Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

little and obscure compendium-in like manner, the original and first rudiments of the world contained in them not only the sun and moon, the courses of the stars, and the generation of animals, but also the vicissitudes of all terrestrial things; and every deluge, or inundation of water, comes to pass no less by the law of the world than winter or summer doth." Because Boethius and other stoical philosophers are supposed to have held this hypothesis, it is designated the pseudostoical atheism.

[ocr errors]

But what is this one seminal, plastic, life?-this primordial, generative existent? The old stoical anti-theist would perhaps say, a plantal germ. But what say the moderns of this class? It is a MONAS. The least known and the lowest of animals is this monas: it is a mere vital corpuscle. In the primitive state of matter-in original chaos-it existed alone. The only life that throbbed throughout immensity was this one simple atom. Though it had neither organs nor limbs, it had desires-" appetencies." Not content with its pristine condition, it desired to advance, and advance it did. Its first stage was into a fish-form, in which it generated the tribes that inhabit the waters. These marine existences, however, inherited the ambition of their first parent-were dissatisfied with their condition, and desired still to advance. Some wished to fly, and some to walk; and, by the force of their wish, the fields of air were tenanted with winged ones, and the earth with men and beasts. This sage cosmology is modern. It is attributed to French philosophers of the last century. Yes; and it is propounded by a writer of the present day. "The idea which I form," says the author of "The Vestiges of Creation," " of the progress of organic life upon the globe is, that the simplest and most primitive type― under a law, to which that of like production is subservientgave birth to the next type above it; that this, again, pro

* Cudworth, vol. i. p. 194.

† See Dr. M'Culloch, who describes and confutes this ludicrous folly, and ascribes it to La Marck and De Maillet. Vol. i. pp. 84, 85, &c.

duced the next higher, and so on to the very highest. The stages in advance being, in all cases, very small-namely, from one species only to another so that the phenomenon has always been of a simple and a modest character." According to this phantasy, man has been journeying upwards from the lowest through all the intermediate stages of existence. He was once a fish, and the ocean was his home; and once was he a bird, winging the wide realms of air, and warbling in the groves. Be cautious, ye fishermen, butchers, and sportsmen, lest ye kill men, and, peradventure, seraphs in embryo!

The third class, in this last division, are those who refer all to a vitality essential to matter, and developing itself by volition. The men of this class maintain that there is but one substance in the universe, and that all other things are but its forms and manifestations. This substance is the " ALL," the "ABSOLUTE." The web is but the extension of the spider, who sits in its centre, and who, satisfied with its work, absorbs the whole into itself again. The universe is but a web wrought out by the great substance, part of its own essence. It sits in its midst, feels its every vibration, and will one day draw it back into itself again. This figureborrowed from the mythic dreams of the old Indian Pundits -gives as clear an expression to the idea of this class as any we have seen. Benedict Spinoza, a metaphysical sage of Amsterdam, first threw this idea into a scientific form. Descartes had defined a substance to be, "a thing which so exists as not to depend on anything else for its existence."* From this definition, Spinoza maintained that there is but one proper substance in the universe self-sustaining, universal, absolute; that thought and extension are the attributes of this substance; that matter and mind being but properties of this substance, are identical; and that one substance cannot produce another. Hence there is nothing in the universe but this substance. This is "natura naturans"; and the universe, is “natura naturata.”

* "Sketches of Modern Philosophy," by James Murdock, D.D.

Justice requires me to state that Spinozaism is not antitheistic in the same sense as the other hypotheses that have passed under our review. There is, as far as the intention of its author is concerned, a mighty gulf between it and them. Albeit, inferentially, Spinozaism is anti-theism. I can see no more of the God which my reason pictures, and my heart demands "the living God," for which my soul cries out— in the SUBSTANCE of the Amsterdam Jew, than I can in the chance of Democritus, the arche of Anaximander, the nature of Holbach, or the monas of La Marck.*

[ocr errors]

We have thus given, in the briefest manner, a sketch of all the known forms of the monstrous error in question. We have seen certain points in which they all agree, and the great points on which they differ. The two great divisions are ABSOLUTE ETERNALISM, or the ascribing of eternity both to the substance and forms of the universe; and PARTIAL ETERNALISM, or ascribing eternity to the substance, and a commencement to the forms. We have seen that the latter division includes the atomic-those who maintain that the mechanism of the universe was produced by the fortuitous action of pre-existent elements; the hylopathian—those who maintain that the mechanism of the universe sprang from a generative affection inherent in matter; the hylosoic-those who maintain that the mechanism of the universe sprang from an innate vitality in the pre-existent elements. This last class divides itself again. into three minor branches-those who refer all to a vitality peculiar to every part of matter, and developing itself by chance; those who refer all to a vitality common to every part of nature, and developing itself by necessity; and those who refer all to a vitality essential to every part of matter, and developing itself by volition.

We must adjourn comments on this multiform anti-theism until our next number.

See a masterly article on Speculative Philosophy in the "Bibliotheca Sacra" for April, 1851, which discusses the theories of Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, &c., &c.

Germs of Thought.

Analysis of Homily the Thirty-fifth.

"Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag grow without water? Whilst it is yet in his greenness, and not cut down, it withereth before any other herb. So are the paths of all that forget and the hypocrite's hope shall perish," &c.-Job viii. 11-16.

God;

SUBJECT:-False Life.

THE most generic idea we have of life is that it is a principle of action. In neither the vegetable nor the animal kingdoms do we know more of this principle than that it defies gravitation, and appropriates surrounding elements to its own nourishment. But the principles of spiritual life—the life of all intelligences-we understand as a matter of consciousness. The controlling disposition is the life of soul. All things are seen and felt through the governing propensity. As this is, so the universe is. It moves and moulds the entire spirit. It is, in scripture language, the "heart" of the man. There are two, and but two, great presiding dispositionsselfishness and love. The former is the basis of all that is sinful and false in life, and the latter of all that is holy and true. As these two are to be found amongst men, we have here false lives as well as true; and it is the former the text brings to our notice, and strikingly illustrates. It suggests three facts in relation to the false life of man :

I. THAT ITS EXISTENCE IS FRAIL. It is here represented by the "rush or the flag"-i. e., a species of marsh weed. This figure presents two ideas illustrating its frailty :—(1) That it lacks solidity. You have seen plants of this kind. You have observed their spongy texture. You can bend them with the greatest ease. They offer no resistance. like the tree, which defies outward forces, they yield to the slightest touch, and bend to the softest breeze. So it is with

C

Un

[ocr errors][merged small]

Justice requires me to state that Spinoz
theistic in the same sense as the other hyp
passed under our review. There is, as far a
its author is concerned, a mighty gulf betwe
Albeit, inferentially, Spinozaism is anti-the
no more of the God which my reason picture
demands-"the living God," for which my s
in the SUBSTANCE of the Amsterdam Jew, the
chance of Democritus, the arche of Anaximande-
Holbach, or the monas of La Marck.*

[ocr errors]

We have thus given, in the briefest manner, a the known forms of the monstrous error in qu have seen certain points in which they all agree, points on which they differ. The two great divis... SOLUTE ETERNALISM, or the ascribing of eternity substance and forms of the universe; and PARTIAL E or ascribing eternity to the substance, and a com to the forms. We have seen that the latter divisic the atomic-those who maintain that the mechanis universe was produced by the fortuitous action of pr elements; the hylopathian-those who maintain mechanism of the universe sprang from a generative inherent in matter; the hylosoic-those who maintain mechanism of the universe sprang from an innate vi the pre-existent elements. This last class divides itse into three minor branches-those who refer all to av peculiar to every part of matter, and developing itse chance; those who refer all to a vitality common to part of nature, and developing itself by necessity; and who refer all to a vitality essential to every part of ma and developing itself by volition.

We must adjourn comments on this multiform anti-the until our next number.

*

See a masterly article on Speculative Philosophy in "Bibliotheca Sacra" for April, 1851, which discusses the theories Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, &c., &c.

« PoprzedniaDalej »