compliments he pays her at other times, blushes on this or casion, to look his patroness full in the face. On points not less " awful and sublime" and still farther 66 removed" than this “from our knowledge and experience,” Mr. Yates" and his brethren can argue with abundant freedom, and

dogmatize, on what they conceive to be rational principles, with the most confident tone of decision : so that (to use Mr. Yates's own expressions a page or two before, mutatis mutandis,) “ it is truly curious and entertaining “ to observe, how Reason, who is called up to the tribu“nal, and treated with all possible respect, when it is “ conceived that she can serve the cause of heterodoxy, is “ discarded, and turned out of doors, whenever her evi6 dence is unfavourable to the Unitarian system.”;

When we attend for a moment to the nature of the sentiment which Mr. Yates “ventures" to advance, we will not be much surprised at his " reluctance" to submit it to the decision of " mere human reason."

Let it be admitted, then, that “the power and knowledge “ of the judge of the world need not be supposed to ex« tend beyond the world over which he presides ;"-we have formerly seen, what the extent of this knowledge must be ; -that it must comprehend a perfect and unerring acquaintance with all the thoughts and words and actions, in all their endless variety of circumstances, of every individual person of all the numberless generations of mankind that shall have existed from the beginning to the end of time; and in every successive moment of the existence of each. -The question, then, is, Is it possible that this knowledge can belong to any being, and that being not be God? When we infer from the works of creation which we see, that their maker is infinite in wisdom, our data are limited, yet our inference is unlimited. Is it, then, admitted to be fair, to conclude from a part to the whole ? from what

see and know of the universe to the universe itself? and then, from an effect which must, from the nature of the thing, be limited, to deduce the unlimited, or infinite,


wisdom of the CAUSE ?-If it be, then I ask further ;If any being is admitted to possess the knowledge of mankind which has just been described, are we not warranted to proceed on the same established principle of reasoning, and from this measure of knowledge to infer, that it cannot stop here;—that it must extend further? Are not our data as good, in this case, as in the former ? In both, we are supposed to know to a limited extent; and if, in the one case, an unlimited inference be warrantable, so must it also be in the other : and, on the other hand, if the GoverNOR and JUDGE may possess the knowledge described, and, after all, his knowledge be limited, I see not how the consequence can be evaded, that the FORMER OF ALL THINGS may have produced all the striking proofs of wisdom in the universe, and after all, his wisdom be limited.

But further: Mr. Yates takes no notice of the government of the world. He confines his reasoning to the exercise of judgment. If our argument required additional strength, it finds it here.—No person, who at all considers what the government of this world is, can for a moment suppose it conducted by any other than an omniscient Being, without forfeiting his claim to the possession of understanding. Apart entirely from what relates to the movements and variations of the material world, the government of mankind implies an incessant and entire acquaintance with all the thoughts, and words, and actions, of all the millions of men in every part of the globe, every successive moment of time;-together with the sovereign and universal command of whatever can contribute to affect the volitions of intelligent creatures ;--an infallible previous knowledge of the effects which the occurrence of particular circumstances, or the suggestion of particular views, will produce


on the will of every individual. The multitude of mankind is so great; the variety of character among them so endless; their connexions, and interests, so prodigiously diversified ; their desires and volitions so incessantly crossing and interfering; great and small events are so involved in one another, so linked together, in an infinite diversity of ways, as reciprocal causes and effects ;-that we are utterly lost in our attempts to form any conception of such a control, even with the full conviction upon our minds, of its being the control of an omniscient Being. But, to suppose this government conducted by a mere creature, in the exercise of derived, and limited, and dependent knowledge and power !-the reader will pardon me for not saying all that I think of such a supposition. I presume, however, I may safely repeat, that he must be sadly pressed by his system" who is reduced to the necessity of making and defending it.

The judgment of the world supposes its previous government. To fit the Being, who is to occupy the Throne, for discriminate judgment, all the affairs of mankind must have been under his constant notice and superintendence. Characters cannot be judged, apart from the circumstances by which they have been formed; and these are, beyond all conception, diversified and minute.-" Every work" is to be “ brought into judgment, with every secret thing “ whether good or evil.” This comprehends all the thoughts, and words, and actions, of every individual of the human race ;--in connexion, of course, with all their attendant circumstances. And all this is to be the work of a fellorecreature !-Reader, you may wonder if you please, I do not,-at the unwonted tone of timid and cautious diffidence which Mr. Yates assumes on this subject. It need not, surely, be surprising, that he “ feared to maintain his side 6 of the question in dogmatical terms.” On the peculiarities of Trinitarianism he could pronounce with dogmatism enough :-“ If it be not certain that such a doctrine is false, " there is no certainty in any subject. It is vain to call 66 it a mystery. It is an absurdity, it is an impossibility.”

-The reader is at liberty, if he chooses, to apply these expressions to the doctrine of a created Governor and Judge of the world. At any rate, never more let the smile of derision be seen on the countenance of Mr. Yates at the simple believer in mysteries.

But Mr. Yates, in declining to “arguethe point “on “ the ground of reason,” professes to make his appeal to the testimony of Scripture, as “ alone able to afford us “ information on this subject.” And what testimony, then, does he adduce ?-a testimony to the possibility, or to the fact, (which would imply the possibility) of a creature conducting the government of the world, and the final judgment ? No such thing. All that he pretends to prove is, that the authority of Christ is delegated, which no one denies; and he begs all that remains of the question. He makes no attempt to disprove the Trinitarian hypothesis, that this delegation arises from the official character of Mediator voluntarily assumed by our blessed Lord; a character in which the Scriptures, as we affirm, declare him to possess the Divine as well as the human nature ;-a union which, , we further affirm, could alone qualify him for the government and judgment of the world; and which is therefore proved by this fact, amongst other evidences direct and indirect, that the government and judgment of the world are actually committed into his hands.

In Note G, after showing, by a quotation from Mr.

« AnteriorContinuar »