1846.] Natural Theology. 241 comparison, in many places, we have found that Mr. Metcalfe, the English translator, has executed his task with accuracy and faithfulness. The external arrangement of the different parts of the work he has very skilfully changed. In the original, the Scenes are "separated by a profound gulf of Notes and Excursus, which is quite sufficient to drown the interest of the tale." This difficulty has been remedied by arranging the Scenes in succession, by setting the Notes in their several places at the foot of the pages in the narrative, and throwing together the Excursus in the form of an appendix. We may be allowed to say, however, that the book would have gained yet more in the English dress, if the author had taken some liberties with the style of the original, and broken up the many long and involved German sentences. With all their varied merits, the Germans have sadly neglected the cultivation of rhetorical excellence. On the other hand, it seems to us, that the translator has resorted too freely to the process of "lopping," and has left out happy references, and entirely omitted the discussion of matters of considerable importance. We must find fault too, with the numberless abbreviated allusions, which are copied unexplained, into the English work. With the exception of the learned Germans, it is not to be supposed that all scholars are familiar with every author that ever wrote in Greek or Latin, and that an arbitrary abbreviation made of two or three letters, and sometimes of a single letter is enough to suggest at once the name of the writer and of the work, to which reference is made. ARTICLE II. NATURAL THEOLOGY. Furnished by a Society of Clergy men. It has long been our conviction, that Natural Theology deserves far more attention than it has received from modern divines. In a preceding number of this Review, we expressed our regret that so noble a department of study should have fallen in 1 See an Article on the State of Theological Science and Education in our VOL. III. No. 10. 22 to such unmerited neglect. It seems to be regarded by many as, at best, a convenient preparative for sacred science, rather than as an enlarged part of the science itself. By others it is regarded as a preliminary study which may be dispensed with, often without loss, sometimes with positive gain. Several of our modern systems of divinity treat this department in a cursory and illogical manner, and some of them overlook it entirely. Dwight has said but little which Charnock had not said before him. Hill, Dick, Knapp, Storr and Flatt, have done very much less in this branch of their science, than had been accomplished by their predecessors. German theology, as a whole, is deficient in this department. Even the systems of German ethics are treatises on biblical theology, rather than on the dictates of our moral sense. We have, indeed, a few recent works on Natural Religion which claim a respectful notice. The Bridgewater Treatises, particularly those of Whewell, Bell, Kidd, Kirby, and Chalmers, are of great value, chiefly however as affording a collection of materials for the formation of a theological system, rather than as of themselves exhibiting such a system in its true proportions. The more extended treatise of Chalmers on Natural Theology is rich in suggestive remark, and affords honorable proof of the comprehensiveness of its author's intellect, the accuracy of his observations, and the extent of his scientific inquiries. The literary world have been too much astonished at the exuberance of Dr. Chalmers' fancy, for a proper appreciation Country, in the Bib. Sac. and Theol. Review, Vol. I. pp. 743, 744. We stated in that Article, that in examining candidates for license to preach the Gospel, we have found but few individuals who could readily prove the unity of God, or who were sure that a plurality of deities can be disproved by arguments from nature alone; but few who could promptly reply to the philosophical objections by which such arguments may be met; or who could establish and vindicate the benevolence of the Deity on principles of reason; or who had formed settled opinions, and could give the reasons for their opinions on the foundation of virtue, on the nature of the moral sense, and on other fundamental topics in this branch of theology; but few, therefore, who were prepared to contend with atheists and infidels, on principles of reasoning, which must be admitted by even the enemies of the inspired volume. 2 It is deficient not so much in the number, as in the quality of its treatises on Natural Theology. Some of the German Encylopaediasts give us the names of more than a hundred different modern treatises on the existence of God, and also more than a hundred on the immortality of the soul-See the Encyclopaedias of Hagenbach and Pelt. Compare Brettschneider's Entwickelung §58 and § 132. Hase's Hutterus Redivivus, § 52-§ 68, and § 129. Hahn's Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens § 29-50, and § 141—§ 144. 1846.] Works on Natural Theology. 243 of his philosophical acumen. We think, however, that he has not given so full an analysis as he should have given, of those fundamental principles which must be reasoned upon in Natural Theology, as well as in every other science; and from a failure to recognize these laws of belief, he has formed too low an opinion of the subject on which he so eloquently discourses. He is satisfied with saying, that "the theology of nature sheds powerful light on the being of a God," that “ even from its unaided demon. strations we can reach a considerable degree of probability, both for his moral and natural attributes." He declares, however, that "Natural Theology is quite overrated by those who would represent it as the foundation of the edifice" of the Christian religion; that "it is not the foundation, but rather the taper by which we must grope our way to the edifice;" that it is not so much a teacher of religious truth, as an "inquirer or rather a prompter to inquiry" respecting it. We think that many of Dr. Chalmers' views of the religion of nature are less scientific and correct than those of Lord Brougham, and that his Lordship's Discourse of Natural Theology has opened a pathway of investigation which our divines will, sooner or later, be persuaded to follow. The compressed energy of many parts of that Discourse demand our highest praise. We could also speak in commendatory terms of some other extended treatises, and a few minor essays in this department; but the great majority of modern contributions to Natural Theology do not appear to be the results of a thoroughly logical and independent investigation. Some of them are improvements upon the Natural Theology of Paley, as this work was an advance upon the productions of Ray and Derham. We still need an original, a systematic analysis of the arguments and principles which lie scattered throughout the practical treatises which have been mentioned. We should rejoice to see a republication of Berkeley's Minute Philosopher, of Dr. Samuel Clarke's celebrated Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, and of the Controversial Papers which were exchanged between Clarke and Leibnitz. We believe that the mind of our theological public would be occupied more profitably by these discussions, than by such frequent controversies as we now have, on the comparative advantages of the surplice and the black gown, of kneeling with the face directed away from, or towards the congregation. All the departments, whether more or less extensive, of theological study, should be cultivated with system, and with a zeal proportioned to their value. In the science of Medicine almost every class of phenomena is made the topic of well arranged discussion; and volume follows volume on some of the least important branches of Therapeutics and Surgery. The science of law is elucidated in its minute divisions by learned digests and abstract argument, so that amid the apparent chaos of precedents and statutes, a counsellor perceives a beautiful, strongly compacted system. Why, then, need theologians be left to complain, that the science which ought to be from its simplicity more complete than any other, is left ill-shapen and crude? Why do we not perceive a more vigorous effort of our divines to introduce a method and logical precision into that department of truth, which is now assaulted more vigorously than ever by Hegelians, sceptics, materialists, and even by two distinct and highly respectable schools of Christian believers? The fact that this branch of theology is thus assailed by recent scholars, that abundant materials for its advancement have been accumulated in the process of philosophical discovery, and that nearly all other branches of science are in a flourishing condition, should invite us to inquire, whether we need be so dilatory as we have been, in our theological progress, and especially in our attempts to systematize the principles of the religion of nature. It were easy to indicate several causes of the prevailing indifference to Natural Theology among those men, who ought to be its defenders. Some imagine that Revelation is depreciated, just in proportion as the volume of nature is esteemed. "They argue," says Lord Brougham,1 "as if the two systems were ri vals, and whatever credit the one gained, were so much lost to the other." But the truth is, that an esteem for Natural Religion heightens our reverence for the Bible, just as a respect for the Bible increases the regard of a healthy mind for the teachings of nature. "Whoever," says Bishop Berkeley,2 "thinks highly of the one can never with any consistency think meanly of the other." Many are inimical to Natural Theology, because they regard it as essentially philosophical, and thus at variance with the humble spirit which is fostered by the revealed word. Their theory is, that when a theologian attentively considers the heavens, the work of the divine fingers; the moon and the stars which God has ordained,' then he ceases to exclaim, 'What is man that Jehovah is mindful of him, and the son of man that God visiteth him.'3 Others allow themselves to be regardless of 1 Discourse of Nat. Theol. Part I. Sec. III. ? Minute Philosopher, Dial. V. 3 Psalm 8: 3, 4. 1846.] Neglect of Natural Theology. 245 Natural Theology, because they deem its pretended instructions to be mere conjectures, or at the best, obscure and ambiguous hints. We hear so much of the weakness of human reason, and the darkness of human speculations, and the folly of him who puts any trust in his inferences from nature, that we sometimes tremble, lest men refuse to believe anything and adopt the language of Philo in Hume's remarkable Dialogues. "Let us become thoroughly sensible," he says,1" of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of human reason. Let us duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even in subjects of common life and practice. Let the errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us; the insuperable difficulties which attend first principles in all systems; the contradictions which adhere to the very ideas of matter, cause and effect, extension, space, time, motion, and in a word quantity of all kinds, the object of the only science that can fairly pretend to any certainty or evidence. When these topics are displayed in their full light, as they are by some philosophers and almost all divines, who can retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to pay any regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so abstruse, so remote from common life and experience [as are the points of theology]? When the coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended, when these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory, with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?" The use which infidels have made of such concessions is well known. But there are many who will not allow the force of these skeptical reasonings, and yet are neglectful of Natural Religion, because they judge it to be simply needless. While the revealed word is regarded as its "own best witness," sufficient of itself, without any anterior proof of our moral relations, to establish all its claims to our homage, why, it is asked, should we postpone our enjoyment of its clear light, for the sake of groping our way amid the obscurities of nature, feeling after God, if haply we may find him. But this, and many other objections to the cultivation of Natural Theology proceed, we think, from a confused view of the whole system of sacred science; of its 'See Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Part I. p. 19. 2d London edition. |