On this page
- Text (2)
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
eing , be rendered bleass , which w Wteniably its meaning in every other pfoee where it occurs , wMeh it does many hundred times in the Old Testament . Genesis iv . 15 , on which there is in the
work referred to , a criticism j > f Dr . Lockier's , is well explained in the note m Mr . Wellbelovetf 3 Bible 5 it probably means , ** Jehovah worked & miraele before Cain , to assure him , that no one should kill him /* T . C H .
646 The Mte&iGak ACGouHiqfthe Creation vhidicnted , by Mr . Frend .
Sir , THE Mosaical account of the creation has been attacked for many ages on the pretext , that it is inconsistent with notions derived from sound
philosophy . This charge has been lately revived in a discourse , delivered by Mr . Belsham at Warrington , which has been printed at the request of the congregation , who , from the powerful impression it made on their minds , are anxious that its influence may be more widely diffused . I am just as
anxious to counteract this influence , for reasons which appear to me of very high importance , and I shall endeavour to place the subject before your readers in as dispassionate a manner as I can , that they ipay use their own understanding upon this very interesting portion of our sacred
writings I shall first select those parts of Mr . Belsham ' s discourse , which contain his views of Moses , or whoever was the writer of the first chapter of Genesis . Of him it is said ia p . 6 , that he " manifestly errs in his
philosophical theory ; " in p . 7 , the preacher declares his intention " to specify the mistakes into which he ( Moses , or the writer of Genesis , ch . L ) has been led by an erroneous philosophy /* In pa ^ e 16 it is said , "This curious narrative ( namely , the first chapter of
Genesis ) expresses or implies certain moral truths of supreme and universal importance ; it also contains many great philosophical errors . " " Ia page 20 we read , €€ It is plain that this writer ' s system of philosophy is that which arises from the observations
th& most obvious appearances 4 ? f the iH » iver $ e , and that he adapts his account of the creation to his owa philosophical speculations , which were probably those of the age in % which he
lived . It is evident * he& this writer believed , ttot \ igh % might esfc i ^ \^ abseuee of the sup . He regarded tfce firmament aa a aotid grab ,, whit& ten * , rated tire waters strove f rqapa % h $ w ^ tc ^ below . He conemvod the s « im and
moon as mmps fixed w tfcg p oikj firm went . The stars h ( 3 regarded m ojwmental spangles in tbk firmament . " In page 26 we have this broad aaseiw tion made , ** It is apparent , 1 &at t ^ e narrative iu its plain and obvious sense cannot possibly be true , npr iqejeed in
any sense whatever which the wpr < k will reasonably admit , because this writer ' s account of the creation ig $ - rectly and palpably inconsistent with what is now known and denaonstmte 4 to be the true theory pf the uuweirs ^ " In page 27 , " The efforts of learned men to reconcile the Mogaical
cosmogony to philosophical truth have been preposterous in the extreme , aad have exposed revelation and its ^ dvocmtes to the scoffs of unbelievers . It would be far better to give up the point os untenable- The author , as we have seen , is right in his theology , but erroneous ia his philosophy /*
Now , Sir , as I am not disposed to give up any part of the sacred writings on account of the scoffs of unbelievers , so will I not do it upon the confident , but to me erroneous , assertions of one who professes to believe in Christianity . So palpable a misrepresentation of the Mosaical account of the
creation , could not have been expected from a person who is known to have made the Scriptures hia study 5 but there is evident proof in the extracts I have given , that the writer has not studied the first chapter of Geneeis in
the original Hebrew . There is scarcely an assertion to which I can give my assent , except one , naively , " It is evident that this writer believed , that light might exist in the absence of the sun . "
That light may exist in the absence of the sun will not be disputed , I think ? by any one who walks the streets Q * London , apd admires its effects ia the lamps , which , by the emission of ^»» produce so strong an illumination .
Moses asserts , that Ijight wgs produced before the aw had the power of producing that effect whteh we qaUHteyli ^ h t . Now tim fl ^ &ertipn is ^ oitfiiM * - a ! ly called in question by pbilosopb e ^' * $ u > , forgetting the bienefits that tb ^ y
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1821, page 646, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2506/page/14/