is, (with how much of success I have already sufficiently shewn,) (1) To
fasten the charge of absurdity and ignorance on the ancient Prophet who
is confessedly the author of the Book of Genesis: (2) To prove that a
literal interpretation of Gen. i., "will not bear a moment's serious
discussion." (p. 230.) I look through his pages in vain for the
wished-for proof. He has many strong assertions. He puts them forth with
not a little insolence. But he proves nothing! At p. 226, however, I
read as follows:--"Dr. Buckland appears to assume that when it is said
that the Heaven and the Earth were created in the beginning, it is to be
understood that they were created in their present form and state of
completeness, the heaven raised above the earth as we see it, or seem to
see it now." (pp. 226-7.)
But Dr. Buckland "appears to assume" nothing of the kind. His words
are,--"The first verse of Genesis seems explicitly to assert the
creation of _the Universe_: the Heaven, including the sidereal
systems,--and the Earth, ... the subsequent scene of the operations of
the six days about to be described." (pp. 224-5.)
"This," continues Mr. Goodwin, "is the fallacy of his argument."
(p. 227.)
But if this is "_the_ fallacy of his argument," we have already seen
that it is a fallacy which rests not with Dr. Buckland, but with Mr.
Goodwin. He proceeds:--
"The circumstantial description of the framing of the Heaven out of the
waters proves that the words 'Heaven and Earth,' in the first verse,
must be taken proleptically."--(p. 227.)
But we may as well stop the torrent of long words, by simply pointing
out that "the heavens," (_hashamaim_,) spoken of in Gen. i. 1, are quite
distinct from "the firmament," (_rakia_,) spoken of in ver. 6. The word
is altogether different, and the sense is evidently altogether different
also; although Mr. Goodwin seeks to identify the two[126]. And further,
we take leave to remind our modern philosopher that _no_
"circumstantial description of the framing of the heaven out of the
waters," is to be found either in ver. 6, or elsewhere. And this must
suffice.
The entire subject shall be dismissed with a very few remarks.--Mr.
Goodwin delights in pointing out the incorrectness of "the sense in
which the Mosaic narrative was taken by those who first heard it:"
(p. 223:) and in asserting "that this meaning is _primâ facie_ one
wholly adverse to the present astronomical and geological views of the
Universe." (p. 223.) But we take leave to remind this would-be
philosopher that "the idea which entered into the minds of those to whom
the account was first given," (p. 230,) is not the question with which
we have to do when we are invited to a "frank recognition of the
erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains." (p. 211.) "It is
manifest,"--(in this I cordially agree with Mr. Goodwin,)--"that the
whole account is given from a different point of view from that which we
now unavoidably take:" (p. 223:) and, (I beg leave to add,) _that_ point
of view is _somewhere in Heaven_,--not here on Earth! The "Mosaic
Cosmogony," as Mr. Goodwin phrases it, (fond, like all other smatterers
in Science, of long words,) is _a Revelation_: and the same HOLY GHOST
who gave it, speaking by the mouth of St. John, not obscurely intimates
that it is mystical, like the rest of Holy Scripture,--that is, that it
was fashioned not without a reference to the Gospel[127]. But we are
touching on a high subject now, of which Mr. Goodwin does not understand
so much as the Grammar. _He_ is thinking of the structure of the globe:
_we_ are thinking of the structure _of the Bible_. But to return to
Earth, we inform the Essayist that it is simply unphilosophical, even
absurd, for him to insist on what _shall_ be implied by certain words
employed by Moses,--(of which he judges by their etymology;) and further
to assume what erroneous physical theories those words must have been
connected with, by his countrymen, and so forth; and straightway to hold
up the greatest of the ancient prophets to ridicule, as if those notions
and those theories were all _his_!
"After all," (as Dr. Buckland remarked, long since,) "it should be
recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the
Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it:" (p. 231:)--"a
proposition," (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) "which can hardly be sufficiently
reprobated." But I make no question which of these two writers is most
entitled to reprobation. For the view which will be found advocated in
Sermon II., (which is substantially Dr. Buckland's,) (p. 24 to p. 32,)
it shall but be said that it recommends itself to our acceptance by the
strong fact that it takes _no_ liberty with the sacred narrative,
whatever; and receives the Revelation of GOD in all its strangeness,
(which it _cannot_ be a great mistake to do;) without trying to
reconcile it with supposed discoveries, (wherein we _may_ fail
altogether.) I defy anybody to shew that it is _impossible_ that GOD may
have disposed of the actual order of the Universe, as in the first
chapter of Genesis He is related to have done; and _probability_ can
clearly have no place in such a speculation. I would only just remind
the thoughtful student of Scripture, and indeed of Nature also, that the
singular _analogy_ which Geologists think they discover between
successive periods of Creation, and the Mosaic record of the first Six
Days, is no difficulty to those who hesitate to identify those Days with
the irregular Periods of indefinite extent. Rather was it to have been
expected, I think, that such an analogy would be found to subsist
between His past and His present working, when, 6,000 years ago, GOD
arranged the actual system of things in Six Days.--Neither need we feel
perplexed if Hugh Miller was right in the conclusion at which, he says,
he had been "compelled to arrive;" viz. that "not a few" of the extant
species of animals "enjoyed life in their present haunts" "for many long
ages ere Man was ushered into being;" "and that for thousands of years
anterior to even _their_ appearance many of the existing molluscs lived
in our seas." (p. 229.) I find it nowhere asserted _by Moses_ that the
severance was so complete, and decisively marked, between previous
cycles of Creation and that cycle which culminated in the creation of
Man, _that_ no single species of the præ-Adamic period was reproduced by
the Omnipotent, to serve as a connecting link, as it were, between the
Old world and the New,--an identifying note of the Intelligence which
was equally at work on this last, as on all those former occasions. On
the other hand, I _do_ find it asserted _by Geologists_ that between the
successive præ-Adamic cycles such connecting links are discoverable; and
this fact makes me behold in the circumstance supposed fatal to the view
here advocated, the strongest possible confirmation of its accuracy. At
the same time, it is admitted that in every department of animated and
vegetable life, the severance between the last (or Mosaic) cycle of
Creation, and all those cycles which preceded it, is _very_ broadly
marked[128].
Mr. Goodwin's method contrasts sadly with that of the several writers he
adduces,--whether Naturalists or Divines. Those men, believing in the
truth of GOD'S Word, have piously endeavoured, (with whatever success,)
to shew that the discoveries of Geology are not inconsistent with the
revelations of Genesis. But he, with singular bad taste, (to use no
stronger language,) makes no secret of the animosity with which he
regards the inspired record; and even finds "the spectacle of able, and
we doubt not conscientious writers engaging in attempting the
impossible,--painful and humiliating." He says, "they evidently do not
breathe freely over their work; but shuffle and stumble over their
difficulties in a piteous manner." (p. 250.) He asserts dogmatically
that "the interpretation proposed by Buckland to be given to the Mosaic
description, will not bear a moment's serious discussion:" (p. 230:)
while Hugh Miller "proposes to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical
sense to the Mosaic narrative." (p. 236.) He is clamorous that we should
admit the teaching of Scripture to be "to some extent erroneous."
(p. 251.) He "recognizes in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine
Knowledge, but a human utterance." (p. 253.) "Why should we hesitate,"
(he asks,) "to recognize the fallibility of the Hebrew writers?"
(p. 251.)
With one general reflexion, I pass on to the next Essay.--The Works of
GOD, the more severely they have been questioned, have hitherto been
considered to bear a more and more decisive testimony to the Wisdom and
the Goodness of their Author. The animal and the vegetable kingdoms have
been made Man's instructors for ages past; and ever since the microscope
has revealed so many unsuspected wonders, the argument from contrivance
and design, Creative Power and infinite Wisdom, has been pressed with
increasing cogency. The Heavens, from the beginning, have been felt to
"declare the glory of GOD." One department only of Nature, alone, has
all along remained unexplored. Singular to relate, the Records of
Creation, (as the phenomena of Geology may I suppose be properly
called,)--though the most obvious phenomena of all,--have been
throughout neglected. It was not till the other day that they were
invited to give up their weighty secrets; and lo, they have confessed
them, willingly and at once. The study of Geology does but date from
yesterday; and already it aspires to the rank of a glorious Science.
Evidence has been at once furnished that our Earth has been the scene of
successive cycles of Creation; and the crust of the globe we inhabit is
found to contain evidence of a degree of antiquity which altogether
defies conjecture. The truth is, that Man, standing on a globe where his
deepest excavations bear the same relation to the diameter which the
scratch of a pin invisible to the naked eye, bears to an ordinary
globe;--learns that his powers of interrogating Nature break down
marvellous soon: yet Nature is observed to keep from him no secrets
which he has the ability to ask her to give up.
In the meantime, the attitude assumed by certain pretenders to Physical
Science at these discoveries, cannot fail to strike any thoughtful
person as extraordinary. Those witnesses of GOD'S work in Creation,
which have been dumb for ages only because no man ever thought of
interrogating them, are now regarded in the light of depositaries of a
mighty secret; which, because GOD knew that it would be fatal to the
credit of His written Word, He had bribed them to keep back, as long as,
by shuffling and equivocation, they found concealment practicable. It
seems to be fancied, however, that _that_ fatal secret the determination
of Man has wrung from their unwilling lips, at last; and lo, on
confronting GOD with these witnesses, He is convicted even by His own
creatures of having spoken falsely in His Word[129].--Such, I say, is
the tone assumed of late by a certain school of pretenders to Physical
Science.
What need to declare that to the well-informed eye of Faith,--(and
surely Faith is here the perfection of Reason! for _Faith_, remember, is
the correlative not of _Reason_, but of _Sight_;)--the phenomenon
presented is of a widely different character. Faith, or rather Reason,
looks upon GOD'S Works _as a kind of complement of His Word_. He who
gave the one, gave the other also. Moreover, He knew that He had given
it. So far from ministering to unbelief, or even furnishing grounds for
perplexity, the record of His Works was intended, according to His
gracious design, to supply what was lacking to our knowledge in the
record of His Word.... "Behold My footprints, (He seems to say,) across
the long tract of the ages! I could not give you this evidence in My
written Word. The record would have been out of place, and out of time.
It would have been unintelligible also. But what I knew would be
inexpedient in the page of Revelation, I have given you abundantly in
the page of Nature. I have spared your globe from combustion, which
would have effaced those footprints,--in order that the characters might
be plainly decipherable to the end of Time.... O fools and blind, to
have occupied a world so brimful of wonders for wellnigh 6000 years, and
only now to have begun to open your eyes to the structure of the earth
whereon ye live, and move, and have your being! Yea, and the thousandth
part of the natural wonders by which ye are surrounded has not been so
much as dreamed of, by any of you, yet!... O learn to be the humbler,
the more ye know; and when ye gaze along the mighty vista of departed
ages, and scan the traces of what I was doing before I created
Man,--multiply that problem by the stars which are scattered in number
numberless over all the vault of Heaven; and learn to confess that it
behoves the creature of an hour to bow his head at the discovery of his
own littleness and blindness; and that his words concerning the Ancient
of Days had need to be at once very wary, and very few!"
* * * * *
VI. By far the ablest of these seven Essays is from the pen of the "REV.
MARK PATTISON, B.D., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford." It purports to
be an Essay on the "TENDENCIES OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND,
1688-1750;" but it can hardly be said to correspond with that
description. In the concluding paragraph, the learned writer gives to
his work a different name. It is declared to be "_The past History of
the Theory of Belief in the Church of England_[130]." But neither the
title at the head, nor the title at the tail of the Essay, gives any
adequate notion of the Author's purpose.
Had we met with this production, isolated, in the pages of a Review, we
should have probably passed it by as the work of a clever man, who,
after amusing himself to some extent with the Theological literature of
the last century, had desired to preserve some record of his reading;
and had here thrown his random jottings into connected form. There is a
racy freshness in a few of Mr. Pattison's sketches, (as in his account
of Bentley's controversy with Collins[131],) which forcibly suggests
the image of an artist whose pencil cannot rest amid scenery which
stimulates his imagination. To be candid, we are inclined to suspect
that, in the first instance, something of this sort was in reality all
that the learned author had in view. But we are reluctantly precluded
from putting so friendly a construction on these seventy-six pages. Not
only does Mr. Pattison's Essay stand between Mr. Goodwin's open
endeavour to destroy confidence in the writings of Moses, and Professor
Jowett's laborious insinuations that the Bible is only an ordinary book;
but it claims a common purpose and intention with both those writers.
Mr. Pattison's avowed object is "to illustrate the advantage derivable
to the cause of religious and moral truth, from a free handling, in a
becoming spirit, of subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the
repetition of conventional language, and from traditional methods of
treatment[132]." We proceed therefore to examine his labours by the aid
of the clue which he has himself supplied. For when nine editions of a
book appear in quick succession, prefaced by a description of the spirit
in which "_it is hoped that the volume will he received_,"--it seems a
pity that the author should not be judged by the standard of his own
choosing.
We are surprised then to find how slightly Mr. Pattison's Essay fulfils
its avowed purpose. The learned author does not, in fact, _directly_
"handle" the class of subjects referred to, _at all_: or if he does, it
is achieved in a couple of pages. And yet it is not difficult to point
out the part which his Essay performs in the general scheme of this
guilty volume. With whatever absence of "concert or comparison" the
authors may have severally written, the fatal effect of their combined
endeavours is not more apparent than the part sustained by each Essay
singly in promoting it.
While Mr. Goodwin demolishes the Law, and Dr. Williams disbelieves the
Prophets; while Professor Powell denies the truth of Miracles, and
Professor Jowett evacuates the authority of Holy Scripture
altogether--while Dr. Temple substitutes the inner light of Conscience
for an external Revelation; and Mr. Wilson teaches men how they may turn
the substance of Holy Scripture into a shadow, evade the plain force of
language, and play fast and loose with those safeguards which it has
been ever thought that words supply;--Mr. Pattison, reviewing the last
century and a half of our own Theological history, labours hard to
produce an impression that, _here_ also "all is vanity and vexation of
spirit." He calls off our attention from the Bible, and bids us
contemplate the unlovely aspect of the English "religious world" from
the Revolution of 1688 down to the publication of the 'Tracts for the
Times,' in 1833[133]. "Be content for a while, (he seems to say,) to
disregard the prize; and observe the combatants instead. Listen to the
historian of moral and religious progress," while he depicts "decay of
religion, licentiousness of morals, public corruption, profaneness of
language, a day of rebuke and blasphemy." Come attend to me; and I will
draw the likeness of "an age destitute of depth or earnestness; an age
whose poetry was without romance, whose philosophy was without insight,
and whose public men were without character; an age of 'light without
love,' whose 'very merits were of the earth, earthy.'" (p. 254.) "If we
would understand our own position in the Church, and that of the Church
in the age; if we would hold any clue through the maze of religious
pretension which surrounds us; we cannot neglect those immediate
agencies in the production of the present, which had their origin
towards the beginning of the eighteenth century." (p. 256.) Let us then
"trace the descent of religious thought, and the practical working of
the religious ideas," (p. 255,) through some of the phases they have
more recently assumed. You shall see the Apostles tried on a charge "of
giving false witness in the case of the Resurrection of JESUS;"
(p. 303;) and pronounced "not guilty," by one whose "name once commanded
universal homage among us;" but who now, (!) with South (!!) and
Barrow, (!!!) "excites perhaps only a smile of pity." (p. 265.) You
shall be shewn Bentley in his attack on Collins the freethinker,
enjoying "rare sport,"--"rat-hunting in an old rick;" and "laying about
him in high glee, braining an authority at every blow." (p. 308.)
"Coarse, arrogant, and abusive, with all Bentley's worst faults of style
and temper, this masterly critique is decisive." (p. 307.) And yet, you
are not to rejoice! "The 'Discourse of Freethinking' was a small tract
published in 1713 by Anthony Collins, a gentleman whose high personal
character and general respectability seemed to give a weight to his
words, which assuredly they do not carry of themselves." (p. 307.) [Why,
the man ought to have been an Essayist and Reviewer!] ... "By
'freethinking'" he does but "mean liberty of thought,--the right of
bringing all received opinions whatsoever to the touchstone of reason:"
(p. 307:) [a liberty which has evidently disappeared from English
Literature: a right which no man dares any longer exercise under pain
of excommunication!] "Collins was not a sharper, and would have
disdained practices to which Bentley stooped for the sake of a
professorship." (p. 310.) [O high-minded Collins!] "The dirt endeavoured
to be thrown on Collins will cleave to the hand that throws it."
(p. 309.) [O dirty Bentley!] And though "Collins's mistakes,
mistranslations, misconceptions, and distortions are so monstrous, that
it is difficult for us now, forgetful how low classical learning had
sunk, to believe that they _are_ mistakes, and not wilful errors,"
(p. 308,)--yet "Addison, the pride of Oxford, had done no better. In his
'Essay on the Evidences of Christianity,' Addison 'assigns as grounds
for his religious belief, stories as absurd as that of the Cock-lane
ghost, and forgeries as rank as Ireland's 'Vortigern;' puts faith in the
lie about the thundering legion; is convinced that Tiberius moved the
Senate to admit JESUS among the gods; and pronounces the letter of
Agbarus, King of Edessa, to be a record of great authority.'" (p. 307,
quoting Macaulay's _Essays_.) All this and much more you shall see.
Remember that it is the history of your immediate forefathers which you
will be contemplating,--the morality of the professors of religion
during the last century,--"the past history of the theory of Belief in
the Church of England!" (p. 329.)
The curtain falls; and now, pray how do you like it? I invite you, in
conclusion, to "take the religious literature of the present day, as a
whole; and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is
supposed by it to rest; whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on
Reason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the
four, or some of them, and in what proportions." (p. 329.) ... After
this, you are at liberty to proceed to read 'Jowett on
Inspiration,'--with what appetite you may!
Such is the impression which Mr. Pattison's Essay is calculated to leave
behind. That he had no wicked intention in writing it, no one who knows
him could for an instant suppose: but _the effect_ of what he has done
is certainly to set his reader adrift on a dreary sea of doubt.
Discomfort and dissatisfaction, confusion and dismay, are the prevailing
sentiments with which a religious mind, unfortified with learning, will
rise from the perusal of the present Essay: while the irreligious man
will study it with a sneer of ill-concealed satisfaction. The marks of
Mr. Pattison's own better knowledge, (sufficiently evident to the quick
eye of one who is aware of the writer's high theological
attainments;)--the indications of a truer individual judgment,
(discoverable throughout by one who _knows_ the author's private worth,
and is himself happily in possession of the clue by which to escape from
this tangled labyrinth:)--_these_ escape the common reader. To _him_,
all is dreary doubt.
I must perforce deal with Mr. Pattison's labours in a very summary
manner. The chief complaint I have to make against him is that he has
altogether omitted what, to you and to me, is the _most_ important
feature of the century which he professes to describe,--namely, the vast
amount of lofty Churchmanship, the unbroken Catholic tradition, which,
with no small amount of general short-coming, is to be traced throughout
the eighteenth century. To insinuate that the return to Catholic
principles _began_ with the publication of the 'Tracts for the Times,'
(p. 259,) in 1833, is simply to insinuate what is _not_ true. But Mr.
Pattison does more than 'insinuate.' He states it openly. "In
constructing _Catenæ Patrum_," (he says,) "the Anglican closes his list
with Waterland or Brett, and leaps at once to 1833." (p. 255.)--Now,
since Waterland _died_ in 1740 and Brett in 1743, it is clear that,
(according to Mr. Pattison,) a hundred years and upwards have to be
cleared _per saltum_: during which the lamp of Religion in these
kingdoms had gone fairly out. But how stands the truth? At least _four_
"Catenæ Patrum" are given in the "Tracts for the Times[134];" _not one_
of which is closed with Waterland or Brett. On the contrary, in the two
former Catenæ (beginning with Jewel and Hooker) the names of these
supposed 'ultimi Romanorum' occur little more than _half way_!... "Les
faits," therefore, (as usual with 'Essayists and Reviewers,')--"_les
faits sont contraires_."--It would be enough to cite Bethell's 'General
View of the Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism,' which appeared in
1822; and Hugh James Rose's 'Discourses on the Commission and Duties of
the Clergy,' which were preached in 1826. But the case against Mr.
Pattison, as I shall presently shew, is abundantly stronger.