The Portland daily press., 1875-10-18

knowing too muchl Behold these two prop
ositions whchappear in This book gravely n
bered and emphasized
l. Creation ,cas an act of Col to tohich He
toas not determined By any inherent necessity or
,oant of his oaon Nature.
2. Creation as the free act Of God 1cas not con-
ditioned By anything out Of and foreign to the
Darine nature. Are we then reading from
scientific treatise or from Bucks Theological
Dictionary? As might be expected our author
reprobates spencer's view that God is"unknow-
able,' and obviously Spencer himself would be
obliged to abandon that view, could he once
get to know SO much about God as Dr. Cocker
does.
In short we cannot approve this work so
much as we would like to. Nobly ambitious
in its aim, and in its execution, earnest, sin
cere, and in some respects able, it enlsts the
readers good will. He wishes the author might
succeed in dealing adequately with the prob
lens in hand, but he must be quite obtuse il he
does not perceive that the author is only put
ting postulates of seleuce into moulds of the
ology, and shaping them to suit the exigsncies
of his creed. His work turns out to be only
one more instance Of intellectual industry made
void aad of none effect By arbitrary prepos-
session. "Pity tits; aud pity tits 'tIs true" Add
one to theologS's melancholy failures.
single illustration of the mode of discus
sion common among writers OF this class must
here be given The author is dealing with the
Mosaic cosmogony-that toughest of nuts-and
he extracts the kernel in the simplest way i'm
aginable. He ignores the she'll. 1t is by no
means new method of getting to the heart of
things, but its striking simplicity is not often
made so apparent as ii is in this case by this
thor. He says: "7hs design Of the sacred narra-
tiUe is to teach Theology and not Science. &" Z"
The narrative was designed primarily and
mainly for the instruction of the masses of
men who know nothing or scarcely anything
of science; and if designed for their justruc-
ton, it must be couched in language which
they could comprehend A revelation made
in the language Of science would have been
unintelligible to the race for nearly six thou
sand years of its history, and practically would
have been no revelation at all. Scientific Ian
guage, moreover, is subject to modification and
change as science advances; but the narrative
of Genesis was intended for all time, and
therefore needed to be couched in language Dot
liable to change" And then, as if to show
that iabsurdity can still farther go, he quotes
| the following exquisite fOolery from G. War
| rngtop, whoever he may be-: "The only Ian
l guage which possesses these two requisites of
l general intellisibity and non-liability to
change is the language of appearances. The
l facts set forth must be described as they would
have seemed to the eye of man; that is, in =
| word, phenomenslly, or the cosmogony would
l fail of its purpose. All scrutiny or objection
| in the matter of unscientfic, or scientifically
l inaccurate language, then, must be put aside as
| irrelevant"
One can but wonder to what degree the au-
thor is himself convinced by reasoning that is
not even plausible. 1t amounts to this: God
would not state what was true because it would
be ntelligible, and would be no "revelation;"
| accordingly he states what is not true, but IS
Ineligible; and that is revelation! As to what
is said upon the changeabeness of language
| of science it is enough to ask, would final
| statements in science made by the o mniscient
be subject to change? Is not this change mere
ly an incident to progressive discovery, and OBJ
waited therefore by the perfect scientific attain
ment? The notion that the language of chang
ing appearances is to be preferred, on the score
of stability and permsnence, to the language
of unchanging truth. is striking If not scisn-
tific.
The value of this book consists chiefly in the
treasures of philosophical wisdom which axe
spread over its pages from very many soarces.
The student of modern questions will find it
useful in this way. But the original work
though elaborate and Of imposing form, is dis
/ annointino r.