صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest, for the future, to conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be just and right; this way of reconciliation, this hope of atonement, the light of nature revealed to them." Now, how does this consist with the compliment he makes to the Scriptures? If this is true, what is the use of the Scriptures? If the light of nature points out both a man's duty and the way of atonement for transgression, what room is there for revelation. If repentance, asking pardon, &c., be that atonement, what need is there for the atonement of Christ? Does not Mr. Locke insinuate that God himself is bound by the law of nature to forgive his penitent enemies? What blasphemy is it to speak of a spark of the divine nature and knowledge in man? Does not this make man im part a divine being? Is not this the old error taught by the devil, that men are "as gods, knowing good and evil ?"

The testimony of Sir William Jones is just, so far as it goes; but it is not decisive of his having discovered the true excellence of the Scriptures, and I am not sufficiently acquainted with his history to form an opinion of it. "I have regularly and attentively read these holy Scriptures, and am of opinion, that this volume, independently of its divine origin, contains more sublimity and beauty, more pure morality, more important history, and finer strains of poetry and eloquence than can be collected from all other books, in whatever age or language they may have been composed." It is not any of these perfections that recommends the Bible to the attention of sinners. This may

recommend it as a classical book of morals; but it is the testimony that it bears to Jesus, that recommends it to the guilty. I do not find fault with Sir William's remarking of those excellencies; but, in a man that understood the Scriptures, I would expect something more. It is like, in speaking to criminals, proving the style in which is conveyed the condemnation by the judge, or the reprieve by the sovereign.

The honorable Robert Boyle, we are informed, spent his "whole life and fortune in illustrating the beauties

of the two grand volumes of creation and revelation. He has said everything in favour of the Bible that language admits of. He calls it that 'matchless book,' and has written a whole volume to illustrate its beauties." If the author could have informed us that Mr. Boyle held the apostolical testimony about Jesus, it would have enabled. us to rejoice exceedingly in the disinterested zeal of this truly great man. If he confessed the Gospel, his zeal in the spreading of the Scriptures was a testimony in favour of his sincerity; but it damps my joy that I have heard he was an Arian, or, that he did not believe in the divine dignity of the Son of God. I hope I have been misinformed.

"The learned Le Clerc tells us," says our author, "that while he was compiling his Harmony,' he was so struck with admiration of the excellent discourses of Jesus, and so inflamed with the love of his most holy doctrines, that he but just then began to be acquainted with what he scarce ever laid out of his hands from his infancy." Admiration of the discourses of Jesus, and love of Christianity, as a system of perfect religion, or morality, do not characterize a man as a Christian. All who heard these discourses of our Lord and his very manner, could not but confess the superior excellency of his doctrine. I have no objection to speak of this as a testimony in favour of the Scriptures, or of the Gospel; but I would always adduce it as a testimony forced by evidence from enemies. Le Clerc, with all his learning and study, if he taught salvation in any other way than by having faith in the atonement of Jesus, imputed for righteousness, cannot be enrolled among Christians. The excellency of the morality of Christ, may very properly be argued from the confession of great men, and his greatest enemies may here be brought in as unsuspected vouchers. But the doctrine of salvation to guilty men, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ, is the distinguishing excellency of the Bible, and to confirm it by testimonies taken from those who understand not this excellency is not to serve it. What would Elizabeth have thought of one of her friends, who, to prove the excellency of the great

ness of his mistress, would quote the approbation of the lowest political pamphleteers, who understood nothing of the principles of greatness? What would Newton have thought of one who would have complimented him with the approbation of some writers of mathematical questions in a common almanack, who understood none of his great principles ? What would

Locke have thought had some of his friends attempted to raise the merit of his metaphysics by the approbation of some pedant that could not enter into any of his speculations? And what is the Bible obliged to those who exhibit in its favour, the compliments of these great men, who, though conversant with it, were ignorant of its chief design and glory? No man's praise, however sincere, is of any value farther than his knowledge. When I hear a country pedant praising another as the most consummate scholar, though I may be fully convinced of his sincerity, I cannot give the smallest weight to his testimony. I would rather hear the poorest, weakest, and most illiterate Christians adduced as vouchers for the excellencies of the Scriptures, than all the enlightened philosophers and statesmen in the world. They, and they alone, are a practical proof of the excellency of the Scriptures, who, by understanding them, have been "turned from darkness to light." I would make more account of the testimony of poor Joseph, the London idiot, than that of the illustrious Newton or Locke.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE WORKS OF GOD,

DESIGNED TO MANIFEST

THE UNBELIEF OF MEN.

DEUT. XIII. 1-3.

THERE is one point of analogy in the works of God, which, from its universality, must be the effect of design. In examining the works of creation, of providence, and the words of divine grace, this striking singularity presents itself to us, that in all there are instances of apparent negligence, or want of skill, or of want of design, or of inconsistency. As this phenomenon is viewed in any single instance, or in any number of instances, without a reference to a general analogy, it has usually afforded a plausible source of objections to unbelievers of every kind. The Atheist, the Deist, the opposer of the divinity and atonement of the Son of God, and the adversaries of everything that is taught in the Scriptures, find this a never-failing refuge. The defenders of truth have as generally over-looked this analogy as their opponents, and have, consequently, been often much embarrassed in repelling objections. How often do they wish that in his works and in his word, God had been a little more on his guard, and not have afforded such a handle to error?

To those who perceive this analogy, and the design of it, the wisdom of God appears in a character altogether divine. If, in all his works, God has left sufficient marks of the impression of his own hand, there is no necessity that he should shut up every avenue to inva-. sion, and silence incredulity by permitting no occasion to make it manifest. On the contrary, if men "love darkness rather than light," why should not occasion be

afforded to embolden them to make known their choice? If men are haters of God, why should he not give them opportunity for rebellion? What the weakness of man would incline him to prevent in his own case, in like circumstances human wisdom is inclined to wish that God would prevent in his own.

Let us turn our eyes to the works of creation, and see what pretext they afford to the Atheist. Time and the discoverers of Natural Philosophy, have, no doubt, deprived him of many of his arguments, or answered many of his objections, but as much still remains to his purpose, as may give him room to talk. What a disproportionate share of this little globe do we find under seas! How much of it is taken up with mountains, sands, and uninhabitable deserts! How much rendered noxious by the unwholesomeness of the climate! How much scarcely habitable by excessive heats and colds! Of what use are those immense tracts covered by perpetual snow? Why are these seas impassable by mountains of ice? By such arguments as these, Mr. Hume and others have thought themselves entitled to conclude that there is no sufficient evidence that the world is the effect of a designing cause or if there is design in the cause, that there is no reason to believe that it was guided by goodness and wisdom. The philosophers in reply, have, no doubt, pointed out many useful purposes served by some of the things objected to by the Atheist, and have made the best apology they could for others. But after all that can be said-it must be owned, that Almighty power joined with infinite wisdom and goodness, could have produced a world with all the advantages of the present, without any of those inconveniences complained of by the Atheist. In standing up as the advocate of God, the philosopher rather apologises for the imperfections of the objectionable parts of the divine workmanship, than vindicates their wisdom. It appears to me, that in repelling the attacks of the Atheist, we may assume a firmer tone, and take a shorter course. When we have from the innumerable and irresistible evidence of wisdom, power, and goodness, proved that the world is the work of an Almighty, all wise and good being, we

« السابقةمتابعة »