On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
empire &im 4 the splendours of which , the globe that we inherit , is shaded in insignificance ; neither would he strip himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was ,
and light on this lower scene for the purpose imputed to him in the New Testament . " ** The objection which we are discussing I shall state again in a single sentence . Since astronomy lias unfolded to us such a number of
worlds , it is not likely that God would pay so much attention to this one world , and set up such wonderful provisions , for its benefit as are announced to us in the Christian revelation . This objection will have received its answer , if we can meet it
by the following position—that God , in addition to the bare faculty of dwelling on a multiplicity of objects at one and the same time , has this faculty in such wonderful perfection , that he can attend as fully and provide as richly , and manifest ail his attributes as illustriously , on every one of these objects as if the rest had
no existence , and no place whatever in his government or thoughts . " I shall quote directly another passage , to shew the manner in which Dr . C . substantiates and illustrates this position , which contains in itself a very just and sublime sentiment . But 1
must here take the liberty to say , that this position , although conceded to him , is such as he can make no legitimate use of in respect to the scope of his main argument . He here affirms , and in the subsequent pages he proves at large , that the Divine providence
and attention so regards the whole as not to be withdrawn for a moment from the minutest part , which is very ri ffht . But what will this avail in reply to the objector , who does not quarrel with the minuteness or perfection of the attention which God is
supposed to bestow on the part , but with the idea that he can so attend to the part as to withdraw his attention for a season from the whole ? This to evidently quite another thing , and * ve may safely grant this champion of
orthodoxy the position which he thinks so commanding , without fearing at all any advantages which it can give him * lfc is totally irrelevant to the main Point at issue , and it is to me surprising that so ingenious a man should handle his argument in a manner so
Untitled Article
inconclusive . The objector denies that God would for thirty years abandon his charge of the whole ; the advocate insists on the minute and perfect attention which the Divine Providence , without neglecting the whole , can bestow on the part ; the reply therefore does not at all meet the
objection , but leaves it entirely unrelieved . Dr . Chalmers , in order to meet this objection fairly , was obliged to do one of these two things : either to advance such a statement of the
Christian doctrine as would not involve the notion of God ' s resigning for a season his charge of the whole , or otherwise to defend the reasonableness of supposing that he might on some occasions do so . But neither
of these has lie done , or attempted to do ; and his argument therefore , though adorned with the fascinations of a rich and lofty eloquence , and animated , I fully believe , with the sacred flame of piety , is yet altogether fallacious and futile , as every argument must be which misses the main
point in dispute , and wastes its strength in establishing what is not denied . But I believe the weakness is rather in the cause than in its advocate . Could Dr . C . if he were to take the
argument up again , answer this objection ? I think not ; but let us consider it . The objection is this . The doctrine that the Divine Being , the Author and Preserver of the universe , divested himself for a season of that
high function and condition , and shrunk , as it were , into the state of a man , is unreasonable , nay incredible , because the connexion of the Creator with his works must needs be supposed to be immutable , as well as his own nature and condition , and their
absolute dependence on him is such that we cannot conceive they could even exist , much less preserve their order , without his superintendence , for a single moment . To deny this would indeed , as Chalmers says , be to expunge a perfection of the Deity ,
and to obscure his glory . He himself expresses this absolute and constant dependence of all things upon God in a very beautiful manner . u At the very time while the mind of the Deity is abroad over the whole vastness of creation , there U not one particle of matter , there is not one
Untitled Article
On Dr . Chalmers * Astronomical Discourses . 6 ? 9
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1825, page 679, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2542/page/39/
-