« ПредишнаНапред »
By the terrors of the Lord, all the sensibilities of his nature are appealed to, and he is made to stop in his career of rebellion, because his steps take hold on hell; and, by precisely the same means, he is in this attitude made to look upward, and to look intently, to the great reality of a living and a reigning God; and while he looks, all the majesty, and all the lov iness, and all the glory of God are brought to bear upon his conscience and his heart. Thus he sees what God is— how God feels towards him, and how he ought to feel towards God.” pp. 263–6.
We now come to Dr. Cleaveland's argument. That is not sound. No such inference can be fairly made as that which he makes from the language quoted from the Christian Spectator. It has no force whatever except by overlooking or ignoring Dr. Taylor's repeated definitions and explanations of the phrase “ultimate end,” as used by him on this subject, and by giving to that phrase a very different meaning from that in which he used it, and repeatedly said he used it. He meant by it, “not the chief end, the object of the mind's choice, but the last, ultimate end." These are his own words, in one of his lectures. He meant by the language which Dr. Cleaveland quotes, that in an analytic account of mental choice, and of all voluntary action, the ultimate end or fact, the last thing, not without but within the mind, to which we come, is the mind's capacity of being pleased, its instinctive, involuntary, constitutional desire of happiness—to this ultimately all motives appeal. He meant, to use his own language, that “The soul chooses God as its portion, under the impulse of its inherent desire of happiness.” He meant just what Dr. Cleaveland means when he says in the paragraph above quoted, “We choose God for our portion," i. e., a portion for ourselves, a portion pleasing, satisfactory to our minds, and fitted by its infinite worth to be thus pleasing and satisfactory-a portion which we could not choose at all if it was not pleasing. All this appears abundantly in the very discussion from which Dr. Cleaveland quotes. In that controversy, this very charge, founded on these very passages, had been made by Dr. Tyler and had been denied and completely refuted by Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor says, (Christian Spectator, Vol. II, p. 162,) “The term 'ultimate end,' we know, has often been employed to express the object, as wealth, power, the glory of God, &c., in which happiness is found. But it is obvious from the whole
tenor of our remarks, in the passages referred to by Dr. Tyler, that we were not speaking of any object external to the mind. It was a desire of the sonl, we were considering.
And we only ask how desire could exist,--how any external object could become a motive-how man would differ from the clod beneath his feet, if it were not for the desire and hope of happiness prompting him to acts of the will ?” “We maintained that man as a moral agent, who is addressed by motives, has a constitutional susceptibility to the good which those motives offer.” p. 163. The italics are Dr. Taylor's. We will give another very decisive passage, p. 386. “Dr. Tyler makes one declaration in the work before us, which ought forever to end his contest with our reviewer (Dr. Taylor) on the main points at issue. “I fully admit,' says he, the principle of Edwards, “if nothing could be pleasing or displeasing, agreeable or disagreeable, to a man, then he could incline to nothing, and will nothing. And if this be all which the reviewer means when he says that self-love is the primary cause of moral action,' and that of all specific voluntary action happiness is the ultimate end,' as he seems occasionally to intimate, I have no dispute with him.' Now we can assure Dr. Tyler that this is all; and that we have not only occasionally intimated' this fact, but carried it along with us in all our reasonings, and declared it in express terms before he ever published a syllable on the subject. We stated,
when we say that the soul in regeneration chooses God as its portion, under the impulse of its inherent desire of happiness,' we are SIMPLY stating the great principle of Edwards, that the will is as the greatest apparent good !” The italics and capitals are Dr. Taylor's.
Here we panse, having proved fully that Dr. Cleaveland's attempt in this Statement to vindicate his misrepresentation of Dr. Taylor entirely fails, while it aggravates the original offense. He has transgressed the rule of fair and honorable controversy in charging Dr. Taylor with holding an inference from his expressed opinion which he never admitted, but most explicitly denied in his lectures, and contradicted in his
published sermons. And the inference itself which, if correctly drawn, should never have been charged as an opinion on Dr. Taylor, we have shown to be incorrect and illogical—made by putting a meaning on his terms which is in direct violation of his own definitions and explanations, abundantly given in the very controversy from which Dr. Cleaveland quotes. We freely admit that some of Dr. Taylor's language, particularly the phrase “ultimate end,” was infelicitous for his purpose, because liable to be misunderstood, unless defined and explained. But there can be no reasonable excuse for such a misunderstanding of it as is in direct contradiction to his repeated definitions and explanations.
In conclusion, we say that it is with regret and pain as it respects Dr. Cleaveland-towards whom we have cherished and do cherish the feelings of fraternal affection and confidence—that we have performed the duty, we might almost say the filial duty, which he has forced on Dr. Taylor's pupils and friends, of refuting—not a “dissent ” from his opinions, as Dr. Cleaveland calls it—of that we should never complainbut a gross misrepresentation of his opinions—a representation dishonorable to his memory as a theological teacher, and even to his memory as a Christian man—a representation all the more grievous, because uttered and published in a community just bereaved by his death; in which are thousands who have honored and loved him as a man and a Christian eminently endowed, and who have hung on his lips with admiration and grateful affection as he has preached to them the gospel of Christ, especially in those times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, when he has been God's honored instrument in leading many of them in faith and love to the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.
ARTICLE VII.-PALESTINE A PERPETUAL WITNESS FOR THE
The Land and the Book ; or Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy Land. By W. M. THOMSON, D. D., twenty-five years a Missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, (with maps and engravings.) Two vols., 12mo.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1859. Palestine, Past and Present: with Biblical, Literary, and
Scientific Notices. By Rev. HENRY L. OSBORN, A. M., Professor of Natural Science in Roanoke College, Salem, Va. With original illustrations and a new map of Palestine. Octavo. pp. 600. Philadelphia : James Challen & Son.
1859. An Historical Text-Book and Atlas of Biblical Geography.
By Lyman COLEMAN. New Edition, Revised. Philadelphia :
J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1859. Map of the Holy Land. By C. W. M. VAN DE VELDE. With
Memoir. Gotha: Justus Perthes.
It is seventy years since Volney pictured the desolations of Syria, in connection with the ruins of empires in the East, as a conclusive argument against the doctrines of the moral and the providential government of God, as revealed in the Bible. “Where are those fleets of Tyre, those dock-yards of Arad, those work-shops of Sidon, and that multitude of sailors, of pilots, of merchants, and of soldiers? Where those husbandmen, those harvests, those flocks, and all the creation of living beings in which the face of the earth rejoiced? Alas ! I have passed
Volney doubtless refers to the Phenician Colony on the island of Arvad, called by the Greeks Aradus, opposite Tripolis. (Gen. x, 18; 1 Chron, i, 16; Ezek. xxvii, 11; 1 Macc. xv, 23, where it is called 'Apados ; also, Strabo xvi; 731, 754.)
over this desolate land! I have visited the palaces once the theater of so much splendor, and I beheld nothing but solitnde and desolation. I sought the ancient inhabitants and their works, and could only find a faint trace, like that of the foot of a traveler over the sand. The temples are fallen, the palaces overthrown, the ports filled up, the cities destroyed, and the earth, stripped of inhabitants, seems a dreary burying place.”* And since a common fate of ruin and desolation had overtaken Jewish, Christian, Pagan, and Mohammedan lands, this sceptical academician inferred that the religions once dominant in those lands were all alike weak and vain-unable to bless and preserve their votaries. Other deists, taking their cue from Volney, soon went beyond him in urging the present desolateness of the Holy Land as conclusive against its alleged productiveness under the Jewish Theocracy. But Volney himself could have corrected them here; for in his “ Travels in Egypt and Syria,” published in 1786, he describes the ancient Philistia as “almost entirely a level plain, where, notwithstanding its dryness, the soil is good, and may even be termed fertile, for when the winter rains do not fail, everything springs up in abundance; and the earth, which is black and fat, retains moisture sufficient for the growth of grain and vegetables during the summer. More donrra, sesamum, watermelons, and beans, are sown here than in any other part of the country. They also raise cotton, barley, and wheat ; but though the latter is most esteemed, it is less cultivated, for fear of too much inviting the avarice of the Turkish governors, and the rapacity of the Arabs.”+ Again, with respect to the present sparse population of Syria, Volney observes that “so feeble a population in so excellent a country, may well excite our astonishment, but this will be still increased if we compare the present number of inhabitants with that of ancient times. .. From the accounts we have of Judea in the time of Titus, and which are to be esteemed tolerably accurate, that country must have contained four millions of inhabitants ; but, at present, there are not, perhaps, above
*" Ruins," Chap. II. VOL. XVII.
+ Chap. XXXI.