Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of the animal creation, found buried in the earth had become extinct, therefore that portion had preceded the present creation, as a separate and consecutive act of the Creator.

The legitimate inference to be drawn from these facts by natural philosophy alone, as an unquestionable evidence of truth, was simply this; viz., that from some cause not capable of being found out by this channel, death had at some time been introduced into the world.

But the knowledge of natural philosophy had previously carried human investigation further than this, in the examination of the laws that govern the heavenly bodies, though no attempt was made to show natural philosophers, by this means, that they were able to satisfy their minds of more than of the existence of a God, and of the wisdom and power He had displayed.

So much, therefore, of the truth they had attained, and so far their views were opposed to none who call themselves true philosophers. So far, we presume, no one desires to subtract from Natural Philosophy, that which she has so patiently and triumphantly earned, by the most painstaking and diligent perseverance. For she has rolled away a great stone from that aperture whence light came to us in the darker ages of the world; and if she could have increased that light by means within her reach, she would have done so heartily and earnestly. It should ever then be remembered that it was not her wilful fault that she could not do more, but her very pardonable error, that she attempted to do too much. But after Newton's death, naturalists began to claim for natural science in general more than she was able to tell us. As a great naturalist said, "We admire the power by which the human mind has measured the motions of the celestial bodies, which nature seemed for ever to have concealed from our view. Genius and science have burst the limits of space, and observations explained by just reasoning have unveiled the mechanism of the world."* Here the wise philosopher should have stopped; and even in this position greater humility would have become him better. Truly it was a great achievement to be able, thus far, to advance in the confirmation of truth, though a more perfect knowledge even in this direction has proved, that the unveiling of the mechanism of the heavens to man in his present state was not incompatible with calculations which assure us, that though there was no doubt of the invariableness of that Being who made them, yet there was a doubt of those who reduced that invariableness to figures.

* Cuvier's Theory of the Earth, translated by Professor Jamieson.

When, therefore, this great philosopher went on to say, "Would it not also be glorious for man to burst the limits of time, and, by means of observations, to ascertain the history of this world, and the succession of events which preceded the birth of the human race?" then I could no longer follow him, though he were a great philosopher; being assured that while the fact of many events in the history of the earth may be proved by the investigation of its structure, and many of the laws by which its movements are governed, though not explained with the most undeviating accuracy, may nevertheless prove sufficiently correct to convince us that they are in themselves invariable; yet when past or future time came to be judged of by this method of induction, and we proceed to dogmatize upon our power to compute it, through the agency of rocks or bones, or other things unfolded to us by exploring the interior of the earth, we can then no longer trace any connection between the things stated and the supposed proofs which were adduced to show that the right conclusion was in this way to be inferred.

We can judge of time imperfectly by the laws of induction. Time stands in relation to geological events very much in the same position as death. When it is used to explain causes that are not reducible to those laws, it is simply impossible. Even when we judge of time nearer to us, there is a difficulty in computing it, if it do not come within the range of those laws; if, for instance, we judge of the operation of time, as we judge of it surrounded by light and air, or by things not surrounded by these elements. Some time ago, the cities Herculaneum and Pompeii were discovered. They had been more than 2,000 years, as it were, hermetically sealed from these agencies. What was the consequence? The oil was

found still in the lamp, the wine still in the bottle, the colours were preserved on the walls, and no change had passed over the most delicate substances, though all this time had elapsed since they took up that position in which they were to be preserved unchanged through so long a lapse of time. To use the language of a classical writer, we may say here," Time has had its wings petrified in the midst of its flight."

But to take an instance from some geological example. Take a common rounded flint from the sea-shore. We behold it, even and water-worn; we observe it so hard, almost incapable of being scratched by the sharpest instrument, that an immense period of time must have elapsed to produce any effect upon so hard a surface, by the common friction it is exposed to at the present time. Probably it would take many thousand years to produce such an effect as that before

us, yet who can say it was not produced in five minutes of our time without a miracle. If the stone was worn before it was hardened, it certainly could be done in five minutes, and what is there to show that the hardness preceded or followed the friction?

So that when we seek to deduce conclusions which we think are borne out in the same direction, without calculating the changed differences of the two cases, we not only exceed the limits of truth, to which inductive philosophy is entitled to bear them, but we place ourselves at once in a formidable attitude with respect to an entirely different source of truth, from which was to be drawn, nothing that natural philosophy had not advanced up to a certain point. For each source had equally affirmed the existence of one God, and that that God was infinite in power, and unchangeable in purpose. But here, it would have been well if Natural Philosophy had paused. The standard of truth to which we now appeal, confirmed, as we have said before, all that Natural Philosophy had asserted up to a given point, beyond which she was unable to give any right inferences or deductions. This higher and more detailed standard of truth was Revelation.

But, as some would say, what is Revelation that we should believe her statements before the evidence of our senses? Here we must answer, that Revelation is a message expressly sent from God to man for his direction and instruction in those things which closely concern his eternal destiny, and which he could not have known in any other way. This is a very vital point, requiring to be kept steadily in the mind, especially in these times; for if there were any way besides Revelation that could have informed us that death had been brought into the world by sin, then we should have had more reason to believe that Revelation was unnecessary. But Revelation was no other than the Spirit of God speaking through men of every rank of life, and its claims to our belief rested on many infallible proofs. Thus, it was quoted on many occasions by the Saviour of the world whom it first made known to man. It made assertions which most accurately came to pass as it had said; and, moreover, it challenged the whole world to disprove a single state. ment that it made. But besides this, it made another claim upon our belief still more remarkable; for it made statements which were contrary to our natural belief, so astonishing, that if some of the most remarkable had not already come to pass, we might have disbelieved them altogether.

But, in order that we might not do so, we should notice with attention the course she has pursued. She had at this point

to take up a chain which natural philosophy was unable to link together or to find; in other words, to make statements which could not even be guessed at, or carried out by natural philosophy alone; as there was no necessary induction that could certainly follow the announcement of the facts which natural philosophy thought she was able to make. Let me make this clearer by example: the fact that death was to be announced from the earliest period to which geology really could point, showed this truth; viz., that while Revelation would not contradict natural philosophy as far as the certainty of this fact went, that death had come into the world; at this point she takes it upon herself, if we may so say she takes it out of the hands of induction, i. e. out of the hands of geology, and at once proceeds to give the reason why death came into the world,-viz., as the consequence of sin; and when it came into the world,-viz., as the consequence of Adam's sin.

Natural philosophers here, very unwisely, advanced beyond the confines of that science which they undertook to unfold. They told us that it was in order that other creatures might take the place of those that had died, that death was brought into the world.

But if this was the truth, then it must be seen by all, that Revelation and Natural Science are not agreed upon this point; and which of the two standards of truth has most claim on our belief, no one, I think, can doubt, after what has been said. It must be clear to any one, that the connection between the fact of death and its true cause was not likely to be found buried in the strata of the earth; and though it is not necessary to enter here into all the important circumstances that render it essential to his eternal safety that man should know that the sin of Adam was the cause of death; yet we may say here, that it was the peculiar feature of the truths conveyed through Revelation that they were not written in the Book of Nature. The Book of Nature confirmed the fact, and there stopped; the Book of Revelation went on to explain the cause of that fact.

The position, therefore, that Revelation took up was, to say the least, a very remarkable one, for it not only confirmed what natural philosophy had discovered, as far as the simple facts were concerned, but it proceeded to unfold in detail the particulars of a wide scheme of divine purpose, which was to influence and regulate the future history of the world, though all that it stated on this point was before unknown. The veracity of what was advanced, claimed our highest attention, and commanded at once our respect and belief. And here I must mention a circumstance which, to me, is

as unaccountable as any of the difficulties which natural philosophy has to contend with, in undertaking to unfold a system of truth which is to apply accurately to the most minute events, past, present, and future, connected with the destiny of this world. If this Revelation had been the mere invention of man, if its natural evidence were dead against the probability of its truth, how do we get over this difficulty, that it holds to this day higher grounds than any other evidence we can advance; and in this position, what folly is it to suppose that it does so by putting forth a reasoning that is not even parallel with, but below, the reasoning of man? And what makes the position of this reasoning so conflicting is, when we ask where was the necessity of God's revealing to man that which was already to be found in the evidences of the natural world? We oblige ourselves to believe, when we take up such a position, that He who offers himself as our Divine instructor, is capable of committing an act of supererogation, that at once places Him below His reasoning creatures. If there were nothing more to tell us than we might naturally discern with the aid of those faculties we already possess, for the investigation of the physical world around us, where was the need of a higher and supernatural method of conveying those truths to our minds, which Revelation alone undertook to make known to us?

This argument forces us to respect the authority of Revelation without cavil. But I said that it staked its veracity upon grounds which one falsehood would have been sufficient, to overthrow. It had asserted that not one statement should fail of all that it had advanced. This was, indeed, a bold assertion, if it was not to come from a standard of truth higher than natural philosophy. But the marvel still increases. It proceeded at once to break new ground, to ride over, as it were, the prejudices and assertions of all who pioneered in the path of truth. For it at once showed that geology had not the most distant conception of the cause of death, and without foundation had stated what was not the truth.

If we are attentive to compare the statement of Revelation, as to the case of the six days' creation offered there for our belief, we shall at once be struck with the unique and wonderful explanation which is there given of it without reserve.

And if we place this alongside of the statement offered by geologists, we must indeed be astonished at the inexplicable difficulty, the irreconcileable assertions which we here meet with. Thus, while the one makes no hesitation, no explanation, in affirming, what perhaps was the least likely thing ever to enter the mind, viz., that in six natural days of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »