OCR Text |
Show 'J70 EXPLANATIONS. agency, we readily acknowledge that n1atterr ire so contrived as not to need a divine interposition ir a different manner frnm that in which it had been constantly exerted. And it is most evident that an unre1nitting energy, displayed in such circumstances, greatly exalts our ·idea, of God, instead of depressing it; and therefore, by the way, is so much the 1nore likely to be true." The Edit~burgh reviewer denie'3 that there is any lowe~·ing of the divine character in supposing a system of special exertion. " The law of creation," he says "is the law of the Divine will, and nothing else besides. . . The fiat of the Almighty was sufficient at all times, anri for all the phenomena of the universe, material and 1noral." "It may be true," he continues, " that in the conception of the Divine n1ind there is no difference between the creation of dead matter and its unbending laws, and the creation of organic structures subservient to all the functions of individual life. But such views are, and tnust be, above our comprehension. • . Each organic structure is a miracle as incomprehensible as the creation of a planetary system ; and each structure is a microcosm related to all other world~ within the ken of sense; yet governed by laws and revolving cycles within itself, and implit>d in the very conditions of its existence. What know we of the God of nature (we speak only of natural means,) except throu!?;h the faculties he has given u.s, righ~ly employed on the materials around us? In thts we nse to a conception of material inorganic laws, in beautiful harmony and adjustment; and they suggest to us the conception of infinite power and wisdom. In like manner we rise to a c.onc ption of organic laws-of means ( ofte.n almost purely mechanical as they seem to us, and the1r orCTanic functions well comprehended) adapted to an end, -~od that end only the well-being of a creature endowed with sens tion and volition. Thus we rise to a conce?tion both of Divine power and Divine goodnes3; ~nd we. are constrained to b lieve, not merely that all matenallaw is _nbordinate t Hi' \Vill, but that he has ~l='o (in the way he allow;; u to see Hi work:;) so exhibited the attributeti of His will a to show him "elf to the mind of man as a personal a~d uperintendinc,. God, concentratin3 his will on every atom of the univ rse." The reviewer then censures the laou-ua<re used in my book with respect to the idea of speci~l c~eati ve eftbrt::i. " Does not our C'I!Uthor.'' GENERAL VIEWS OF EDINBURGH REVIEWER. 271 says he, "see that he binds the Divinity (on his dismal rr:ateri~l scheme) in chaiJ?s of i~talis~ 3:s firmly as the liomenc gods were bound In the Imagtnahon of the blind V'ld poet? . . The material system may end in downright atheism; or, jf not, it stops short in the undeviating sequence of second causes. . . Our view·, on the contrary, sees from one end of the scale to the other, the manifestation of a great principle of creation external to matter- of final cause, proved by organic structures created in successive times, and adapted to changing conditions of the earth. Jt therefore gives us a personal and superintending God who careth for his creatures." If such be the best view of the opposite theory which a clever scholar and a man of science of the present day can give, that theory must certainly be regarded as in a verv unpromising condition. He is, we see, for fiats or effort adapted to special conditions. These may be, in the divine conception, identical with natural laws or the system of order; but we cannot comprehend it. It is not given to our faculties to understand a matter so profound. Immediately after, he informs us that we have only these faculties to look to for information on this very subject; and they tell us-what ?-that the world is a system or law! law, however, subordinate to the Divine will. Surely, if our faculties cannot comprehend the point above stated, they must be equally unable to pronounce decisively upon points so abstruse as law being subordinate to will, and the attributes of that will showing us the Deity as a personal and superintending God. Were controversialists entftled thus to assume that the human faculties can pronounce upon one subject in their own way, but are struck powerless on approaching another tending to an opposite conclusion, there would, of course, be an end of all argument. But even that exercise of the faculties which the reviewer admits of for his own puq.1ose by no means goes to the conclusion at which he arrives. He refers but to a small portion of the divine works, when he speaks of " or~anic structures created in s11ccessive times and adapted to the changjng conditions of the earth." He cannot be permitted to assume that he has proved these to have been produced by special fiats or any other mode of special exertion, "in conformity with changed conditions:" on the contrary, his proposition is disproved, fot we hear h" many instances of conditionfi suitable for |