Inspiration and Interpretation Part 19

4. "And G.o.d said, Let there be Lights in the firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years." And so it was. Sun, moon, and stars, came to view[291]; and this globe of ours, no longer illumined, as, for three days, it had been, rejoiced in the sun's genial light by day,--and by night in the splendours of the paler planet. And thus was also gained an easy measure for marking time,--the succession of months and years, as well as of days. "And G.o.d saw that it was good." "And the evening and the morning were the fourth Day."

5. "And G.o.d said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." Thus the inhabitants of the sea and of the air were called into existence; and it was from the sea that G.o.d seems to have commanded that they should derive their being. He saw that it was good, and He blessed the fish and the winged fowl; "and the evening and the morning were the fifth Day."

6. It remained only to provide for the dry land its occupants; and the Earth was accordingly commanded to bring forth the living creature after his kind,--beast and cattle and creeping thing. Unlike that first Creation which was of all things out of nothing, the work of the six days was a creation of new things out of old.--To the Creation of Man, His crowning work, G.o.d is declared to have come with deliberation; as well as to have announced His purpose with significant solemnity of allusion. "Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle." "And the LORD G.o.d formed Man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul."--Transferred to the Garden of G.o.d'S planting in Eden, to dress it and to keep it, (for inactivity is no part of bliss!)--and brought into solemn covenant with G.o.d,--to Adam, G.o.d brings the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, of set purpose that G.o.d may "see _what he will call them_:" a wondrous tribute, truly, to the perfection of understanding in which Man had been created!... "And the LORD G.o.d caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib which the LORD G.o.d had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a Man leave his Father and his Mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." ... Man's creation was the crowning wonder, to which all else had, in a manner, tended....

Truly when we think of him,--newly made in G.o.d'S image,--surveying this world, yet fresh with the dew of its birth, and beautiful as it came from the Hands of its Maker,--it seems scarcely the language of poetry that then "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of G.o.d shouted for joy[292]."

I have preferred thus to complete the history of Man's Creation; which presents us with the primal inst.i.tution of all,--that, namely, of Marriage.--"On the seventh Day, G.o.d rested from all His work which He had made; and blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work."--This then is the other great primaeval inst.i.tution; more ancient than the Fall,--the Law of the Sabbath;--which in the sacred record is brought into such august prominence. And never do we ponder over that record, without apprehension at what may be the possible results of relaxing the stringency of enactments which would seem to be, to our nature, as the very twin pillars of the Temple,--its establishment and its strength[293].

Now, on a review of all this wondrous History, I profess myself at a loss to see what special note of impracticability it presents that I should hesitate to embrace it, in the plain natural sense of the words, with both the arms of my heart. That it is not such an account of the manner of the Creation as you or I should have ourselves invented, or antic.i.p.ated, or on questionable testimony have felt disposed to accept,--is very little to the purpose. Apart from Revelation, we could really have known nothing at all about the works of the Days of the first Great Week. e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.ns therefore concerning the strangeness of the record, and cavils at the phraseology in which it is propounded, are simply irrelevant.

There exists however a vague suspicion after all that the beginning of Genesis is a vision, or an allegory, or a parable,--or anything you please, except true History. It is hard to imagine _why_. If there be a book in the whole Bible which purports to be a plain historical narrative of actual events, _that_ book is the book of Genesis. In nine-tenths of its details, it is as _human_, and as matter of fact, as any book of Biography or History that ever was penned. _Why_ the first page of it is to be torn out, treated as a myth or an allegory, and in short explained away,--I am utterly at a loss to discover. There is no difference in the style. Long since has the theory that Genesis is composed of distinguishable fragments, been exploded[294]. There is no pretence for calling this first chapter poetry, and treating it by a distinct set of canons. It is a pure _Revelation_, I admit: but I have yet to learn why the revelation of things intelligible, where the method of speech is not such as to challenge a figurative interpretation, is not to be taken literally: unless indeed it has been discovered that a narrative must of necessity be fabulous if the transactions referred to are unusually remote and extraordinary. The events recorded are unique in their character,--true. But this happens from the very necessity of the case. The creation of a world, to the inhabitants of that world is an unique event.

But we are a.s.sured that some of the statements in this first chapter of Genesis are palpably untrue;--as when it is said that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were created on the fourth Day,--which, it is urged, is a physical impossibility: for what forces else sustained, and kept this world a sphere? The phenomena of Geology again prove to demonstration, it is said, that the structure of the earth is infinitely more ancient than the Mosaic record states: and also that there must have been Light, and sunshine too, at that remote epoch,--which fostered each various form of animal and vegetable life.--Further, we are a.s.sured that it is unphilosophical to speak of the creation of Light before the creation of the Sun.--Then, the simplicity of the language is objected to:--"the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:"--"dividing the light from the darkness:"--"waters above the firmament:" and so forth. The very ascription of speech to G.o.d, gives offence.--Again, some raw conceit of the advanced state of the human intellect rejects with scorn the notion of Adam oracularly bestowing names on G.o.d'S creatures. Finally, the creation of Eve, moulded by G.o.d from the side of the Protoplast, is declared to savour so plainly of the mythical, allegorical, or figurative; that the narrative must be allowed to be altogether unworthy of such wits as ours.

But we have seen that _the creation_ of Sun, Moon, and Stars is _not_ a.s.signed to the fourth day--but to "_the beginning_"--The antiquity of this Earth we affirm to be a circ.u.mstance left wholly untouched by the Mosaic record: or, if touched, it is rather confirmed; for, before beginning to describe the work of the first Day, Moses describes the state of "the Earth" by two Hebrew words of most rare occurrence[295], which denote that it had become waste and empty: while "the deep" is spoken of as being already in existence.--There is nothing at all unphilosophical in speaking of Light as existing apart from the Sun.

Rather would it be unphilosophical to speak of the Sun as the source and centre of Light.--I see nothing more childish again in the mention of "the greater and the lesser light," than in the talk of "sun-rise" and "sun-set,"--which is to this hour the language of the Observatory.--As for attributing speech to G.o.d, I am content to remind you of Hooker's explanation of the design of Moses therein, throughout the present Chapter. "Was this only his intent," (he asks,) "to signify the infinite greatness of G.o.d'S power by the easiness of His accomplishing such effects without travail, pain, or labour? Surely it seemeth that Moses had herein besides this a further purpose; namely, first to teach that G.o.d did not work as a necessary, but a voluntary agent, intending beforehand and decreeing with Himself that which did outwardly proceed from Him; secondly, to shew that G.o.d did then inst.i.tute a Law natural to be observed by Creatures, and therefore according to the manner of laws, the inst.i.tution thereof is described, as being established by solemn injunction. His commanding those things to be which are, and to be in such sort as they are, to keep that tenure and course which they do, importeth _the establishment of Nature's Law_.... And as it cometh to pa.s.s in a kingdom rightly ordered, that after a Law is once published, it presently takes effect far and wide, all states framing themselves thereunto; even so let us think that it fareth in the natural course of the world. Since the time that G.o.d did first proclaim the edicts of His Law upon it, Heaven and Earth have hearkened unto His voice, and their labour hath been to do His will[296]."--"_He spake the word_, and they were made: He commanded and they were created. He hath made them fast for ever and ever. _He hath given them a law which shall not be broken[297]._"

Whether or no South overestimated Adam's knowledge, I will not pretend to decide: but I am _convinced_ the truth lies more with him than with certain modern wits, when he says concerning our first Father:--"He came into the world a philosopher; which sufficiently appeared by his writing the nature of things upon their names.... His understanding could almost pierce into future contingents; his conjectures improving even to prophecy, or the certainties of prediction. Till his Fall, he was ignorant of nothing but sin.... There was then no struggling with memory, no straining for invention. His faculties were ready upon the first summons.... We may collect the excellency of the understanding _then_, by the glorious remainders of it now: and guess at the stateliness of the building by the magnificence of its ruins.... And certainly that must _needs_ have been very glorious, the decays of which are so admirable. He that is comely when old and decrepit, surely was _very_ beautiful when he was young! An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam; and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise[298]."

And lastly, as for so much of the Divine narrative as concerns the Creation of the first human pair, I am content to remind you of a circ.u.mstance which in addressing believers ought to be of overwhelming weight: namely, that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles, again and again, refer to the narrative before us in a manner which precludes the notion of its being anything but severest History. Our SAVIOUR CHRIST even resyllables the words spoken by the Protoplast in Paradise; and therein finds a sanction for the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond[299].

I take leave to add that even the respectful attempt to make Genesis accommodate itself to the supposed requirements of Geology, by boldly a.s.suming that the days of Creation were each a thousand years long,--seems inadmissible. Even were such an hypothesis allowed, nothing would be gained: for _Geology_ does not by any means require us to believe that after a thousand years of misty light, there came a thousand years of ocean deposit: and again, a thousand years of moist and dry, during which vegetable life alone prevailed: and then a thousand years of sun, moon, and stars. The very notion seems absurd[300].--But, what is more to the purpose, such an interpretation seems to stultify the whole narrative. A _week_ is described. _Days_ are spoken of,--each made up of an evening and a morning. G.o.d'S cessation from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day is emphatically adduced as the reason of the Fourth Commandment,--the mysterious precedent for _our_ observance of one day of rest at the end of every six days of toil,--"_for_ in six days" (it is declared,) "the LORD made Heaven and Earth[301]." You may not play tricks with language plain as this, and elongate a week until it shall more than embrace the span of all recorded Time.

Neither am I able to see what would be gained by proposing to prolong the Days of Creation indefinitely, so as to consider them as representing vast and unequal periods; (though I am far from presuming to speak of _any_ pious conjecture with disrespect.) My inveterate objection to this scheme is again twofold. (1) The best-ascertained requirements of Geology are _not satisfied_ by a _sixfold_ division of phenomena corresponding with what is recorded in Genesis of the Six Days of Creation. (2) This method does even greater violence to the letter of the inspired narrative than the scheme of reconcilement last hinted at.

I dare not believe that what has been spoken will altogether meet the requirements of minds of a certain stamp. A gentleman, who certainly has the advantage of appearing in good company, has lately favoured the world with the information that the first chapter of Genesis is the uninspired speculation of a Hebrew astronomer, who was bent on giving "the best and most probable account that could be then given of G.o.d'S universe[302]." The Hebrew writer a.s.serts indeed "solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority[303];" but we need not therefore "attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of a.s.serting that which he knew not to be true[304]." If this "early speculator" "a.s.serted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities," it was because he was not hara.s.sed by the scruples which result "from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of a.s.sertion which the spirit of true science has taught us[305]." The history of this important discovery and of others of a similar nature, (which, by the way, are one and all announced with the same "modesty of a.s.sertion" as what goes before,) would appear to be this.--Natural science has lately woke up from her long slumber of well nigh sixty ages; and with that immodesty for which youth and inexperience have ever been proverbial, she is impatient to measure her crude theories against the sure revelation of G.o.d'S Word.

Where the two differ, she a.s.sumes that of course the inspired Oracles are wrong, and her own wild guesses right. She is even indecent in her eagerness to invalidate the testimony of that Book which has been the confidence and stay of G.o.d'S Servants in all ages. On any evidence, or on none, she is prepared to hurl to the winds the august record of Creation. Inconveniently enough for the enemies of G.o.d'S Word, every advance in Geological Science does but serve to corroborate the record that the Creation _of Man_ is not to be referred to a remoter period than some six thousand years ago. But of this important fact we hear but little. On the other hand, no trumpet is thought loud enough to bruit about _a suspicion_ that Man may be a creature of yet remoter date.

Thus, fragments of burnt brick found fifty feet below the surface of the banks of the Nile, were hailed as establishing Man's existence in Egypt more than 13,000 years; until it was unhappily remembered that _burnt_ brick in Egypt belongs to the period of the Roman dominion.--More recently, implements of chipped flint found, with some bones, in a bed of gravel, have been eagerly appealed to as a sufficient indication that the Creation of Man is to be referred to a period at least 10,000 years more remote than is fixed by the Chronology of the Bible.... Brick and flint! a precious fulcrum, truly, for a theory which is to upset the World!

But I shall be told,--with that patronizing air of conscious intellectual superiority which a certain cla.s.s of gentlemen habitually a.s.sume on such occasions,--that I mistake the case completely: that no wish is entertained in any quarter to invalidate the truth of Revelation, or to shake Men's confidence in the Bible as the Word of G.o.d: that it has been the way of narrow-minded bigots in all ages, and is so in this, to raise an outcry of the Bible being in danger, and so to rouse the prejudices of mankind: that the error lies in claiming for the Bible an office which it nowhere claims for itself, and which it was never meant to fulfil: that the harmony between the Bible and Nature is complete, but that it is not _such_ a harmony as is sometimes imagined: that the Bible is not a scientific book, and was never meant to teach Natural Science: that it was designed to inculcate moral goodness, and is clearly full of unscientific statements, which it is the office of Science to correct; and, if need be, to remove. All this, and much beside, I shall be told. Such fallacious plat.i.tudes have been put forth by men who are neither Divines nor Philosophers, _ad nauseam_, within the last forty or fifty years.

Now, in reply, we have a few words to say. The profession of faithfulness we hail with pleasure: the imputation of imbecility we accept with unconcern. But when gentlemen tell us that the Bible was never meant to teach Science; and that wherever its statements are opposed to the clear inductions of reason, they must give way; and so forth: we take the liberty of retaliating their charge. We inform them that _they_ really mistake the case entirely. When they go on to tell us that they believe in the truth of the Bible as sincerely as ourselves: that its harmonies are complete, but not such as we imagine; and so forth;--we venture to add that they really know not what they a.s.sert. In plain language, they talk nonsense. Of a simple unbeliever we know at least what to think. But what is to be thought of persons who disbelieve just whatever they dislike, and yet profess to be just as hearty believers as you or I?

That the Mosaic record of Creation has been thought at variance with certain deductions of modern observation, is not surprising: seeing that the deductions of each fresh period have been at variance with the deductions of that which went before; and seeing that the theory of one existing school is inconsistent with the theory of another.--That the Bible is not, in any sense, _a scientific treatise_ again, is simply a truism: (who ever supposed that it was?). Moses writes "the history of the Human Race as regards Sin and Salvation: not a cosmical survey of all the successive phenomena of the globe[306]." Further, that he employs popular phraseology when speaking of natural phenomena, is a statement altogether undeniable. But such remarks are a gross fallacy, and a mere deceit, if it be meant that the statements in the Bible partake of the imperfection of knowledge incident to a rude and primitive state of society. To revive an old ill.u.s.tration,--Is a philosopher therefore a child, because, in addressing children, he uses language adapted to their age and capacity? G.o.d speaks in the First Chapter of Genesis,--_hath_ spoken for three and thirty hundred years,--as unto children: but there is no risk therefore that in what He saith, He either hath deceived, or will deceive mankind.

You are never to forget the great fundamental position, that the Bible claims to be the Word of G.o.d; and that _G.o.d'S Word can never contradict or be contradicted by G.o.d'S works_. We therefore reject, _in limine_, all insinuations about the "unscientific" character of the Bible. A scientific man does not cease to be scientific because he does not choose always to express himself scientifically. Again. A man of universal Science does not forfeit his scientific reputation, if, in the course of a _moral_ or _religious_ argument, his allusions to _natural_ phenomena are expressed in the ordinary language of mankind. Even so, Almighty G.o.d, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge[307],"--speaking to us by the mouth of His holy Prophets, never, that I am aware, teaches them to speak a strictly scientific language,--_except when the Science of Theology is being discoursed of_.

On other occasions, He suffers their language to be like yours or mine.

"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon[308]:"--"The clouds drop down the dew[309]:"--"The wind bloweth where it listeth[310]."--Not so when _Theology_ is the subject. _Then_ the language becomes scientific.

"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of G.o.d[311]:"--"Take, eat, This is My Body[312]:"--"Before Abraham was, I am[313]:"--"I and the FATHER are One[314]."

But there is this great difference between the cases supposed. A man of universal scientific attainment will be less strong in one subject than another: and in the course of his _Geological_ allusions, if _Mechanical_ Science be his forte,--in the course of his _Metaphysical_ allusions, if _Mathematical_ Science be his proper department,--he may easily err. Above all, the limits of the knowledge of una.s.sisted Man must infallibly be those of the age in which he lives. But, with the Ancient of Days, it is not so. _He_ at least _cannot_ err. Nothing that man has ever discovered by laborious induction was not known to Him from the beginning: nothing that _He_ hath ever commissioned His servants to deliver, will be found inconsistent with the anterior facts of History.

"He that _made_ the eye, shall _He_ not see[315]?" The records of Creation then _cannot_ be incorrect. The course of Man's history _must_ be that which, speaking by the mouth of His Prophets, G.o.d hath described.

"I never said the contrary," is the reply. "All I say is that you interpret the records of Creation wrongly: and that you are disposed to lay greater stress on the historical accuracy of the Bible than the narrative will bear."

O but, sir, whoever you may be who censure me thus, let me in all kindness warn you of the pit, at the very edge whereof you stand!

Far be it from such an one as the preacher to a.s.sume that he so apprehends the First Chapter of Genesis, that if an Angel were to turn interpreter, he might not convince me of more than one misapprehension in matters of detail. But of this, at least, I am _quite_ certain; that when I find it recorded that G.o.d took counsel about Man's Creation: and made him in "His own image," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," whereby man became "a living soul:" and further, when I find it stated that Adam bestowed names upon all creatures: and spake oracularly of his spouse:--I am _certain_, I say, when I read such things, that G.o.d intended me to believe that Man was created with a G.o.dlike understanding, and with the perfect fruition of the primaeval speech. Further, I boldly a.s.sert that he who could prove the contradictory, would make the Bible, even as a Theological Book, nothing worth, to you and me.

The same must be said of the Bible chronology. And here I will adopt the words of one who is justly ent.i.tled to be listened to in this place; and who must at least be allowed to be a competent judge of the matter, for he made Chronology his province. Mr. Clinton says:--"Those who imagine themselves at liberty to enlarge the time [which elapsed from the Creation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham,] to an indefinite amount,--mistake the nature of the question. The uncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony: (like that which occurs in the early chronology of Greece, and of many other countries; when the times are uncertain because no evidence is preserved.) ... The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character, belonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double form; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But if the one is rejected, the other is established:" the difference between the two being exactly 1,250 years.--Men are free to _reject_ the evidence, to be sure; but we defy them to _explain it away_. The chronological details of the Bible are as emphatically set down as anything can be; and,--(with the exception of a few particulars, chiefly in the Book of Kings, which are to the record what misprints are to a printed book,)--they are entirely consistent; and hang perfectly well together. Let us not be told, then, that we entertain groundless apprehensions for the authority of G.o.d'S Word when we hear it proposed to refer the Creation of Man to a period of unheard-of antiquity.

Destroy my confidence in the Bible as an historical record, and you destroy my confidence in it altogether; for by far the largest part of the Bible _is_ an historical record. If the Creation of Man,--the longevity of the Patriarchs,--the account of the Deluge;--if _these_ be not true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of Jacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David,--of our _Saviour Christ_ Himself?

But there is a scornful spirit abroad which is not content to allegorize the earlier pages of the Bible,--to scoff at the story of the Flood, to reject the outlines of Scripture Chronology;--but which would dispute the most emphatic details of Revelation itself. Consistent, this method is, at all events. Let it have the miserable praise which is so richly its due. To logical consistency, it may at least lay claim. It refuses to stop anywhere: as why should it stop? Faith is denied her office, because Reason fails to see the reasonableness of Faith: and accordingly, unbelief enters in with a flood-tide. Miracles, for example, are now to be cla.s.sed, (we learn,) among "the difficulties" of Christianity[316]. It was to have been expected. (_Who_ foresees not what must be the fate of such "difficulties" as these?) And will you tell me that you may reject the miraculous transactions recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and yet retain the narrative which contains them? That were indeed absurd! Will you then reject one miracle and retain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour of the Incarnation of our LORD,--the most adorable of all miracles, as it is the very keystone of our Christian hope. Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe _the whole_ of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must _dis_believe the whole. There is no middle course open to you.

Do we then undervalue the discoveries of Natural Science; or view with jealousy the progress she has of late been making? G.o.d forbid! With unfeigned joy we welcome her honest triumphs, as so many fresh evidences of the wisdom, the power, the goodness of G.o.d. "Thou, LORD, hast made me glad through Thy works[317]!" The very guesses of Geology are precious.

What are they but n.o.ble endeavours to unfold a page anterior to the first page of the Bible; or rather, to discover what secrets are locked up in the first verse of it? But when, instead of being a faithful Servant, Natural Science affects the airs of an imperious Mistress,--what can she hope to incur at the hands of Theology, but displeasure and contempt? She forgets her proper place, and overlooks her lawful function. She prates about the laws of Nature in the presence of Him who, when He created the Universe, invented those very laws, and impressed them on His irrational creatures.--Does it never humble her to reflect that it was but yesterday she detected the fundamental Law of Gravitation? Does she never blush with shame to consider that for well nigh six thousand years men have been inquisitively walking this Earth's surface; and yet, that, one hundred years ago, the provident notions concerning fossil remains, and the Earth's structure, were such as now-a-days would be p.r.o.nounced incredibly ridiculous and absurd?

To conclude. The very phraseology with which men have presumed to approach this entire question, is insolent and unphilosophical. The popular phraseology of the day, I say, hardly covers, so as to conceal, a lie. We constantly find SCIENCE and THEOLOGY opposed to one another: just as if Theology were _not_ a Science! History forsooth, with all her inaccuracy of observation, is a Science: and Geology, with all her weak guesses, is a Science: and comparative Anatomy, with nothing but her laborious inductions to boast of, is a Science: but Theology,--which is based on the express revelation of the Eternal,--is some other thing!

What do you mean to tell us that Theology is, but the very queen of Sciences? Would Aristotle have bestowed on Ethic the epithet ????te?t?????, think you, had he known of that ?e??? ?????, which his friend,--"not blind by choice, but destined not to see[318],"--felt after yet found not? that "more excellent way," which you and I, by G.o.d'S great mercy, possess? Go to! For popular purposes, if you will, let the word "Science" stand for the knowledge of the phenomena of Nature; somewhat as, in this place, the word stands for the theory of Morals, and some of the phenomena of Mind: and so, let Science be contrasted with THEOLOGY, without offence taken, because none is intended. But let it never be forgotten that Theology is _the_ great Science of all,--the only Science which really deserves the name. What have other sciences to boast of which Theology has not? Antiquity,--such as no other can, in any sense, lay claim to: a Literature,--which is absolutely without a rival: a Terminology,--which reflects the very image of all the ages: Professors,--of loftier wit, from the days of Athanasius and Augustine, down to the days of our own Hooker and Butler,--men of higher mark, intellectually and morally,--than adorn the annals of any other Science since the World began: above all things, a subject-matter, which is the grandest imagination can conceive; and a foundation, which has all the breadth, and length, and depth and height[319], which the Hands of G.o.d Himself could give it.

For subject-matter, what Science will you compare with this? All the others in the world will not bring a man to the knowledge of G.o.d and of CHRIST! They will not inform him of the will of G.o.d, although they may teach him to observe His Works. "The Heavens declare the glory of G.o.d,"--but, as Lord Bacon remarked long since, we do not read that they declare His will. Neither do the other sciences of necessity lead to any belief at all in the G.o.d of Revelation[320].

And, for that whereon they are built, what Science again will you compare with this? Let the pretender to Geological skill,--(I say not the true Geologist, for _he_ never offends!)--let the conceited sciolist, I say, go dream a little longer over those implements of chipped flint which have called him into such noisy activity,--and discover, as he _will_ discover, that the a.s.sumed inference from the gravel and the bones is fallacious after all[321].--Let the Historian go spell a little longer over that moth-eaten record of dynasties which never were, by means of which he proposes to set right the clock of Time[322]. Let the Naturalist walk round the stuffed or bleached wonders of his museum, and guess again[323]. Theological Science not so! _Her_ evidence is sure, for her Rule is G.o.d'S Word. No laborious Induction here,--fallacious because imperfect; imperfect because human: but a direct message from the presence-chamber of the LORD of Heaven and Earth,--decisive because inspired; infallible because Divine. The express Revelation of the Eternal is that whereon Theological Science builds her fabric of imperishable Truth: _that_ fabric which, while other modes change, shift, and at last become superseded, shines out,--yea, and to the very end of Time will shine out,--unconscious of decay, incapable of improvement, far, far beyond the reach of fashion: a thing unchanged, because in its very nature unchangeable[324]!

O sirs,--we are constrained to be brief in this place. The field must perforce be narrowed; and so, for this time, it must suffice to have warned you against the men who resort to the armoury of Natural Science for weapons wherewith to a.s.sail G.o.d'S Truth. Regard them as the enemies of your peace; and learn to reject their specious, yet most inconsequential reasonings, with the scorn which is properly their due.

Contempt and scorn G.o.d implanted in us, precisely that we might bestow them on reasonings worthless in their texture, and foul in their object, as these; which teach distrust of the earlier pages of G.o.d'S Word, on the pretence that they are contradicted by the evidence of G.o.d'S Works.

Learn to abhor that spurious liberality which is liberal only with what is _not its own_; and which reminds one of nothing so much as the conduct of leprous persons who are said to be for ever seeking to communicate and extend their own unhappy taint to others. I allude to that sham liberality which under pretence of extending the common standing ground of Christian men, is in reality attenuating it until it proves incapable of bearing the weight of a single soul. There is room on the Rock for all; but it is only on the Rock that we are safe. To speak without a figure,--He who surrenders the first page of his Bible, surrenders all. He knows not where to stop. Nay, you and I cannot in any way _afford_ to surrender the beginning of Genesis; simply because upon the truth of what is there recorded depends the whole scheme of Man's salvation,--the need of that "second Man" which is "the LORD from Heaven[325]." It is not too much to say that the beginning of Genesis is the foundation on which all the rest of the Bible is built[326]. We may not go over to those who would mutilate the Book of Life, or evacuate any part of its message. It is they, on the contrary, who must come over to us.--Much has it been the fashion of these last days, (I cannot imagine why,) to vaunt the character and the Gospel of St. John, "the disciple of Love," as he is called; as if it were secretly thought that there is a lat.i.tudinarianism in Love which would wink at Doctrinal obliquity; whereas _St. John is the Evangelist of Dogma_; and if there be anything in the world which is _jealous_, that thing is _Love_.

Indifference to Truth, and laxity of Belief, are the growing characteristics of the age. But you will find that St. John has about four or five times as much about TRUTH as all the other three Evangelists; while _the act_ of Faith receives as frequent mention in his writings alone as in all the rest of the New Testament Canon put together[327].

Let me end, as the manner of preachers is, by gathering out of what has been spoken one brief practical consideration.--This whole visible frame of things wherein we play our part, is hastening to decay. Everything we behold,--ourselves included,--carries with it the prophecy of its own speedy dissolution.--What, amid the wreck of worlds, will be our confidence?... It is an inquiry worth making, in these the days of health, and vigour, and security, and peace. O my soul, (learn to ask yourselves,)--O my soul, when the Heavens shall depart, and the Earth reel before the Second Advent of its Maker;--when the Sun puts on mourning, and the very powers of Heaven are shaken;--what shall be _our_ confidence,--_our_ hope,--in that tremendous day? Whither shall we betake ourselves, amid the overthrow of universal Nature, but to the sure mercies of Him who "in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth?"--To those strong Hands, we intend, (G.o.d helping us!) with unswerving confidence to commend our fainting spirits[328].... _Him_, then, in life let us learn to reverence, on whom in death we propose so implicitly to lean! And we only know Him in, and through, and by His WORD. Nor can we in any surer way shew Him reverence or dishonour, than by the manner in which we receive His message,--yea, by the spirit in which we unfold this, the first page of it,--where stands recorded that primaeval act of Almighty power which is the ground of all our confidence,--the very warrant for our own security.... "Blessed" of a truth, in that day, will he be, "that hath the G.o.d of Jacob for his help, and whose hope is in the LORD his G.o.d:--_who made the Heaven and the Earth,--the Sea and all that therein is:--who keepeth His promise for ever_[329]!"

FOOTNOTES:

[271] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Nov. 11th, 1860.

[272] "The whole period, from the beginning of the primary fossiliferous strata to the present day, _must be great beyond calculation_, and only bear comparison with the astronomical cycles, as might naturally be expected; the earth being without doubt of the same antiquity with the other bodies of the solar system."--Mrs. Somerville's _Physical Geography_.

[273] Col. i. 16.

[274] Neh. ix. 6.

[275] Eph. i. 11.

[276] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. -- 2.

[277] Ps. x.x.xiii. 6.

[278] Alluding to a catastrophe which had recently occurred at St.

Mary's Church, and which necessitated considerable repairs; in consequence of which, the first four of these Sermons were preached in the Cathedral.

[279] Is. xl. 12.

[280] Amos v. 8 and ix. 6.

[281] St. Matth. xxvii. 45.

[282] Exod. x. 21-23.