Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

256

CHAPTER VII.

ENDLESS CONTRADICTIONS AND VARIATIONS OF
MODERN INFIDELITY.

SECTION I.

By Infidelity in the present case, and in all instances where the word is accurately used, is meant not simply a denial of the inspiration and divinity of the Bible, but some positive system of belief, which is opposed to the Bible, and substituted in its place. Hence, unless such a positive infidel system be harmonious and consistent with itself, it cannot be true. The votaries of Infidelity might be allowed to oppose Revelation on various, and even on conflicting grounds; but when it came to the establishment of a substitute for Revelation, and the proclamation of those principles which were to be the stay and the creed of the world, then nothing like discord or disagreement can of course be admissible. But we are able to prove, without much difficulty, by a simple adherence to facts, that from the first opponent of the Bible and its truths, in the days of Jewish scribes and Roman idolaters, down until this hour, there never have been that unity and consistency in the principles set forth by infidels, which are always inherent in the nature of truth; but that by an endless succession of contradictory principles, boldly announced, and obstinately defended, they have shown that they maintained conflicting and equally worthless forms of baseless error. It

ENDLESS CONTRADICTIONS OF INFIDELITY.

257

will be our endeavor, in the present chapter, to make good this assertion.

In discussing the subject of Modern Infidelity, it might have been expected, that we would have separately surveyed the various forms of it which prevail in different countries. Such indeed seems to be the most natural order of discussion. But the reader will perceive that the themes heretofore discussed in these pages, are all general in their character; and that no particular school, or system of doctrine, or any one point of the Christian evidences is examined. It will also be seen, that each topic is of such general complexion as to embrace under it, each individual error and absurdity of its own class. In this respect, we have varied designedly from the usual method of investigating these subjects. In the present chapter, the principal schools of Infidelity will naturally call for a more minute and individual examination, with special reference to that strong test of error or of truth, their unity and consistency, or rather, their entire want of both.

That truth is ever uniform and consistent, none indeed who are acquainted with the subject, will be disposed to deny. For truth is absolute and changeless, having its basis in the character of the Supreme Being; hence it must be consistent. Hence we may lay it down as an undeniable position, that where there is no unity, there can be no truth. Thus Mohammedanism and Budhism are not necessarily true, because they may be consistent with themselves, (supposing that this was the case.) For they may possess consistency in error. But, on the other hand, if they do not possess unity or consistency, they must be false. The same holds good in regard to Infidelity. Even if it were uniformly consistent with itself, it would not follow that it was necessarily true; but if it is not uniformly

consistent with itself, it does follow that it is necessarily false. And this is the charge which we think so clearly applies to that system.

It is a position which may be easily maintained by reference to appropriate facts, that infidels have never agreed in reference to one solitary thing, which they have inserted into their system of opinion; and hence, even though the Bible was false, and no truth deposited there, it could not be found with Infidelity. The general history of their endless changes shows, that they have contradicted each other, not simply in regard to what they would believe, but in regard to what they would oppose. Thus they have ever disputed how much of the Sacred Volume they would condemn, and how much they would admit. They have ever disagreed as to the means by which they would oppose the Scriptures; and as regards the proper modes of resisting a system which they maintained to be erroneous, though with greater or less admixtures of truth, according to the fancy of each disputant. It would be impossible to detail the countless and everlasting contradictions which mar and annihilate those positive doctrines, which they regard as their actual code of belief. Here indeed their opinions are a boundless labyrinth, and as changing as the fitful winds of heaven. But we propose now to take a glance at the most prominent contradictions of the most prominent infidels who have lived and written, and whose opinions, being thus preserved in a permanent form, may easily and accurately be compared.

There is one point which here demands consideration. In excuse for the countless variations of Infidelity, we are sometimes told that the human mind is progressive, that it cannot arrive at certain truth at once, and hence many changes and emendations must be allowed it, in its march toward permanent certainty. But surely if truth exists in

this process, or is attainable by it, it would long ago have been reached; for this endless change has been continuing for a thousand years, during which time those who have rejected the plain teachings of the Bible, have taught and pretended to seek the truth. Yet they are as far off from certainty and unity now as ever; and hence are as far off from truth as ever, for truth is consistent. But not only have their innumerable speculators constantly changed ground from their immediate predecessors; they have often returned again in some form, though seldom in an harmonious way, to the exploded errors of those who speculated long before them. Thus these champions move in a circle; they pass in solemn and pompous procession before us, each claiming to be the possessor of new light, to be advancing further and further toward ultimate truth, and leave all predecessors behind them. Although progress is right, and though some changes in speculative subjects may at first be allowable; yet when hundreds of years have passed away, and thousands of powerful minds have expended their energies upon them, it is high time for men to have arrived at some general and permanent principles. Yet this, as is apparent to every intelligent reader, they have not done. There are no more unity and certainty now among infidels than there were five hundred years ago. We may excuse the folly of the man who would reason about the color and shape of the sun for a day, and could come to no conclusion; but when he seems disposed to expend his lifetime in weighing various fancies and doubts in reference to it, we set him down at once as insane.

The first reaction which opposed the progress of the truth, after the glorious Reformation had delivered it from the shackles which had been consolidating around it for a thousand years, was that of the English Infidelity, headed by the name and the labors of Hobbes and his imme

diate pupils. In his principal work, the Leviathan, he affirms that the existence of God cannot be proved, inasmuch as all terms which express the incorporeal, the infinite, the invisible, have no meaning for the, human understanding, because they represent something not represented by sensations, and ought to be banished from philosophy and religion as vain phantoms. Thus he removes all distinctions between right and wrong; he contends that every man has naturally a right to everything, a right to secure everything he desires. As this principle carried out, would lead to constant struggles, he teaches that war is man's natural state, and hence is in itself commendable. His whole system destroys all idea of rights and duties, and of every moral obligation whatever. Directly in the face of these assertions the next eminent English skeptic, Lord Herbert, maintained that the following doctrines were the basis of all truth The existence of a God; the dependence of man on God; that man is bound to reverence God; and that there is an essential difference between good and evil, right and wrong. He also added that piety is the harmony of all the human faculties, and that these principles included the substance and sum of all religion. He thus excluded all reference whatever to Christianity; yet one of his own followers, Blount, held that these principles could have no authority over man, if it did not rest on an historical basis, on Christianity.

Spinoza, the noted Pantheist, though not an Englishman, taught, in opposition to Hobbes, not only that God exists, but that he is the only existence; that he is the universal substance; and that he is as such complete and absolute. Every other object and form of existence are merely attributes and developments of him. In opposition to Herbert, he taught that there is no such thing as right or wrong, because such an idea is incompatible with a system, where

« AnteriorContinuar »