ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

inquirer, must regard not only as necessary, but as his greatest distinction. Let us suppose that we have before us a contradiction of the kind just described, between what we believe to be the right interpretation of a passage in the Bible and a truth of geological or of some other analogous science which is regarded by the natural philosopher as indisputable: we cannot succeed in discovering where the fault lies, the rules of exegesis forbid us to give any other interpretation to the passage, and the natural philosopher maintains that the facts as they are, and the laws as he knows them, necessarily lead him to the conclusion opposed to the Bible; what is to be done then? Before all things and under all circumstances we must be honest, and not stain our pure and holy cause with sophisms and special pleading; on no account must we conceal and slur over the contradiction, try to explain away the words of the Bible, or minimize the conclusions of the natural philosopher, which he has reached in a true, scientific manner. The greatest savant need not be ashamed to confess with the wise men of the olden time that there is much he does not know.

other. Theoretically, each of these ways is sure and sufficing, but the men who follow them are subject to error, and it is fortunate that the error which can be set right is shown by the want of harmony between the results attained by the different ways of search. Arithmetic is an undoubtedly sure science, but it is well that the faults in the calculations should be discovered by proving the result. If false and injurious doctrines are preached in the name of natural science, these will sooner or later be directly refuted, because the faults in the method or the conclusions through which these errors arose will be pointed out; but it is well that philosophy or religion should be able to confront these errors, even before they are directly refuted, with truths which are supported by sure conclusions of another kind, or by an authority whose infallibility in its own province is proved."-Th. H. Martin, Les sciences et la philosophie, p. 62.

In such a case, then, we need not fear to say that we cannot succeed in reconciling the apparent contradiction, but that we are nevertheless persuaded that it is only apparent, and that it will be explained, although in the present state of science that is not yet possible. It is all the easier for us to make such an admission because the natural sciences are continually developing, indeed several branches have hardly got beyond the beginning. The reconciliation of the statements in the Bible with the conclusions of natural science has, as we shall see, made steady progress for a century past; every decade has made their relation clearer, so that if some obscure points still remain, we may conclude from past experience that the further progress of inquiry will throw light on these also.2

1 "To dig deeper, to examine more and more actively and restlessly, and not to draw back timidly should inquiry lead to unwelcome conclusions-that is the mark of the true theologian. He will not at once draw back his foot, timidly and cautiously, as if he had stepped on an adder, and take to flight, if by chance a statement which had been held to be incontrovertible seems to fail under the dialectical process of his investigation, or if a supposed truth threatens to prove an error. He will not wish to resemble the savages who cannot see an eclipse without being anxious about the fate of the sun."-Döllinger, Die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der kath. Theologie, Regensburg 1863, p. 27.

2 "He who is as sure as he is of his own existence that the God of truth is at once the God of nature and the God of revelation, cannot believe it to be possible that His voice in either, rightly understood, can differ, or deceive His creatures. To oppose facts in the natural world because they seem to oppose revelation, or to humour them so as to compel them to speak its voice, is, he knows, but another form of the ever-ready feeble-minded dishonesty of lying for God, and trying by fraud or falsehood to do the work of the God of truth. It is with another and a nobler spirit that the true believer walks amongst the works of nature. The words graven on the everlasting rocks are the words of God, and they are graven by His hand. No more can they contradict His word written in His Book, than could the words of the Old Covenant graven by His hand or the stony tables contradict the

But do not forget that I have been speaking only of a possible case. I do not know that there is any important point on which we must be satisfied with a "non liquet;" but if in my lectures the harmony between the Bible and science should not seem clear on any particular point, do not let the good cause suffer, but remember that the harmony must exist, although either the savants have not succeeded in proving it, or the knowledge and descriptive power of the lecturer, whom you are honouring with your attention, do not equal his goodwill.

writings of His hand in the volume of the new dispensation. There may be to man difficulty in reconciling all the utterances of the two voices. But what of that? He has learned already that here he knows only in part, and that the day of reconciling all apparent contradictions between what must agree is nigh at hand. He rests his mind in perfect quietness on this assurance, and rejoices in the gift of light without a misgiving as to what it may discover. A man of deep thought and great practical wisdom,' says Sedgwick (Discourse on the Studies of the University, p. 153), 'one whose piety and benevolence have for many years been shining before the world, and of whose sincerity no scoffer (of whatever school) will dare to start a doubt (Dr. Chalmers), recorded his opinion in the great assembly of the men of science who during the past year were gathered from every corner of the empire within the walls of this university, "that Christianity had everything to hope, and nothing to fear, from the advancement of philosophy." This is as truly the spirit of Christianity as it is that of philosophy.”—Quarterly Review, vol. cviii. (July 1860) p. 256.

III.

HOW FAR DOES THE BIBLE TREAT OF NATURAL

PHENOMENA ?

In the foregoing lecture I have explained the statement made by Kurtz in the following words: "The Bible and nature, in so far as they are both the word of God, must agree; where this appears not to be the case, either the interpretation of the theologian or that of the natural philosopher is at fault. For not only the latter," adds Kurtz quite rightly, "but also the former, happens only too often; and it has caused unspeakable confusion in the question as to the harmony of the Scriptures and nature." In order to be secure against such mistakes in our examination of this question, we must next define the limits of the two provinces of knowledge which God conveys to man by means of the Bible on the one hand and nature on the other.

With reference to this, the following simple but important statement must be kept in mind. The object of supernatural divine revelation is never the extension of our profane knowledge, and therefore the Bible is nowhere intended to give us strictly scientific information. This statement is by no means new, and cannot be regarded as a concession wrung by natural science from theology in modern times; on the contrary, we find it in the book which was used

as a compendium in all theological schools throughout the scholastic period, and which itself only claims to be an outline of the theology of the fathers of the Church. Peter Lombard says in the second book of the Sentences (Dist. 23), "Man did not by sinning lose the knowledge of natural things, nor that by which his bodily wants are satisfied; and therefore in Scripture man is not taught these things; but the knowledge of the soul, which by sinning he lost. Hanc scientiam homo peccando non perdidit, nec illam qua carnis necessaria providerentur. Et idcirco in scriptura homo de huiusmodi non eruditur, sed de scientia animæ, quam peccando amisit."

To illustrate, not to confirm this statement, I will add a few quotations from eminent authors, theologians, and natural philosophers, both Catholic and Protestant. Xaverius Patrizi, one of the ablest Italian exegetes of the present time, says, "In order to shield ourselves from the error of supposing that natural science could come into conflict with the Bible, we must remember that the Biblical writers do not intend to discuss scientific questions, or to enlighten our ignorance on scientific subjects."

2

One of the most intellectual of English theologians, J. H. Newman, says, "Theology and physical science, on the whole, do most surely occupy distinct fields, in which each may teach without expecting any interposition from the other. It might indeed have pleased the Almighty to have superseded physical inquiry by

Rome 1844, ii. 80.

1 De interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum.
2 Lectures and Essays on University Subjects. London 1859.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »