Imágenes de páginas

teaching of the Bible and Logic. A science which professes to teach that God can only be believed in, and not known, is not worthy the name. This implies that man, a rational being, acts more unreasonably than the irrational animal. "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider. “Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but My people know not the judgment of the Lord.'

The Bible from beginning to end is, in its teaching, in direct opposition to agnosticism. Any theory of agnosticism (the unknowableness of God) is destructive to morals, religion, the welfare of the State, and the true knowledge of man. Hegel and Stirling belong to the class of men who take their stand on the ground that God can be known, and not merely blindly believed in. On this ground stood the Prophets, Apostles, and Reformers; yea, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself ; by these, ignorance of God is strongly denounced and treated as the cause of all evil. To call worshipping an unknown God' advanced thought is somewhat absurd. Those who do so, read neither their Bible, logic, science, nor philosophy aright, but call true logical philosophy, Pantheism. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle will rise up in judgment against such and condemn them, for, in seeking to know God, these three men made a brave attempt to solve the mystery of existence, and to acquire a knowledge of the great principles of logical science. To call the philosophy of Hegel and Stirling pantheistic because it teaches that God is in Nature, and Nature is in God and man, is as foolish as it would be to call the teaching of the Bible pantheistic, for fundamentally the teaching is the same. In that


day,' said Christ, 'ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.' 'In Him we live and move and have our being.' Hegel and Stirling only present these truths in more logical forms. The study of the Secret of Hegel completely reveals the theological and religious position of both these men, and shows that they adhere to the fundamental doctrine of Christianity as taught in the Bible. They hold that philosophy and Christianity are fundamentally one. Hegel was very severe in his criticism of the Kantian form of agnosticism.

It is a curious fact that an unsound philosophy, completely at variance with true Christianity, should be popular with so many Christian ministers in nearly all sections of the Church, and that a sound philosophy, which' vindicates and harmonizes orthodox Christianity,' should be so unpopular. This is chiefly due, no doubt, to the cry of Pantheism, and to the prevailing ignorance of the Nature of Concrete Logic. The critics rightly draw a distinction between the letter and the spirit; but there is a way of dealing with what they call the Spirit, which is as defective and erring as is keeping to what is called the literal interpretation of the word. Under what they are pleased to call the guidance of the Spirit, many have used the Bible in support of very dangerous error. In relying on the Spirit, we must be sure it is the Spirit of Truth, for many false spirits have gone into the world.

There is also a mode of dealing with the letter of the word in which it is almost made to take the place of the Spirit, or even of God Himself, as if the word or letter were the supreme source of man's salvation and worthy of a veneration and worship almost equal with that due to God alone. On the other hand, there is a mode of treating the word as if it did not

[ocr errors]

contain any special revelation of God, or of the spiritual nature of man. So far as it is external, merely, it is subject, like Nature, to contingency, accident and perishableness. In its internality, it is truth as thought, which in its spirit is God's revelation in, and to man. Just as it is of the most vital importance to know Christ after the Spirit and not merely after the flesh, though He could only reveal himself in the Spirit through His appearance in the flesh, so in the outward letter of the word there is always an inward revelation of the Spirit of God. Pure love in a pure heart is the first requirement for realizing a clear vision of God in spirit and in truth.

If the letter' or 'literal' interpretation be rejected, we must first be well assured as to what is meant by 'letter' and 'literal,' and what is involved in such rejection. Critics may err, and have erred seriously, both in reference to the letter and to the spirit at one and the same time. On this account we need to know what is meant by 'verbal' and plenary' inspiration. A written revelation from God must be in words and letters. So far as the external form of the letters, words, and sentences of a language are concerned, there has never been a perfect language, and in this respect we may confidently affirm, there never will be one; yea, we may go further, and say that such a perfect external form is not necessary. A necessary contingency is attached to both ' matter and form ’in a Divine revelation, and this was recognized by Christ when He said, “For the hardness of your hearts he gave you this precept,' and 'I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Here, again, the distinction is recognized between 'verbal' and 'plenary,' and between transitory' and 'permanent'; for


and so

both form and content may be either transitory or permanent.

The very idea of a word implies thought. A word is a word only because of the thought that is in it,

external' and internal' are in essential unity; the same is the case with every object, in part and in whole, of this vast universe.

Perfection, as perfection, cannot be found in parts, as parts : nor merely in externals if men try to understand these as being absolutely separated. The value of everything consists in its unity with the whole ; thus a hand ceases to be a hand in reality when separated from the rest of the body. Even the death of Christ only retains its deep significance when seen in its vital relation to His person, life, teaching, resurrection and ascension, and the relation of these to God and man.

The special external form of words amounts, in one sense, to little; so long as a word embodies the thought, we have all that is required, no matter in what language it may be expressed. Nor does it matter much when, where, or by whom the Bible was written in its entirety or in part. Direct evidence of sense-perception is impossible and unnecessary on these points. My belief is, in fact, a matter of pure reason, and substantially rests on the same kind of evidence as my belief that Hegel, Wesley, Newton, Luther, Calvin, or Wyclif lived in the flesh. It seems to me absurd to make so much of little bits' of discrepancies, or of some moral and religious peculiarities to be found here and there in the Book. Contingency, expounded so clearly by Dr. Stirling, in What is Thought ? and in his Gifford Lectures, prevents a perfect, logical, philosophical form and matter, and so renders a Divine revelation absolutely and necessarily transitory, both in its content and its

verbal form; but the Revelation is none the less Divine on this account.

The contingency of Nature and of human life must necessarily pervade the Biblical record from beginning to end; and yet there is Divine truth and necessity running through it all as a golden thread, forming its substance and living connective tissue. Thus, events and persons come into contact with Christ in an external, accidental manner, giving occasion to His sublime teaching and miracles: as, for example, when Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, and the woman of Samaria came to the well to draw water. The circumstances which

gave rise to His deep and incisive words in reply to the Jews and others, are full of contingency, but this does not detract from their essential truth and force. The secret power of all was in Himself; He was the truth enshrined in living, human form; but the thought could only be given in the language then and there in common use. The same applies to the Old, as to the New Testament. When it is said that the Bible is not infallible, it is necessary to know what is meant by such a statement. We cannot affirm that such and such contingent circumstances occurred through an unavoidable necessity, yet if the particular occurrences had not happened, we may confidently affirm that some other very similar contingencies must have taken their place. Just as, for example, it is largely a matter of chance as to whether a piece of ground is planted with beans, potatoes, or grass, yet the growth of these is not all chance. The living Spirit is the cause of their growth. Thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust; Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created, and Thou renewest the face of the earth. I believe that all the so-called errancy of the Bible can be explained

« AnteriorContinuar »