Reason and Faith [pp. 648-685]

Reason and Faith.
is what is proved by the antilogies into which it runs, rather
than the reality of those antilogies. Thus philosophy may at
least evince its own futility. It is an engine which at least
consumes its own smoke.
All this seems very good, only that it is too good. It is
surely a good work to annihilate rationalism. But when this is
done by quenching the light of reason as a faculty which can
make the infinite God an object of thought, even when taught
by his own Word and Spirit, (for the author's reasonings tend
to all this, or they mean nothing,) we pause, and inquire if the
boon proffered be not too great, and its cost too great?
"What is God? God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice,
goodness, and truth." This we were taught in our infancy.
No words are more familiar to the old and young, the learned
and unlearned of our own and many other communions. No
words more articulately or happily utter the common faith of
christendom in the premises. And we say, without hestitation,
that they convey more real and more salutary truth in regard
to the High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity, than all
the books ever written in the vein of the foregoing quotations.
Do these words convey to the mind no ideas, or express no
thoughts, or objects of possible thought? Or, what is worse,
do they convey only notions bristling with stupendous contradictions and fatuous absurdities! Does the attribute of infinity
intimate the blasphemy, that in order to be true of God, he
must comprise in himself all finite beings, all possible existences and modes of existence, including sin,* which our author
says follows by "unassailable reasoning," if we can have any
thought of the Infinite at all? Is it endurable that Christians
should be taught by a Christian teacher, that the absolute
* In his preface to this edition, Mr. Mansel notices the severe criticisms which
have been justly brought against the passage here referred to. He endeavours
to parry their face by offering the following analogous passage:
"Suppose that an author had written such a sentence as the following:
'A circular parallelogram must have its opposite sides and angles equal, and
must also be such that all lines drawn from the centre to the circumference
shall be equal to each. The conclusion is absurd; but the reasoning is unassailable, supposing a circularparallelogram can be conceived at all.'"
"Would such a statement involve any formidable consequences either to
666
[OCTOBER