the lights of the church and the light of science-第2部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



on　this　theory；　have　not　merely　accepted　flimsy　fictions　for

solid　truths；　but　have　built　the　very　foundations　of　Christian

dogma　upon　legendary　quicksands？



But　these　may　be　said　to　be　merely　the　carpings　of　that　carnal

reason　which　the　profane　call　common　sense；　I　hasten；　therefore；

to　bring　up　the　forces　of　unimpeachable　ecclesiastical　authority

in　support　of　my　position。　In　a　sermon　preached　last　December；

in　St。　Paul's　Cathedral；　Canon　Liddon　declares：





For　Christians　it　will　be　enough　to　know　that　our　Lord　Jesus

Christ　set　the　seal　of　His　infallible　sanction　on　the　whole　of

the　Old　Testament。　He　found　the　Hebrew　canon　as　we　have　it　in

our　hands　to…day；　and　He　treated　it　as　an　authority　which　was

above　discussion。　Nay　more：　He　went　out　of　His　wayif　we　may

reverently　speak　thusto　sanction　not　a　few　portions　of　it

which　modern　scepticism　rejects。　When　He　would　warn　His　hearers

against　the　dangers　of　spiritual　relapse；　He　bids　them　remember

〃Lot's　wife。〃　When　He　would　point　out　how　worldly　engagements

may　blind　the　soul　to　a　coming　judgment；　He　reminds　them　how　men

ate；　and　drank；　and　married；　and　were　given　in　marriage；　until

the　day　that　Noah　entered　into　the　ark；　and　the　Flood　came　and

destroyed　them　all。　If　He　would　put　His　finger　on　a　fact　in

past　Jewish　history　which；　by　its　admitted　reality；　would

warrant　belief　in　His　own　coming　Resurrection；　He　points　to

Jonah's　being　three　days　and　three　nights　in　the　whale's　belly

（p。　23）。〃





The　preacher　proceeds　to　brush　aside　the　commonI　had　almost

said　vulgarapologetic　pretext　that　Jesus　was　using　ad

hominem　arguments；　or　〃accommodating〃　his　better　knowledge

to　popular　ignorance；　as　well　as　to　point　out　the

inadmissibility　of　the　other　alternative；　that　he　shared　the

popular　ignorance。　And　to　those　who　hold　the　latter　view　sarcasm

is　dealt　out　with　no　niggard　hand。





But　they　will　find　it　difficult　to　persuade　mankind　that；　if　He

could　be　mistaken　on　a　matter　of　such　strictly　religious

importance　as　the　value　of　the　sacred　literature　of　His

countrymen；　He　can　be　safely　trusted　about　anything　else。　The

trustworthiness　of　the　Old　Testament　is；　in　fact；　inseparable

from　the　trustworthiness　of　our　Lord　Jesus　Christ；　and　if　we

believe　that　He　is　the　true　Light　of　the　world；　we　shall　close

our　ears　against　suggestions　impairing　the　credit　of　those

Jewish　Scriptures　which　have　received　the　stamp　of　His　Divine

authority〃　（p。　25）。





Moreover；　I　learn　from　the　public　journals　that　a　brilliant　and

sharply…cut　view　of　orthodoxy；　of　like　hue　and　pattern；　was　only

the　other　day　exhibited　in　that　great　theological　kaleidoscope；

the　pulpit　of　St。　Mary's；　recalling　the　time　so　long　passed　by；

when　a　Bampton　lecturer；　in　the　same　place；　performed　the

unusual　feat　of　leaving　the　faith　of　old…fashioned

Christians　undisturbed。



Yet　many　things　have　happened　in　the　intervening　thirty…one

years。　The　Bampton　lecturer　of　1859　had　to　grapple　only　with　the

infant　Hercules　of　historical　criticism；　and　he　is　now　a　full…

grown　athlete；　bearing　on　his　shoulders　the　spoils　of　all　the

lions　that　have　stood　in　his　path。　Surely　a　martyr's　courage；　as

well　as　a　martyr's　faith；　is　needed　by　any　one　who；　at　this

time；　is　prepared　to　stand　by　the　following　plea　for　the

veracity　of　the　Pentateuch：





Adam；　according　to　the　Hebrew　original；　was　for　243　years

contemporary　with　Methuselah；　who　conversed　for　a　hundred　years

with　Shem。　Shem　was　for　fifty　years　contemporary　with　Jacob；　who

probably　saw　Jochebed；　Moses's　mother。　Thus；　Moses　might　by　oral

tradition　have　obtained　the　history　of　Abraham；　and　even　of　the

Deluge；　at　third　hand；　and　that　of　the　Temptation　and　the　Fall

at　fifth　hand。　。。。



If　it　be　grantedas　it　seems　to　bethat　the　great　and　stirring

events　in　a　nation's　life　will；　under　ordinary　circumstances；　be

remembered　（apart　from　all　written　memorials）　for　the　space　of

150　years；　being　handed　down　through　five　generations；　it　must

be　allowed　（even　on　more　human　grounds）　that　the　account　which

Moses　gives　of　the　Temptation　and　the　Fall　is　to　be　depended

upon；　if　it　passed　through　no　more　than　four　hands　between　him

and　Adam。





If　〃the　trustworthiness　of　our　Lord　Jesus　Christ〃　is　to　stand　or

fall　with　the　belief　in　the　sudden　transmutation　of　the　chemical

components　of　a　woman's　body　into　sodium　chloride；　or　on　the

〃admitted　reality〃　of　Jonah's　ejection；　safe　and　sound；　on　the

shores　of　the　Levant；　after　three　days'　sea…journey　in　the

stomach　of　a　gigantic　marine　animal；　what　possible　pretext　can

there　be　for　even　hinting　a　doubt　as　to　the　precise　truth　of　the

longevity　attributed　to　the　Patriarchs？　Who　that　has　swallowed

the　camel　of　Jonah's　journey　will　be　guilty　of　the　affectation

of　straining　at　such　a　historical　gnatnay；　midgeas　the

supposition　that　the　mother　of　Moses　was　told　the　story　of　the

Flood　by　Jacob；　who　had　it　straight　from　Shem；　who　was　on

friendly　terms　with　Methuselah；　who　knew　Adam　quite　well？



Yet；　by　the　strange　irony　of　things；　the　illustrious　brother　of

the　divine　who　propounded　this　remarkable　theory；　has　been　the

guide　and　foremost　worker　of　that　band　of　investigators　of　the

records　of　Assyria　and　of　Babylonia；　who　have　opened　to　our

view；　not　merely　a　new　chapter；　but　a　new　volume　of　primeval

history；　relating　to　the　very　people　who　have　the　most　numerous

points　of　contact　with　the　life　of　the　ancient　Hebrews。

Now；　whatever　imperfections　may　yet　obscure　the　full　value　of

the　Mesopotamian　records；　everything　that　has　been　clearly

ascertained　tends　to　the　conclusion　that　the　assignment　of　no

more　than　4000　years　to　the　period　between　the　time　of　the

origin　of　mankind　and　that　of　Augustus　Caesar；　is　wholly

inadmissible。　Therefore　the　Biblical　chronology；　which　Canon

Rawlinson　trusted　so　implicitly　in　1859；　is　relegated　by　all

serious　critics　to　the　domain　of　fable。



But　if　scientific　method；　operating　in　the　region　of　history；　of

philology；　of　archaeology；　in　the　course　of　the　last　thirty　or

forty　years；　has　become　thus　formidable　to　the　theological

dogmatist；　what　may　not　be　said　about　scientific　method　working

in　the　province　of　physical　science？　For；　if　it　be　true　that　the

Canonical　Scriptures　have　innumerable　points　of　contact　with

civil　history；　it　is　no　less　true　that　they　have　almost　as　many

with　natural　history；　and　their　accuracy　is　put　to　the　test　as

severely　by　the　latter　as　by　the　former。　The　origin　of　the

present　state　of　the　heavens　and　the　earth　is　a　problem　which

lies　strictly　within　the　province　of　physical　science；　so　is

that　of　the　origin　of　man　among　living　things；　so　is　that　of　the

physical　changes　which　the　earth　has　undergone　since　the　origin

of　man；　so　is　that　of　the　origin　of　the　various　races　and

nations　of　men；　with　all　their　varieties　of　language　and

physical　conformation。　Whether　the　earth　moves　round　the　sun　or

the　contrary；　whether　the　bodily　and　mental　diseases　of　men　and

animals　are　caused　by　evil　spirits　or　not；　whether　there　is　such

an　agency　as　witchcraft　or　notall　these　are　purely　scientific

questions；　and　to　all　of　them　the　Canonical　Scriptures　profess

to　give　true　answers。　And　though　nothing　is　more　common　than　the

assumption　that　these　books　come　into　conflict　only　with　the

speculative　part　of　modern　physical　science；　no　assumption　can

have　less　foundation。



The　antagonism　between　natural　knowledge　and　the　Pentateuch

would　be　as　great　if　the　speculations　of　our　time　had　never　been

heard　of。　It　arises　out　of　contradiction　upon　matters　of　fact。

The　books　of　ecclesiastical　authority　declare　that　certain

events　happened　in　a　certain　fashion；　the　books　of　scientific

authority　say　they　did　not。　As　it　seems　that　this　unquestionable

truth　has　not　yet　penetrated　among　many　of　those　who　speak　and

write　on　these　subjects；　it　may　be　useful　to　give　a　full

illustration　of　it。　And　for　that　purpose　I　propose　to　deal；　at

some　length；　with　the　narrative　of　the　Noachian　Deluge　given

in　Genesis。





The　Bampton　lecturer　in　1859；　and　the　Canon　of　St。　Paul's　in

1890；　are　in　full　agreement　that　this　history　is　true；　in　the

sense　in　which　I　have　defined　historical　truth。　The　former　is　of

opinion　that　the　account　attributed　to　Berosus　records

a　tradition





not　drawn　from　the　Hebrew　record；　much　less　the　foundation　of

that　record；　yet　coinciding　with　it　in　the　most　remarkable　way。

The　Babylonian　version　is　tricked　out　with　a　few　extravagances；

as　the　monstrous　size　of　the　vessel　and　the　translation　of

Xisuthros；　but　otherwise　it　is　the　Hebrew　history　down　to　its

minutiae。　（p。　64）。





Moreover；　correcting　Niebuhr；　the　Bampton　lecturer　points　out

that　the　narrative　of　Berosus　implies　the　universality　of

the　Flood。





It　is　plain　that　the　waters　are　represented　as　prevailing　above

the　tops　of　the　loftiest　mountains　in　Armeniaa　height　which

must　have　been　seen　to　involve　the　submersion　of　all　the

countries　with　which　the　Babylonians　were　acquainted　（p。　66）。





I　may　remark；　in　passing；　that　many　people　think　the　size　of

Noah's　ark　〃monstrous；〃　considering　the　probable　state　of　the

art　of　shipbuilding　only　1600　years　after　the　origin　of　man；

while　others　are　so　unreasonable　as　to　inquire　why　the

translation　of　Enoch　is　less　an　〃extravagance〃　than　that　of

Xisuthros。　It　is　more　important；　however；　to　note　that　the

Universality　of　the　Deluge　is　recognised；　not　merely　as　a　part

of　the　story；　but　as　a　necessary　consequence　of　some　of　its

details。　The　latest　exponent　of　Anglican　orthodoxy；　as　we　have

seen；　insists　upon　the　accuracy　of　the　Pentateuchal　history　of

the　Flood　in　a　still　more　forcible　manner。　It　is　cited　as　one　of

those　very　narratives　to　which　the　authority　of　the　Founder　of

Christianity　is　pledged；　and　u