Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Harbinger, June 1, '63.

FAITH AND INFIDELITY.

baptists wish to go to find infant sub jects of baptism. Abraham's family, circumcision, church identity, almost anything rather than the commission is resorted to, to establish infant subjects of baptism; for the good reason that

199

infants are not included in the commission. Neander, the great Lutheran historian, but expressed the convictions of an honest thinker, when he said, "It is certain that Jesus Christ did not ordain infant baptism." A. C-N.

FAITH AND INFIDELITY.

'Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. ii. 8.)

NO. V.-NATURALISM.

It is very obvious that in the creation of the universe, God has established certain laws for its regulation and its government. Every creature, whether in heaven or on earth, whether material or immaterial, has been made subject to law. Thus, for instance, the little seed as it is developed into the vine, the oak, or the cedar, does not grow up at random, without form and proportion. Nay, verily. Its entire development, from its first buddings to the ripening of its fruit, is in harmony with the most exact, definite, and unchangeable laws. The size of the flower, its form, its color, and its chemical constitution, are matters that are almost as fixed and as definite as are the properties of a triangle, a square, or a circle. And just so it is with every species of the animal and of the mineral kingdoms. Water is always composed of hydrogen and oxygen united in the ratio of one to eight; and all the chemists of the earth cannot combine these elements so as to form water in any other proportion. Observe, too, with what regularity the heavenly bodies move under the laws and influence of gravitation. We all anticipate with confidence the ordinary changes of day and night, Summer and Winter, seed-time and harvest. And the astronomer foretells with the most unerring certainty the rarer and more extraordinary phænomena of eclipses and transits, even for coming ages. And thus it is that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that the earth shews forth his handiwork.

Nor is this all. God has not only placed every creature under law; but he has also, to a certain extent, made it a depository of his power. It is true, indeed, that all power is of God. The

powers that be, whether intellectual, or moral, or political, or religious, or physical, are all in a certain sense ordained of God. And thus it is, that he creates and establishes what we call second causes. The mind of man, for example, has in itself no inherent or absolute power. But nevertheless, God has endowed every man with a certain amount of power and energy, which he uses in a great measure according to his own will and pleasure. The sun has no inherent power in and of itself. But God has given to it an influence that is sufficient to keep all the planets of the solar system in their own proper orbits.

This is certainly a beautiful arrangement. It detracts nothing from the glory, or power, or wisdom, or goodness of the Creator. On the contrary, to the eye of all enlightened reason, it but serves to illustrate more and more fully his infinite perfections.

But all men have not this faith-and some of them have not even the perspicacity that is necessary to enable them to look up through and beyond these second causes, to Him who is himself the cause of all causes. They see, or think they see, in these delegated laws and powers of Nature, enough to regulate and govern the whole created universe. And hence it is that they separate God wholly and entirely from his works. They allow him to have no longer any care or concern in the government of things celestial, terrestrial, or infernal.

Second causes are now, in their judg ment, abundantly adequate and sufficient for all practical purposes. Indeed, some would go so far as to say, "There is no God"-no First Cause. But it is of Naturalism and not of Atheism that I now speak. And the Naturalist professes to recognize in Nature the footprints of the Creator. He admits that

200

FAITH AND INFIDELITY.

there are evidences of design all around him; but he sees no evidence of God's presence in existing phænomena, nor of his energy or power in the present operations of Nature. And hence he infers that Nature is a sort of self-adjusting machine, and that God has retired from any and all participation in its government.

The consequences of this theory are numerous, and some of them are pernicious and ruinous in the extreme. Carried out to its legitimate results, it of course ignores everything that is supernatural in the administration of the universe. Miracles are impossible, for the simple reason that there is no power left either to suspend, or to change, or in any way to modify any of Nature's laws. Divine Providence is also discarded and ignored by the very conditions of the hypothesis; and hence it follows that prayer, intercession, and all other religious observances, are to be regarded as wholly superstitious and altogether worthless. The Bible, too, according to this theory, is a myth, if not a falsehood, and philosophy is the only rational guide of life.

Such is the form of infidelity that is now taught and industriously propagated by many of the most popular writers on both sides of the Atlantic. Combe's Constitution of Man is full of it, and so are some of the equally popular but more ephemeral productions of Fowler and Wells. And such, I regret to say, is the tendency of much that has been written within the last halfcentury, in almost every department of Natural Science.

But all such writing indicates a very partial and superficial view of nature. There is really nothing in the whole scheme of the universe, that, when properly understood has the slightest bear ing in favour of Naturalism. But on the contrary, there is much that is evidently opposed to it. Geology is all against it. The mountains and valleys around us are witnesses, not only that God has from the beginning exercised a special care over the world, but also that at several different epochs of the earth's history, he interposed miraculously, and actually created many new species of both vegetables and animals. Professor Hitchcock says: "If we take only those larger groups of animals and plants, whose almost entire distinc

Harbinger, June 1, 63.

tions from one another have been established beyond all doubt, we shall find at least five nearly complete organic revolutions on the globe.'

This, then, is a complete refutation of Naturalism. These facts prove conclusively that God has never forsaken the earth--that from the beginning he has watched over it, and taken care of it-and furthermore, that he has even worked miracles whenever the occasion and the circumstances required that he should do so. This, I say, is evident from the facts reported by Geologists; for as the universe originated in miracle, so unquestionably did every species of animals and plants originate in miracle. Second causes may indeed greatly influence and modify both animals and vegetables; but all the laws and powers of Nature never did and never can give birth to a new species of either. And hence it is that the appearance of a new species of either animals or vegetables just as clearly indicates the presence and energy of the Creator, as the fall of an apple indicates the existence of gravitation.

Geology, then, is clearly opposed to this Infidel hypothesis; and I think it may be affirmed with almost equal certainty, that the science of Meteorology is also opposed to it. For consider why it is that the phænomena of each year are not invariably and uniformly the same. Why have we not the same amount of rain, and snow, and hail, and frost, and vapour, during each and every successive year? The laws of nature are the same, and so are also the second causes that serve to produce these phænomena. The earth still exists from age to age-the same quantity of water and the same atmosphere continually surround it. The sun, too, is the same its relative positions to the earth are the same throughout the successive days and nights of every year; the same amount of heat, light, and electricity would, therefore, seem to be evolved during each successive year, causing the same or an equal amount of evaporation. And yet the quantity of rain, snow, and hail varies from year to year.

Why is this? There must be a variable power or energy in some place. And if it is not in nature, it must be in the power that is providentially exercised by the Author of nature. If it is not

Harbinger, June 1, '63.

FAITH AND INFIDELITY.

in the energy which God has imparted to the ordinances of Nature, it must be in the energy which he himself puts forth, and providentially exercises in and through these ordinances. A man, for instance, may impart a certain amount of energy to a clock by suspending weights to the machinery: but he may very greatly increase this energy by laying his hands upon the weights. In this case he works no miracle. No law of Nature, nor even of the machinery, is changed or suspended; nor does the agent exercise his power against, above, or in any way contrary to the laws and forces of Nature. He merely by his own personal agency adds to the force and energy of causes already acting in harmony with the laws of Nature.

This is human providence-and when God so acts, it is Divine Providence. This energy he can of course increase or diminish at pleasure. And hence, it seems to me, is the astonishing variety that we everywhere witness amidst the unchanging laws and forces of Nature. And hence it is, that God without working a miracle, sometimes gives us plenty of corn and wine, filling our hearts with food and gladness; and again, when he withholds the rains and the dews and the sunshine of heaven, the flowers fade, crops die, and the whole face of Nature seems to languish.

And hence it is, also, that Meteorology has never yet been reduced to a science. It is a very remarkable fact, that while the astronomer can foretell the exact time and duration of all the eclipses that will occur within the lapse many centuries, he cannot tell with any degree of certainty what kind of weather we will have to-morrow.

of

And the same is true, in some measures, of the phænomena of human life. The art of healing is still a matter of experiment. All the skill, and knowledge and experience of six thousand years, have so far failed to reduce medicine to a science. This is certainly a very remarkable fact. And it does seem to me that this of itself is a refutation of Naturalism.

But as I do not wish to multiply arguments and illustrations, I will only say, finally, that the Bible is opposed to Naturalism. I assume here, of course, that the Bible is true; and in doing so I am fully sustained by the

Q

[ocr errors]

201

common practice of mankind. The mechanic does not think it necessary to prove that the square described on the hypothenuse of a right angled triangle, is equivalent to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides, every time that he attempts to square a building. It is enough for him to know that this truth has been once demonstrated to the entire satisfaction of all competent judges. Surely, then, it is enough, or ought to be enough, for us to know that the genuineness and Divine authenticity of the Bible have been proved a thousand times, by the most full, varied, and reliable testimony that ever was submitted to a court or jury on any question since time began.

It being conceded, then, for the present that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, it is an easy matter to dispose of this Infidel hypothesis. Almost every page of the Bible is against it. Almost every page of the Bible shews that God is ever present in all his works, directing, controlling, governing all things for his own glory, and also for the greatest good and happiness of the whole creation. Let us take one or two cases for the present, merely by way of illustration. Let us take, for instance, the history of Joseph. How think you, courteous reader, the Naturalist would, on this hypothesis, explain this remarkable chapter of Sacred History? How, without the presence and agency of God, could he account, not for one event merely, nor for two, but for all the events that led to the promotion of Joseph-to the enslavement of the Israelites - and to their final exodus from Egypt, according to the promises which God had before made to Abraham? On his hypothesis, how could the Naturalist explain the eventful biography of Moses, or of Mordecai, or of Daniel? How could he account for the emancipation of Israel by Cyrus, and their restoration to their own land? And above all, how could he explain the history of our Redeemer, and the fulfilment of the many prophecies that relate to his birth, his early education, his ministry, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, and his glorious reign and government?

But it is unnecessary to multiply arguments and illustrations. The prob

202

THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS.

lem is solved and the truth fully revealed in the few inimitable words of our blessed Redeemer, in which he assures us that God takes care of every thing-that he clothes the lily, feeds the young ravens, allows not a sparrow to fall to the ground without his knowledge and care-and that, in a word, he numbers the very hairs of our heads. This is enough. This is a foundation broad enough and strong enough on which to rest our faith and hopes for ever.

Harbinger, June 1,'63.

Let us then "beware, lest any man spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." And let us ever rejoice that in God we live and move and have our being; and that in him, and through him, and to him, are all things, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. R. MILLIGAN.

THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS-THE BIBLE & THE BISHOP.- No. VI. A REFUTATION OF BISHOP COLENSO UPON THE PENTATEUCH.

66

ing are specimens of what he chooses to consider contradictions :

[ocr errors]

'In the first of the cosmogonies the earth emerges from the waters, and is therefore saturated with moisture. In the second, the whole face of the ground requires to be moistened.' Requires' is gratuitously inserted to make out the contradiction. The exhalation of the mist would be a natural result of the saturation of the earth's surface with moisture. It is lation to the period immediately subsenot necessary, however, to refer this exhaquent to the creation of the earth's sub

stance.

order of creation and that of the animals.

OUR last brought us to the close of the Bishop's first volume. His second is before us, also Kurtz upon the Old Covenant, Hengstenberg upon the Divine Names, and other thoughtful pages which supplied ample refutation of the Bishop's second volume before it saw the light. It was intended to conduct our readers through the bye-ways of the second volume as we have done through those of the first, but the book has awakened so little interest, fallen so flat upon society, and contains so little that has even the semblance of newness, that we fear they would tire 'In the first, the birds and beasts are upon the road. Under this conviction created before man; in the second, man is we shall dismiss the book in the words created before the birds and beasts. That of the "Rev." W. F. Wilkinson, of St. is, in the second, the object of which is evi Werburgh's Vicarage: 'In the first dently to give the history of the creation chapter of Part II. the Bishop is endea of man, his creation is first related. Novoring to prove what may be very safely thing is said, or implied, about the relative admitted, without prejudice, nay with And their creation is most certainly related advantage to the historical credibility parenthetically, as may be seen by comof the narratives, that the earlier por-paring the last clauses of verses 18 and 20. tions of the Book of Genesis, and particularly the first and second chapters, are the composition of different authors. Moses, we can readily conceive, although the original author of most of the Book of Genesis, might compile and put together, by Divine direction, various accounts of the earliest events in the history of the world and mankind, from "What may not be represented as conpreviously existing documents, them-tradictions, if these are to be considered selves of Divine authority. And the such? Upon such principles of comagreement of these one with another, parison, what two accounts of the though written at different times and same transaction can be allowed to by different hands, will supply proof of agree, if they present the least diversity their trustworthiness as narratives of in terms or circumstances? actual facts. But Bishop Colenso un- "Objections so utterly frivolous and dertakes to prove the diversities of au- trivial as those which we have just been thorship by contradictions in the two considering, although they cannot be accounts of the creations. The follow-justly said to compromise the writer's

'In the first, man is created ' in the image of God.' In the second, man is made of the dust of the ground, and merely animated with the breath of life.

'In the first, man is made the lord of the whole earth. In the second he is merely placed in the Garden of Eden to dress and to keep it.'

[ocr errors]

Harbinger. June 1, '63.

THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS.

whole case, must be held to damage it exceedingly. They deeply affect the character of rationalistic criticism, as it is represented in his work; and that it is fairly and advantageously represented there, no one who is at all acquainted with it can deny. He has chosen the class of objections which is thought to present the strongest case against the authenticity and genuineness of the Pentateuch. It must be understood that he has selected those objections of the class which are the best adapted for his purpose. And among them, or together with them, he has selected these! If he is aware of their futility, the production of them amounts to a confession of weakness; he can have none more valid which could have been produced in their room; he is evidently making up by quantity what he wants in quality of testimony. If he really considers them sound and formidable objections, I for one cannot impute such a paradox to any original defect of understanding or principle, or to any idiosyncracy of genius, but to the influence of that system of criticism to which he has unhappily surrendered himself, and which has warped and perverted his judgment.

"Dr. Colenso has accumulated, and set forth with great perspicuousness and force, the supposed indications contained in the Pentateuch of its having been written at a later date than the age of Moses. He relies principally upon the distinction made between various portions of the books by the use of the words Elohim (God) or Jehovah (LORD) as the name of God; attributing the portion in which the former word chiefly occurs to one writer called the Elohist, and the rest to another called the Jehovist,-terms of German invention, jarring on English ears when heard for the first time, as I confess they do still on mine, although now somewhat familiar with them, as irreverent and profane. He does not follow his continental oracles with the same devout submission as is evinced by Dr. Davidson, who gives us (from Boehmer and Knobel) a table of the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections in the first four books, and refers these sections respectively to the Elohist,' the younger Elohist,' the Jehovist, and a Redactor-the author of the Book of Deuteronomy being a fifth writer, called the

Deuteronomist.'

203

The Bishop, appa

rently, believes in only two authors of the first four books-the Elohist, who was the earlier, and the Jehovist, who revised what the former had written, and made many insertions and addi tions to the story. He thinks that in most cases any attentive reader could make out the portions to be severally assigned to them. Some hints are supplied for enabling us to do this. But let any one even thus instructed make the trial, and arrange the Book of Ge nesis, for example, into sections, one series written by an author whose name for the Deity was Elohim (God), and the other by an author who also, and chiefly, spoke of him as Jehovah (Lord), and then let him compare his experiment with the results in Bishop Colenso's work or Dr. Davidson's, and he will find that he has been far from completing his task to their satisfaction or his own. To his own, I trust, in one sense, every unbiassed student would complete it; for he would discover that the attempted severance is hopeless, and that the alleged distinctions of authorship are imaginary.

"Dr. Colenso supports this theory of the composition of the Pentateuch by an examination of the Book of Psalms, which he also divides into Elohistic and Jehovistic poems. The basis of his distinction is the use of the word Jehovah, to the origin and prevalence of which he assigns a much later date than is given in the Bible. The employment of the word by any author more freely than the word Elohim, is a proof that this author wrote at a later period of the sacred canon; one who lived nearer the time of the introduction of the word into the language of the people, into their literature, would use the word Elohim, and more frequently than the word Jehovah. But, unfortunately for this chronological principle, in the Book of Ezra the word Elohim is used nearly three times, and in the Book of Nehemiah more than four times as often as the word Jehovah. And the word Jehovah is found in one only of the twelve chapters of the Book of Daniel. Consquently, these books ought to have been written at a very early period-not long after the introduction of the name Jehovah. But they were written at a very late date— one during, the others after, the Baby

« PoprzedniaDalej »