ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

considering the results of scientific inquiries. The following facts should be noticed. Eminent natural philosophers have expressed in the strongest terms their conviction that the account of the creation given in the Scriptures finds a striking confirmation in the conclusions of natural science. Cuvier says, "Moses has left us a cosmogony, the accuracy of which is being confirmed every day in a marvellous manner. The books of Moses show that he perfectly understood all the most important questions of natural science. His cosmogony in particular, considered from a purely scientific point of view, is extremely remarkable, because the order in which he places the different epochs of creation is exactly the same as that which is deduced from geological investigations." So also a more recent French savant, Ampère, "Either Moses. possessed just as thorough a knowledge of natural science as we have in our century, or he was inspired;' and Marcel de Serres says, "The relations between the narrative of Genesis and the recent discoveries of natural science are most remarkable. They impart a new lustre to the genius of the Hebrew lawgiver, and one cannot help recognising that he possessed either a revelation from above, or at least that penetrating genius which foresees the secrets of nature, pierces the darkness enveloping her, and constitutes the true imagination which conveys to man a gleam of the eternal truth." It is triumphantly maintained, on the other side, that "astronomy takes the roof from over the head, and geology the ground from

[ocr errors]

1 See Nicolas, Philos. Studien, i. 360, 423, and Debreyne, Théorie Biblique, p. x.

under the feet of the old faith;" the discoveries in the sphere of natural science in particular are described as "the knell of the Mosaic cosmogony," and in the name of natural science it is demanded that the Biblical narrative of the creation, the deluge, etc., shall no longer be taught to the young, because it is "senseless" and a "lie.' " and a "lie." In face of such assertions

it is necessary to undertake a conscientious examination of the matter. If the discoveries of natural science should really help to confirm the Mosaic narrative to such an extent as is asserted by the French savants I have mentioned, we ought not to leave unemployed such a useful instrument for the defence of the Bible. If, on the other hand, we find that the incompatibility of science and the Bible is just as explicitly asserted, and that not only by thoughtless and superficial talkers, but also by esteemed savants, the theologian must at least seek to prove that such incompatibility does not in reality exist, but that the propositions of the Bible, rightly understood, are in no way opposed to the assured results of scientific investigations.

We are indeed attempting nothing new in instituting a comparison between the results of scientific inquiry and the Biblical statements. Such a comparison has often been made, and it belongs to the recognised province of theological science in our century. But great and deep rooted differences. of opinion prevail on individual points, among those who have tried to prove that science is in harmony with the Bible. Some believe,

1
1 Schleiden, Ueber den Materialismus, p. 8.

1

for instance, that the six days which are mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis must be taken to mean longer periods; while others think that we must hold them to be only periods of twenty-four hours. The events of which geology finds unmistakeable signs in the condition of the earth, are placed by some after, by others before, by others during the period of those days. Every one who lays claim to be considered as a theologian in these days, and indeed every layman who wishes to have a scientific justification for his Christian faith, should inquire carefully into the principal attempts which have been made to reconcile scientific discoveries with the Bible narrative. Under the present circumstances, however, we have more reason than ever for dealing with these questions. In our time science has emerged from the lecture-room, the study, and the laboratory into the streets; it is made popular in lectures, pamphlets, and newspapers; and every one who wishes to be considered an educated person, will not fail now-adays to hear these lectures and read these pamphlets. The greatest savants and the most earnest inquirers do not think it beneath them to give lectures on their particular branch of science, or their favourite studies, to very mixed audiences; they compile popular handbooks of astronomy, geology, etc., and become contributors to periodicals in which, side by side with poems, novels, and adventurous travels, there are papers on the spectrum analysis and the origin of coal, on infusoria and petrifactions, on lake dwellings and flint implements, on the struggle for existence, and the relation of man to the ape. This

extension of knowledge is certainly good in the abstract, for it is the right and the duty of every man to advance in the knowledge of truth according to his powers and circumstances. But at the same time there is this great drawback, that by far the greater number of so-called educated persons do not, and in the nature of things cannot, get beyond a very superficial and inadequate knowledge; nevertheless, by reason of a natural human weakness, they do not perceive its inadequacy, and therefore judge and argue on the strength of that defective knowledge; and usually the less thoroughly educated they are, the more positive and self-satisfied are their judgments and reasonings. Considering these unavoidable results, the popularization of science must be regarded as a doubtful good, and occasionally even as an evil. This is especially so when, as is unfortunately too often the case, increase in the most important of all knowledge, that of religion, and the moral formation of character which is connected with it, does not accompany the diffusion of all kinds of scientific knowledge; or when a superficial statement of such scientific knowledge is used in order to undermine faith and reverence for holy things. But the popularization of science, whatever be its value, is part of the tendency of the age. We cannot stem the tide, we must therefore take the world as it is, and consult the taste of the so-called educated public, at least so far as not to shut our minds to the sciences and the studies which now-a-days have so great an influence.

It is, however, a well-known fact that by far the

greater part of our popular scientific literature contains both direct and indirect attacks on the doctrines of the Christian faith and the direct statements of Holy Writ. Hardly a year goes by without producing a number of more or less important books, written in a popular and often attractive style, which expressly aim at combating the doctrines of Christianity and the authority of the Bible. We may take as an example the form of literature which is most characteristic of our century, the periodical press. Scarcely any well known and widely read scientific or literary periodical appears which does not occasionally contain essays on questions directly or indirectly touching the Bible; and in these essays it is for the most part either openly or covertly assumed that faith in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, is quite irreconcilable with the discoveries of natural science in the nineteenth century. We cannot disguise this from ourselves; it were folly to deny that the ruling current and tendency of our popular scientific literature is decidedly hostile to revelation, and especially to Biblical revelation.

What ought we to do under these circumstances? As matters at present stand, very little is accomplished by applying preventive and prohibitory measures to intellectual subjects; by ecclesiastical interdiction of bad books, and warnings against reading them. It may be lamented, but it cannot be altered. We must therefore make up our minds to fight these, the intellectual evils and dangers of our time, with intellectual weapons. We must oppose that misuse of science by which it is employed against revelation; and we must

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »