Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of the last century, has left us a book entitled, Divine Revelation saved from the Objections of Freethinkers, in which he says, "As to the difficulties brought forward by freethinkers, and the apparent contradictions which they profess to find in the Bible, it will be useful to observe, first, that there is no science which rests on a foundation so sure that it is not open to equally and even more important objections. We can find in each apparent contradictions, which at first sight appear to be insoluble. But as these sciences can be sifted to their first elements, it is possible entirely to remove these apparent difficulties. And even if we were not in a position to do this, these sciences would yet lose nothing of their certainty. Why then should Holy Writ lose all its authority because of such objections? Geometry is held to be the science in which nothing is assumed which cannot be plainly deduced from the first principles of our knowledge. And yet there have been people of no mean understanding who imagined they had discovered great and insoluble difficulties in geometry by means of which the science would be deprived of all certainty. The objections which they made are so subtle that no slight trouble and discernment are required in order to refute them thoroughly. But still in the minds of all reasonable people geometry has lost none of its value, although they may not be able themselves to refute all these subtle objections. Therefore, what right have freethinkers to require that we should at once reject Holy Scripture because of a few objections which are often not nearly so serious as those which are made to

geometry?" Albrecht von Haller, Linnæus, and others express themselves in a similar manner.1

In modern times also we find that, besides those scientific men who profess unbelieving and irreligious opinions, there are many savants of the first rank who publicly and gladly own their belief in Biblical revelation, and endeavour to prove scientifically the compatibility of the results of natural science with the testimony of the Bible; there are others who show a religious bias in their scientific works, or who do not at any rate mingle attacks on religion with their scientific discussions, but expressly disapprove of the materialistic and atheistic utterances of their fellows.2 Among German savants I may mention-without saying to which class they severally belong-Heinrich Steffens, Heinrich von Schubert, Karl von Raumer, Joh. Nep. von Fuchs, Andreas und Rudolf Wagner, Friedrich Pfaff, J. Mädler, Joh. Müller, Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg, J. Hyrtl, Gustav Bischof, Hermann von

1 Zöckler, Gesch. der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaften, ii. 37. Cf. Reusch, Der Process Galileis, 1879, p. 34. 2 Zöckler, Gesch. etc., ii. 330.

3 "I have never wavered in my belief in the truths of Scripture, or in the ultimate interpretation of natural things; and this belief becomes daily stronger and more decided."—-R. Wagner, Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 168.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, so said the Psalmist, and if astronomy springs from heaven, let her show herself worthy of her origin. Let her promote the knowledge of God by discovering truths which make His great works known to us, and by developing laws called, and rightly called, the laws of nature; not because nature herself has made them, but because God has ordained them for her.”—Mädler, Ges. Naturwiss. iii. 551.

• Populäre Vorlesungen, p. 46: "The immortal authors of these chapters have derived nothing from strict inquiry, nothing from observation or experiment. They have been led to truth by another source of knowledge, by divine inspiration. But truth will remain truth throughout all ages."

Meyer, E. von Leonhard, Fr. August Quenstedt, K. E. von Bäer, Oscar Fraas, Oswald Heer,' Johannes von Hanstein.

Many most eminent Christians are and were to be found amongst modern French savants: Deluc, Hauy, Cuvier, Alexandre Brongniart, Binet, Biot, Elie de Beaumont, Ampère, Aug. Cauchy, Armand de Quatrefages, Th. H. Martin, and others. Marcel de Serres, De Blainville, and others, as also the

1 Die Urwelt der Schweig. p. 604: "A sheet of paper with a symphony of Beethoven written on it has no meaning save for the musician. For him every note has a meaning, and when he translates these signs into sounds, there results a whole world of harmonies. It is exactly so with nature. Like the single notes, the single phenomena have no meaning except when we are able to combine them, and to understand their connection. Then they are united into one grand whole, and a world of harmony arises in our soul, which, like her sister, the harmony of sound, lifts us above the sensuous world, and fills us with the presentiment of a divine ordering of the universe. Every one would no doubt think that man very simple who asserted that the notes of this symphony consisted of points which had come together by chance on the paper. But it seems to me that those who look upon the infinitely grander harmony of the creation as the work of chance do not judge less foolishly. The deeper we penetrate into nature, the more fervent becomes our conviction that only the belief in an Almighty and All-wise Creator, who has made heaven and earth according to an eternally premeditated plan, can avail to solve the problems of nature and of human life: it is not only the heart of man which shows us God, but also nature."

2 Zöckler, Gottes Zeugen im Reich der Natur. Gütersloh 1881.

The Paris newspaper, National, in its obituary notice of the great savant Cuvier, tried to excuse his belief in the Bible by the fact of his having, as a Protestant, been acquainted with the Bible from his earliest youth, whereby he had acquired an affection for it which, when grown to manhood, he could not shake off.

4 "Ampère had strong religious convictions, and often spoke of them to the writer of these lines. In the year 1836, when he was on his deathbed, a friend wished to read to him a passage from the Acts of the Apostles. He replied that he knew the book by heart. These were his last words. Arago relates this in his posthumous works."-Passavant in the Katholiken, 1862, i. P. 261.

5 The Athenæum (1857, 695) said in an obituary notice (23rd May 1857), "He was a Roman Catholic of the strictest kind." Cf. Contem porain, N. S. t. 9 (1868), 1084.

Belgian Waterkeyn, have themselves tried to reconcile their scientific conclusions with the Bible.1

2

Geology, it is well known, has of late years been most diligently cultivated in England and North America. In England, Chalmers, speaking in the year 1833 in an assembly of scientific men, went so far as solemnly to assert his conviction that Christianity had everything to hope and nothing to fear from the progress of scientific inquiry; and what is more, this utterance was received with great applause. Among the most eminent Englishmen of science, there have been many most orthodox Anglican clergymen, as W. Buckland, Whewell, Sedgwick, John Fleming, and W. D. Conybeare; and in America Edward Hitchcock. Many esteemed savants, in their discussions on natural science, have had the defence of the Bible very much at heart, for instance, besides Buckland, the Scotchmen Hugh Miller and John M'Culloch, and the American Benjamin Silliman. Others express in strong terms their wish to guard their science from all suspicion of leading to conclusions out of harmony with reve

3

The Swiss Louis Agassiz, formerly an inhabitant of Neuchatel, afterwards of North America, opposes the Bible on many points (e.g. with respect to the unity of mankind), but he is a decided opponent of materialism and deism. Cf. Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1861, p. 668. Valroger, La Genèse, etc., pp. 61, 228, 253. (P. 77: "He has not devoted any of his writings to a defence of the principles of natural religion, but when, in the course of his investigations, he came across those principles, he did not turn away, and was not afraid to say what he saw. The absurdity of materialistic atheism filled his strong understanding with repugnance, and he betrays no cowardly yielding whenever he comes across it. The animals lower than man were constantly the principal objects of his attention and of his writings, but he found in them countless proofs of the almighty activity of the Creator, and he often did homage to the endless wisdom of the Divine Providence.")

2 See above, p. 27, note.

*Correspondant, N. S. t. 39 (1868), p. 230.

lation. The English handbooks of geology sometimes contain a separate chapter on this subject.' In one

of them, written by Gideon Mantell, the following passage occurs: 2 "There was "There was a time when every geologist was called upon to defend himself against imputations of this kind, but a more enlightened era has arrived, and it is unnecessary to allude to the circumstance except to assure those who for the first time are called upon to follow the researches of the astronomer and the geologist, that in proportion as their minds become acquainted with the principles of scientific investigation, their apprehensions of any collision between the discoveries in the natural world and the inspired records will disappear." In purely scientific works written by the most eminent English and American savants, we often find remarks which show that the religious opinions of the authors have not been affected by their scientific studies, as in the case of Sir Humphrey Davy, Richard Owen, Sir Roderick Murchison, James Prichard, Sir David Brewster, R. Jameson, Edward Turner, Faraday, and others whos ewritings will often be

5

3

1 Cf. Trimmer, Practical Geology and Mineralogy. London 1841. P. 34. 2 Wonders of Geology, i. 4.

3 He ends his classical work Siluria (London 1854, p. 483) with these words: "From the effects produced upon my own mind through the study of these imperishable records, I am indeed led to hope that my readers will adhere to the views which, in common with many contemporaries, I entertain of the succession of life. For he who looks to a beginning, and traces thenceforward a rise in the scale of being until that period is reached when man appeared on the earth, must acknowledge in such works repeated manifestations of design, and unanswerable proofs of the superintendence of a Creator."

Cf. Contemporain, t. 26 (3 S. t. 11, 1876), p. 244.

For many of those named here, see amongst others, J. Pye Smith, The Relation, etc., pp. 28, 31, 101, 299, 311, 328. Also Zöckler, Gesch.