Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

;

of things which are not good in any proper sense of the word, as, for instance, the preying of one set of creatures upon another; the ferocity and malignant cruelty of certain animals the occurrence of earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, &c.; the existence of deserts, inhospitable climes, and such-like. In the second place, it is objected that, on the contrary, the whole of Nature, man included, are so perfectly in accordance with law and goodness properly conceived, that the Scriptural notions of the fall of man, and the present subjection of creation to vanity (i.e., apparent imperfection and purposelessness), are incredible and untrue.

The

Of course these two objections are mutually contradictory, and might safely be left to settle the matter under dispute between themselves, without theological interference. importance of the questions raised has caused, however, the adoption of a more active course, with again the usual diversity of opinion and method. Thus, some deny the first objection in toto, and maintain that Nature is still in all respects "very good," the only exception being fallen man. Others admit this objection, but deny that it applies to Scripture, arguing that the expressions in question refer to the world before the Fall, and regarding all evils existing in Nature now as the results of the Fall. Others, taking a middle course, allow a certain element of truth in both objections, but deny their extremes. According to these, the world is indeed, in one aspect, full of imperfection, albeit in another full of tokens of perfection; and this just because it is in a transition state, is slowly growing into completeness and beauty, and, like all God's works of this kind, does so through much apparent, and for the time being real, imperfection and evil. It is only when looked back upon in its entirety from the stand-point of its accomplished end, say these, that it can be expected to appear reasonable and good in every item. Meanwhile, sufficient evidence of present goodness is given to furnish a firm foundation, both for confidence as to the present, and hope as to the future.

In drawing this sketch of the existing relations between Scripture and Science to a close, two notes of explanation must be added to prevent misunderstanding concerning it. 1st. It is by no means to be regarded as complete, either as concerns the objections or the answers; several of the less notorious and important of the former having been omitted for the sake of brevity, while in respect to the latter an immense number of minute diversities and shades of difference have been passed over without notice, to avoid having to enter too much into details. 2nd. In gathering up the answers under the first three

heads into corresponding and symmetrical groups, it is in no way intended to imply that the answerers themselves may be arranged in the same way, it frequently happening that, even in the case of a single objection, part of the answer actually rendered belongs to one group and part to another. The grouping has respect solely to the matter and spirit of the answers, not at all to the method of the answerers. It is partly on this account, and partly for other reasons sufficiently apparent, that in no case have the names of the parties holding them been attached to either objections or answers.

But now, these being the facts of the case, what are we to learn from them? The first impression which a review like that just completed makes upon the mind is probably in most cases a pleasing one. It is pleasant to know that so many and seemingly insuperable objections have called forth so varied and powerful a list of answers; and the conclusion may, and no doubt will, be drawn by many that, with such a host of defenders, the assault of Science upon Scripture cannot but be triumphantly repelled. A deeper view, however, raises feelings of a very different kind. True, the defenders of Scripture are numerous and zealous, but they are a motley and discordant set, at war among themselves as fiercely as with the enemy, to a great extent mutually destructive; a large proportion of them, therefore, certainly in the wrong in the defence they make, and so a source of weakness rather than strength. It behoves the advocates of Scripture to consider this well. We hear much now-a-days of the contradictory hypotheses of Science, of the constant flux of opinions in the scientific world, of the evil of hasty assumptions and biased interpretations of phenomena, and the consequent futility of objections founded upon such a basis; and no doubt there is much truth and justice in all this. But it were well for all such criticizers of Science first of all to look at home. Are there no contradictory hypotheses among the defenders of Scripture? Is there no flux of opinion in orthodox views? Are there no hasty assumptions, no biased interpretations, which theological advocates are guilty of? Ay, truly, and that to a far greater degree, and of a kind far more inexcusable. Does the gradual unfolding of new facts cause scientific theories to be perpetually changing, and allow for the time being of the existence of many conflicting hypotheses? Well, be it remembered that every one of these theories and hypotheses has its advocates and representatives also among the defenders of Scripture; while over and above these there are a large number of fresh theories held by such, founded on fancies and not facts. It may be said, however, that to expect scientific unity among

theologians is unreasonable; it is not their proper subject, nor can they give to it the amount of study which it needs. If this be so, surely it were better if they left it alone; but, passing this by, at least then we may ask, and reasonably, for theological unity.

Alas for the cause, here is, if possible, even greater discordance than in matters of Science. Take the case of Biblical exegesis. Here is a book, written in plain and simple style, which has been in the hands of theologians complete for nigh 1800 years, and on which they have bestowed the most unremitting study; where no new facts can ever be rising up to disconcert past conclusions; where, therefore, if anywhere, unanimity would seem to be inevitable, and diversity of opinion be most inexplicable and criminal, and yet in so simple a matter as whether, in this book, the word "day" always means a period of twenty-four hours, or whether certain phrases in a straightforward narrative necessarily denote universality or not,-in such simple matters as these the world of theologians is at open war with itself. Verily, if they dwell in such extremely friable residences themselves, they should beware how they throw stones at their neighbours. But even this is not the worst. One would have thought that, however much interpretations might differ, at least when it came to questions of principle and fundamental doctrine, theologians would be at one. But no; much as they have read and studied their Bible, much as they have written about it, they have not been able even to settle the prime question in the entire controversy:-what is the real issue at stake? Some tell us that, if the objections of Science are carried home, the Divine authority of Scripture is at an end, some that it is merely rendered a little more doubtful, some that it is not touched in the least. Certainly there is no discord among men of Science that can be compared to this.

What, then, is to be done? It is said, that, to get rid of the changeableness and unsoundness of Science, we must cast theories and prejudices on one side, and give ourselves to a closer and more impartial investigation of facts. Very good; and precisely so must we do, only to a far greater extent, to get rid of the changeableness and unsoundness of our theological defence. It is not enough for the advocate of Scripture to scrutinize severely the facts and conclusions of Science; he has need to do so indeed, but much more has he need to scrutinize the assertions and arguments of current theology and exegesis. It will not do for him in these matters, even so much as in those, to trust to his own notions, or the notions of this writer or that writer; he must set himself earnestly to

search for facts, resolutely resolve to base his interpretation of Scripture on facts, and nothing else,-facts weighed with rigour, and reasoned on with strict impartiality. So in like manner with his view of the authority and character of Scripture, to base this, not on his ideas of what it ought to be, but on what facts warrant him in believing that it is. Of course such investigation requires the expenditure of much laborious study, the possession of a calm and carefully-suspended judgment, the submission to much misunderstanding, obloquy, and reproach; but there is no royal road to truth, and the lovers of truth must not begrudge the toil and pain involved in its acquirement. To such investigation, then, such discarding of theories, such laying aside of prejudices, such keen and unbiased search for truth, whatever it may be, and wherever found, let the members of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE devote themselves, heart and soul, and assuredly some steps will be taken to the final peaceful settlement of this unhappy controversy.

THE CHAIRMAN.-The pleasing duty of proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Warington, for his very able and comprehensive paper, devolves upon me. I think it a most suitable inauguration of the regular proceedings of the Society, as it reviews the whole question of the existing relations between Scripture and Science. Some may consider the mode of treatment is somewhat indefinite, as the author has set forth no views of his own, but has contented himself with a résumé of both sides of the controversy. He has set forth very clearly the objections urged against Scripture, and the answers to them hitherto published, without himself drawing any conclusions. Such a mode of treating the subject most convincingly illustrates the value of such a Society as the Victoria Institute. If the supposed discrepancies between Science and Scripture are to be removed, we must not look so much to individual answerers, as to the agency of a society which seeks to unite men distinguished for an acquaintance with the various branches of science and those skilled in theology. Such men meeting together from time to time, freely to discuss the controverted questions, will be most likely to indicate the proper answers to be made to the objectors. To the mere scholar unacquainted with science, as well as the great mass of people who have neither the time nor the ability to investigate these important questions for themselves, the work undertaken by the Victoria Institute will be of the greatest importance; and I have no doubt it will be well performed. It has been suggested that the paper just read to a certain extent invites discussion; I shall therefore be glad to hear any observations which any gentleman may be disposed to make upon it.

Mr. ROBERT BAXTER.-I think the paper just read is evidently one upon which Mr. Warington has bestowed great pains, and shown in its production very great ability. (Hear, hear.) He has dealt with his subject in a very

comprehensive manner; and his classification of the objections raised against the truth of the Scriptures and the answers which they had received, was calculated to bring the whole matter clearly before the mind. But at the same time I think the discussion opened by Mr. Warington is not by any means satisfactory, unless it is further pursued. In the shape in which it comes before us on this occasion, it seems to be merely the beginning of a discussion upon the questions under consideration, and is a paper which ought not to appear in its present shape in the publications of this Society and not until the arguments have been sufficiently pursued. I am sure we are all deeply indebted to Mr. Warington (hear, hear); but at the same time I think the value of the paper would be greatly enhanced if the author would pursue the subject further, so as to enable those who read it to know to what conclusions his inquiries tended. (Hear, hear.) I would respectfully suggest that the paper should for the present be withheld; and would say in conclusion that it affords me very great pleasure to second the vote of thanks which has been proposed by the Chairman. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. REDDIE. I agree in many respects with Mr. Baxter's remarks; but I must observe that Mr. Warington could scarcely have argued out the numerous questions he had necessarily touched upon, in giving a sketch of the various alleged contradictions between Scripture and Science. Thoroughly to discuss these questions would in fact be our work probably for years to come; and it would require a whole series of papers, to enable us to settle even a tithe of the points to which Mr. Warington had referred. In my opinion, however, it might be advantageous if he would add, by way of notes, some indication of who are the authors of the various opinions, whether scientific or theoretical, which he had quoted, that we might know more definitely what they had advanced, and the grounds upon which they held their views. It had been a matter of much anxiety to those who originated this Society, to have it clearly defined what we were going to do, and what we were not going to do; and it may be considered as settled, that we ought not to enter upon what are strictly questions of scriptural exegesis. Such were rather matters for theologians, and not subjects for discussion at these meetings. There is one remark near the conclusion of Mr. Warington's paper which I must notice. He observes that such a review as he had given us was calculated to produce a pleasing impression on the mind! Now I venture to think it must rather have an opposite effect. Mr. Warington had, no doubt, carved out our work for us, and had shown that the task we had undertaken was no light one. But it appears to me that it is very unsatisfactory, either that there should be so many contradictions in "Science," or so many contradictory "interpretations" of Scripture. I would wish, however, to call the attention of the author of the paper to the fact, that differences in the interpretation of Scripture existed long before any attacks were made upon it in the name of Science; and I cannot agree with Mr. Warington in thinking either that the Bible is so very easy a book to understand, or that a different understanding of obscure passages is so very inexcusable or blameworthy. We must remember that, besides not having the origines of Scripture at all,

H

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »