variety, magnificence, and minuteness of evidence, the wisdom, power, and goodness of the divine Maker; showing how, not a bundle of single threads, but an infinitely complicated web of design, like the fine-woven sympathetic network of nerves in the human body, pervades every atom and point of creation, binding each to all; how primeval forests grew and decayed in order that coal might be dug, and steam might be the slave of commerce and civilization; how multitudes beyond all arithmetic of living creatures were born and perished, and earthquakes throbbed, and oceans were dried up, that the chalky downs might pasture the flock or repay the plowshare, and that the rifted marble crags might be the quarry of the mason, the school of the painter and the poet, or the fortress of the oppressed; how the cloud that cools the fainting wayfarer, and closes the pimpernel, is carrying food for a thousand tables; or how the wind that speeds the Mayflower, or wrecks the Armada, that buries an army beneath the sand, or frolics with the child's kite and gently bears the odor of the clematis to the sick girl's bedside, is but obeying the laws given to it by the heat of the sun's rays, and the twofold motion of our globe. Above all, physical science furnishes the most impressive and unanswerable evidence that the All-wise and Almighty Creator works by law, that is, by settled and permanent principles; and that while the inflexible maintenance of his laws often involves a tremendous cost of suffering, yet the laws themselves are stamped with the manifest image and superscription of pure and infinite benevolence. These are the sublimest lessons of science. They are a part of God's revelation of himself to man. But they only illustrate and confirm the teaching of his written word. They add no single new truth to theology-much less furnish a new basis for it. They do but re-set, with the rich choral harmony of innumerable voices "of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," the ancient melody chanted from the beginning in the pages of Scripture. "All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord!" "For ever, O Lord! thy word is settled in heaven. They continue this day according to thine ordinances; for all are thy servants."

Hostile jealousy of the advances of true physical science is the last folly of which

an intelligent and devout theologian would wish to be guilty. Those who believe that the Scriptures of the Old as well as the New Testament are from the author of universal nature, can have no fear that the one book really contradicts the other. Science, however, is not Nature, but only man's reading of nature. It is infallible only within certain very narrow limits. Its very advance implies its imperfection. Jealousy of the progress of true science is one thing; jealousy of the hasty, arrogant, or profane conclusions of scientific men is quite another thing. The first would argue indifference to truth, if not something worse; the second argues only distrust of human weakness. Theologians, if such there be, who shut their eyes to the splendid discoveries of modern science from a narrow, cowardly apprehension of having any of their opinions interfered with, or the authority of any of their dicta impugned, are worthy of censure and contempt. But are they more ridiculous than the theologian who preposterously claims for those discoveries the glory of supplying a new basis for rational theology? Are they more blamable than the Christian divine who ascribes to the inferences of a few geologists, skillful and sagacious but yet fallible cultivators of an infant science, an authority sufficient to contradict the declaration of God's own voice upon Mount Sinai, and not merely to explode the obligation of the Sabbath, but to shed discredit on the whole of the Old Testament Scripture?

The fact is, that men of science are quite as much in danger of narrow-mindedness as are theologians, or any other class of thinkers. It is a disease incident to the human intellect, when fed too exclusively on any one kind of truth. It is all very well to complain, as Professor Powell does, (p. 10,) that "while rational inquiry, learned criticism, and philosophical argument are so largely applied to other departments of knowledge," they are neglected and censured by theologians; or that theological questions are "too commonly pursued" in an thy spirit," and with "ignorant, narrow, and one-sided views;" but dangers of this sort are by no means confined to the defenders of the Bible. The man of science, too, has his own theories and prejudices and fixed ideas. He is in danger of confounding his own opinion with science itself, and of ascribing to the precarious in

unwor

ferences of scientific men the certainty which really belongs only to the facts on which their reasoning is based. And his habitual study of one sort of evidence may render him very ill fitted to feel the stronger force of evidence of a different sort. Thus, when Professor Powell tells us, that "from the irreconcilable contradictions disclosed by geolo. gical discovery, the whole narrative of the six days' creation can not now be regarded by any competently informed person as historical," he leaves out of view altogether the fact that there is evidence on the one side as well as on the other. The blame of the "irreconcilable contradictions" may rest, not with Moses, but with the geologists. It is inconceivable that God should have spoken, either by his voice on Mount Sinai, or by his handwriting on the earth's materials, any thing but truth. It is conceivable, on the one hand, that He did not speak the words we believe him to have spoken, or that we have misunderstood them. But it is equally conceivable, and perhaps, to those who have studied not only the Bible and geology, but the laws of evidence, much more conceivable, that the rocky records, which are the text-book of geology, have not yet been fully deciphered or infallibly interpreted. Historical evidence the evidence of written records, of language, of national tradition, and notorious facts, interwoven inseparably with the customs, genius, character, and entire history of a nation-is quite as real and valuable as the evidence of observation and experiment, which forms the basis of science. That the Reverend Professor of Geometry, or any other man of science, is able to perceive the one kind of evidence, but incapable of appreciating the other, is to be lamented, not for the sake of truth, but for his own. We have evidence, as certain as that on which geology is based, though of a different kind, not that (as Professor Powell says) "it may be true that God spoke all those words on Mount Sinai," but that it is true that he actually did speak them. The ultimate evidence for the truth of the declarations made on Sinai is the same as that for the fossil records which geology claims to have decipered, namely, the testimony of God. Even Professor Powell will hardly venture to maintain that it is more likely that God asserted what is untrue in the one case, than that men have been mistaken in the

other: though, unfortunately, he has allowed himself to make statements capable of such an interpretation. Prejudice, narrow-mindedness, and the absence of the true spirit of science, are just as evidently displayed in rejecting one class of evidence as the other. The materials of science lie in the entire world of observed and recorded fact, including the facts of human history just as much as the facts of the earth's surface. A science of history, indeed, there can not be, because the facts are always singular, and never recur; but if any established fact in history be contradicted by the deductions of science, the plain inference is, not that the fact is unreal, but that the premises were insufficient, or the demonstration incorrect.

The opposition between modern science and received theology, which may be regarded as the fundamental idea of the volume before us, is urged, as we have already indicated, with special reference to a single case. Science is represented by geology, and "Puritan" theology by the observance of the Sabbath. Enmity to the Sabbath appears so strongly influential in the writer's mind, that one is almost led to suppose it the real motive of the entire volume. The following sentences indicate the temper in which Professor Powell speaks of the most beautiful of Old Testament institutions, that golden link between earth and heaven, that simplest yet mightiest device for maintaining spiritual religion in the world, of which it may well be said that if its observance be a superstition, superstition has done more for mankind than" modern enlightenment" can do; and that if Christianity has not preserved and sanctioned it, then in this one instance Christianity has retrograded, not advanced, in comparison with Judaism:

"Men's minds were roused into vehement alarm some years ago at attempts to revive some points of ecclesiastical ceremonial, while at present public opinion is hardly awakened to the far greater practical enormities of the inVasions of Puritanical intolerance, concentrated in the enforcement of Sabbatism. If any theological topic can be said to come home directly to the daily life of every man, it is surely the question of this observance, and of the alleged obligations on which it is maintained. Its practical influence is constantly interfering with the pursuits, enjoyments, and even domestic and personal freedom of all, and especially the working classes. Yet few are found willing to emancipate themselves or others from that influence, even where they fully acknowledge the unsoundness of its foundation. Those who are

character, and the very foundations of religious faith and life. We fully agree with the Reverend Professor, that the best way to get rid of the Sabbath is to get rid of the Old Testament. But we maintain that you can not get rid of the Old Testament without cutting away the very roots of the New, and charging the writers of it with an amount of error fatal to the moral value and decisive authority of their teaching.

Professor Powell prepares the way, in his second Essay, for the main assault on the Old Testament, by a dissertation " "On the application and misapplication of Scripture." This is written in the loftiest style of conscious intellectual superiority and oracular dogmatism. One can not help reflecting, with mingled envy and humility, on the sublime sensations that must be experienced at that serene altitude from which the Savilian Professor surveys sects and systems, compassionates the "confused and unsatisfactory views commonly prevalent," and imparts so much of his superior light as is safe for the weak optics of his readers; for it is evident, from the note at the end of §2 of his third Essay, that he entertains eso teric views much more advanced than those which he openly avows and maintains. We have, first, a historical outline of the views entertained at various periods respecting "the value assigned to the collection of multifarious records united in the volume of the Bible." It would seem natural to begin with the Apostolic Church, and inquire what was the value which the apostles themselves assigned to their own writings, and what their relation to the faith of individual believers. This point is passed over in utter silence, and we have merely a brief reference to the appeal to Scripture in those dark ages in which the written word had become entirely subordinate to the traditions of the Church. At the Reformation, "the rising tendency of the age for the cultivation of literature might have been expected to find a congenial resource in the freer study of the Bible. But the spirit of Protestantism was, in fact, for the most part, of a narrower character." The appeal to Scripture was "corrupted into literalism." "Extreme views of inspiration" were introduced, in order to 66 supply the loss of the comfortable certainty and repose which the minds and consciences of men had been

accustomed to enjoy in the bosom of an infallible Church." Rational interpretation was discarded.

"To think of connection with the context, or of any other considerations which might limit or elucidate the meaning, was unnecessary, and, in fact, little less than impious. If a duty was to be enforced, a precept any where extracted from the sacred writings was held equally applicable to all persons, under all circumstances, and in all ages. Thus, with a numerous section of the Protestant communities, a mere literal adherence to the text of the Bible constituted as complete a spiritual slavery as any which had been imposed by the dictation of a domineering priesthood and an infallible church; they did but transfer the claims of oracular authority from the priest to the text, or rather to their preacher's interpretation of it. Such was the first principle and foundation of the system which may be best generally designated by the name of Puritanism, which modern Christianity on the one side as Romanhas exerted as pernicious an influence over ism on the other. In this mode of theologizing, we may perhaps trace the powerful reaction of the spirit of Biblical inquiry, just emancipated from the tyranny of ecclesiastical dictation, and not as yet exercised in the more comprehensive thus recoiling into a scarcely less servile slavery and rational principles of interpretation, and to the mere letter of the Bible-that absolute worship of the text which has been fitly termed Bibliolatry.' "-Pp. 31, 32.

A satirical description, part truth, part caricature, is then given, of that system of interpretation by which scattered and isolated texts of Scripture may be made to mean almost any thing, and adduced in support of any doctrine. Distinguishing this abuse of Scripture and common-sense by the name of "the literal principle," Mr. Powell finds the most salient instance of its consequences in Calvinism. "The spirit of the literal application of all passages of Scripture, without discrimination, has, perhaps, never been displayed so as more fully to evince its peculiar character and tendency, than in the conception and support of the Calvinistic theory." With curious inconsistency, he adds, that this theory, in principle and spirit, was extensively adopted in earlier times, and may be traced up to Augustine, if not earlier-eleven hundred years before the reformers replaced the infallibility of Rome by the "principle of literalism." Well may he term that a "remarkable system," which thus flourished and bore fruit a thousand years before the seed of it was sown!

Yet, he adds, with the admirable logic which has already demanded our acknowledgment:

"That principle once admitted, the whole predestinarian system even in its utmost rigor, and with all its momentous and terrific consequences, stands forth in a kind of awful grandeur perfectly consistent with itself in all points, and unassailable unless on a totally different ground of attack. Adopting this literal view, the Reformer, with the text of the Bible as his only guide, was directly conducted to the one principle of arbitrary grace, as the clue to the whole scheme of the Divine counsels."-P. 44.

Then follows a bitterly scornful outline of the Calvinistic system, as the writer understands it; and he declares not only Calvinism, but the grossest Antinomianism, to be "unassailable so long as the first principle of Scripture literalism is admitted." It is not quite easy to be sure what we are to understand by this "literalism." Sometimes the term seems employed so as to include the absolute authority and the plain meaning of Scripture-things widely distinct from the "mere letter," or the capricious interpretation of isolated texts. This last abuse will not be defended by any theologian whose opinion is worth considering, nor will any one care to deny that it has extensively and mischievously prevailed. Professor Powell's severest remarks on this head are as just as they are superfluous. Not only Calvinism, but doctrinal systems of the most various kinds, have often been defended by means of an exegesis that outraged not only critical sobriety, but common-sense. What then? Is a system responsible for the weakness of its advocates? Must it be destitute of foundation, or of real strength, because its defense is conducted on false principles? Nothing, we take leave to say, can be more misleading or injurious than to represent a man's errors and inconsistencies as being the leading principles of his conduct and the key to his character. Neither the Reformation, nor Calvinism, nor Puritanism, is opposed, in its fundamental principles, to such "rational interpretation" as Professor Powell has described, (page 51,) or depends upon "the principle of a prostration of the understanding before the letter of the Bible, and an indiscriminate application of detached texts from all parts of Scrip

66

ture." (Page 49.) When the Reformers substituted their confessions of faith for the free appeal to the word of God, and sometimes claimed for them an authority equal in kind and degree to that claimed by the Papal Church itself for its dogmas, they were forsaking, not following out, their fundamental principle. But no one the whole sense of Scripture, and not the ever labored more honestly to lay hold of mere letter" alone, than the man who taught the Bible to speak for itself in his own German mother-tongue. No man ever toiled more patiently and successfully to pierce below the surface, and expound with the most judicious regard to the context, and the most faithful use of the critical learning of his day, the real spirit and meaning of Scripture, than the prince of commentators, the Reformer of Geneva. The system which goes by his name, whether it be true or erroneous, is, at all events, based not upon a compilation of detached texts, but upon broad principles, pervading the entire teaching of both dispensations. It has often been defended, no doubt, by very bad exegesis, but it is essentially a system of theological philosophy, not of textual interpretation. As to Puritanism, the name denotes a religious spirit rather than a doctrinal system. Reverence for God's written word forms, no doubt, a predominant element in this spirit; but this very reverence, properly instructed, will shrink from turning the sacred volume into a mere album of mottoes and arguments; will refuse to receive as the food of its spiritual life any mere hash of mangled and mutilated texts, and will prefer to gather the bread of life where it grows, and not rest content with any thing else than the full and true meaning of the inspired page. So far, then, Mr. Powell is attacking what no one defends. If "literalism" mean the practice of putting any sense on Scripture which the mere words of any text, isolated from the connection, will bear, regardless of the canons of "rational interpretation," the less that Calvinists, Puritans, or any other Christians who reverence God's word, have to do with literalism the better. Unfortunately, this is not all that Professor Powell means. As we read on we find that what his argument demands the rejection of, is not the perversion of Scripture, but the truth and authority of Scripture. "Rational interpretation" includes, it appears, not the mere