Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CRITICAL NOTICES.

The Mosaic Record in Harmony with the Geological. Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co. 1854.

THE time is already past when geology was an object for dread to those who love and reverence the Bible, or of hope to those who are its assailants. There was, however, an apparent reason for the hopes and the fears which were cherished on either side. The declaration of the Bible appeared to be a plain and direct affirmation that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Geology, on the other hand, appeared to prove, that instead of the earth being only six days old when the formation of Adam finished the work of creation, it had existed and been the abode of living creatures, and the scene of great and repeated changes, for unnumbered ages before the creation of man. The contradiction was too obvious to be denied; and the infidel thought he had at last obtained an argument of a strictly scientific kind, by means of which he might destroy the credibility of the Bible. Many earnest believers in revelation were greatly alarmed; and while they could not abandon their faith in the Word of God, yet they shuddered at the peril, which they knew not how to meet or turn aside. There was not, for a time, sufficient coolness on either side for the question to be fully investigated; and the apparent contradiction remained not only unremoved, but drawn into increased antagonism.

This was but a repetition, on new ground, of what has often happened, an apparent contradiction between science and revelation. It is surely high time for enlightened men to frame and adopt a common principle by which to regulate their inquiries after truth, natural and revealed, so as to avoid collision, and prosecute their respective researches without mutual distrust and hostility. God is the author of both nature and revelation,-the world and the Bible. What he has made, and what he has said, cannot contradict each other, when both are rightly interpreted and fully understood. Natural science ought to be the interpreter of what God has made; theological science ought to be the interpreter of what God has said. But from the ignorance, prejudice, and infirmity of man, the interpretation may be erroneous in either department, or even in both. If it be erroneous in either, there cannot be a true agreement. But the fact that the interpretations did not agree, would neither prove that they could not agree, nor enable us at once to decide which of them was in error. Before any man can decide that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the Mosaic record and geology, he must be perfectly sure that he understands both of them. Till then, the utmost that he can fairly say is, that there is an apparent contradiction, which he knows

not how to reconcile.

Even then he cannot be certain on what side the error lies; and all that his perception of the contradiction legitimately entitles him to do is to suspend his judgment, re-examine his investigations, and prosecute his inquiries with increased caution and with the utmost candour. If a man err in his interpretation of geology, there will be an apparent contradiction between it and the Mosaic record; and if he err in his interpretation of Moses, the result will be the same. But in neither case would it be legitimate to affirm that geology and the Mosaic record stood irreconcilably opposed to each other. Let it be admitted frankly that there is an apparent contradiction; but let the man of science fearlessly pursue his inquiries, without invidiously framing premature conclusions; and let the student of the Bible investigate his own department as frankly and fearlessly, neither party doubting that the ultimate result will be as much harmony as the imperfection of human knowledge can admit.

There have been many attempts to reconcile the Mosaic record with geology. The little treatise before us is the latest, and, we venture to add, the most successful that has hitherto appeared. As it is very desirable that every attempt to rescue our common faith from the doubts cast over it by those who seek its overthrow should receive the utmost publicity, we shall endeavour to lay, in a condensed form, our author's view before our readers, with such remarks and comments as the consideration of the subject may suggest.

The position from which the author of the treatise begins is, that the facts of nature, as geology presents them, are incontrovertible, but that the words of Moses have been, and still are, misunderstood. This, we are convinced, is the right position. It avoids at once all the crudities which unwise, though well-meaning men were wont to write about each wonder of geology being a mere lusus naturæ; allows science to hold on its course of investigation, and directs attention to Scripture, not for the purpose of controverting its statements, but in order to ascertain their true meaning. The first chapter is occupied chiefly in showing that none of the prevalent explanatory theories meet the necessities of the case. The author disputes, on philological grounds, the theory, first suggested by Dr Chalmers, that the first verse of Genesis is an independent proposition, declaring that matter had a beginning, and that an indefinite period of time intervened between it and those that follow in the Mosaic narrative, which describe the process by which the earth was rendered a fit abode for man. For as there is no perceptible reason, grammatical or otherwise, why the copulative word and, by which all the verses beginning each successive work are linked together, should admit of time indefinite in the first instance more than in any other, the assumed indefinite period might be placed anywhere, or in each instance, or in no instance, with equal propriety, that is, without any special propriety,-and therefore does not warrant or support the theory. This argument is, we apprehend, conclusive.

He next sets aside the hypothesis, that by days the inspired writer did not mean natural days of twenty-four hours each, but indefinitely long periods, sufficient for the deposition of the strata which geology displays, admitting, indeed, that Mr Miller, in his lecture on the Two

Records, Mosaic and Geological, has revived that theory, avoided the mistakes of his predecessors, and given it an aspect of greater probability than it previously possessed. Still, he thinks that philology refuses to admit the meaning which this hypothesis would assign to the word "day." He asserts that the Hebrew word rendered" day," never means a period of indefinite length, and cannot admit of being so employed. The geologist, indeed, need not care; for if the philologist can venture to permit the copulative and to contain time indefinite, while he refuses a similar latitude to the word day, the geologist may obtain his "indefinite period" by the former concession, and leave theologians to settle their own controversy. But this, of course, would be a mere shifting of the difficulty, and not a solution of it. The unsatisfactory nature of Dr Pye Smith's theory is also shown, and refuted conclusively.

Having thus reached a position on which he could give a direct and clear state of the question, and produce his own solution, our author proceeds to his task with singular perspicuity of thought and language. Assuming, as already mentioned, that the reason why the Mosaic record and geology have hitherto displayed an apparently irreconcilable contradiction is because the words of Moses have not hitherto been rightly understood, his first inquiry is directed to ascertain how they should be understood. This leads him into a brief but very ingenious and suggestive discussion relative to the "form of the revelation vouchsafed to Moses. Revelation might be conveyed to an inspired man by language, by symbolical vision, or by direct vision. It is generally admitted that the first chapter of Genesis gives a record of the several stages of creation as they would have appeared to a human eye, had there been one to see them. There could have been no reason for this had they been conveyed to Moses in words, for, in that case, there would be no necessity for the record assuming a human point of view, and describing events as seen from that point. They must, therefore, have been presented to the prophet, or rather seer, in vision. But that could not have been a symbolical vision, like those seen by Daniel or the apostle John; for there is nothing of a symbolical character in what Moses relates, but distinct, vivid, narrative description. Besides, Scripture itself specifies the kind of inspiration enjoyed by Moses, as the author shows in a passage from Numbers xii. 6-8, thus rendered literally by him: "Not so my servant Moses; in all my house faithful is he. Mouth to mouth do I speak with him; and vision, but not in dark speeches." The "pattern," too, of the tabernacle which Moses saw in the mount, is another instance of direct, unsymbolical vision, as may also be regarded the vision of the burning bush.

Further, when narrative is not used, either past events or future may be revealed in vision with equal directness and intelligibility. There might be placed before the entranced eye of the prophet or seer a long continuous vision of the future evolving before him, event after event, in the very succession which they would afterwards have, either represented symbolically or presented naturally. Or the unknown past might equally be made to reappear, beginning at its own beginning, and sweeping on as it had formerly done, till it arrived at events with which he was already acquainted. It might even be argued, that if the method of narrative be not used, there is no conceivable way in

which the knowledge of events long past and unknown could be conveyed to the mind of man but that of vision.

We extract the passage in which the author states his own theory : "Were the words that Moses wrote merely impressed upon his mind by the Spirit of God? Did he hold the pen, and another dictate words which the writer did not understand? We hardly think any will be bold enough to maintain this view of the inspiration enjoyed by Moses. Did he then see in vision the scenes that he describes ? The freshness and point of the narrative, the freedom of the description, and the unlikelihood that Moses was an unthinking machine in the composition, all indicate that he saw in vision what he has here given us in writing. He is describing from actual observation, and this was one way in which prophecies were communicated to men. Was not this the nature of the trance into which Peter fell? And is there not the case of John? If, then, God can call up the future before the mind of man, certainly he can also call up the past, for man can do this himself. But when man surveys the past, the events connected with the object of thought are all compressed into one picture, arranged in due order of time no doubt, but without those breaks in the succession that occur in the reality. Imagination crowds the events of years into seconds; and God, who always avails himself of natural laws, thus made the events of ages pass in a brief space of time before the minds of his prophets. Why should not this also have been the case with Moses, in the composition of a narrative which details a history that no mortal man then knew? He is merely describing what the spirit of inspiration made to pass in review before his own mind. He fell into a trance, like the apostle Peter, but his eyes were open; he could mark what took place in the vision that floated before his divinely enlightened imagination; and the darkness which stole over the scene, when the vision began to fade, seemed to him to be caused by the approach of night. In other words, each 'day' contains the description of what he beheld in a single vision, and when that faded it was twilight. There is nothing forced in supposing that after the vision had for a time illumined the fancy of the seer, it was withdrawn from his eyes, in the same way that the landscape becomes dim on the approach of evening. Did not the sheet in Peter's trance seem to be let down from heaven, and drawn up again? And why may not night in Moses' vision have seemed to cover the landscape imprinted on his fancy? Most truly, therefore, could he describe the dawn and twilight as bounding the day. From this point of view a day' can only mean the period during which the divinely enlightened fancy of the seer was active. While all continued bright and manifest before his entranced, but still conscious soul, it was day' or light.' When the dimness of departing enlightenment fell on the scene, it was the evening twilight. Hence we can understand why the seer speaks of seven days, but of only six evenings; for seven different scenes passed before his enlightened imagination, but only six times did the curtain fall before his fancy. The seventh scene was continued onward to the giving of the law, and is proceeding still; but the corresponding evening has not yet come. In these alternations of light and darkness on the fancy of Moses, we find the meanings of the day' and 'evening.' The visions dawn upon the mind of the seer, who, full of the deepest

.

interest, watches the rising glory, and marks its progress, till the dimness of deepening twilight shuts it from his eyes. Of course, it is not maintained here that each vision occupied a whole natural day, or that when darkness fell on the fancy of the seer, he awoke from his trance. For any thing that we know to the contrary, these visions may all have been comprised in one period of inspiration; only the darkness, which shut the scene out from the eye of Moses, was as much an effect of the divine agency as the scene itself."

This theory seems to us not only exceedingly ingenious, but essentially true, and containing the germ of the right solution which will ultimately present the "Mosaic record in harmony with the geological." We think the theory true in its leading idea,-namely, that the first chapter of Genesis contains a statement by Moses, descriptive of the creation of this world, and its preparation to be the abode of man, as seen by him in vision,-and that not a symbolical vision, but a direct presentation to his divinely enlightened eye of those main topics or facts respecting which it pleased God to communicate information. Since the vision was displayed to the eye of Moses, it is rightly described as seen by a human eye, and from a human point of view, not from the divine point of view, and not as strict science might abstractly require; just as astronomical phenomena are spoken of in the Bible as seen by man, and not according to the principles of science. No other theory at once explains and vindicates the fact that the Mosaic record is given throughout as from a human point of view, which this theory does in a manner entirely accordant with Scripture, and with such unforced simplicity as to command assent to its primary position, whatever may be thought regarding some minor details. That which has hitherto proved an inexplicable difficulty to all other theories is not only clear as light in this, but is indeed its central light, its life and strength. But while we thus express our unqualified assent to our author's idea and main position, we cannot so entirely agree with some of his arguments, and some of the subordinate points which he introduces, and on which he lays, we think, too much stress.

We quite agree with the author of this little but very valuable treatise, that philology is as truly a science as geology is; but while he displays much acuteness and considerable acquaintance with philological criticism, we do not think his skill in that department equal to his knowledge of natural science. The use of the word "and" as a mere conjunction, or copulative term, cannot determine any thing with regard to the real meaning of the sentences which it may be employed to link together, as is now held almost universally by the highest philological critics. It cannot, therefore, be the use of that conjunction, but the internal meaning of the sentences coupled together, or even successively introduced by it, which must determine any philological argument; and we regret that our author should have seemed to attach so much importance to that conjunction in his philological criticism. To us it appears that there is nothing, and can be nothing, in the word and, either in Hebrew or any other language, that could either include or exclude the idea of an " indefinite period," either between the first and second verses, or between any other verses in the whole chapter. If there were any such distinctive meaning in that word or its use, it would embarrass our author himself as much as any one else; for while

« AnteriorContinuar »