ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

and the more judicious of each party | are entertained, that by attempting to seem to concur in opinion, that the im- remove the impediment, an additional perfections of which all are conscious, injury will be done to the real cone, but which all have not the candour to which may ultimately prevent that reavow, will never be wholly removed, union of all the parts, which is so until the untempered mortar and arti- anxiously and so ardently desired. ficial varnish shall be totally destroyed. Could this desirable object be accomplished, they seem fully convinced, that the protuberances of one part would exactly suit the excavations in another; and that could every thing be replaced, the cone would once more reassume that beautiful appearance, with which all were captivated, when it first descended from heaven to visit the abode of man.

66

Influenced by these enlarged and comprehensive views, a few libefal spirits have embraced with joy the anticipation of such a desirable event; but the difficulties, which make it rather an object of their wishes than their hopes, appear insurmountable. They have found, on making inquiry among their friends and adherents, that the same selfish principles, which originally destroyed the cone, are still at work; and that multitudes contend, although perfectly satisfied they have not the whole, that they possess a much larger share than others, and that their private interests forbid them to make the surrender which such a measure requires.

"But, unhappily, this is not the greatest difficulty to be encountered. There is another of superior magnitude, which threatens to lay a perpetual embargo on all such vast, but benevolent designs. When the untempered mortar was first mixed, so eager was every one to give completion to his cone, that little or no care was taken to avoid those finer particles of dust which floated in the atmosphere. These, however, soon affected the organs of vision; and the awful consequence is, that no individual has yet been discovered, blessed with sight sufficiently acute and penetrating to discern, on all occasions, where the parts of the real cone terminate, and where the untempered mortar actually begins. Many, however, by the assistance of glasses, have been able to discover, that some of the finer parts of the artificial composition have entered so deeply into the minute recesses of the cone, as to be placed totally beyond the reach of any instrument which human ingenuity has hitherto invented. And even should such an instrument hereafter be found, serious apprehensions

Under all these circumstances, the final opinion of the wise and judicious seems to be, that, although some considerable masses may be entirely removed, and the different parts of the mutilated cone brought nearer to each other than they have been for many years, and that by their mutual approximation, all may perceive in what ways they originally adhered together; yet, that no proper cement can be procured, even if all that is artificial could be perfectly extracted. It is also presumed, that hereafter, the parts of this cone will be taken by Almighty power from the present scene; that they will be washed in the water of life; that the parts will then be reunited in the plains of heaven, and placed under the protection of angelic guards. And, finally, that the wise, the virtuous, the pious, and the holy, of every denomination, who have manifested a strong attachment to truth, will also be removed to the celestial regions, and placed among the angelic throngs. These, though differing from each other in opinion here, will learn wisdom by what they have suffered; and, by a happy concurrence in their views, now more comprehensive than they could possibly be in time, will take with pleasure a survey of the heavenly spectacle in all its parts; and, overwhelmed with admiration at the harmonious symmetry which it every where displays, will gaze upon it, and admire its varied beauties with renewed rapture for ever."

Review of "A Letter to the Rev. George Burder, Editor of the Evangelical Magazine, in answer to Observations contained in the Magazines of June and July, 1818, on Dr. Adam Clarke's Remarks on the Foreknowledge of God." By Veráx. London, 28. 6d.

pp. 79.

PRESCIENCE of god.

IF the length of this article were to be estimated by the pages of the pamphlet, which calls our attention to the subject of which it treats, we should hardly be justified in extending our observations beyond the limits of a few paragraphs.

The letter of Verax is, however, but ing on the foundations of philosophilittle more than a single step by which | cal and theological fabrics, those who we ascend an eminence, from whence are interested in the welfare of the we are led to take a survey of one of the buildings take the alarm; when immemost important and interesting objects diately "the trumpet sounds, and their that can offer itself to the mind of man. legions swarm abroad." That these are By the question which is agitated in the natural feelings, no man acquainted pamphlet before us, our views are with human nature will attempt to deny. directed, not merely to the examination An edifice, which has required ages to of physical events, but to the origin, raise it to a splendid spectacle, and on progress, and final termination, of hu- which have been employed artists of man actions. These we are led to the most respectable talents, to give it connect with the Prescience of Al- polish and apparent uniformity, we may mighty God; and, consequently, if that naturally suppose, will be zealously mode of connexion against which Ve- defended by all who have found shelter rax writes be fully admitted, we can- within its walls; and, consequently, not but conclude, that the final result every attempt to shew that the foundaof all actions and things, is nothing more tion is not invulnerable, ought to be or less than a necessary effect, produced resisted with the most determined resoby pre-established causes, moving on-lution. ward, in a regular concatenation, from the primary mover, God, to the ultimate issues of all, which will be ingulfed in eternity.

The primitive occasion of this pamphlet, may be found in several passages of a much celebrated Commentary, now publishing, by the Rev. Adam Clarke, LL.D. Dr. Clarke has been long known to the world as a highly respected preacher in the Wesleyan Methodist connexion;- -as a man of great erudition, of unwearied application,-and as one, whose originality of genius is always conspicuous in his varied and voluminous writings.

In the commentary of Dr. Clarke, on the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, his attention was naturally turned to the subject of the Divine Foreknowledge, or the Prescience of God: and, in the investigation of this important but mysterious subject, he has stated his views with the most luminous precision; and, as might naturally be expected from a man of his talents, with a degree of originality, which, in some respects, deviates from the beaten track in which polemical divines, and speculative philosophers, generally perform their march.

The public need not the pen of a Reviewer to inform them, that originality, either of thought or expression, is always viewed with much suspicion, and received with a proportionable degree of caution; and that censure is a tax which every man must pay, either to the bar of criticism, or to the exactions of popular observation, for being eminent. In all questions, which only seem to have a remote bear

|

The observations made by Dr. Clarke, soon excited the notice of a writer for the Evangelical Magazine, who, communicating his sentiments to the editor, sent an extract from the Commentary for insertion. This, on being introduced, was immediately followed by a train of remarks; the critic being determined " to accompany the poison with the antidote, and to make the latter so effectual, that the poison should be neutralized, and become harmless." The animadversions on the extract which was sent, first appear in the Number for June, 1818: they were continued in July, and were intended to be concluded in August; but some circumstances intervening, they were postponed until the month of February, 1819, in which they appear to be closed.

In the meanwhile, the pamphlet before us, which is signed Verax, made its appearance; avowedly in behalf of Dr. Clarke's sentiments, and in direct opposition to those which were making their periodical appearance in the numbers of the Evangelical Magazine. Of this pamphlet a formal review was published in the Number for January last; and in the following month some additional strictures were inserted, in an article which immediately preceded the concluding observations on Dr. Clarke's commentary. Such appears to be the history of this controversy; if what has thus far passed before us, may be dignified with this formidable name.

Among the various articles, in which Dr. Clarke has at once given offence to the conductors of the Evangelical Magazine, called the debate into existence,

and induced Verax to appear in his defence, there are two points, in which nearly the whole may be said to be compressed into an essence. In the first of these, Dr. Clarke states, that "The foreknowledge of God is never spoken of in reference to himself, but in reference to us; that in him, properly, there is neither foreknowledge nor afterknowledge; that omniscience, or the power to know all things, is an attribute of God, and exists in him, as omnipotence, or the power to do ali things." The second is, "That God's omniscience does not imply in it a necessity to know all things;" or, to use his own words, That although God is omniscient, he is not obliged in consequence of this, to know all that he can know, any more than he is obliged, because he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do."

66

earthly analogies.

The Almighty God

can have no successive existence. He is above the mutations of time; and, with all his perfections, fully and exclusively "inhabiteth eternity." As his existence had no commencement, so he cannot be farther removed from it in any one period of his being, according to our ideas of periods, than he is at another; he can therefore make no advances in age; and consequently, he is not older to-day than he was yesterday; and, on the same principle, he is not younger to-day than he will be tomorrow. Hence, as the progressions of time can have no application to him, nothing can be future, and nothing can be past; so far as what we denominate past and future are viewed in reference to himself alone. Whatever we denominate past, must certainly be considered as having been once present, though On the former of these points, the it now is not; and what we call future, critic in the Magazine declares, that we must conclude to be something that "It is difficult to conjecture what the has not yet arrived. In this light all commentator means, by asserting that such events and actions must be conthe foreknowledge of God is never sidered with regard to ourselves; and as spoken of in reference to himself, but such, we cannot doubt, that the Alalways in reference to us, for it is un- mighty beholds them. The terms afterdeniable, that this attribute is, in the knowledge and foreknowledge, are sacred scriptures, applied to God as ex- therefore highly proper in relation to us; pressly as any other of the divine per- but to a Being, with whom nothing can fections." (p. 235.) This remark ap- be either past or future, the terms afterpears to us exceedingly strange. The knowledge and foreknowledge are toquestion is not, whether the attribute tally inapplicable. To him, it is only which we denominate foreknowledge is perfect or simple knowledge, from which applicable to God, but whether the term the relative ideas of after and fore, or foreknowledge, by which it is expressed, past and future, are necessarily excan, when applied to Deity, convey an cluded. It is on this ground that Dr. adequate idea. Of the attribute itself, Clarke has established his position, and Dr. Clarke entertains no doubt; but it appears perfectly tenable, and inagainst the expression he has some volved in no obscurity, although the weighty objections. Unfortunately, how-writer of the article in the Evangelical ever, the writer in the Magazine, regardless of these distinctions, proceeds with his remarks, as though the attribute itself, and the term by which that attribute is usually expressed, were so inseparably connected together, that the doubts entertained respecting the term, necessarily involved the attribute also; and as though they must inevitably stand or fall together. If this distinction, which Dr. Clarke had evidently in view, had not been overlooked, no inconsiderable portion of the animadversions which have been made, might have been wholly spared.

Whoever contemplates the nature and mode of the Divine existence, must be fully convinced, that we cannot reason respecting GOD from any finite or No. 1.-VOL. I.

Magazine says, "it is difficult to conjecture what this commentator means."

Why this position of Dr. Clarke should be thought to deny an attribute of Deity, the writer of this critique is at as great a loss to conceive, as the critic in the Evangelical Magazine could possibly be, to conjecture Dr. Clarke's meaning. Before any inference could be drawn, which would charge on the learned commentator the denial of a divine attribute, the critic should have proved, that the term foreknowledge, as distinguished from simple knowledge, when exclusively applied to the divine Being, is an attribute essential to his nature. If this can be done, we conceive it must be by including successive duration in the mode in which God

C

On this ground, Verax proceeds to. argue as follows:

[ocr errors]

exists; and when this is accomplished, | that his knowledge being infinite, it is we shall behold him reduced to the undiminished, and unincreased by time, same manner of existence, as that by and in reference to us is the same now which contingent beings, like ourselves, as it was at the commencement of our are now distinguished. existence, or of the existence of this globe itself. But though, as it refers to God, the term foreknowledge is inapHave you, Sir, never read that the plicable, and is in Scripture unused, ' understanding of the Lord is infinite,' yet, as it refers to man, it is strictly cor(Psalm cxlvii. 5.) and therefore, that it rect. As far as men are concerned, God knew no commencement? And have possesses foreknowledge, i. e. he knows you never read with whom took he the actions of men, either as contingent counsel, and who instructed him, and or as absolute, before they occur, and his taught him in the path of judgment, and knowledge is therefore to them a prior 'taught him knowledge, and showed him | knowledge, or a foreknowledge. But the way of understanding,' (Isa. xl. 14.) he knows those actions, either as conand therefore that it was underived? tingent, or as absolute, as well through And finally, have you never read, that all the boundless ages of Eternity, as 'God is the father of lights, with whom just prior to, or at the period of their there is no variableness, neither shadow occurrence, or when they had transpired. ' of turning,' (Psalm xc. 2.) and there- His knowledge, which is perfect, knew fore that his nature is unchangeable? no commencement in existence, and no And, if in the progress of your studies, boundary to its extent, and was as peryou have casually read these statements fect, and as complete, millions of ages of Holy Writ, say, how was it, that ago, as at the present moment; and therewhilst penning your Answer to Dr. fore the term, as it respects man, is Clarke's Observations, you entirely correct, though, as it refers to God, it is forgot them? If indeed you remem- inapplicable. The subject is truly overbered them, their meaning you surely powering to the contracted intellect of a could not mistake, and their applica- creature; but it is not therefore the tion to this subject, it appears quite im- less true. Nay, the very difficulty of possible not to perceive. For if God's comprehending this subject is an arnature is infinite, and his attributes as gument for its truth. You also misinfinite and unchangeable, and underived, take, when you conclude, that the arguas his nature; what can you mean by ments which may be used as to the the foreknowledge of God, but as it nature of this attribute, are the same as refers to Man? In him, if his nature those which concern any other of the and his attributes be infinite and un- Divine Perfections. Take, for example, changeable, there cannot be foreknow- GOD'S GOODNESS. ledge, because the very term supposes a always be said strictly to refer to God futurity not yet arrived at. And that himself, irrespective of his creatures. futurity is unknown to God, since he By his goodness, I mean not his mercy. dwells in every point of Eternity, and Neither by his goodness, do I mean his with him, all that we term past, present, love, though that has a peculiar bearing and future, exists in one infinite, indi- towards the objects of that love, in previsible, and eternal Now. If the nature ference to the nature of the being whose of God was not thus infinite, then futu- attribute it constitutes; but by his goodrity might circumscribe his knowledge ness, I mean his self-existent, uncreated, and his power. If it was derived, it and necessary excellence, and perfection: could not be infinite, since the power or in other words, his entire freedom which conferred it might destroy it; and from error, and his perfection of Holiif it was variable, then those circum- ness. It is in the contemplation of stances which were untranspired, might God in this aspect, that John has repossibly be inverted from their intended presented in the Revelation, the four order, or entirely prevented, since to beasts, as being perpetually employed in God would be unknown the determi- exclaiming Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord nation of his own mind; and in these God Almighty, which was, and is, and cases, God would have a foreknow- is to come,' (Rev. iv. 8.) This attriledge, since he would from time to time bute of the Godhead, then, is ever determine as to events, either as abso-spoken of in reference to himself, whilst lufe, or as contingent. But as the re- the foreknowledge of God is universally verse of all this is the case, it follows mentioned in reference to us."

That attribute may

Another question which naturally arises out of the preceding position is,"In what light does God behold those events and actions which to us are future?" Dr. Clarke argues, that God must necessarily see things as they really are; namely, if past to us, he perceives them as such; and if future, as such he beholds them, in reference to us. Such as are certain, he views as certain; and such as are contingent, he looks upon as contingent. This primitive branch of the question may be brought to a speedy issue. God must either see actions and events as they are in their own natures and relations, or as they are not. If we suppose that God sees them as they are not, we place theory in direct opposition to fact, and reduce infinite discernment to a plain contradiction; since, in this case, God must see these actions and events in all their natures, modes, and relations, and not see them in all their natures, modes, and relations, at the same time. But, if we admit that God discerns things as they really are, the position of Dr. Clarke is granted.

Whether any event or action can be supposed to be contingent, is quite a distinct consideration. On this many questions may arise; but in what manner soever they may be decided, their decision can by no means affect Dr. C.'s previous proposition; namely, that God must see things as they really are.

ence;

We think it will hardly be doubted, that the Almighty, if he had been so pleased, could, from the infinite resources of his own boundless perfections, have given existence to beings so peculiarly constituted, that the result of their volitions should be contingent. The supposition of such beings, does not appear to involve any contradictory ideas. Now, admitting such beings to be possible, and to have an actual existand presuming that they were set before us, that we could note them with our perceptions,—reflect upon them with our intellectual powers, and view them, in relation to their Maker, as placed under the sanction of his laws, in what manner could we possibly suppose, that they could bring with them more luminous evidence of the contingency of their nature, than we now have in the millions of the human race? It does not appear that any language could convey more satisfactory ideas of such natures than the Bible contains,-that any actions could more fully express the

[ocr errors]

character of such beings than human creatures display,-or, that reason could expect more convincing proofs of the fact, than those with which we are now furnished, on the supposition of its being true.

[ocr errors]

By contingent," Dr. Clarke observes, I mean such things as the infinite wisdom of God has thought proper to poise on the possibility of being or not being; leaving it to the will of his intelligent creatures to turn the scale. To deny this, would involve the most palpable contradictions, and the most monstrous absurdities. If there be no such things as contingencies in the world, then every thing is fixed, and determined by an unalterable decree and purpose of God; and not only free agency is destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except of the Creator himself: for on this ground God is the only operator either in time or eternity."

On these and similar observations of Dr. Clarke, which assert the contingency of some actions; and on the consequences which he has drawn from the supposition, that contingent actions do not exist, the critic has not made many remarks. We have indeed a reference to the works of that acute reasoner, President Edwards, in which we are told, that "to attempt any thing further in the same cause, would seem like a valorous effort to kill the slain." President Edwards, so far as we recollect his train of reasoning on this point, has totally denied that any actions are contingent; but how far he has been successful in the establishment of his theory, and in repelling such consequences as those which Dr. Clarke charges on the doctrines that deny the contingency of all actions, it is not our business at present to examine.

As a place of refuge, in which it is intimated Dr. Clarke may find a momentary repose, the self-determining power of the human will is pointed out by the critic. This, however, we soon discover, is nothing more than an artificial retreat; in which, it is presumed, he may be assailed with vigour, and conquered with triumph. To show the folly of this anticipated retreat, some consequences, which President Edwards has drawn from the supposition, that the will possesses the inherent power of determining itself, are introduced, arrayed in language the most imposing that plausibility can be presumed to wear, when unsupported by

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »