« הקודםהמשך »
the river Jordan standing in heaps as solid walls, while the stream, we must suppose, was still running, -or the ass speaking with human voice,--or the miracles wrought by the magicians of Egypt, such as the conversion of a rod into a snake, and the latter being endowed with life. They are not such, even, as are raised, when we regard the trivial nature of a vast number of conversations and commands, ascribed directly to Jehovah, especially the multiplied ceremonial minutiæ, laid down in the Levitical Law. They are not such, even, as must be started at once in most pious minds, when such words as these are read, professedly coming from the Holy and Blessed One, the Father and · Faithful Creator' of all mankind:
** If the master (of a Hebraw servant) have given him a wife, and she have borne bim sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out free by himself,' Exod. xxi. 4.
* The wife and children in such a case being placed under the protection of such other words as these :
"If a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die ander his band, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, be shall not be punished : for he is his money,' Exod. xxi. 20, 21.”—Pp. 8, 9.
We cannot wonder that a South American enthusiast, preaching from such a text as this, is able logically to show that "slavery is a divine institution.” The above quotation will abundantly show on wbat broad and tangible grounds the Bishop takes his stand, and will completely refute the sarcasm of M. H. and others, that he is & petty caviller who goes grovelling about with a rule and tape in one pocket, and a book of population statistics in the other, seeking to detect paltry flaws in the facts of Holy Writ. It is true, that a considerable portion of his criticism consists of a rigorous logical examination and comparison of facts and dates derived from various sources, and of arithmetical investigation of the numbers given ; but this, instead of militating against the value of his deductions, rather adds to it, since" figures cannot err"; and where the data are patent to every investigator, the process by which the result so arrived at is open to verification by all. We give M. H. due credit for the logical acumen he has displayed in testing the Bishop's data and deductions; but, at the same time, a careful examination of the facts and arguments adduced hare not sufficed to shake our faith in the stability of Dr. Colenso's position. But the detailed exposure of M. H.'s fallacies properly rests with E. H. K., and to him we confidently leave the task.
There is now space only for a brief allusion to the following three events, respecting which we acknowledge, with unfeigned sincerity, that we cannot accept the Scriptural account without allowing blind faith to usurp the office of discriminating reason.
We refer, first, to the Mosaic story of the Creation ; the date at which the commentators state that it took place, versus geological calculations ; the literal time it occupied ; and the order in which it
was effected. The second great difficulty is that of the Flood; the - capacity of the ark to contain pairs of every animal, bird, reptile,
and insect, with food for them all; how they could possibly have been gathered together from every climate, both in the time stated, and by the limited number of persons named; how they could have existed in health, without deadly, enmity to each other, in this changed and artificial state ; and, lastly, as to the extent and duration of the Flood, respecting which Dr. Colenso thus argues :
“My own knowledge of some branches of science, and of geology in particular, bas been much increased since I left England; and I now know for certain, oa geological grounds, a fact of which I had only had misgivings before, viz., that a universal delage, such as the Bible manifestly speaks of, could not possibly bave taken place in tbe way described in the Book of Genesis, not to mention other difficulties which the story contains. I refer especially to the circumstance, well known to all geologists (see Lyell's “ Elementary Geology," pp. 197, 198), that volcanic hills exist of immense extent in Auvergne and Languedoc, which must have been formed ages before the Noachian deluge, and which are covered with light and loose substances, pumice-stone, &c., that must have been swept away by a flood, but do not exhibit the slightest sign of ever baving been disturbed. Of course I am aware that some have attempted to show that Noab's deluge was only a partial one; but such events have ever seemed to me to be made in the very teeth of the Scripture statements, which are as plain and explicit as words can possibly be. Nor is anything really gained by supposing the deluge to have been partial; for, as waters must find their level on the earth's surface, without a special miracle, of which the Bible says nothing, a flood which should begin by covering the top of Ararat (if that were conceivable), or a much lower mountain, must necessarily become universal, and in due time sweep over the hills of Auvergne.—Preface, pp. vii. and viii.
The above needs no comment. We now refer to the case of " the sun standing still” at the command of Joshua, on the physical impossibility of which the Bishop thus comments:
“Every natural pbilosopher will know [the fact of the sun staying in the heavens] it to be wholly untenable. For, not to speak of the fact that, if the earth's motion were suddenly stopped, a man's feet would be arrested, while his body was moving at the rate (at the equator) of 1,000 miles an hour (or, rather, 1,000 miles a minute ; since not only must the earth's diurnal rotation on its axis be stopped, but its annual rotation also through space), so that every human being and animal would be dashed to pieces in a moment, and a mighty delage overwholm the earth, unless all this were prevented by a profusion of miraculous interferences. One point is at once fatal to the above solution. Archdeacon Pratt quotes only the words, 'So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day; and although, surely, this is one of the most prominent questions in respect of which it is asserted that 'Scripture and science are at variance,' he dismisses the whole subject in a short pote, and never even mentions the moon. But the Bible says, “The sun stood still, and the moon stayed,' Josh. x. 13; and the arresting of the earth's motion, while it might cause the appearance of the sun 'standing still," would not account for the moon 'staying.'”—Note to Preface, pp. x., xi.
This is, perhaps, one of the most pointed and conclusive criticisms in the whole of the Bishop's work; for by whatever neologianism the difficulty (of the fact narrated being a physical impossibility) be explained away, there still remains a clear impeachment of the correctness of the historian's description of the phenomena, which impeachment cannot be glossed over, even should our opponents fall back upon the bare assertion that the whole series
of events in question were wrought by supernatural intervention; for this would be tantamount to begging the issue at once.
A strong point, made by those who advocate the affirmative side of the present question, consists in referring to the fact that all the principal actors in the New Testament have frequently referred in their conversation and epistles to the Pentateuch; and it is alleged that by so doing, they have endorsed and affirmed to the full and literal accuracy of the statements there made. But this fallacy has been most triumphantly exposed by Dr. Colenso, in his Preface, pages 30, 31, and 32; but as the paragraphs are too long for insertion here, we must request our readers to refer to them for themselves, satisfied that they will thereby receive additional confirmation of the Bishop's views.
In conclusion, we beg our antagonists to believe that, however opposed our opinions may be to theirs, they are, nevertheless, sincere, and were arrived at "according to the light that is in 18." And if the present discussion should lead to a deeper and more comprehensive inquiry into the momentous questions involved in it, we shall be heartily grateful to Dr. Colenso for having directed public attention to the subject, and to the British Controversialist for affording an arena in which the truth may be maintained. For ourselves, we feel almost constrained to fall back appalled at having had the temerity to “argue this high subject,” fearing that we have placed ourselves in the position of those who “ rush in, where angels fear to tread.” In the presence of the overwhelming doubts and conflicting problems thus elicited, we feel our own feebleness to deal with them to be but equal to that of,
“An infant crying in the night,
An infant crying for the light,
E. S. J.
IS AN AGE OF GENERAL INTELLECTUAL CULTURE UNFAVOURABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT MEN!
To maintain the affirmative of this question will, no doubt, be considered by some as paradoxical and inconsistent; and we may be charged with promulgating opinions at variance with common sense and ascertained fact. Be it so. We are quite willing to undertake the risk, knowing that many apparent paradoxes, before now, have been proved to be correct; and that the general idea upon a subject is by no means invariably the correct one, but more frequently the reverse. We have, as will be seen from perusing the question at the head of this article, two subjects upon which to speak, viz.-general intellectual eulture, and great men; and it is our purpose to show that the one is not a necessary or probable result of the other : but that the latter, instead of being produced and developed by the former, is often hindered and thwarted. We would particularly request attention to the word “ general," as applied to intellectual culture, as it will bear no small influence in determining the question at issue. We know that without great intellectual culture, no one is likely to become truly great; and are also ready to admit that a man, who has attained a high state of intellectual culture, will probably be a great man. Indeed, he already deserves that title, whether his own generation or posterity award it to him or not. But it is only with those who make themselves a name in their own day, and are awarded by posterity a niche in the temple of fame.--men who rise above the level of, and are preeminently distinguished from, the majority of their fellows-that we have to do. It is only such that we can reckon as great; and as this greatness is connected with intellectual culture, it is manifest that we are only concerned with noticing those who have distin. guished themselves in those paths of science and art where the intellect finds the fullest scope for the display of its wondrous powers. So much, then, respecting the term, "" great men,” and what we understand by it.
We have now to consider an age of general intellectual culture, and what is meant by the expression. The meaning of the term is, doubtless, easily understood, as referring to an age in which the majority of the people are educated and instructed in the rudiments of science; while a large portion are endeavouring to obtain all knowledge, and comprehend all science; and the age to which the term-“ general intellectual culture”-may be most appropriately applied, is our own. We have, then, to ask, Are there greater men now than there were in past ages ? or does the level of the intellectual status of the masses tend to produce a fairer number of great men? To both these questions we feel compelled to give a negative reply. Our reasons for arriving at this conclusion are based upon facts, and upon a consideration of the tendencies of general intellectual culture.
That there have been in past ages men as eminent as any now living,-many, indeed, whom the present age has no way equalled,
-is a fact which, we think, no one can deny. The ancients are still our acknowledged models. The tragedies of Sophocles, the orations of Demosthenes and Cicero, the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, the poems of Homer and Virgil, the histories of Thucydides and Livy, the biographies of Plutarch and Nepos, the geometry of Euclid and Archimedes, have been equalled by few, and excelled, perhaps, by none, in this present nineteenth century, albeit we have the wisdom and experience of nearly thirty centuries to guide and assist us. Whether this arises from the fact that there is a limit to the culture of the human intellect, and consequently a limit to its powers; and that the ancients having attained this limit, it is impossible for us to surpass them; or whether there were, as we are inclined to think, peculiar circumstances in their case which materially contributed to develop their greatness, as we believe there are in the present day many things which tend to retard the rise of great men, we know not, nor are we at present concerned in determining; the fact is the same, that the great men of the ancients were as great, if not greater, both numerically in proportion to the people, and intellectually, as any men of our day; and these men arose in an age when intellectual culture was anything but general. To come nearer our own times, we have the Bacons (Roger and Francis), Raleigh, Spenser, Shakespere, Barrow, Boyle, Hooker, Tillotson, Stillingfleet, and even down to the reign of Queen Anne, including the names of Dryden, Pope, Swift, Addison, Steele, and Arbuthnot, and, greatest of all, Newton, existing and flourishing in an age when intellectual culture was anything but general. We may be told that the period of Elizabeth and of Queen Anne were the Periclean, Augustan ages of England, and wemay grant that they were ; but it must be remembered that these were the very men who constituted it, and that the mass of the people were still uneducated, and intellectual culture was, as a whole, low in status and limited in extent. Nor do we think the argument invalidated by referring to what is generally, but in our opinion erroneously, known as the dark ages, and to the successive periods, and short time, comparatively speaking, in which the arts and sciences have been cultivated. This may be true, though it must be remembered that had it not been for the studies of the monks and of the schoolmen, when ignorance was so general, the flood of light which followed the invention of the printing press, would never have existed, or thrown such glorious beams upon the Elizabethan age. The fact, however, remains the same, that in an age when intellectual cultivation was not general, there existed as large a number of great men; men who were great, not only because they rose above the level of their fellows, but men who were absolutely great, and are reckoned as such in the present age of general intellectual eulture, which they could greatly exceed, and so still be reckoned great. Such are the facts. How, then, do we account for them ? The following are some of the reasons to be adduced in explanation thereof.
1. An age of general intellectual culture produces mediocrity, but not true greatness. The attainments considered requisite to pass society, or be, as it is termed, finished, in the present day, are ao numerous and extensive, that the young man, in his haste to get through all, understands none properly, but has only a smattering, and that frequently confused and inaccurate, of each. When he has passed the curriculum of the sciences in this manner, his intellect,