Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

tracing the legitimate course and order of our convictions from the elements of our knowledge of the natural world, through the inferences of order and adjustment, up to that of design and intelligence, and from the universality and unity of design up to the unity of designing intelligence, from the immensity of its plan to the infinite power of its author; from those beneficial arrangements which we can recognise, to his Providence; from the inexpressible beauty and harmony of natural order, to the perfections of the great Source of it.

It seems, in fact, that to a confusion of views between the admission of the existence of certain impressions and feelings in our minds, and the process of investigating them on the grounds of exact argument and evidence, may be traced many of the singular speculations occasionally obtruded on the world as profound metaphysico-theological reasoning. Many writers on these subjects seem not to keep steadily in view which course they desire to follow, whether to appeal to feelings or to analyze them.

Rational Evidences of Faith.-Various Opinions considered.

It is of course perfectly notorious that the great mass of those who adopt even the purest form of faith, adopt it without any rational examination of evidence, whether of natural or revealed truth. The appeal to natural impressions, however just in

itself, throws no light whatever on the real question at issue, which concerns not what men are led to believe, but the rational evidence on which they believe it. Not what are the natural impressions, but how and why they should be impressed. And this more especially with reference to the analysis of our own convictions, and the searching inquiry which we ought to make into the grounds of our own belief, with all the light and information we possess, in order that, on the most vitally important of all subjects, these convictions should be guarded by none but the most secure arguments, and repose on none but the most unassailable foundations.

But the majority of those who decry this kind of inquiry, do so upon a more specific ground of faith. They, in fact, discard all idea of reasoning upon the subject. They look to a peculiar kind of impression upon the soul, neither to be reasoned upon nor resisted. In this their whole apprehension of the Deity is made to consist. Thus all philosophical proof is useless, and even dangerous; all exercise of the intellect on such a subject is at variance with the demands of a true faith. With those who entertain such persuasions, it is of course vain to dispute. Discarding reason, they are insensible to fallacies in argument. But should any be disposed to pause before wholly delivering themselves up to such views, they might consent to be reminded, even upon an authority which they must peculiarly

admit, that "he who cometh to God must believe that He is, and that IIe is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."

Some, again, in an elevated spirit of religious devotion, have contended that none but the true Christian can derive any profitable evidences of the Divinity from the contemplation of his works; that he alone whose soul is enlightened, purified, and elevated to God by grace, is able to perceive or to enjoy the manifestations of his existence and presence in nature. Thus they do not altogether condemn the study of nature; but they maintain, that when the believer turns his thoughts to the proofs of the Divine perfections in his visible works, it is solely in obedience to the exhortations of Scripture; and valuable only as an exercise of the spirit of humble adoration inculcated in the Bible; and to be carried on with an entire submission to the language of Scripture relative to physical subjectst. But though it is undoubtedly true, that the spirit of Christianity does thus elevate contemplations which would otherwise be restricted to the level of mere conclusions of the understanding, and render practically fruitful what would otherwise be the barren speculations of reason; though a pure faith alone can add piety to philosophy, and irradiate with joy and hope the contemplation of God in nature; yet it is, at the same time, equally true and necessary

[blocks in formation]

that those conclusions in the first instance be separately attained; that those speculations, however barren in themselves, be first established on their own ground; that there must first be a philosophy to afford the external evidences of faith; and an independent investigation of nature to furnish the means of tracing those indications of the Deity*.

Opinions of this kind often take their rise in a zeal for certain particular views of religion, considered to be inculcated by revelation; but this with some diversity of principle.

One party, to exalt the work of grace and the teaching of inspiration, would reject all conclusions of reason; and in accordance with the peculiar scheme of spiritual illumination which they deduce from the Bible, would annihilate the carnal evidence of depraved sense to vindicate the majesty of Divine truth.

Another school, to uphold certain theories for which they claim the exclusive title of rational interpretations of Scripture, on quite opposite grounds, would keep natural theology out of sight, in order to make revelation little else than a declaration of the same truths.

Both parties seek to uphold the credit of Scripture according to the peculiar views they take of it. The one by rejecting natural reason to exalt faith; the other by making reason everything, but explaining away revelation into an identity with itf.

* See Note M. + See Dr. Turton's Natural Theology, p. 207.

[ocr errors]

To these may be added another school, to whose views we may here briefly advert.

That system of theology which reduces all belief into an act of obedience to the authority of the Church, when thoroughly and consistently followed out to its logical consequences, stands within itself complete and unassailable. Its advocates, therefore, can fearlessly afford to give full scope to physical investigation. Raised far above all appeal to reason, and not condescending to rest its claims on argument, its infallibility cannot be in the slightest degree impaired by any philosophical inquiries, even if they should terminate in conclusions the most hostile to the so-called evidences of revelation.

A system founded on such principles cannot be susceptible of any hostility towards scientific pursuits. And as they confessedly do, to a great extent, afford support to natural theology, they may even be made useful auxiliaries; they may afford occupation to the restless activity of the human mind, and thus withdraw men from inquiries of a more dangerous nature into things spiritual; besides being susceptible of indirect application in the illustration of religious truths.

Such would be the state of the case where these principles were fairly followed out. Such, accordingly, is very much the feeling and practice in the Roman Catholic Church.

For some exemplification of this see the Dublin Review, No. IV., and an able article in No. VI., where the wonders of science

« EdellinenJatka »