Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

"but only to show, how apt we are, in one instance, hastily "to assume impossibility and contradiction, while in another, "in which the difficulty is equally great, we are accustomed "to speak as if we were not sensible that there exists any "difficulty at all."

Of this reasoning Mr. Yates takes no notice on this particular subject. To similar reasoning on another subject, he does refer, (pages 45, 46.) in the following terms:"As an example of his maxim, that we cannot always ❝ understand even the fundamental truths of natural religion, "Mr. Wardlaw produces the attribute of omnipresence. "He affirms, that we use the expression God is here,' and 66 say, 'that he is at the same moment equally present in the "remotest part of the universe,' without annexing to these "words any distinct ideas. Have we,' he asks, 'ever en"deavoured to analyze the conceptions which these modes of "expression appear to convey? Is God,' he continues, a "spiritual substance infinitely extended? Against this no❝tion of infinite extension there have been advanced power❝ful, perhaps insurmountable, objections: and the truth is, "that, if we imagine we possess any conception at all of "the mode of the Divine omnipresence and omniscience, "we really deceive ourselves.' Thus Mr. Wardlaw appears "to me to renounce his belief in the Divine omnipresence. "Theologians, in treating upon this subject, have made a ❝ distinction between the virtual and the actual omnipre❝sence of God. His virtual omnipresence is the attribute

by which he is able to produce effects in every part of space. "His actual omnipresence is the extension of his substance w through every part of space. The former Mr. Wardlaw "appears to allow, but to deny the latter. But in the latter, as well as the former, all sound Theists believe: The

R

"notion of a spiritual substance infinitely extended, is too "vast to be fully embraced by our understandings. It is, however, a clear and distinct idea, nor is there any force " in the objections urged against it.”

"Nor is there any force in the objections urged against it.” -In this summary and easy way does Mr. Yates sometimes get over objections. He thinks it enough to say, he sees no force in them. There may, however, be some force in them notwithstanding.-I reckon it necessary to remind the reader, that such queries as the following are intended merely to show, how utterly incomprehensible this matter is by our limited faculties; and that the difficulty of comprehending it does not arise only from the vastness of the idea. I premise this observation, lest he should think such queries hardly consistent with the awful sacredness of whatever relates to the nature and perfections of Deity.

In once conversing with Mr. Yates on the same subject, he said, he saw no difficulty in it,-that the spiritual substance of Deity pervaded space, just as air filled a room.Now, in the first place, I ask, does this give us any idea at all of what the spiritual essence or substance of Deity is? Air is a fluid, possessing the properties of weight and elasticity, and susceptible of condensation and rarefaction. We cannot surely for a moment associate such ideas with the pure spirituality of the Godhead.-I ask again, on the supposition of an infinitely extended substance, must not a part be in one place, and a part in another?-a part only of God in heaven, and a part on earth ?—Then, if this spiritual substance be thus divisible, a part here and a part there, must we not also have a part of the Divine knowledge and power in one place, and a part in another? Or, if this be objected to, and it be alleged

that Divine attributes are incapable of subdivision;—then, is every point of the extended substance of Deity possessed of infinite perfections ?-every point omniscient and omnipotent?—every point possessed of equal power and intelligence with the whole?-Describe a sphere, of whatever dimensions you please, from a foot diameter to a thousand leagues, (for they bear the very same proportion to infinitude);-I ask, Is God there? Is he entirely there? Or is it a part only of God,-a portion of his infinitely extended substance that is there?-Mr. Yates possibly may profess to be greatly shocked by questions such as these. I do not wonder that he should. I am shocked by them myself. Yet there is no impiety, in asking questions which make us to feel our weakness and incompetency on such subjects:-no impiety, in thus impressing on men's minds, that they cannot by searching find out God.The immediate bearing of the questions on the particular point in hand, will be sufficiently obvious to every discerning reader. I still insist upon it, that there is nothing more incomprehensible in the idea of the Divine nature being associated with the human in the person of Jesus Christ, than there is in the idea of the infinite God being present in any limited portion of space. If a Socinian shall say, How can it be, that the infinite nature of God should be united with the finite and limited nature of a man? I freely answer, I cannot tell : but I meet the question with another, and ask again, How can it be, that the infinite nature of Defty should be present in every point of space?-should be present, in the full exercise of all its infinite perfections, within the little area bounded by the walls of the room in which I sit? I still insist upon it, that, when Socinians shall have found an answer to the latter question, they will have furnished us with

a principle on which to answer the former: and that the circumstance of the former being beyond our comprehension, is no more a sufficient reason for disbelieving it, than the same circumstance of incomprehensibility in the latter.-Its being altogether inconceivable by us, "is no more a proof

against its being fact, than" (to use the words of Dr. Guyse on another, but similar subject) "the inconceivableness of the "manner how the whole Divine Being and all its essential "attributes, are always at once entirely in heaven, and on "earth too, is a proof against God's omnipresence. Though "such omnipresence may seem impossible to us, yet we must "allow it to be real, it being the most monstrous and ab"surd notion of God to suppose, that only a part of God, "a part of his Being, a part of his attributes, is in hea66 ven, and another part of God is on earth. And if we "must believe the puzzling incomprehensible in one case, why "should we startle at it, and for that reason alone reject it in "the other!"*-It has often been remarked, that a child may ask questions, which the shrewdest philosopher shall be unable to answer. And there is no subject on which this is more true, than the nature and perfections of God.

CHAPTER V.

Or a very considerable proportion of Mr. Yates's reasonings on the passages of Scripture adduced in support of our Lord's Divinity, I might satisfy myself with saying, that they have been answered by anticipation in the work to which he

* Guyse's Sermons on the Constitution of the Person of Christ, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; page 245. Glasgow edition, 1790.

professes to reply. The vindication of this scriptural evidence, however, from the objections by which he has attempted to invalidate it, is a matter of so much importance, that, while I shall study brevity in my remarks as far as the case will admit, I must be excused for taking all the scope which it may seem to require.-It shall be my endeavour to adhere as strictly as possible to what is immediately connected with the argument. To enter at large on points which are introduced in the way of incidental illustration, but which do not enter into the pith and marrow of the controversy, (although a number of such points had been marked for animadversion in the perusal of Mr. Yates's book) would carry me beyond all due bounds, and would at the same time, only perplex the reader, and impede his progress to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Yates finds fault with what I have said respecting the "current language of the New Testament."-" It is worse "than useless," he says, "to bring forward not twice as many "verses as the New Testament contains books, and to say "that these are a specimen of its current language,' although "they have been generally regarded as the capital proofs of "the doctrine in question." (P. 162.) It is enough to say, in reply to this, that the current language of any book, on any particular subject, can only mean its language when that particular subject is spoken of, or alluded to. When we speak of the current language of the New Testament on the subject of our blessed Lord's Divinity, we mean, that, in many instances, his Divinity is plainly and explicitly declared, as well as that it is interwoven with the scheme of doctrine, and with the general texture of the phraseology.

[ocr errors]

In Chapter V. of Part III. Mr. Yates examines "the passages in which the PECULIAR TITLES of Deity are sup66 posed to be ascribed to Jesus Christ."

« FöregåendeFortsätt »