FIRST ORDINARY MEETING, JUNE 4, 1866. THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. The CHAIRMAN stated, that this being the First Ordinary Meeting of the Institute, there were no previous minutes to be read. Mr. REDDIE, Honorary Secretary, then announced that the following Foundation Members and Associates had been elected since the 1st of May: MEMBERS :— William Anderson, Esq., M.R.C.S.E., Assistant-Surgeon, R.N., H.M.S. Hector; Admiral C. R. Drinkwater Bethune, C.B., 4, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, S.W.; Rev. Sir T. Eardley Wilmot Blomefield, Bart., M.A. Cantab., Incumbent of All Saints, Pontefract, Yorkshire; O. W. Brierly, Esq., F.R.G.S., 8, Lidlington Place, Oakley Square, Chelsea, S.W.; Montagu Burnett, Esq., M.A. Cantab., Westbrook House, Alton, Hants; James Carlisle, Esq., Merchant, Enfield, Belfast; William Aver Duncan, Esq., Woodlands House, Red Hill; D. D. Dymes, Esq., Mincing Lane, E.C.; John Holms, Esq., 16, Cornwall Gardens, Queen's Gate, W.; William Holms, Esq., 9, Park Circus, Glasgow; D. W. Johnston, Esq., Dalriada, Belfast; Major-General Arthur S. Lawrence, C.B., Clapham Common, S.; Oswald C. Papengouth, Esq., F.R.G.S., Lieutenant Imperial Russian Navy, 46, Russell Square, W.C.; Samuel Petrie, Esq., C.B., 46, Ebury Street, Pimlico, S.W.; Rev. John Scott, Principal of the Wesleyan Training College, Westminster, S.W. ASSOCIATE, 1ST CLASS :-) Miss Johnston, Dalriada, Belfast. ASSOCIATES, 2ND CLASS :-Rev. Stephen C. Adam, M.A. Cantab., Assoc. Sec. for Irish Church Missions, 5, Clifton Villas, Camden Square, N.W.; Thomas Coghlan, Esq., M.D., Surgeon R.N., H.M.S. Research, Chatham ; Captain G. G. Cooper Gardiner, R.S.F., 11, Church Street, Westminster, S.W.; Charles Lingen, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.S. Eng., St. Owen Street, Hereford; Edward Oakley Newman, Esq., M.G.A., Oakley Villa, West Wickham, Kent; Rev. John Williams, M.A. Cantab., 11, Mecklenburg Square, W.C. Mr. WARINGTON then read the following Paper : A SKETCH OF THE EXISTING RELATIONS BE TWEEN SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE. By GEORGE THE purpose of the present paper is purely historical. To analyze in detail the various points at issue, or supposed to be at issue, between Scripture and Science; to examine fully, and weigh carefully, the evidence adduced on either side, and so pass judgment fairly and impartially between them, would require both more time than can possibly be allowed to a single paper, and especially far more learning and far deeper research than the writer has at his command. It has been thought, however, that a brief historical outline of the present state of the case, the relations, hostile or otherwise, permanent or passing, which actually exist between Scripture and Science, would form a useful and fitting introduction to that fuller and more particular investigation of the several points in detail, which it is one of the objects of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE to promote. To furnish some such general outline of actual facts, then, without in any way discussing their character or pronouncing upon their worth, is the aim of the present paper. And to this end it will be convenient to divide the subject into four groups : 1st. The objections brought against Scripture on the ground of incorrect and misleading descriptions of natural objects and phenomena. 2nd. The objections brought against the Scripture record of certain historical events, on the ground of further information touching these same events, or inconsistent with them, which Science has elucidated. 3rd. The objections brought against a particular class of occurrences narrated in Scripture, Miracles, on the ground of their incongruity with scientific principles. 4th. The objections brought against the dogmatic teaching of Scripture on the ground of its inconsistency with the facts of Nature. The charges thus urged against Scripture in the name of Science may be briefly summed up, then, as follows:-1st. It is scientifically inaccurate. 2nd. It is historically untrue. 3rd. It is philosophically incredible. 4th. It is theologically erroneous. These it is proposed to review in order; noticing under each head, first, the various forms under which the charge is made, and second, the different lines of defence which the advocates of Scripture are accustomed to adopt, in order to repel the charge or mitigate its force. The kind and amount of agreement, or disagreement, thought on various hands to exist between Scripture and Science, will thus become apparent, and some useful information, it is hoped, be derived as to the extent and nature of the investigations required to set the question at rest. Î. First, then, of the charge of scientific inaccuracy in the Scriptural descriptions of natural objects and phenomena. This is founded chiefly upon the language of Scripture in matters of Astronomy, Meteorology, and Natural History. Scripture, it is said, plainly speaks of this earth as the centre of the universe, for whose benefit sun, moon, and stars were created, whose concerns are of paramount or sole importance. It describes the earth as firmly and immoveably fixed, established on foundations, and built up with pillars, while about it all the celestial bodies move in their courses. It speaks of heaven as a solid crystal ceiling, having above it vast accumulations of water, to which exit is given now and then by the opening of its windows. It encourages and confirms the notion that the moon has a hurtful influence when shining brightly by night. In one and all of which particulars Science has demonstrated that Scripture is inaccurate, untrue, misleading. Or, to take another set of examples, Scripture represents the ant as storing up food in summer, and sets it before us as an example of wisdom and providence on this very account. It speaks of the ostrich as cruel, and carelessly forsaking its eggs. It distinctly includes the hare and the coney among animals which chew the cud. In every one of which statements, again, careful observation and scientific research have proved beyond a doubt that Scripture is incorrect. Surely, then, if this be so, it must be conceded that the charge in question is well-founded, and Scripture is scientifically inaccurate. Now, to this charge, thus supported, three several replies have been given. In the first place, inasmuch as every one of these alleged scientific errors was at one time or other actually held by expositors of Scripture, and strenuously supported by them on Scriptural grounds, it was but natural that the first impulse should be to deny the facts, and so retort the charge of inaccuracy upon Science. The views attacked were admitted by this school to be fair representa tions of Scriptural teaching. The point contested was the right or power of Science to say aught against them. This mode of answer may be regarded as now, however, in several of the instances named entirely obsolete, at least among those who know anything of Science. The advocates of Scripture have been obliged, in dealing with these, to take up other ground. In the second place, then, not a few of them have passed unhesitatingly to the opposite extreme. These doctrines and observations of Science are, no doubt, they say, most true; but then they are not really inconsistent with Scripture; Scripture properly interpreted teaches precisely the same thing. Make due allowances for poetical and metaphorical expressions, and the employment of simple, every-day phrases descriptive of natural appearances, which are used unhesitatingly by the most scientific still, and the two are found to be, in truth, perfectly at one. Then, enamoured with the prospect thus opened, the upholders of this view have launched forth boldly into general interpretation, and shown, or endeavoured to show, how every allusion to Nature in Scripture is not only harmonious with Science, but, in fact, anticipative of it; how the profoundest truths, which Science has, only just revealed, lie there embedded in all their purity and force, needing nothing but impartial and keen-sighted exposition to bring them to light. According to this school, then, Scripture, though not, perhaps, intended primarily to teach Science, is yet scientifically accurate in essence everywhere; the discord between them is only apparent, not real. But at this a third class gravely shake their heads in ominous doubt. Granted, say they, that, when fairly viewed, many of the objections of Science on this head are unfounded, and that Scripture is not really committed to some of these views which were formerly connected with it, and which Science has overthrown; yet surely there are other of the objections, and especially those referring to Natural History, which cannot be thus answered, at least without a strain upon the plain words of Scripture for which we have no sufficient warrant. Is it not safer, then, to concede that in these, at all events, the allegation is well founded; and rest on our defence rather on this: that such trivial errors have nothing whatever to do with the real worth of Scripture; that scientific accuracy being in no way necessary to the end designed to be attained by Scripture, so on these matters its human writers were left to speak in their ordinary language, and in accordance with the prevalent ideas of their time? Such are the three lines of reply adopted by advocates of G Scripture in answer to the charge of scientific inaccuracy; the first, as will be seen, admitting the foundation of the charge to the full, but retorting the inference upon the assailant; the second denying the foundation, by modifying the interpretation of Scripture so as to make it harmonize with Science; the third admitting in part both foundation and inference, but regarding the latter as trivial and unimportant. II. We pass now to the second and far more important group, of objections levelled against certain historical events recorded in Scripture, on the ground of further information. touching these events, or inconsistent with them, which Science is said to have elucidated. This charge is founded, with very slight exception, upon the contradiction asserted to exist between the statements of the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis and the conclusions of scientific research, more especially in the departments of Geology, Anthropology, Ethnology, and Natural History. It will be convenient, therefore, to review the objections under this head in the order which their connection with these chapters of Genesis naturally suggests. The Cosmogony, or history of creation contained in Gen. iii. 4, furnishes the scientific objector, then, with the following charges:-1st, and chiefly, a stupendous discrepance in regard to time; Genesis teaching that the whole work of creation, in respect both to heaven and earth, was performed in the short space of six days; Geology proving incontestibly that it must have occupied a succession of ages altogether surpassing human powers to measure or conceive. 2nd. It is urged, that not only is there this fundamental and insuperable discord between them in regard to time, but there are also certain notable errors in Genesis as to the order of creation; in particular, the late position assigned to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, as subsequent to that of the earth, of light, of the dry land, and of vegetation; also the precedence of plants before fishes and reptiles; both which, it is asserted, are contrary to the plain teaching of Science. Then, 3rd, it is objected, that Genesis is wrong in regard to manner, since it speaks of the creation of living things as taking place in single defined groups, consisting (we must suppose) of all the species ever existing belonging to that group; whereas Geology shows us that living things have made their appearance on the earth very gradually, one kind dying out and being superseded by others, and this many times over through enormous periods utterly unlike one another, those living beings which now inhabit the earth being no more than the last group of a long, nay, almost infinite, series. Lastly, some |