Изображения страниц

explanations of the facts are at present so dependent on geological theories that they can only be received as tentative explanations. The bones and instruments discovered are, with great confidence, declared to be antediluvian, but the geological explanation of the strata in which they are found may require revision, and it should be borne in mind that we have no certain information as to the number of ages intervening between Adam and the Flood.

Dr. Fox tells us that the first discovery of a fossil bone which attracted sufficient attention to ensure its preservation was made in 1700, at Canstadt, by Louis of Wurtemberg; but this skull was not scientifically examined for more than a century and a quarter afterwards. From 1821 we have a series of discoveries in various countries. Stone implements, human bones in the loess of the Rhine, bones of extinct animals, and of the elephant and rhinoceros, with pottery, and human skulls and bones. Lartet found the important cave of Aurignac in 1852. This cave had not been disturbed. Its entrance had been barred from an unknown age by a flat stone. In it were found the skeletons of seventeen human beings. There was a hearth, and around it were the bones of the cave-bear, the aurock, the horse, and the reindeer. There were also implements of stone and bone, and also shell beads. It was manifestly a burial place in the time of animals which have been long extinct. The facts collected from very different and widely extended fields are the materials of a new science, which should reveal to us the geological period at which man appeared, the climatic and geographical conditions, his contemporaries among animals, his mode of life, his degree and his progress in civilization, his size, his intellectual character, and something even of his religious ideas.

Geologists, in connection with this subject, begin with the glacial period. At its close a rainy season followed. The rivers worked out the valleys. There were great floods. The débris was carried down into the valleys and deposited in what is known as the river gravel. It is in this river gravel that we have the first positive evidence of the presence of man. This pluvial period was followed by a slight return of the glacial, and this by another flood, by which the strata, known as the Loess, was deposited both over Europe and Asia. The animals of that age have left their bones in the gravel beds and in the caves.

It was difficult for a large number of scientific men to believe at first that man was contemporary with the extinct mammals; but it is now clearly established. They are found welded together in stalagmite beds, and lying side by side in undisturbed caves. There are pictures of them sketched by human hands. The palæocosmic men have been divided into different races; the grounds of the division being the skeletons, the character of the implements, the different strata, and the predominance of different species of animals. It is well, however, to keep the fact before us, that less than fifty skulls, and less than a dozen complete skeletons, have been found. The other human bones have been fragments of the skull and bones of the face, of the trunk, and of limbs. The earliest race is called the Canstadt. Dawson describes it thus: “The head long, but low, with projecting eyebrows and receding forehead, a somewhat large brain, high and wide cheek-bones, massive jaws, and receding chin.” It was a savage race. They were about five feet seven high. The second race in Europe is called the Cro Magnon. They immediately followed the Canstadts. At Grenelle the Cro Magnons are found in the strata above the other. The famous Enghis skull (found at Liége in 1833) is Cro Magnon. This race was tall and robust. They had large foreheads and aquiline noses. The brain cavity was larger than that of the average European of to-day. Their artistic ability has excited a good deal of admiration; their engravings of animals show wonderful skill.

[ocr errors]

The geological period in which paleolithic men lived has been determined, but the chronological age has been, and remains, a matter of dispute. The river-gravel man of Europe is certainly not the first man. There are scientific, as well as historic, reasons for believing that man originated in Asia. Quatrefages ventures to regard the existence of pliocene men as an acquired scientific fact. Dawson thinks the human implements and bones in the pliocene and miocene strata are due to land slides. Daniel Wilson affirms that no human fossil remains have been found in any older strata than the later tertiary or quaternary. Dawkins gives strong reasons for believing that human remains cannot be found earlier than the late tertiary.

What is the probable number of years since man appeared in Europe ? The tendency of increased research is toward the reduction of the great ages at first assigned. The paleolithic men were almost certainly antediluvians, and the Canstadts and Cro Magnons may belong to a period within six thousand years of the Flood; but the question is whether the geological facts can be accounted for on such a limitation. There are existing the materials for a revision of the calculations on which geological periods have been fixed, and the revision seems likely to result favourably for the Biblical representations.

[ocr errors]

GOD KIND AND PATERNAL. By PROF. JAMES PITCHER, A.M. (Lutheran Quarterly).—Men divide into three classes in respect of their views of God. (1) Those who say there is no God. (2) Those who admit there is a God, but think or say that He is sometimes unkind, or makes discriminations, arbitrarily favouring or afflicting as He chooses. (3) Those who believe in a God who is infinitely good and kind toward all His creatures. The natural instincts combat the first idea. God is the ideal of power, wisdom, knowledge, goodness. There is somewhere such an ideal. It is not found below man. No one man has ever been the ideal in all the attributes of perfection. There is knowledge beyond man, as every specialist is constantly finding out. If man could attain the omni, he would be God. If he must ever be short of the omni, there is beyond him God. The fact that we cannot see God does not in the least militate against His existence. Could we see Him, He would necessarily not be omnipresent, or otherwise we would be omnipresent, and then we would be God. The same is true of His other attributes. To bring Him down to our senses would undeify Him. The very conception of God must presuppose a being who cannot be apprehended or grasped with our natural senses. We cannot, there. fore, demand for our faith a being who could be fully understood. The perfect is God.

Professor Pitcher then discusses the question, Is God ever unkind ? This must be dealt with in view of the apparently indiscriminate way in which human sorrow is distributed. It is constantly strange to the individual, by whom no meaning or message can be discerned in the lot provided. It must first be duly considered that our knowledge is finite, and may not compass the real mission of our suffering lot. Things which to our limited intelligence may seem unequal, may not be in fact unequal in the light of infinity. “Admitting the existence of a God, we must conclude that He does not know all human conditions, or else knowing, He deliberately chooses to do us wrong, if we would charge Him with bias either for or against any one of His creatures. The first is impossible, as it would argue imperfection in His knowledge ; and the second is equally untenable, as it would argue an imperfection in His moral character.”

God does not give omniscience to the human race; but our inability to fully understand our suffering does not prove God to be unkind. It is infinitely better that


we do not know the future, choose our conditions, or arrange the time for our exit from this world. If uncertainty in such matters is morally better for the race, then some must go in youth, others in childhood, and others in advanced age; and God must not be thought unkind when the uncertainty, which is a good for all, falls as a disability on individuals. God does the best things for the whole, and that may involve that some must carry burdens for the rest.

To treat the question of God's kindness to all His creatures, we must go beyond the confines of this mortal existence. If man is to be an inhabitant of a future world as really and truly as he is of this, then the question of time, when he shall exchange the one for the other, is abstractly a question of but little importance. If we are thoroughly settled in our conviction that there is an endless future of conscious intelligence and companionship, then our “ threescore and ten years” of experience here is but a point of time, or, like the zero of algebra, “a quantity so small that it cannot be measured."

“It is because of the inherent and universal reaching up of the heart of the world after a good, kind, infinite, and adorable God, that this world is an endurable condition at all. Unbelief cannot take God out of the world. As long as there is human life and human sorrow, there will be an infinite God to pity and sustain."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

SATAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. By TALBOT W. CHAMBERS (Presbyterian and Reformed Review).—“The existence of incorporeal spirits, whether good or evil, is purely a doctrine of revelation.” What, then, does revelation in the Old Testament Scriptures say upon the subject ? Mr. Chambers considers that our Saviour and the Apostles distinctly refer to the evil one as a distinct, self-conscious personality. But the references in the Old Testament are few and uncertain.

Four of these references are treated. 1. The one implied in the account of the Fall. But this depends on the view that is taken of the early chapters of Genesis. They may be narrative, they may be poem, they may be a symbolical setting of moral facts and truths; and in this latter case we must consider what they represent rather than what they say. Mr. Chambers regards Genesis as embodying the original tradition, and cannot admit that it is a pictorial representation, designed merely to show that our first parents were subjected to a (moral) trial, and fell under it. the account be pictorial or allegorical, it is hard to find anything else conveyed by it than that the temptation which prevailed over Adam and Eve came from without. But this is the very truth that we learn when the narrative is construed literally." Mr. Chambers does not see that an external influence affecting man's senses and passions need not be that of a personal being. The other views, which represent the connection of Satan with the Serpent as an inference of later dogmatic opinion, and urge that the idea of a distinct personality of evil is inconsistent with the Hebrew idea that Jehovah is the source of all power, are opposed by Mr. Chambers, who vindicates the explanation of Genesis by later Scripture, on the ground that Scripture is a whole; and claims for the Serpent-reference in Genesis direct revelation fitting into the Divine purpose.

The second reference is found in connection with the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi). Admitting the difficulty of translating the word Azazel, Mr. Chambers

urges that as the one goat was for Jehovah, the other must be for Jehovah's great antagonist—the evil spirit. But his position can only be held when, from other directions, it has been proved that Jehovah has one great personal antagonist; and when all other possible solutions of the devotion of the goat to Azazel have been proved worthless. To send a goat into a desert district does not naturally suggest the idea of giving it to an evil spirit. It looks more like a symbolical representation of putting the people's sin away, so that it may be remembered no more.

The third case is the one in which Satan, the adversary, moves David to number Israel (1 Chron. xxi. 1). But Mr. Chambers does not notice that there are two accounts of this incident, and that in the one God is said to do what, in the other, Satan is said to do. With this diversity, no argument for a personal evil spirit can be based on the passage.

The fourth mention of Satan occurs in one of the night visions of Zechariah (Zech. iii. 1-3). The high priest is standing before Jehovah, and Satan, as his adversary, stands on his right hand. But it may fairly be urged that no dogma can be proved by visions, which are accommodations to times and modes, and were representative, not descriptive. Mr. Chambers also claims the Satan of the book of Job as the personal evil spirit, though the book itself represents him as no more than the angel-minister of God's afflictive dispensations.

It may be that sufficient arguments may be found for the existence of Satan as & chief evil spirit; but if Mr. Chambers covers the ground of Old Testament references, it must be admitted that his facts and arguments are altogether insufficient to bear the weight of such a conclusion.

CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS. By CHARLES A. AIKEN (Presbyterian and Reformed Review).—The Church is ill at ease in view of the social situation. Those who believe that for society, as well as for the individual man, “Godliness has promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come,” cannot be content with things as they are. The Church, studying social problems in the light of her own endowments and opportunities, and the world's needs, finds that in relation to them she has three offices, a conservative, a reformatory, and a mediating office, This is the order of the natural relationship, dignity, and importance of these offices.

1. The Conservative Office. The Church is ordained, equipped, and commissioned with special reference to the condition and needs of the great human society. It has a witness to bear and a work to do for God among men with reference to the relations and interests of this life. Then the Church must be conservative of the position assigned her in the world. Her place is appointed for her, and she is to hold it to the end. The Church must be conservative of the instructions given her; and where the letter of her instructions is not at once clear, she must take care not to allow any other spirit to.vitiate or supplant the spirit of the Divine orders under which she alone has warrant to act at all. The Church should conserve high and pure doctrine in regard to such truths and principles as these : “ The reality and efficiency and rightful supremacy of moral and spiritual entities and forces; the reality and the transcendent importance of moral and spiritual interests; the maintenance of a due proportion and a right relation of things material to things spiritual; and therefore, of course, the supremacy of God and things Divine ; the uncompromising assertion of the reality and the authoritative nature of God's revelations of Himself in His Son and in His Word

· the grand principle of the dignity and blessedness of honest earnest toil; the law of increase and conquest in many of the most important departments and relations of life, that losing is finding, that sacrifice is acquisition, that submission is ascendancy, that surrender is triumph.” It is for the Church to reassure herself in respect to these truths, not solely by considering their source and their primary credentials, but also by constantly putting them to the proof which they invite. They demand application.

2. The Reformatory Office of Christianity. Some declare that Christianity is


[ocr errors]

narrow sense.

anti-reformatory, because of its “other-worldliness.” It looks to another life for the correction of the inequalities and other ills of this life. But Christianity, though conservative, is not conservative of all that exists. Its concern is for salvation in no

It includes, with individual rescue, “the transfiguration of society.” Its grapple is with men's estrangement from God, in all the spheres, and all the forms, and all the degrees in which this shows itself. Westcott is quoted as saying, “The supremacy of Christianity extends to all social organizations, to all civil compacts, to all imperial designs, no less than to all doctrines of God and the single soul.” It approaches the reformation of society through the reformation of the individual, instead of relying, as Socialism does, on the artificial, summary, and, if necessary, violent reconstruction of society. It works from within outward. It works as leaven, inter-penetrating, and so transforming, the life, the mass, into which it is introduced.

3. The Mediating Function of Christianity. The Church is no direct arbiter in the strifes of men. But her mediation is always timely, and should contribute much to the solution of the vexed problems of the day. She can speak with a disinterestedness and a conciliating kindness that are all her own; as well as with a firmness and an authority that no other may assume to use. The Christian Church never assumes to speak the only word that is to be spoken on the delicate, complicated, and important problems with which we are now dealing.

Social life, society, in the mediation of the Church, should come to be acknowledged and treated as the ordinance of God. “This divinely ordained society is an organism which becomes more highly and variously complex. Its primary, permanent, and indestructible elements—the family, the State, the Church-providing for home life, civic life, and the religious life of men, in fellowship with God, and with one another, continue to the end, fulfilling their appointed office. The industrial life of men, protected and promoted by less fixed and unchanging institutions, finds shelter, honour, nurture, in its largest expansion and its most diversified development, proving the reality of the dominion conferred on man over lower life and matter, and ministering to varied enjoyments and rich and satisfying usefulness.” “He will be greatest in the kingdom of earth, as he is declared by Christ to be chief in the heavenly kingdom, who serves most and best.” And with this as primary principle, Christianity can enter into all social questions, and materially aid in guidance to right issues.



NOTE ON “Go TOWARD Noon,” Topevov Karà ueonußplav (Acts viii. 26). By PROF. E. NESTLE, Tübingen (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1892, Second Part).—“C. Weizsaecker still translates : Ziehe hin gen Mittag,” showing by the use of gen instead of gegen that he still understands katè ueonußpiav in a geographical, not in its original temporal sense. So, too, all expositors known to me: Meyer (to the last edition), De Wette, Noesgen, Baumgarten, J. D. Michaelis, Erasmus, Chrysostom. Scarcely in any one do I find the question raised whether it may not also mean: “Go toward noon," i.e., shortly before twelve o'clock, and yet in my opinion this is the only right rendering; for

1. Topetov represents you which scarcely occurs in Biblical Greek. In the LXX NO. III.- VOL. 1.—THE THINKER.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »