Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

completion, a favour of no ordinary kind would be conferred upon all Biblical scholars, especially those who are not far advanced in their interesting studies. Such of us as have had to furnish ourselves with the critical helps which we propose to present in readiness for those who will come after us, are deeply sensible of the desirableness of shortening, as much as possible, the ways which lead to sound Biblical learning, and the critical edition of the Hebrew Scriptures suggested in this paper will accomplish that purpose to a great extent.

Perhaps such a scheme as we have presented may be considered Utopian, and thrown aside as impracticable; but it is asked respectfully in what the insuperable difficulties consist? Two sorts of aid are needed, that of Biblical learning and that of pecuniary resources. For one man to attempt and to carry through such an undertaking, would still leave him far behind the Biblical scholars who have laboured for us in former years, such as Walton, Leusden, Michaelis, and Schleusner. But by cooperation the work would be comparatively easy, and, under one editor, the labours of many learned men might be secured, without breaking in upon the continuity and harmony of the whole. One might collate the Syriac, another the Septuagint version; one might write the prolegomena, and another the notes; while a fifth could grapple with the various readings. As to the pecuniary question, that may be left to those enterprising booksellers our country can furnish, some of whom are not backward in patronizing attempts which can be shown to afford the promise of ultimate, even though distant, remuneration. In several London printing-offices all the types necessary for such an undertaking are ready furnished, and we long to see them occupied on some work of a truly national character, or rather, on one which will be acceptable wherever Sacred Literature is valued.

MISCELLANEA.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

a

THE Mosaic account of creation, viewed in relation to modern geological discovery, is a subject which has given rise to much discussion, and it must continue to be one of considerable interest even to persons who view the Scriptures as not at all intended to teach scientific truth. For here there seems to be involved not merely a question of science, but one of fact. Both in the first chapter of Genesis and in the fourth commandment God is represented as in the space of 'six days' bringing the visible universe, if not from absolute non-existence, at least from a state of chaos, into its present condition of order and beauty. Almost all who are competent to form an opinion on the subject are now agreed that periods altogether out of proportion to such a number of natural days must have been embraced in the progress of the works there narrated. Are we then shut up to the conclusion unhesitatingly avowed by a writer well known to the readers of your Journal, that there exist 'palpable contradictions between the language adopted in the Old Testament, and in the delivery of the Jewish law, and the existing evidences of the order of creation?' Assuming for a moment the duration of the periods designated 'days' to be still an open question, I should like to see some of your contributors who are the most versant in geological inquiries bringing the stores of their knowledge to bear on the question, whether there really are contradictions in regard to the order of creation between the Mosaic account, and the monuments of its progress found embedded in the earth's crust? or, whether we are not warranted rather to regard the account in question as a hasty sketch expressed in language accordant with the notions of cosmogony then prevalent, yet substantially, and for all the purposes of the document, correct? It must not be hastily, or without the maturest inquiry and discussion, assumed, that we are held precluded from this conclusion, for then we must be reduced to regard the Mosaic account either

a The Rev. Baden Powell, in his Connexion of Natural and Divine Truth, pp. 266, 267.

as

as a mere myth, or as the worthless embodiment of a popular tradition, either of which would seem sufficiently incongruous and unaccountable, as found placed at the opening of a tract which professes to narrate historically the leading events and transactions of the first three thousand years or so of human existence.

That the question as to the length of the periods designated 'days' is yet an open one, or that we are not shut up to the conclusion that these periods necessarily embraced only the length of natural days, we would beg to suggest the following considerations. If they are of any weight, let them stimulate inquiry; if merely whimsical, let them be disregarded.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

And first, the term 'day' is by no means restricted in Scripture any more than it is in popular language still, to designate merely the twenty-four hours. Besides the uniform use of days' in prophecy to represent years in the fulfilment, we find it frequently used to express indefinite periods, as Now is the day of salvation,' 'If thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day,' &c. Then, creation is uniformly represented in Scripture as the unconstrained and voluntary work of God; and in harmony with this, the main object of the Mosaic account may be expected to be found, the presenting to our view of this work under the aspect of its revelation to him. Now under that aspect the predicating of extreme duration is absurd, for the voice of philosophy combines with the announcements of Scripture in declaring that 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' In regard to man, the leading impressions intended to be given evidently being that creation was the work of the 'One living God,' and that it was spontaneous and progressive work, the time occupied by it-if time was predicable at all previous to the existence of rational and progressive natureswas of very secondary importance.

And then the mode of reckoning by the evening and the morning' would quite harmonise with each day' standing for a cosmogonic era, its evening representing the close of one majestic epoch, and its morning the opening of another. If we might speak in accommodation to the impressions of our limited and progressive nature, such would have been days' bearing some faint relation to the vast cycle of the years of the Most High.' But there appears to us to be a yet stronger aspect of the case: for is it not equally true of every natural day that has elapsed since the completion of the visible creation, as it was of the first which succeeded that completion, that in it God has rested? The work of creation on our globe has never been resumed. The rest on the part of God, in the sense in which it ever was a rest, has run on unbroken. When man was created the pyramid of terrene

being was brought to its apex. God ceased to bring new classes, or even new species, of beings into existence; he ceased from his works,' he entered on the symbolic 'day' of Sabbath rest— a day which may yet have long to run.

6

We are aware of the objection which lies against all this, that the impression which the language is obviously adapted to give is that of natural days, and that it was so understood by all mankind till within the last fifty years. Considered metaphysically, and in relation to the Divine existence, this impression may even be shown to be more just than that of myriads of ages; but considered physically, and with relation to our experience and consciousness, it is otherwise. Let the objection under this aspect be allowed its full force, and let it be weighed against the difficulties which beset other theories. Difficulties always stimulate the search for truth in inquiring minds.

These loose hints are not put forth as findings, but merely as suggestive, and with the hope of stimulating those best qualified for the discussion of the interesting questions the subject involves.

ON THE BAPTISM OF FIRE.

By the Rev. CHARLES HOLE, B.A.

'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire.'
Luke iii. 17; Matt. iii. 11.

I HAVE ventured to trespass upon your attention with a few remarks (the substance of which I have had by me some time) on the above text, discussed in the last Number of your valuable Journal; and presuming, as I do, to entertain objections to the interpretation there offered, I thought the statement of a different view might elicit something further on the subject.

[ocr errors]

The context in Matthew is as follows,- Now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'

The words of the Baptist are referred to in two other places ;

VOL. III.NO. V.

M

once

once by our Lord to his disciples, just before his ascension, alluding evidently to the Pentecostal effusion-John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence' (Acts i.) And again by Peter, in Acts xi., giving an account of his interview with Cornelius and his companions, As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.'

[ocr errors]

Now observe, in these two passages in the Acts, the words of John, and with fire,' are not quoted with the rest of the sentence, although two (Matthew and Luke) out of the four Evangelists record them from the Baptist's preaching. Does not this of itself afford a tolerably fair presumption to set out with, that the 'fire' was not to be identified or interchanged with the Holy Ghost, but that it was to be distinguished from it? I think this is strengthened by the consideration that the baptism of which John spoke had not exclusive reference to the apostles, on whom the fiery symbols of the Spirit fell at Pentecost: for John was addressing not them exclusively, but the multitude at large that was flocking around him; and Peter, too, connected the words of John, as quoted by Jesus, with the descent of the Holy Spirit long after the Pentecostal effusion, and on other persons than the twelve, and without the fiery appearances. If the words in question did refer exclusively to that day, it would certainly be easier than to suppose 'Holy Ghost' and 'fire' to be only an hendiadys.

I humbly submit that by 'fire' is denoted something quite distinct from, and wholly different to, the Holy Ghost; that, in fact, it means the fiery baptism of judgment, and for these reasons.

[ocr errors]

The general tone of the preacher was rebuke and warning. See how he connects the ushering in of the kingdom of Christ, who was set for the fall and rising of many in Israel,' with wrath and judgment- O generation of vipers! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?' And so he goes on, noticing the two classes of godly and ungodly, the reward of the one and the doom of the other-the tree that bringeth forth good fruit (by inference), and that which bringeth not forth good fruit, at whose root the axe is now laid that it may be hewn down, and cast into the fire (Matt. iii. 10)-the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the baptism of fire (v. 11)-the wheat to be gathered into the garner, and the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire (v. 12). It is not a little striking that fire should enter into his expression every time; and I cannot resist the conclusion that judgment is intended in the second instance as well as in the first and third.

What this judgment was of which fire was the symbol, it is

not

« ZurückWeiter »