Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

folid earth which lies between the surface and the centre. All the volcanoes at prefent in an active ftate would not be fuch a vent for that fire as a tobacco-pipe would be to a glass house furnace. We must have recourfe, then, to fome operation by which we know that nature can kindle and extinguish fires occafionally; and if we can fuppofe fuch an operation to take place in the bowels of the earth, we may then reasonably conclude that we have difcovered a caufe adequate to the productions of volcanoes. Such a caufe, however, cannot be pyrites, fulphur, or nitre, in any quantity, under the furface of the earth. It is impoffible that beds of pyrites can remain for thousands of years under the fame part of the surface of the earth, be occafionally inflamed and ejected, and afterwards undergo a renovation, in order to enable them to go through a fimilar operation. Nitre is never found in a foffil ftate; nor can it be inflamed in fuch a manner as to make any confiderable explosion, without a thorough mixture with fulphur and charcoal; neither would all the quantity which we can fuppofe to exist under the base of any mountain in the world be fufficient to give force to one of those dreadful vollies which are discharged by volcanoes an hundred times in a day. Befides, neither pyrites nor fulphur can be inflamed without accefs of air, which cannot take place in the bowels of the earth; for it must be remembered, that the firft queftion is concerning the means by which the fire was originally kindled. Moft writers, however, feem to overlook this difficulty, and to be folicitous only about the immediate cause of the explosive force, which is generally ascribed to steam, of one kind or other; Mr. Houel calls it the force of fire or fteam; though he does not enter very particularly into its nature. Mr. Whitchurch fays, that it is the force of fire and water, which are the primary agents in all fuch operations of nature." He also gives a figure, fhewing how, by means of confined fteam, a jet, either of hot water, or of liquid fire may be produced. But this applies only to a particular cafe, which we cannot fuppofe always to happen; but volcanoes are conftantly attended with explosions; nay, fo great is the tendency of volcanic matters to this violent operation, that many ftones have been obferved to burft in the air, like bombs, after they are thrown out of the volcano: Mr. Houel even informs us, that fuch have burft three times during their flight. Water, therefore cannot be always the cause of volcanic explosions. When thrown upon melted lead, falts, or especially copper, it explodes indeed with vaft force. With the last mentioned metal it is peculiarly and incredibly violent, infomuch,

tr

fomuch, that it is faid, that furnaces have been burft, and build ings thrown down, by the mcre circumftacce of fome workmen fpitting among the melted metal; and Mr. Whitchurch calculates the force of aqueous ftream, when thus fuddenly and violently heated, to be no lefs than 28 times ftronger than inflamed gunpowder.

Many philofophers attempt to account for the origin and continuance of volcanoes by the agency of the electric fluid; but their theory is fo ill fupported by facts, that we think it would be improper at prefent to take up room with detailing it. It is certain, that volcanoes exhibit many electrical appearances, and that great quantities of the electrical fluid are difcharged at every eruption: but our knowledge of electricity is ftill too limited to draw any certain conclufion from these appearances. (To be continued.)

SIR,

ANSWER TO THE QUERIES OF T. F.

THE

See vol. ii, p. 73.

HE letter figned T. F. (vol. ii. page 73) I fhould have answered long before, but thought it proper to close the controverfy with Chriftophilus first; and he having fuffered feveral months to pass fince my last without a reply, I deem it a tacit acknowledgment that he is convinced of the truth of the fentiment I contended for, or has quitted the field in hopes that fome more able champion in the cause of mystery would enter the lifts. But this I am affured of, that the doctrine of the Unity of the Deity has obtained some fresh advocates, and has been made appear more bright by the efforts of C. to obfcure or overthrow it.

Having faid thus much by way of taking leave of C., I fhall proceed to notice the letter in queftion.

T. F. is pleafed to fay, he thinks I have argued the cafe well on the ground I have taken, but is not fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality in the divine effence is a mistake; he therefore requests an answer to the query at the close of his letter. In respect to that query, I would fay, that when T. F. can give me an infinite underftanding, to be able to comprehend the full extent of infinite power, I will give him an anfwer to his infinite fatisfaction; till then, I must rest satisfied with believing that, and that alone, which my finite powers, affifted by revelation, can comprehend. But if even I were

to

to admit the truth of his query, viz. that this exertion of infinite power did produce an infinite idea, or image of the perfections of Deity, it would not prove a plurality in the divine effence, any more than a man generating or producing a finite idea, would prove a plurality of finites in him: and even if this something produced by Deity was a fomething like himself, with whom he could hold converfe, and fay, Let us make man, it would not prove a plurality in Deity, because the being fo fpeaking must be diftinct from the being, perfon, or thing fpoken to; unless we fuppofe Deity addrelling himself. Befide, this fame idea or Word is reprefented by T. F. as being fent by the Father, as being the agent in his hand of creating all things now he that is fent must be diftinct from him who fends, and the agent cannot be the fame being as he whose agent he is. As the question relates to a plurality in the divine effence, I have never denied or aflerted; for as to his effence or nature, I never pretended to understand it: there may or may not, for aught I know, be a plurality in the divine effence: all that I contend for is, that the Logos, who was in the beginning with God, is a distinct being from God, and that God is his God and Father as well as ours. I think my ideas of the Logos much more honorable than those of T. F. for I believe him to be an intelligent being, poffeffed of great power, which he has received from God; while T. F. makes it appear, that he is a mere act of the mind of Deity. He fays, I have miftaken his meaning, in fuppofing he acknowledged the Word to be a distinct being from the Father. That my readers may judge for themselves whether I was juftified in drawing such a conclufion, I will quote the paffage on which I founded it----"Can any thing lefs than proper Deity be afcribed to him, (Chrift) fecing he made all things? Yet it is clear he is diftinct from him whom we call the Father, because he is said to be with him. My own judgment is, that he who is called the Word is the real and proper fon of God, and that he was so before he took flefh." Now, if this does not prove a diftinction of being, I know not what does, But T. F. fays, he did not intend to fuggeft that the Logos is a diftinct being from him he is faid to be with, only the fame being under a different form. How this can agree with the quotation before made, "that he was diftinct from him he was with, even the Father, and that he is the real and proper fon of this Father, whom he was with," I cannot fee; unless it means, he was with himself, was the father of himself, at the fame time that he was his own real and proper fon. This is not only above, but fo contrary to VOL. III. reafon,

C

reason, that I must think that man under a strong delufion who can believe it; and that, if he can reconcile this to his mind, there is no abfurdity, however grofs, but he might easily digeft. That Jefus Chrift is a distinct being from the Father is clear from Scripture; for it is faid, "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me." It is not his body that came down from heaven, and yet he says he has a will diftinct from him he came from, and that another fent him. Also, when he prays that the Father would glorify him (the Logos) with the glory he had with him before the world was, he fays, "This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent." From thefe and many other paffages that might be brought, it is clear to me, that the Word is, and has been, ever fince he existed, a diftinct being from the Father: and as there is but one being who is the only true God, the Word cannot be Deity.

T. F. fays that I think the doctrine of eternal generation to be abfurd, because the object, or thing generated, must be pofterior to that which generated it. He acknowledges this to be true as it relates to finite beings; but does not think we have any rule to go by to prove it must be fo with God. I obferved before, that I do not pretend to understand the nature of Deity; but this I know, that even with God, a triangle is not a circle, nor a circle a triangle; nor is that which had a beginning without a beginning, and eternal. Therefore, when I am told, that Jefus Chrift was begotten---that he is the beginning of the creation of God---the firft-born of every creature, &c. I am as well convinced he had a beginning, as, when it is faid he is fent by another, and does the will of another, I am fatisfied that he is distinct from him who fends him, and whose will he performs. But I have now been answering what I might have left; for hitherto T. F. has been arguing without any premifes, making mere arbitrary fuppofitions. He ought first to have proved from Scripture, that the fentiment he holds is contained therein, which when he has done, I fhall be very happy to argue the cafe more at large.

The next inquiry of T. F. is concerning the Holy Spirit, who or what is intended by the Holy Spirit promised by our Lord to his difciples, John, xiv. 16. and xvi. 7---13. where he fays, he will fend him, and he fhall do fuch things. As it relates to the personal pronouns him and he being applied to the Holy Spirit, I would obferve, that though him and he are perfonal pronouns, fpirit is an imperfonal noun; fo that the argument would, from this circumftance, be as ftrong for the

fpirit's

fpirit's imperfonality as the contrary. Again, it is common in the eastern writings, and particularly in the Scriptures, to perfonify imperfonal things; as for inftance, Judges, xxiv. 26, 27. "Joshua took a great ftone, and faid unto all the people, Behold, this stone fhall be a witness unto us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord." Our Lord fays, John, xii. 48. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my word, has one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken fhall judge him. at the last day." Paul (1 Cor. xiii.) perfonifies charity, and fays, Charity believeth all things." And thus we fee it was common to ascribe perfonal names and perfonal acts to imperfonal things; while there is not one inftance to be brought from Scripture where imperfonal acts or names are applied to perfons, unless the Holy Spirit could be proved to be a perfon; therefore it is not likely that our Lord and his apottles fhould deviate from the general rule in this one inftance, and afcribe imperfonal acts to the Holy Spirit if he were a perfon; and that they do fpeak of the Holy Spirit imperfonally, is clear from many parts of Scripture, as when it is faid, "I will pour ouc my fpirit;" being immerfed in the Holy Spirit; a portion of the fpirit, &c. In the xvith chaper of John, where he promifes the fpirit, he tells his difciples, that he has been speaking unto them in proverbs; that is, in metaphors, or rhetorical figures; it may, therefore, help to clear up the difficulty, if we take notice of the fulfilment of the promise, as recorded Acts, ii. where we find the spirit fpoken of in an imperfonal way, as coming like a rufhing mighty wind, and it, not be, filled the house, and it fat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. And at verse 33, Peter fays, that Jefus, having received of the Father the promife of the Holy Spi-rit, (viz. which he made to his difciples John, xiv. 16 xvi. 7--13.) he hath fhed forth this which ye now fee and hear." Thus we fee, by the hiftorical account of the fulfilment of the promife, the explanation of the proverb or metaphor made use of by Chrift when he promised to fend the Holy Spirit. What tends to confirm me in the belief of the imperfonality of the Holy Spirit is this, that Peter, one of those to whom the promise was made, seems clearly to understand it as I do---that it is not a perfon, but the power or energy of the Deity exerted in various ways.

If what I have written fhould throw any light upon the fubject in queftion, I fhall feel great pleasure that I have contributed my mite toward difperfing the dark clouds of prejudice, and bringing

C 2

« AnteriorContinuar »