Inspiration and Interpretation Part 4

Next come three other specimens "of the modern questionings of traditional Christianity," "whereby observers are rendered dissatisfied with old modes of speaking:" (p. 156:) viz. (1) St. Paul "speaks of the Gospel 'which was preached to every nation (_sic_) under heaven,' when it has never yet been preached to the half[84]." (2) "Then, again, it has often been appealed to as an evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity, and as an instance of supernatural a.s.sistance vouchsafed to it in the first centuries, that it so soon overspread the world:"

(p. 155:) whereas "it requires no learning to be aware that neither then nor subsequently have the Christians amounted to a fourth part of the people of the Earth." (_Ibid._) (3) So again, "it has been customary to argue that, _a priori_, a supernatural Revelation was to be expected at the time when JESUS CHRIST was manifested upon the Earth, by reason of the exhaustion of all natural or una.s.sisted human efforts for the amelioration of mankind;" (pp. 155-6;) whereas "our recently enlarged Ethnographical information shews such an argument to be altogether inapplicable to the case." "It would be more like the realities of things, as we can now behold them, to say that the Christian Revelation was given to the Western World, because it deserved it better and was more prepared for it than the East." (p. 156.)--The remedy for the first of these difficulties (says Mr. Wilson,) is, "candidly to acknowledge that the words of the New Testament which speak of the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world, were limited to the understanding of the times when they were spoken." The suggestions of our own moral instincts are rather to be followed, "than the express declarations of Scripture writers, who had no such knowledge as is given to ourselves of the amplitude of the World." (p. 157.)

For my own part, I see not how Mr. Wilson's proposed remedy meets the case; unless he means to say that in the time of St. Paul the Gospel had been literally preached to the whole World _as far as the World was then known_. If not, it is clear that recourse must be had to some other expedient. Instead then of the "candid acknowledgment" required of _us_ by the learned writer, may we be allowed to suggest to _him_ the more prosaic expedient (1st) of making sure that he quotes Scripture accurately; and (2nd) that he understands it?... It happens that St.

Paul does not use the words "_every nation under heaven_" as Mr. Wilson inadvertently supposes. The Apostle's phrase, p?s? t? ?t?se?, in Colossians i. 23, (as in St. Mark xvi. 15), means 'to the whole Creation,' or 'every creature;' (the article is doubtful;) in other words, he announces the universality of the Gospel, as contrasted with the Law; and he explains that it had been preached _to the Heathen_ as well as to the Jews. Our increased knowledge therefore has nothing whatever to do with the question; and the supposed difficulty disappears. The two which remain, being (according to the same writer,) merely incorrect inferences of Biblical critics, need not, it is presumed, be regarded as insurmountable either.

Following Mr. Wilson through his successive vagaries of religious (?) thought, we come upon a succession of strange statements; the object of which seems to be to cast a slur on _Doctrine_ generally.--The doctrine of Justification by faith "is not met with ... in the Apostolic writings, _except those of St. Paul_." (p. 160.) [A minute exception truly!].--"Then, on the other hand, it is maintained by a large body of Theologians, as by the learned Jesuit Petavius and many others, that the doctrine afterwards developed into the Nicene and Athanasian, is not to be found explicitly in the earliest fathers, nor even in Scripture, although provable by it." (p. 160.) [Would it not have been fair, however, to state what appears to have been the design of Petavius therein[85]? and should it not have been added that our own Bishop Bull in his immortal "Defensio Fidei Nicaenae" established the very reverse "out of the writings of the Catholic Doctors who flourished within the first three centuries of the Christian Church[86]?"] "The nearer we come to the original sources of the History, the less definite do we find the statements of Doctrines, and even of the facts from which the Doctrines were afterwards inferred." (p. 160.) "In the patristic writings, theoretics a.s.sume continually an increasingly disproportionate value.

Even within the compa.s.s of our New Testament, there is to be found already a wonderful contrast between the words of our LORD and such a discourse as the Epistle to the Hebrews." (pp. 160-1.) [What a curious discovery, by the way, that an argumentative Epistle should differ in style from an historical Gospel!] "Our LORD'S Discourses," (continues this writer,) "have almost all of them a direct _Moral_ bearing."

(p. 161.) [The case of St. John's Gospel immediately recurs to our memory. And it seems to have occurred to Mr. Wilson's also. He says:--]

"This character of His words is certainly more obvious in the first three Gospels than in the fourth; and the remarkable unison of those Gospels, when they recite the LORD'S words, notwithstanding their discrepancies in some matters of fact, compels us to think, that _they embody more exact traditions of what He actually said than the fourth does_." (p. 161.) [In other words, the authenticity of St. John's Gospel[87] is to be suspected rather than the worthlessness of the speculations of the Vicar of Great Staughton!]

The object of three pages which follow (pp. 162-5.) seems to be to shew that in the Apostolic Age, Immorality of life was more severely dealt with, even than erroneousness of Doctrine. Except because the writer is eager to depreciate the value of orthodoxy of belief, and to cast a slur on doctrinal standards generally,--it is hard to see why he should write thus. Let him be reminded however that our SAVIOUR makes Faith itself a _moral_, not an _intellectual_ habit[88]; and, (if it be not an uncivil remark,) what but an _immoral_ spectacle does a Clergyman present who openly inculcates distrust of these very Doctrines which he has in the most solemn manner pledged himself to uphold and maintain?

And thus we come back to the theme originally proposed. "A national Church," we are informed, "need not, historically speaking, be Christian (!); nor, if it be Christian, need it be tied down to particular forms which have been prevalent at certain times in Christendom (!). That which is essential to a National Church is, that it should undertake to a.s.sist the spiritual progress of the nation and of the individuals of which it is composed, in their several states and stages. Not even a Christian Church should expect all those who are brought under its influence to be, as a matter of fact, of one and the same standard; but should endeavour to raise each according to his capacities, and should give no occasion for a reaction against itself, nor provoke the individualist element into separation." (p. 173.) Of what sort the Ministers of such a "chartered libertine" are to prove, may be antic.i.p.ated. "Thought and speech, which are free among all other cla.s.ses," must be free also "among those who hold the office of leaders and teachers of the rest in the highest things." The Ministers of the Church ought not "to be bound to cover up, but to open; and having, it is presumed, possession of the key of knowledge, ought not to stand at the door with it, permitting no one to enter unless by force. A National Church may also find itself in this position, which, perhaps, is our own." (p. 174.)--What a charming picture of the duties and the method of that cla.s.s to which the Vicar of Great Staughton himself belongs!... The writer proceeds to set an example of that freedom of inquiry which he vindicates as the privilege of his Order; and without which he is apprehensive of being left isolated between "the fanatical religionist,"

(p. 174,) (i.e. the man who believes the truths he teaches,) and "the negative theologian," (i.e. those who, "impatient of old fetters, follow free thought heedlessly wherever it may lead them.") (_Ibid._) "The freedom of opinion[89]," (he says,) "which belongs to the English citizen should be conceded to the English Churchman; and the freedom which is already practically enjoyed by the members of the congregation, cannot without injustice be denied to its ministers." (p. 180.) Let us see how the Reverend Gentleman exercises the license which he claims:--

The phrase "Word of G.o.d," (he says,) is unauthorized and begs the question. The epithet "Canonical" "may mean either books ruled and determined by the Church, or regulation books; and the employment of it in the Article hesitates between these two significations." (p. 176.) The declaration of the sixth Article simply implies "the Word of G.o.d is contained in Scripture; whence it does not follow that it is co-extensive with it." (p. 170.) "Under the terms of the Sixth Article one may accept literally, or allegorically, or as parable, or poetry, or legend, the story of a serpent-tempter, of an a.s.s speaking with man's voice, of an arresting the earth's motion, of a reversal of its motion[90], of waters standing in a solid heap, of witches, and a variety of apparitions. So under the terms of the Sixth Article, every one is free in judgment as to the primeval inst.i.tution of the Sabbath, the universality of the Deluge, the confusion of tongues, the corporeal taking up of Elijah into Heaven, the nature of Angels, the reality of demoniacal possession, the personality of Satan, and the miraculous particulars of many events." (p. 177.) "Good men," we are a.s.sured; (the Inspired Writers being the good men intended;) "may err in facts, be weak in memory, mingle imaginations with memory, be feeble in inferences, confound ill.u.s.tration with argument, be varying in judgment and opinion." (p. 179.) [A "free handling" this, of the work of the HOLY GHOST, truly!... It would, I suppose, be deemed very unreasonable to wish that a catalogue of facts misstated,--of slips of memory,--of imaginary details,--of feeble inferences,--of instances of logical confusion,--and so forth, had been subjoined by the Reverend writer. I will only observe concerning his method that such "frank criticism of Scripture" (p. 174.) as this, is dogmatism of the most disreputable kind: insinuating what it does not state; a.s.suming what it ought to prove; a.s.serting in the general what it may be defied to substantiate in particular.] It follows,--"But the spirit of absolute Truth cannot err or contradict Himself; if He speak immediately, even in small things, accessories, or accidents." (p. 179.) To this we entirely agree. Where then are the "errors?" and where the "contradictions?"

We cannot "suppose Him to suggest contradictory accounts:" [not _contradictory_, of course; because contradictories cannot both be true:] "or accounts only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and conjecture."--(_Ibid._) _Why_ not[91]?

"To suppose a supernatural influence to cause the record of that which can only issue in a puzzle, is to lower indefinitely our conception of the Divine dealings in respect of a special Revelation."

(_Ibid._)--_Why_ more of a lowering puzzle in G.o.d'S Word than in G.o.d'S Works[92]?

Mr. Wilson proceeds:--"It may be attributed to the defect of our understandings, that we should be _unable altogether to reconcile the aspects_ of the SAVIOUR as presented to us in the first three Gospels, and in the writings of St. Paul and St. John. At any rate, there were current in the primitive Church very distinct Christologies."--(_Ibid._) Queer language this for a plain man! _I_, for my own part, have never yet discovered the difficulty which is here hinted at; but which has been prudently left unexplained.

It follows:--"But neither to any defect in our capacities, nor to any reasonable presumption of a hidden wise design, nor to any partial spiritual endowments in the narrators, can we attribute the difficulty, if not impossibility, of reconciling the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke; or the chronology of the Holy Week; or the accounts of the Resurrection: nor to any mystery in the subject-matter can be referred the uncertainty in which the New Testament writings leave us, as to the descent of JESUS CHRIST according to the flesh, whether by His mother He were of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi."--(pp. 179-180.) I, for my part, can declare that I have found the reconcilement in the three subjects first alluded to, as complete as could be either expected or desired. The last part of the sentence discovers nothing so much as the writer's ignorance of the subject on which he presumes to dogmatize.

Presently, we read,--"It may be worth while to consider how far a liberty of opinion is conceded by our existing Laws, Civil and Ecclesiastical."--(p. 180.) "As far as _opinion privately entertained is concerned_, the liberty of the English Clergyman appears already to be complete. For no Ecclesiastical person can be obliged to answer interrogations as to his opinions; nor be troubled for that which he has not actually expressed; nor be made responsible for inferences which other people may draw from his expressions." (_Ibid._)--Surely such language needs only to be cited to awaken indignation in every honest bosom! "With most men educated, not in the schools of Jesuitism, but in the sound and honest moral training of an English Education, the mere entering on the record such a plea as this, must destroy the whole case.

If the position of the religious instructor is to be maintained only by his holding one thing as true, and teaching another thing as to be received,--in the name of the G.o.d of Truth, either let all teaching cease, or let the fraudulent instructor abdicate willingly his office, before the moral indignation of an as yet uncorrupted people thrust him ignominiously from his abused seat[93]!"

The remarks just quoted serve to introduce a series of views on subscription to the Articles, which, if they were presented to me without any intimation of the quarter from which they proceed, I should not have hesitated to denounce as simply dishonest[94].... The Statute 13 Eliz. c. 12, is next discussed with the same unhappy licentiousness; and the declaration that "the meshes are too open for modern refinements." (p. 185.) ... I desire not to speak with undue severity of a fellow-creature: but I protest that I cannot read the Review under consideration without a profound conviction that, (speaking for myself,) I have to do with one whom in the common concerns of life I would not trust. The apt.i.tude here displayed[95] for playing tricks with plain language, is calculated to sap the foundations of human intercourse, and to destroy confidence. If plain words may mean anything, or may mean nothing,--then, farewell to all good faith in the intercourse of daily life. If Articles "for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establis.h.i.+ng of Consent touching true Religion[96],"--such Articles especially as the IInd., "Of the WORD or SON of G.o.d, which was made very Man;" and the Vth., "Of the HOLY GHOST," (which the Rev. Mr. Wilson calls "humanifying of the Divine Word," and "the Divine Personalities,") (p. 186,)--may be signed by one who, even in signing, resolves to "_pa.s.s by the side of them_," (p. 186, line 6,)--then is it better at once to admit that no Logic can be supposed to be available with such a writer; that he places himself outside the reach of fair argumentation; and must not be astonished if he shall find himself regarded by his peers simply in the light of an untrustworthy and impracticable person.

The last stage of all in this deplorable paper is an application to Holy Scripture itself of the tricks which the Vicar of Great Staughton has already played, so much to his own satisfaction, with the Articles.

"We may say that the value of the historical parts of the Bible may consist, rather in their significance, in the ideas which they awaken, than in the scenes themselves which they depict." (p. 199.) To a plain English understanding, (unperplexed with the dreams of Strauss, and other unbelievers of the same stamp,) such a statement conveys scarcely an intelligible notion. But we are not left long in doubt.

"The application of Ideology to the interpretation of Scripture, to the doctrines of Christianity, to the formularies of the Church, may undoubtedly be carried to an excess; may be pushed so far as to leave in the sacred records no historical residue whatever.... An example of the critical Ideology carried to excess, is that of Strauss; which resolves into an ideal _the whole of the historical and doctrinal person of JESUS_.... But it by no means follows, because Strauss has subst.i.tuted a mere shadow for the JESUS of the Evangelists, that there are not traits in the scriptural person of Jesus, which are better explained by referring them to an ideal than an historical origin: and without falling into fanciful exegetics, there are parts of Scripture more usefully interpreted ideologically than in any other manner,--as for instance, _the history of the Temptation of JESUS by Satan, and accounts of demoniacal possessions_." (pp. 200-201.) "Some may consider the descent of all Mankind from Adam and Eve as an undoubted historical fact; others may rather perceive in that relation a form of narrative into which in early ages tradition would easily throw itself spontaneously.... _Among a particular people, this historical representation became the concrete expression of a great moral truth_,--of the brotherhood of all human beings.... The force, grandeur, and reality of these ideas are not a whit impaired in the abstract, nor indeed the truth of the concrete history (!) as their representation, even though mankind should have been placed upon the earth _in many pairs at once, or in distinct centres of creation_. For the brotherhood of men really depends," &c., &c. (p. 201.) "Let us suppose one to be uncertain whether our LORD were born of the house and lineage of David, _or of the tribe of Levi_; and even to be driven to conclude that the genealogies of Him have _little historic value_; nevertheless, in idea, JESUS is both Son of David and Son of Aaron, both Prince of Peace, and High Priest of our profession; as He is, under another idea, though not literally, 'without father and without mother.' And He is none the less Son of David, Priest Aaronical, or Royal Priest Melchizedecan, in idea and spiritually, even if it be unproved whether He were any of them _in historic fact_.--In like manner it need not trouble us, if in consistency, we should have to suppose both an ideal origin, and to apply an ideal meaning, to the birth in the city of David, (!) and to other circ.u.mstances of the Infancy. (!) So again, the Incarnification of the divine Immanuel remains, although the angelic appearances which herald it in the narratives of the Evangelists may be of ideal origin, according to the conceptions of former days." (pp. 202-3.) "And,"

lastly,--"_liberty must be left to all as to the extent in which they apply this principle_!" (p. 201.)

To such dreamy nonsense, what "Answer" _can_ we return[97]? Such speculations would be a fair subject for ridicule and merriment, if the subject were not so unspeakably solemn,--the issues so vast, and terribly momentous. We find ourselves introduced into a new world,--of which the denizens talk like madmen, and in a jargon of their own. And yet, that jargon is no sooner understood, than the true character of our new companions becomes painfully evident[98].... He who believes the plain words of Holy Writ, finds himself called "the literalist." He who resolves Scripture into a dream, and the LORD who redeemed him into "a mere shadow," (p. 200) is dignified with the t.i.tle of "an idealist."

"Neither" (we are a.s.sured) "should condemn the other. They are fed with the same truths; the literalist unconsciously, the idealist with reflection. Neither can justly say of the other that he undervalues the Sacred Writings, or that he holds them as inspired less properly than himself." (p. 200.) "The ideologian," (who is the same person as the "idealist;" for the gentleman, at this place, changes his name;) "is evidently in possession of a principle which will enable him to stand in charitable relation to persons of very different opinions from his own."

(p. 202.) "Relations which may repose on doubtful grounds as matter of history, and, as history, be incapable of being ascertained or verified, may yet be equally suggestive of true ideas with facts absolutely certain. The spiritual significance is the same of the Transfiguration, of opening blind eyes, of causing the tongue of the stammerer to speak plainly, of feeding mult.i.tudes with bread in the wilderness, of cleansing leprosy; whatever links may be deficient in the traditional records of particular events." (_Ibid._) ... I will but modestly inquire,--What would be said of _us_, if _we_ were so to expound Holy Scripture _in defence_ of Christianity?

But it is time to dismiss this tissue of worthless as well as most mischievous writing;--even to exhibit which, in the words of its misguided author, ought to be its own sufficient exposure. Do men really expect us to "answer" such groundless a.s.sertions, and vague speculations as those which go before? A Faith without Creeds: a Clergy without authority or fixed opinions: a Bible without historical truth:--how can such things, for a moment, be supposed to be[99]? What answer do we render to the sick man who sees unsubstantial goblins on the solid tapestried wall; and mistakes for shadowy apparitions of the night, the forms of flesh and blood which are ministering to his life's necessities? If the Temptation, and the Transfiguration, and the Miracles of CHRIST be not true history, but ideological allegories,--then why not His Nativity and His Crucifixion,--His Death and His Burial,--His Resurrection and His Ascension into Heaven likewise? "_Liberty_" (we have been expressly told,) "_must be left to all, as to the extent in which they apply the principle_" (p. 201.)--_Where_ then is Ideology to begin,--or rather, where is ideology to end? "Why then is Strauss to be blamed for using that universal liberty, and '_resolving into an ideal the whole of the historical and doctrinal person of JESUS_?' Why is Strauss' resolution 'an excess?' or where and by what authority, short of his extreme view, would Mr. Wilson himself stop? or at what point of the process? and by what right could he, consistently with his own canon, call on any other speculator, to stay the ideologizing process[100]?"

"Discrepancies in narratives, scientific difficulties, defects in evidence, do not disturb the ideologist as they do the literalist."

(p. 203.) No, truly. _Nothing_ troubles him; simply because he _believes nothing_! The very Sacraments of the Gospel are not secure from his unhallowed touch. "The same principle" (?) is declared to be "capable of application" to them also. "Within these concrete conceptions there lie hid the truer ideas of the virtual presence of the LORD JESUS everywhere that He is preached, remembered, and represented." (p. 204.) ... Do we ever deal thus with any other book of History? And yet, on what possible principle is the Bible to be thus trifled with, and Thucydides to be spared?--I protest, if the historical personages of either Testament may be resolved at will into abstract qualities, and the historical transactions of either Testament may be supposed to represent ideas and notions only,--then, I see not why the Vicar of Great Staughton himself may not prove to be a mythical personage also. Why need Henry Bristow Wilson, B.D.,--who, (as "literalists" say,) in 1841 was one of the 'Four Tutors' who procured the condemnation of Tract No. 90, on the ground that it 'evaded rather than explained the Thirty-nine Articles;' and who, in 1861 writes that "Subscription to the Articles may be thought _even inoperative upon the conscience_ by reason of its vagueness;"

(p. 181.)--why need this author be supposed to be a man _at all_? Why should he not be interpreted "ideologically;" and resolved into the principle of disgraceful Inconsistency of conduct, and "variation of opinion at different periods of life?"

V. In the present crusade against the Bible and the Faith of Christian men, the task of destroying confidence in the first chapter of Genesis has been undertaken by MR. C. W. GOODWIN, M.A. He requires us to "regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of G.o.d'S Universe." (p. 252.)

Mr. Goodwin remarks with scorn, that "we are asked to believe that a vision of Creation was presented to him by Divine power, for the purpose of enabling him to inform the world of what he had seen; which vision inevitably led him to give a description which has misled the world for centuries, and in which the truth can now only with difficulty be recognized." (p. 247.) He puts "pen to paper," therefore, (he says,) in order to induce the world to a "frank recognition of the erroneous views of nature which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) The importance of the inquiry, he vindicates in the following modest terms:--"Physical Science goes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. Theology, (the Science whose object is the dealing of G.o.d with Man as a moral being,) _maintains but a s.h.i.+vering existence, shouldered and jostled by the st.u.r.dy growths of modern thought_, and _bemoaning itself_ for the hostility it encounters." (p. 211.)--A few remarks at once suggest themselves.

I cannot help thinking that if any person of ordinary intelligence, unacquainted with the Bible, were to be left to obtain his notion of its contents from "Essays and Reviews," infidel publications generally, and (_absit invidia verbo!_) from not a few of the Sermons which have been preached and printed in either University of late years,--the notion so obtained would be singularly at variance with the known facts of the case. Would not a man infallibly carry away an impression that the Bible is a book abounding in statements concerning matters of Physical Science which are flatly contradicted by the ascertained phenomena of Nature?

Would he not be led to expect that it contained every here and there a theoretical Excursus on certain Astronomical or Physiological subjects?

and to antic.i.p.ate, above all, an occasional chapter on Geology? Great would be his astonishment, surely, at finding that _one single chapter_ comprises nearly the whole of the statements which modern philosophy finds so very hateful; and _that_ chapter, the first chapter in the Bible[101].

But the surprise would grow considerably when the conditions of the problem came to be a little more fully stated. Has then the actual history of the World's Creation been ascertained from some other independent and infallible source? No! Are Geologists as yet so much as agreed even about a theory of the Creation? No! Can it be proved that any part of the Mosaic account is false? Certainly not! Then why all this hostile dogmatism?--To witness the violence of the partisans of Geological discovery, and the arrogance of their pretensions, one would suppose that some Divine Creed of theirs had been impugned: that a revelation had been made to _them_ from Heaven, which the profane and unbelieving world was reluctant to accept. Whereas, these are Christian men, impatient, as it seems, to tear the first leaf out of their Bible: or rather, to throw discredit on the entire volume, by establis.h.i.+ng the untrustworthiness of the earliest page!

One single additional consideration completes the strangeness of the picture. If our account of the Six Days of Creation were a sybilline leaf of unknown origin, it would not be unreasonable to treat its revelations as little worth. But since the author of it is confessedly Moses,--the great Hebrew prophet, who lived from B.C. 1571 to 1451, who enjoyed the vision of the Most High; nay, who conversed with G.o.d face to face, was with Him in the Mount for thrice forty days, and received from Him the whole details of the Sacred Law;--since this first chapter of Genesis is known to have formed a part of the Church's unbroken heritage from that time onward, and therefore must be acknowledged to be an integral part of the volume of Scripture which, (as our LORD says,) ??

d??ata? ?????a?,--"cannot be broken, diluted, loosened, explained away;"--since, further, this account of Creation is observed to occur in the most conspicuous place of the most conspicuous of those books which are designated by an Apostle by the epithet ???p?e?st??, or, "given by inspiration," "filled with the breath," or "Spirit of G.o.d;" and when it is considered that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles refer to the primaeval history contained in the first two chapters about thirty times[102]:--when, (I say,) all this is duly weighed, surely too strong a _prima facie_ case has been made out on behalf of the first chapter of Genesis, that its authority should be imperilled by the random statements of every fresh individual who sees fit to master the elements of Geology; and on the strength of that qualification presumes to sit in judgment on the Hebrew Scriptures,--of which, confessedly, he does not understand so much as the alphabet!

It is even amusing to see how vain a little mind can become of a little knowledge. Mr. Goodwin remarks,--"The school-books of the present day, while they teach the child that the Earth moves, yet a.s.sure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in six days." (p. 210.) (I am puzzled to reconcile this statement with the author's declaration that "no well-instructed person now doubts the great antiquity of the Earth any more than its motion." (_Ibid._) Would it not have been fairer to have _named_ at least _one_ of the school-books which perpetuate so wicked a heresy?) "On the other hand, Geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the Earth has existed for an immense series of years,--to be counted by millions rather than by thousands; and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first Creation to the appearance of Man upon its surface. By this broad discrepancy between old and new doctrine is the modern mind startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century when told that the earth moved."

(p. 210.)

But begging pardon of our philosopher, if all he means is that more than six days elapsed between the Creation of "Heaven and Earth," (noticed in ver. 1,) and the Creation of Man, (spoke of from ver. 26 to 28,)--he means to say mighty little; and need not fear to encounter contradiction from any "well-instructed person." True, that an ignorant man could not have suspected anything of the kind from reading the first chapter of Genesis: but this is surely n.o.body's fault but his own. An ignorant man might in like manner be of opinion that the Sun and Moon are the two largest objects in creation; and there is not a word in this same chapter calculated to undeceive him. Again, he might think that the Sun rises and sets; and the common language of the Observatory would confirm him hopelessly in his mistake. All this however is no one's fault but his own. The ancient Fathers of the Church, behind-hand as they were in Physical Science, yet knew enough to antic.i.p.ate "the hypothesis of the Geologist; and two of the Christian Fathers, Augustine and Theodoret, are referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed between the first act of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and the commencement of the Six Days' work." (p. 231.) Mr. Goodwin therefore has got no further, so far, than Augustine and Theodoret got, 1400 years since, without the aid of Geology.

But we must hasten on. The business of the Essayist, as we have said, is to undermine our confidence in the Bible, by exposing the ignorance of the author of the first chapter. "Modern theologians," (he remarks, with unaffected displeasure,) "have directed their attention to the possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those geological facts which are admitted to be beyond dispute." (p. 210.)--And pray, (we modestly ask,) is not such a proceeding obvious? A "frank recognition of the erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains," (p. 211,) we shall be prepared to yield when those "erroneous views" have been demonstrated to exist,--_but not till then_. Mr. Goodwin must really remember that although, in _his_ opinion, the "Mosaic Cosmogony," (for so he phrases it,) is "not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance," (p. 253,) the World thinks differently. The learned and wise and good of all ages, including the present, are happily agreed that the first chapter of Genesis is _part of the Word of G.o.d_.

After what is evidently intended to be a showy sketch of the past history of our planet,--"we pa.s.s" (says Mr. Goodwin) "to the account of the Creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of Genesis; one, being comprised in the first chapter and the first three verses of the second; the other, commencing at the fourth verse of the second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically certain that it were useless to ignore it." (p. 217.) Really we read such statements with a kind of astonishment which almost swallows up sorrow. Do they arise, (to quote Mr. Goodwin's own language,) "from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of a.s.sertion which the spirit of true science has taught us?" (p. 252.) Convinced that _my_ unsupported denial would have no more weight than Mr. Goodwin's ought to have, I have referred the dictum just quoted to the highest Hebrew authority available, and have been a.s.sured that it is utterly without foundation.

After such experience of Mr. Goodwin's _philological_ "certainties,"

what amount of attention does he expect his dicta to command in a Science which, starting from "a region of uncertainty, where Philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities, and p.r.o.nounces nothing definite," (p. 213,) has to travel through "a prolonged period, beginning and ending we know not when;" (p. 214;) reaches another period, "the duration of which no one presumes to define;" (_Ibid._;) and again another, during which "nothing can be a.s.serted positively:"

(p. 215:) after which comes "a kind of artificial break?" (_Ibid._)

For my own part, I freely confess that Mr. Goodwin's final admission that "the advent of Man may be considered as inaugurating a new and distinct epoch, _that_ in which we now are, and during the whole of which the physical conditions of existence cannot have been very materially different from what they are now;" (p. 216;) and that "thus much is clear, that Man's existence on Earth is brief, compared with the ages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the globe:" (p. 217:)--these statements, I say, contain as much as one desires to see admitted. For really, since the fossil Flora, and the various races of animated creatures which Geologists have cla.s.sified with so much industry and skill, confessedly belong to a period of immemorial antiquity; and, _with very rare exceptions indeed_, represent _extinct species_,--I, as an interpreter of Scripture, am not at all concerned with them. Moses a.s.serts nothing at all about them, one way or the other. What Revelation says, is, that nearly 6000 years ago, after a mighty catastrophe,--unexplained alike in its cause, its nature, and its duration,--the Creator of the Universe inst.i.tuted upon the surface of this Earth of ours that order of things which has continued ever since; and which is observed at this instant to prevail: that He was pleased to parcel out His transcendent operations, and to spread them over Six Days; and that He ceased from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day.

All extant species, whether of the vegetable or the animal Kingdom, including Man himself, belong to the week in question. And this statement, as it has never yet been found untrue, so am I unable to antic.i.p.ate by what possible evidence it can ever be set aside as false.

In my IInd Sermon, I have ventured to review the Mosaic record sufficiently in detail, to render it superfluous that I should retrace any portion of it here. The reader is requested to read at least so much of what has been offered as is contained from p. 28 to p. 32. My business at present is with Mr. Goodwin.

And _in limine_ I have to remind him that he has really no right first to give, in his own words, his own notion of the history of Creation; and then to insist on making _the Revelation_ of the same transaction ridiculous by giving _it_ also in words of his own, which become in effect a weak parody of the original. What is there in Genesis about "_the air or wind_ fluttering over the waters of the deep?" (p. 219.) Is this meant for the august announcement that "the SPIRIT of G.o.d moved upon the face of the waters?"--"On the third day, ... we wish to call attention to the fact that trees and plants destined for food are those which are particularly singled out as the earliest productions of the earth." (p. 220.) The reverse is the fact; as a glance at Gen. i. 11.

will shew.--"The formation of the stars" on the fourth day, "is mentioned in the most cursory manner." (p. 221.) But _who_ is not aware that "the formation of the stars" is _nowhere mentioned in this chapter at all_?

"Light and the measurement of time," (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) "are represented as existing before the manifestation of the Sun." (p. 219.) Half of this statement is true; the other half is false. The former idea, he adds, is "repugnant to our modern knowledge." (p. 219.) Is then Mr. Goodwin really so weak as to imagine that our Sun is the sole source of Light in Creation? Whence then the light of the so-called fixed Stars? But I shall be told that Mr. Goodwin speaks of _our_ system only, and of our Earth in particular. Then pray, whence that glory[103] which on a certain night on a mountain in Galilee, caused the face of our REDEEMER to s.h.i.+ne as the Sun[104] and His raiment to emit a dazzling l.u.s.tre[105]? "We may boldly affirm," (he says,) "that those for whom [Gen. i. 3-5] was penned could have taken it in no other sense than that light existed before and independently of the sun." (p. 219.) We may indeed. And I as boldly affirm that I take the pa.s.sage in that sense _myself_: moreover that I hold the statement which Mr. Goodwin treats so scornfully, to be the very truth which, in the deep counsels of G.o.d, this pa.s.sage _was designed_ to convey to mankind; even that "the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords, who only hath immortality, _dwelleth in the Light which no man can approach unto[106]_."

"The work of the second day of Creation is to erect the vault of Heaven (Heb. _Rakia_; Gr. ste???a _Lat. Firmamentum_,) which is represented as supporting an ocean of water above it. The waters are said to be divided, so that some are below, and some above the vault.... No quibbling about the derivation of the word _Rakia_, which is literally 'something beaten out,' can affect the explicit description of the Mosaic writer contained in the words 'the waters that are above the firmament,' or avail to shew that he was aware that the sky is but transparent s.p.a.ce." (pp. 219, 220.) "The allotted receptacle [of Sun and Moon] was not made until the Second Day, nor were they set in it until the fourth." (p. 221.) Surely I cannot be the only reader to whom the impertinence of this is as offensive, as its shallowness is ridiculous!

In spite of Mr. Goodwin's uplifted finger, and menacing cry,--"No quibbling!" I proceed with my inquiry.

For first; Why does Mr. Goodwin parody the words of Inspiration? The account as given by Moses is,--"And G.o.d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters[108]." But surely, to make the "open firmament of Heaven" in which every winged fowl may fly[109], is not _"to erect the vault of Heaven,"--"a permanent solid vault,"--"supporting an ocean of water!"_

The Hebrew word here used to denote "firmament," on which Mr. Goodwin's indictment turns, ("_rakia_,") is derived from a verb which means to "beat." Now, what is beaten, or hammered out, while (if it be a metal) it acquires _extension_, acquires also _solidity_. The Septuagint translators seem to have fastened upon the latter notion, and accordingly represented it by ste???a; for which, the earliest Latin translators of the Old Testament coined an equivalent,--_firmamentum_.

But that Moses by the word "_rakia_" intended rather to denote the _expanse_ overhead, than to predicate _solidity_ for the sky, I suspect will be readily admitted by all. True that in the poetical book of Job, we read that the sky is "strong, as a molten looking-gla.s.s[110]:" but then we meet more frequently with pa.s.sages of a different tendency. G.o.d is said to "_stretch out_ the heavens _like a curtain[111]_," "and _spread them out as a tent_ to dwell in[112]:" to "bind up the waters in His thick clouds[113]," and "_in a garment[114]_," &c., &c.[115] It is only needful to look out the word in the dictionary of Gesenius to see that _spreading out_, (as of thin plates of metal by a hammer,) is the _only_ notion which properly belongs to the word. Accordingly, the earliest modern Latin translation from the Hebrew, (that of Pagninus,) renders the word _expansio_. And so the word has stood for centuries in the margin of our English Bible.

The actual _fact_ of the case,--the _truth_ concerning the physical phenomenon alluded to,--comes in, and surely may be allowed to have some little weight. Since expansion _is_ a real attribute of the atmosphere which divides the waters above from the waters below,--and solidity is _not_,--it seems to me only fair, seeing that the force of the expression is thought doubtful, to a.s.sign to it the meaning which is open to fewest objections.

But "the Hebrews," (says Mr. Goodwin,) "understood the sky, firmament, or heaven to be a permanent solid vault, as it appears to the ordinary observer." This, he adds, is "evident enough from various expressions made use of concerning it. It is said to have pillars[116], foundations[117], doors[118], and windows[119],"--(p. 220.) Now, I really do not think Mr. Goodwin's inference by any means so "evident" as he a.s.serts. If Heaven has "pillars" in the poetical book of Job, so has the Earth[120]. The "foundations" spoken of in 2 Sam. xxii. 8, seem rather to belong to _Earth_ than to Heaven,--as a reference to the parallel place in Ps. xviii. 7 will shew[121]. Is Mr. Goodwin so little of a poet, as to be staggered by the phrase "windows of Heaven," when it occurs in the figurative language of an ancient people, and in a poetical book[122]?

For the foregoing reasons, I distrust Mr. Goodwin's inference that "the Hebrews understood the sky to be a solid vault, furnished with pillars, foundations, doors, and windows." But whether they did, or did not, it is to be hoped that he is enough of a logician to perceive that the popular notions of G.o.d's ancient people on this subject, are not the thing in question. The only FACT we have to do with is clearly _this_,--that _Moses has in this place employed the word "rakia_:" and the only QUESTION which can be moved about it, is (as evidently) the following,--whether he was, or was not, to blame _in employing that word_; for as to _the meaning which he, individually, attached to the phenomenon_ of which "_rakia_" is the name, it cannot be pretended that any one living knows anything at all about the matter. A Greek, Latin, or French astronomer who should speak of Heaven, would not therefore be a.s.sumed to mean that it is _hollow_; although ??????, '_coelum_,'