Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

existence; by shutting our eyes to it, we do not destroy its existence, nor extinguish its rays. So the existence of facts is, in itself, independent of our knowledge: for by believing a fact, we do not give it existence; by denying it, we do not destroy its existence. The man who has committed a criminal act, cannot, by denying it, undo what he has done; nor can he prevent the execution of the sentence pronounced against him, by persuading himself that no crime is punished with death. He who wishes to ascertain the truth of the revealed doctrines of Christianity, must seek to ascertain whether the things, announced by them, are or are not, in themselves, what they are affirmed to be.

We do not yet inquire, whether the certain knowledge of the truth of these doctrines can be obtained from the evidence of the testimony of God who has taught them. But the simple question proposed at present is, whether the truth or falsehood of these revealed doctrines can be intrinsically demonstrated by arguments drawn from principles of natural science; whether intrinsic and demonstrative evidence is the medium, by which the certitude of the truth of these doctrines can be obtained; whether these doctrines are the object of human reason, as light is the object of the eye? If they are not, it would be as absurd to attempt to demonstrate them by human reason, as it would be to attempt to perceive sound by the eye, or light by the ear.

The truth or falsehood of the revealed Doctrines of Christianity cannot be ascertained by the medium of intrinsic demonstrative evidence, or by arguments drawn from self-evident principles of natural science: consequently mere human reason is not the medium of REVEALED TRUTH,

The province and office of the faculty of human reason is to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of a doctrine that is obscure and uncertain, by shewing its connexion with, or repugnance to, some self-evident proposition, or principle of natural science.

The revealed doctrines of Christianity, which all relate either to the sublime and incomprehensible mysteries of the divine nature, or to the designs and works of God relative to the redemption and eternal happiness of man, belong to a supernatural order of things, and have no connexion with any principle of natural science; consequently it cannot be

shewn intrinsically, by the natural light of human reason, or by the medium of demonstrative evidence, whether the supernatural objects of these doctrines are, or are not, in themselves, what they are announced to be.

Let us take for an example, the doctrine of the Trinity, viz. that "in one divine nature there are three distinct persons." By what intrinsic evidence could it be shewn, that there are or are not three persons in one God, and consequently that this doctrine is true or false? With what self-evident principle of natural science is this doctrine connected, or to what principle of natural science is it evidently opposed? The doctrine does not announce that there is only one divine nature, and that there are three divine natures; nor, that there are three divine persons, and only one divine person. If such were the doctrine, in either case it would be repug→ nant to a self-evident principle of natural science, viz. "that the same thing cannot at the same time, and in the same respect, be and not be, what it is affirmed to be." But such is not the doctrine proposed; it announces that there is one NATURE and three PERSONS. This, intrinsically considered, is obscure to human reason, for want of the light of some self-evident principle of natural science applicable to it. But obscurity of truth is not evidence of falsehood.

Are there not three distinct powers, the will, the memory, and the understanding, in the one, simple, spiritual substance of the human soul; each of which powers is the soul itself? Is not this a mystery to human reason?

Could the possibility of such distinct powers, in one soul, have been speculatively demonstrated, from any self-evident principle of natural science? Could the possibility of them have been naturally known, but from the consciousness of their existence and operations? To what principle of natural science could the doctrine of the existence, or of the possibility of these three powers in one soul, be opposed by those who should undertake to deny it? Will man, then, who cannot comprehend the nature, the powers, and operations of his own soul, pretend to have such a comprehensive knowledge of the infinite perfection of the divine nature, as to be able to see evidently, by the light of human reason, whether there can or cannot be three divine persons in one divine nature ?

The question, whether there really are, or are not, three persons in God, is indeed a question of FACT.

We may take, as another example, the doctrine, that ** Jesus Christ is both God and man," or that " two natures, the divine and human, are united in one person, in Christ." With what self-evident principle of natural science is this doctrine connected, so as to afford a means of demonstrating its truth by intrinsic evidence? To what principle is it evidently opposed, so as to afford a means of demonstrating the falsity of this doctrine, by demonstrating its evident repugnance to some self-evident proposition?

In every man, are there not two distinct substances, a body and a soul, the one material and divisible, the other spiritual and indivisible, united in one person? By what speculative principle of natural science could human reason have demonstrated the possibility of this hypostatical union in man, if the possibility had not been demonstrated by the fact? To what principle of natural science could the doctrine of this union be demonstrated to be evidently repugnant?

The question whether two natures are hypostatically united in one person in Christ, or whether they are not, is a question of FACT. The speculative obscurities which surround the question concerning the possibility of the mystery-and the objections brought against it, amount only to obscurities-are no evidence against the FACT of its existence, if that be shewn by the evidence of testimony.

Even these natural mysteries of the substance and powers of the human soul, and of the hypostatical union of body and soul in man, present great obscurities to our minds, when we examine them intrinsically; nor is this obscurity dispelled by any light of intrinsic evidence. How much more must the mind of man be overpowered with awful obscurity, when it ventures to search into the majestic glory of the divine nature! How must man be confounded, in his daring attempt to measure omnipotence by his own weakness! The Almighty dwells in light, inaccessible to the natural powers. of human reason. Corporeal vision is sometimes obscured by the overpowering rays of the blazing sun.

As, therefore, the doctrines relating to the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation have no intrinsic connexion with

[ocr errors]

self-evident principles of natural science; as the objects of these doctrines are in reality matters of FACT, they are not the proper object of the faculty of human reason, and consequently the certain knowledge of their truth or falsehood is not to be obtained by the medium of intrinsic demonstrative evidence.

But if we consider the nature of the objects of the doctrines of the Christian Revelation, we shall find that most of them are the determinations and effects of the free will of God. With respect to such, how could human reason decide, by the light of intrinsic evidence, whether God did or did not decree or effect that, which is announced by the revealed doctrine? By what arguments, drawn from the principles of natural science, could it be demonstrated that the revealed doctrine, relatively to its object, is true or false?

By what light of intrinsic evidence, by what principles of natural science, could human reason ever discover, 1st. What an offended God did, or did not, require as an atonement for sin? 2d. Whether he did, or did not, decree to send his only begotten Son to be made man, and to offer himself as a victim of atonement for sin? 3d. What God does, or does not, require on the part of man, that he may receive the benefit of this atonement? 4th. Whether baptism is, or is not, necessary, by the institution and command of God, for the remission of sin ? 5th. Whether the grace of God is, or is not, necessary for our salvation? 6th. Whether God has, or has not, decreed and promised that our body shall be raised again to life at the last day? 7th. Whether God has, or has not, decreed and foretold, that there shall be a particular judgment of each one immediately after his death; and a general judgment of all mankind, at the end of the world? 8th. Whether God has, or has not, promised a reward of eternal glory to the just? 9th. Whether God has, or has not, denounced eternal punishments to the wicked, &c. &c.

In these and other revealed doctrines of Christianity, how could human reason demonstrate, from the intrinsic nature of the object, or from its connexion with any principle of natural science, which side of the question is true? How then, could it demonstrate whether the doctrines relating to these objects, which depend solely on the free will of God,

are true or false? The truth and certitude of such doctrines can no more be demonstrated by arguments drawn from principles of natural science, than the interior intentions of any individual, or the certitude of any past fact, can be demonstrated by mathematical lines and angles. These doctrines are no more the object of human reason, than sound is the object of the eye.

The existence of three persons in one God, and the union of two natures in Christ, are matters of fact. The reality of matters of fact is not proved by intrinsic demonstrative evidence, but the extrinsic evidence of testimony.

If there are three persons in one God; if there are twonatures united in one person, in Christ; these facts cannot be undone or destroyed by the disbelief or denial of man ; any more than the bright rays of the mid-day sun can be extinguished in themselves, by the act of shutting the eye against them.

All that human reason could attempt against the existence of these FACTS, which are objects of the Christian revelation, would be to demonstrate, to the highest degree of intrinsic evidence, that the possibility of them is repugnant to some self-evident principle of natural science. If this could be demonstrated to the highest degree of intrinsic evidence, it would be clearly perceived by all, who have given their attention to the subject. But this repugnance certainly is not perceived by thousands of learned men, who have studiously examined this question; and who, after an attentive and impartial examination of it, have sincerely adhered to the belief of the existence of the trinity of persons in one God. and of the union of two natures in Christ, as possible and actual mysteries.

In reality, those who attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of the mysteries, which are objects of divine revelation, have a greater load of facts to remove than they are aware of. They must undo, not only the existence of the mysteries themselves, but also all of those historical and miraculous facts, which bear testimony to the fact of the divinerevelation of the mysteries. So long as these testimonies remain in evidence, so long as the fact of the revelation of these mysteries remains, supported by such testimonies, so long will the truth of the possibility of the mysteries remain

« PredošláPokračovať »