Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Truth, throughout her whole domain, illimitable as is its extent, is one în principle and harmonious in details. It is no other than the having our conceptions in accordance with the reality of things. And Truth in expression (= Veracity) is the adapting of our language, written or spoken, to the honest utterance of our conceptions.

An assertion cannot be true in Theology, and false in Geology, or any department of scientific knowledge; nor inversely. It really is an insult to men's understandings, to admit indirectly that there are affirmations or doctrines in the records of revealed religion, which are disproved by the clearest evidence of Science, and then to proscribe investigation, with a solemn pretence of mysteries not to be inquired into, an hypocritical tone of reverence for sacred things. The veil is transparent: no man can be deceived by it: but it is lamentable that any should attempt to deceive by it. True Theology, on the contrary, attracts to itself, illustrates, and harmonises, all other knowledge. It is the science which relates to the Author and Preserver of the whole dependent Universe,-whatever may be known concerning Him, for the noblest purposes of intellectual improvement, of personal virtue, and of diffusive happiness. It is the friend of all Science: it appropriates all Truth: it holds fellowship with no error.-DR. PYE SMITH, Geology and Science, p.452.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

....

PREFACE TO PART IV..

I HAVE explained in the body of this Part of my work the reasons which have determined me to confine myself at present to the examination of the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis, reserving to the next Part the consideration of the remaining Chapters, and the discussion, which may then be raised, as to the respective ages of the Elohistic and Jehovistic writers.

I have great hope that the clearness and certainty, with which the two principal writers of Genesis can be distinguished in these first Chapters, will bring conviction to many, who have hitherto only had misgivings upon the question, or, perhaps, have turned aside from these criticisms altogether, as being in their view too abstruse and uncertain,—and will satisfy them that there is, indeed, truth in the statement, which I have so often repeated, and which, in fact, is the very core and centre of this controversy, viz. that the Pentateuch is not in its present form the work of Moses,—or not exclusively his work,-but a composite work by different writers of different ages. Here lies the gist of the whole question, however the details, as to the assignment of particular passages, or the exact age of the different writers, may be ultimately settled.

I have shown in Chap. I-VII that these First Eleven Chapters of Genesis are made up of two documents, in very nearly equal proportions, and that one of these, that containing the first account of the creation in G.i,-forms, when its different parts are put together a complete unbroken narrative. With respect to the other, it must be left doubtful at present, whether it was originally also a complete narrative which has been combined with the former, with the suppression of some clauses, by the hand of a later editor, or whether it was merely intended from the first to be supplementary, and so exhibits only the additions which have been made by a later writer to the primitive story. In any case, we have here the compositions of two writers, not only distinct, but in some points actually at variance with each other, even within the limits of these few Chapters.

The accuracy and cogency of the above analysis may be easily

tested by the English reader, though unacquainted with Hebrew, if he will only follow carefully the course of reasoning pursued in one or two sections, with an English Bible in his hand, in which he has marked the Jehovistic passages by a line drawn down the margin. Many, I believe, will be more satisfied, as to the main facts of the case, by the consideration of this kind of internal evidence, than by any arguments from without, such as those based upon the contradictions which may be shown to exist between many of the statements, in these ancient accounts of the Creation and the Deluge, and the results of Science. Here, however, the facts are, for any who are willing to look at them, and they cannot, I believe, in the main be gainsaid.

But having completed this portion of the work, and thereby established, as I conceive, the right and duty, for myself and for every minister of God's Truth, to examine seriously, and yet freely, the actual contents of these chapters, with the desire to know what they really contain, I have exercised this right, and have endeavoured to discharge this duty, to the best of my power. The result of my examination I have laid before the reader in the last chapters of this Part, and have proved abundantly, as I believe, that the statements of both the Elohist and Jehovist, in these First Eleven Chapters of Genesis,-whatever value they may have, whatever religious lessons may be drawn from them,—cannot be regarded as historically true, being contradicted in their literal sense, again and again, by the certain facts of modern Science. I trust that by both divisions of my labour in this Fourth Part,—which is complete in itself, and needs not any help from the arguments and criticisms in the preceding portions of my work,-I shall have done something to relieve the cause of Science itself, and the speculations of devout and earnest scientific men, from the charges so often made in former days-made even recently by more than one Bishop of the Church of England-of being injurious to religion, and dishonouring to the Word of God. I shall have done this by showing that the injury and dishonour are not to be charged upon them, but upon those who will still insist on teaching that the mere letter of every part of Scripture is to be regarded as the authoritative, infallible, Word of the Living God.

In discussing the questions raised by the examination of these Chapters, I have, as before, availed myself frequently of the language of others, instead of expressing the very same thing in my own words. I have done this, both because I have felt it to be due to those eminent critics, who have led the way in these inquiries, to give them the credit of research and originality, while making use of their stores of learning,—and, in doing this, it seemed more desirable, for the satisfaction of the reader, to produce their

actual words, than merely to refer to them by name,—and because, in the case of (so-called) orthodox writers, I preferred to make use of their statements and admissions, as being free from the imputation of having been possibly influenced by a desire to support my own side of the argument.

I should, indeed, have desired, if it had been possible, to have had recourse for this purpose to some eminent living authority of the Church of England. But I am not aware that any of the existing Bishops or Doctors of the English Church has published any work of importance, connected with the criticism of the Pentateuch. There was, however, one distinguished Prelate of our Church, whom death has only lately removed from us, Archbishop WHATELY of Dublin, to whom a tract has been publicly ascribed--and he has not (I believe) disowned it-bearing upon questions in the second, third, and eleventh Chapters of Genesis. This tract was published anonymously in 1849, and, being written in Latin, is little known to English readers. I translate from it the following passage on the Tower of Babel: '

[ocr errors]

G.xi.1-10. This short narrative in the Book of Genesis labours under great difficulties.

(i) If we look at the design of those, who attempted to build, in order that they might not be scattered abroad, how was that to be effected by the help of a very high tower? And what dispersion was either to be feared by them or avoided, since, it would seem, it was permitted to each to choose his own place of abode?

(ii) Let us consider the mode of frustrating their purpose. It is believed that a great multitude of men, through a wonderful change, forgot their ancestral tongue, and spoke suddenly a new language. This would be a great miracle, and yet would not conduce to the end proposed. For, unless they are supposed to have been struck out of their senses by the prodigy, they would have been able to continue their work after a very short inconvenience. Any architect, set over workmen of different tongues, would, in a short time, be able to impart his orders by means of signs: and in the space of a few days they would have learned enough of his words, to be able to go on together, their labours being joined, with continually diminishing difficulty. Besides, when the project of building was dismissed, why was it necessary that they should be all scattered very widely through all regions? How many countries also are inhabited by races speaking different tongues, e.g. Wales, Scotland, Ireland, many parts of the East Indies?

That

This granted, the whole matter may have taken place thus. Some chief men had determined to found an empire, which should embrace the whole human race. this empire might have the sanction of religion, they wished to found a temple, dedicated to some idol, in that city which was to be the head of the world. Since it was not in the power of these men, living in the plain, to place that building on a mountain, (which custom afterwards prevailed, as the passages in Scripture testify, which speak everywhere of 'high places,') therefore they determined to erect a very high tower, like an artificial mountain. Such a purpose of founding a false religion could not but be displeasing to the True and Living God. He, therefore, entirely frustrated their impious design, by throwing discord into the minds of the ambitious founders. He made them to quarrel about religious worship, by which dissension He would much more certainly vitiate their attempt, than by a diversity of tongues. History abounds in examples of such dissension: we may mention the Jews and Samaritans, Pharisees and Karaites, and, lastly, the various sects of Christians. Thus it came to pass at Babel, that the strongest of the factions kept possession of the city and tower, only dropping the magnitude of the tower and that height which they had originally intended, while the other factions went off in different directions, and settled themselves, some in one locality, some in another.

But as so much stress had been laid upon the writings of Archbishop USSHER and Bishop WATSON of former days, I thought it my duty to refer to them again, while engaged in the consideration of these questions. I was, of course, well aware that their works

« AnteriorContinuar »