to truth and its authority over man, on the other to whatever of honesty and sincerity there may be in the Sceptic who doubts and rejects. Only by wise and also sympathetic treatment of the subject can we hope for any real benefit to doubters and Sceptics. Speaking of unbelief in Germany, Professor Christlieb attributes it mainly to four causes. (1) Historical—to the working of those principles in man and in society that have in every age been opposed to the faith of Christ. (2) Scientific— to the rapid progress of modern science, and the consequent changes in the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of men. (3) Causes ecclesiastical and political, such as the corruptions of Christianity in Churches, and in connection with Church life and work; the want of unity among Christians; the too close identification of Churches with political parties on the one hand, and the neglect of political life by Christian men on the other. (4) Causes social and ethical-here special emphasis must be laid on the relation between the moral state of the heart and the beliefs accepted or rejected.1 Dr. Ellicott, the learned Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in a recent charge,' gives three chief causes of the 'prevalence of suspended belief, and the increase of difficulties in heartily accepting the facts and teachings of Christianity.' These are: (1) The tone and direction of recent historical criticism; (2) the deductions that have been drawn from the real, or alleged, discoveries of modern science; and (3) the moral and metaphysical difficulties supposed to be involved in, or connected with, the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That these three causes are in operation no one can well deny; to them we may, perhaps, attribute much of the more intellectual forms of unbelief, as these appear in the thought of our time.2 The more popular aspects of Scepticism demand a fuller treatment, and we must be prepared to descend into the arena 1 See Professor Christlieb's 'Modern Doubt and Christian Belief.' 2 The first of the Bishop's causes is, however, one of the very effects of the Scepticism that has to be accounted for. where humbler motives and less 'scientific' causes contend together, before we understand the doubts, difficulties, and unbelief of the many. Of course, causes operating on the few, by degrees reach the masses of the people; they appear, however, in different forms, and under more popular aspects. The applications of scientific, or so-called scientific, canons of criticism to the Sacred Writings are now met with in the popular periodicals of the day; lecturers in 'halls of science' are ever ready to popularize the latest utterances of university professors, if these happen to be sceptical in tendency. Science, too, lifts up her voice in the gates, and the deepest secrets of her wisest, as well as of her loudest-speaking sons, are proclaimed on the housetops, and discussed in the workshops of the land. Moral and metaphysical difficulties are no longer confined to the literature of the Schools; this is an age of publicity, and men and women who have been on the rack, or who have found the moral difficulties of faith too much for them, usually take care to publish widely their experiences for the benefit of their neighbours. Hence Bishop Ellicott's causes are often found at work in quarters where they might be least expected, and where they are but illunderstood. 2 These 'offences' must come in our time. The Bible has a literary history, and like every other form of literature must be subjected to criticism. Nor are they the true friends of the Bible who shrink from this process as from a plague or pestilence. 'The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair. Reason and reverence are natural allies, though untoward circumstances may sometimes interpose and divorce them.'1 No doubt, all such critical inquiries are unsettling to the popular mind; the action of some of the chief forces in history has been unsettling. Luther must have much disturbed the faith of many simple souls, yet we glorify the Reformation, and attribute to its influence much of what is best in modern religious life. Men must bear with 1 Bishop Lightfoot, Preface to 'St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.' these disturbing elements in life, and learn to prove all things,' holding fast only what is good. The Scepticism connected with the tone and tendency of historical criticism,' is due quite as much to the unbelieving timidity of those who accept, as to the critical boldness of those who reject Revelation. Which tends most to unsettle faith, the newer criticism of men like Dr. Smith, or the outcry of honoured Fathers who say he is taking away the very ark of God,' and that a simple quotation by the Saviour of a sentence or two from the Pentateuch must for ever settle the whole question of its Mosaic authorship? Which tends most to encourage Scepticism-the belief that in the 'Song of Songs' we have the love of Christ and His Church represented, or the belief of some critics, ancient and modern, that we have there simply a glorification of pure human affection? Which causes most perplexity—the newer criticism, or some older theories of the inspiration of the Bible ?'1 We must admit to the full all that is said about the 'unsettling tendencies' of criticism, but we must give a larger share of the responsibility for this to Churches that stifle the expression of opinion, and insist on men believing, in all respects, as their fathers believed.2 Let us frankly admit that there are yet many unsolved problems connected with ... 1 'I have been informed by Christian men who have devoted themselves to the study of physical science, that nothing so heavily presses on their faith as the persistency with which the truth of Revelation has been identified with these theories of inspiration. . . . I have, during the last six years, been present at discussions at which I heard not less than one hundred addresses, made by unbelievers who belong to this class of society, on points which they consider to involve the truth of Christianity. Taking these objections as a whole, at least two-thirds of them owe their entire plausibility to their identification of that particular form of inspiration which is usually designated verbal or mechanical with a Divine Revelation." -Row's 'Bampton Lecture,' p. 428. 2 Criticism has performed, and continues to perform, the most essential service to the Christian cause it throws light in a thousand ways upon the Bible and its teaching. There may be those who do not want to be troubled with it. . . . They are not wise Christians.'-Dr. Rainy, 'The Bible and Criticism.' Biblical criticism, and we may disarm not a little of popular suspicion. That much mental unrest has been caused by the theories, and alleged discoveries, of men of science is but too manifest. New methods of study, new phraseology-perhaps we ought to say new forms of dogmatism1—have done much to create and foster unbelief. Learned 'professors' of physical science have not been unwilling to score points against faith by 'showing up' before popular audiences the unscientific character of parts of the Bible. Forgetting that Holy Scripture teaches, not biology and astronomy, but the way of salvation, many have had doubts awakened and fears suggested by the bold fancies and forecasts of Evolutionists. We believe this is only a temporary result of scientific progress; men will soon perceive that the real discoveries of science have furnished far more facts in favour of faith than solid arguments for unbelief. 2 After the novelty of the terms used has passed away, people will discover that the 'physiologist' of mind, and the teachers who pretend to explain all mental phenomena without the aid of anything higher than so called material forces, have only re-stated, in terms of matter and motion, the old problems of life. Even if we could measure, ever so accurately, the rate at which nerve-force is transmitted—even if we could point out all the physical concomitants of mental action and moral feeling— we should be no nearer the goal. Candid 'freethinkers' are beginning frankly to confess this; nevertheless, these processes cause disquiet of mind, and the first results, to many, are doubts and Scepticism. In consequence of the false lights held out by daring sailors on the 'sunless gulfs of doubt,' many have 1 'We must once more make the statement that it is not we who are the Dogmatists, but rather that school of scientific men who assert the incompatibility of science with Christianity.'-Preface to third edition of 'Unseen Universe,' by Professors Stewart and Tait. 2 Even the 'hypothesis of evolution may lead in effect to a conception of finality which only differs from that commonly formed by being grander.' Janet's' Final Causes,' p. 256. been induced to leave the quiet moorings and safe anchorage of an earlier and happier faith. With regard to the 'moral and metaphysical difficulties connected with Divine Revelation,' and even with Theism itself, it becomes us to speak with humility. Some refuse to admit that there are such difficulties. They attribute all such doubts to the rebellion of the unregenerate heart, and to the wish expressed by the Sacred Psalmist that there were no God— no Moral Ruler to call them to account. We can but remind such theorists that their views and the facts of life are at variance. Some of these moral difficulties,' says Dr. Rigg, ' are so oppressive and so staggering to our incompetent human reason, that they might well tempt the mere reasoner, the mere logician, the mere metaphysician, to give up faith in a personal God, if so to do were not really to involve one's self in more than equivalent difficulties of the very same class, and, in truth, contradictions both intellectual and moral,'1 Professor Jevons remarks, 'the hypothesis that there is a Creator at once powerful and all-benevolent is surrounded, as it must seem to every candid investigator, with difficulties verging closely upon logical contradiction. The existence of the smallest amount of pain and evil would seem to show that He is either not perfectly benevolent, or not all-powerful. No one can have lived long without experiencing sorrowful events of which the significance is inexplicable.'2 The Professor, while fully recognising these and other such-like difficulties, evidently thinks it both rational and commendable to look for further knowledge in a higher state of intelligence. Professors Stewart and Tait, very competent witnesses, tell us that not a 'few of the most earnest, and the most virtuous of men' in these days, doubt the existence of any future life. They suggest that many of these are 'unwilling unbelievers, compelled by the working. of their intellects to abandon the desire 1 See 'Discourses and Addresses on Religion and Philosophy.' |