Page images
PDF
EPUB

For this

the same way as natural knowledge is come at. is the way in which all improvements are made; by thoughtful men's tracing on obscure hints as it were dropped by nature accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor is it at all incredible that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered. For all the same phenomena and the same faculties of investigation from which such great discoveries in natural knowledge have been made in the present and last age were equally in possession of mankind several thousand years before” (“ Analogy,” Part II., chap. iii., par. 10).

Thus the book of Revelation, as well as that of Nature, is but gradually comprehended, and age after age men may discover something in each of them hitherto unthought of, and correct mistakes previously held as infallible principles. The intellect of man peruses both volumes; and the more the mind is enlightened and under beneficial educative influences, the more likelihood of its interpretation harmonizing with the absolute truth.

In his address before the Edinburgh University last year, Mr. Gladstone observed "that a system of religion, however absolutely perfect for its purpose, however divine in its conception and expression, yet of necessity becomes human too from the first moment of its contact with humanity," a corroboration of Butler's reasoning, inasmuch as the clouded intellect of man is unable by its limited constitution to grasp at once the whole truth, to the complete exclusion of erroneous and pre-conceived notions on the subject. Thus, a standard that in one century may embody the results of Biblical study up to that time, gradually becomes, in perhaps a half-century afterwards, the known publisher of some fallacies fully exploded in the interval. Is it not then necessary, for the honour and weal of religion, that confessions should be revisable ? In no other way can the old standards keep in line with the advance of new truths.

The language of a nation is ever changing, unconsciously perhaps, but quite surely. Numerous idioms and expressions, for instance, used in 1611, when our Authorized Version of the Bible was first published, are now obsolete, and are apt to convey to modern minds a meaning they did not then bear. An objection of this kind holds good against the everlasting untouched preservation of systematic creeds, regardless of the spirit and circumstances of the after ages they seek to dogmatize for.

R. S. apparently felt somewhat uncomfortable when a reflection of this kind crossed his mind, for important concession-he admits (p. 38) "that error has, in the course of centuries, been engrafted on this body of Christian doctrine, so as to obscure, and in some cases almost to nullify it ;" and can he, notwithstanding this passage, still maintain that "standards ought to be irrevisable"? No loophole can facilitate a return to that affirmation; and accordingly, though as quoted, R. S. bas unwittingly adduced a powerful argu

ment for revisable standards, he evidently grew timid after his unguarded admission, and winds up the sentence by saying that "it is no reason for revising and altering those articles of faith which are the basis of Christianity,"-a conclusion such premises plainly contradict, and quite unwarrantable on any syllogistic method whatever known to Aristotle, Whately, or Hamilton. Observe it is granted that revision is necessary on some points, and then we are quietly told that certain other points should not be revised, as a reason why, after all, revision, as a whole, should be frowned upon;-a course as reasonable as if one should argue that, because a man possesses certain good principles or habits, it would be unwise to raise any agitation by endeavouring to reform some bad principles or habits he may have acquired. It is a beautifully expressed and appropriate saying that "truth, like a torch, the more it is shook it shines," and it is very applicable here.

66

Again, R. S. believes (p. 39), "that every particular or national church has power to decree rites and ceremonies, and has authority in controversies of faith, so that nothing be ordained contrary to God's written word." The statement seems to lean considerably towards the negative side of this question. Does his expression of this principle not involve the legitimacy of the church's interference in matters of faith when necessary? For, granted that it has authority in controversies of faith," this authority, to be free, must not be slavishly confined to the mere accumulation of precedent; but, in virtue of its position as a church, it is empowered to decide on points submitted to it, led to the truth by God's written word, which, as has frequently been shown, fallible standards occasionally contradict. If R. S. concedes to the church liberty to settle a question of faith either one way or other, as may seem reasonable to an authority, the consequences inevitably follow, standards being framed by the authority of a certain church, that same church, at a later day, by the same authority, has a right to revise the creed previously adopted. It is thus absurd to try to bind an existing church hand and foot, to the deliberations and decisions of a similar body,centuries before, who themselves boldly revised and criticized what their predecessors had believed, and chose the several articles of their faith independently of any preexisting human authority. We, their descendants, assert no more than our right, to act as they did. This is really obeying the apostolic injunction, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. v. 21).

If we bear in mind the fallible nature of all human theological compends or standards, the greater enlightenment of the present over preceding centuries, the improved methods of exegesis and translation now applied, and our individual responsibility for our most holy faith, the conclusions can scarcely be evaded that standards of faith demand revision, if their healthiest influences and enlarged usefulness are at all worth caring for. RUDDY.

ན།

Philosophy.

'DOES SCIENCE INDUCE SCEPTICISM?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

"Science has been so victorious of late years, and has been adding so constantly to the strength of its main positions, that it is scarcely safe to doubt anything which is affirmed by cautious and scientific men as a fact within their own domain. But when from the proper and recognized conclusions of science inferences are drawn which affect the spiritual life, then it cannot be complained if we scrutinize these inferences carefully."-Rev. J. Ll. Davies.

SCIENCE deals only with nature, with nature pure and simple. It attempts to interpret phenomena, what we know alone concerns science, not what we ought to believe. Science searches for certainty, and cannot be satisfied with faith. Plato, it is true, said that "truth is related to faith, as being is related to becoming," but modern science regards faith as a foster-sister of truth, and will not acknowledge that she belongs to the same family-in any but the most illegitimate sense. Faith creates myths, but truth is the parent of history and science-they are the twin-daughters of truth and thought.

"I know that age to age succeeds,

Blowing a noise of tongues and deeds,
A dust of systems and of creeds;"

and that these systems and these creeds are in constant antagonism, the systems, as science, continually inducing scepticism of the creeds. So This evidence history yields along all her course. patent is this, that it has become a commonplace in every popular lecture that the truths of science have always been opposed by the promoters of the dogmas of theology, and that science, in the long run, has always acquired the mastery of the field; and in this way, too, as in other warfares

Freedom's battle once begun,

Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won."

"W." has wisely determined to keep himself free from the entanglements of "science falsely so-called;" but perhaps it would be well for him to define scientific truth, for it is very difficult in a debate like this, which rests on general principles, to discriminate between true and false science. The history of science is a history of human mistakes conceived to be true. It is a constant succession

of hypotheses, held for true for a while, and then cast aside for others, which, in their turn, are discarded for others of a newer style. The progress of science is the progress of error-even if we admit that it is the progress of error towards truth, it will not alter the fact that science has foisted upon the minds of men more error than all the so-called errors of theology. Excepting mathematics I give our opponents the choice of any of the branches of science to show that its progress has not been one from error to error, perhaps a less error, but still an error. We say with Tennyson—

"Forerun thy peers, thy time, and let

Thy feet millenniums hence be set

In midst of knowledge dreamed not yet;
Thou hast not gained a real height,
Nor art thou nearer to the light,
Because the scale is infinite!"

Science concerns itself with this world, and encircles itself in a network of laws, active and operating, within the reach of the human understanding. It suffers no overleaping of the barriers of reality. All that it can rest on is experience, and if anything transcends experience it is scouted by science as unworthy of belief. Science is stern reality. All that fine spun theoretic talk of philosophy and religion about supra-mundane themes is nonsense at the best, and fiction at the worst. We cannot experiment upon the things of which they treat, and hence we cannot, without credulity, accept of the doctrines or dogmas of either as true. This is the train of remark common among men of scientific minds. This is very plainly seen in the disquisition on geology by Mr. Page, which was inserted a short time ago in the Eloquence of the Month." In that able summary of geological progress: it was taken for granted that theology was very probably wrong in what it taught; but that geology could not possibly err in what it learned from the earth itself. This idea seems to commend itself to scientific men, who find a delight in elaborating discrepancies (as they allege them to be) between the Divine record and the rock-history of the globe; and hence we are, as it seems to us, quite justified in asserting that it is the tendency of science to induce scepticism.

66

Can a plainer evidence of the tendency of the pursuit of science to induce scepticism be found than that in which Mr. Charles Darwin coolly asserts, notwithstanding the distinct revelation of the Scriptures to the contrary, that "probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primordial form, into which life was at first breathed."* The declaration of Scripture is explicit upon this point, that God created organic beings." 1. The Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew (Gen. ii. 4, 5). 2. "God created every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, and every

[ocr errors]

* 66 'Origin of Species," p. 484.

[ocr errors]

winged fowl" (Gen. i. 21). 3. "God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth" (Gen. i. 25). 4. “God created man in His own image" (Gen. i. 27). Here, then, we have science producing its probabilities in opposition to the express declarations of Scripture, and so inducing scepticism. In this case it is evident that the inducement to disbelieve the Scripture is the guess of science that she has found out a more probable theory of the universe of organized life than that which the word of God reveals or suggests. Darwin's " Origin of Species" is an able and daring book; but his origin of species is different from that which the Creator of species has been pleased to reveal.

[ocr errors]

Why do scientific men so invariably speak of nature rather than of God? Why do they so sedulously personify the laws of the universe into an idol deity-Nature, in preference to expressing their faith in, and their allegiance to, God? There is a common habit among men of science of using circumlocutions, which appear to imply their belief in a personal, active, superintending Providence named God but they speak of Him as "The Author of Nature, "The Infinite Designer," ""The Architect of the Universe, ," "The Omnipotent Framer of the Sky," "The Omniscient Legislator of the World of Matter," &c., &c., all of which seem like tricks for hiding God out of sight from one's thoughts and indications of the sceptical tendency of scientific minds. Neither brevity," ornateness of phrase, or any other excusing apology, can be offered for the almost universal aversion of scientific men to admit the active agency of God in the universe. They examine the workmanship, but they ignore the Divine worker; and though it has taken them thousands of generations to guess at the laws by which Nature is governed, they yet, in their pride of intellect, set up their puny thoughts as capable of judging of the truth or falsehood of the revelation of His will which God has made in the Holy Scriptures. They live so entirely among their experiences that faith has no power to affect their souls.

"

In that able but inconsistent work, "Les Apôtres," M. E. Rénan' lays it down as an axiom in historic criticism," that no place should be given in historical narratives to anything miraculous" (p. 43). This is the axiom of scientific criticism. First assert that Scripture is fundamentally false, and then examine into, and test its truth, by the axioms of a rigidly scientific criticism. The entire structurefrom basement to turret of Scripture is miracle. Revelation itself is a miracle: the records of Scripture include details of a miraculous sort. If, then, you wish to know how far Holy Writ is trustworthy, the proper plan is to bar off the miraculous. On so doing you will justify scepticism; for then, proceeding on your own axiom not on the assertion and teachings of Scripture-you will be able to say with the sceptics, "that God is in everything, especially in all that lives, in a permanent manner, is precisely our theory; we only say that no special interference of a supernatural

« PreviousContinue »