CHAPTER IX.

ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.

SINCE the first edition of this work was published, objections have been stated that the views maintained in it are at variance with Revelation, and hostile to the interests of Religion. It is gratifying, however, to know, that they have not been urged by any individual of the least eminence in theology, or countenanced by persons of enlarged views of Christian doctrine. On the contrary, many excellent individuals, of unquestionable piety and benevolence, have widely recommended this work as containing the philosophy of practical Christianity, and have aided in its distribution. It is therefore rather on account of the interest of the inquiry itself, than from any feeling of the necessity of a defence, that I enter into the following discussion of the relation between Scripture and Science; and as in a question of this nature authorities are entitled to great weight, I shall commence by citing the opinion of one of the most learned, talented, and accomplished divines of the present day, the Archbishop of Dublin.

A few years ago, a Professorship of Political Economy was founded in Oxford by Mr. Drummond, with a novel constitution. The professor holds his office for only five years, and it is a condition that one lecture, at least, shall be published every year. Dr. Whately, now Archbishop of Dublin, was the second individual elected to the chair, and, in compliance with the statute, he, in 1831, published eight lectures on the science. They are introductory in their character, being intended chiefly to dispel popular prejudices against political economy, and to unfold its

objects. They contain several admirable observations, calculated to remove prejudices against the pursuit of new truths, which are directly applicable to the subject of this work, and on this account I present them to the readers.

'It has been my first object,' says Dr. Whately, in his preface, to combat the prevailing prejudices against the study, and especially those which represent it as unfavorable to religion.'

'In proportion,' he continues, as any branch of study leads to important and useful results, in proportion as it gains ground in public estimation,-in proportion as it tends to overthrow prevailing errors-in the same degree it may be expected to call forth angry declamation from those who are trying to despise what they will not learn, and wedded to prejudices which they cannot defend. Galileo probably would have escaped persecution, if his discoveries could have been disproved, and his reasonings refuted.' 'That political economy should have been complained of as hostile to religion, will probably be regarded a century hence (should the fact be then on record) with the same wonder, almost approaching to incredulity, with which we, of the present day, hear of men sincerely opposing, on religious grounds, the Copernican system. But till the advocates of Christianity shall have become universally much better acquainted with the true character of their religion, than, universally, they have ever yet been, we must always expect that every branch of study, every scientific theory that is brought into notice, will be assailed on religious grounds, by those who either have not studied the subject, or who are incompetent judges of it; or again, who are addressing themselves to such persons as are so circumstanced, and wish to excite and to take advantage of the passions of the ignorant. Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo. Some there are who sincerely believe that the Scriptures contain revelations of truths the most distinct from religion. Such persons procured, accordingly, a formal condemnation (very lately

rescinded) of the theory of the earth's motion, as at variance with Scripture. In Protestant countries, and now, it seems, even in Popish, this point has been conceded; but that the erroneous principle-that of appealing to revelation on questions of physical science-has not yet been entirely cleared away, is evident from the objections which most of you probably may have heard to the researches of geology. The objections against astronomy have been abandoned, rather, perhaps, from its having been made to appear, that the Scripture accounts of the phenomena of the heavens may be reconciled with the conclusions of science, than from its being understood that Scripture is not the test by which the conclusions of science are to be tried.' 'It is not a sign of faith-on the contrary, it indicates rather a want of faith, or else a culpable indolence—to decline meeting any theorist on his own ground, and to cut short the controversy by an appeal to the authority of Scripture. For, if we really are convinced of the truth of Scripture, and consequently of the falsity of any theory, (of the earth, for instance) which is really at variance with it, we must needs believe that that theory is also at variance with observable phenomena; and we ought not therefore to shrink from trying the question by an appeal to these.' 'God has not revealed to us a system of morality, such as would have been needed for a being who had no other means of distinguishing right and wrong. On the contrary, the inculcation of virtue and reprobation of vice in Scripture, are in such a tone as seem to presuppose a natural power, or a capacity for acquiring the power to distinguish them. And if a man, denying or renouncing all claims of natural conscience, should practise without scruple every thing he did not find expressly forbidden in Scripture, and think himself not bound to do any thing that is not there expressly enjoined, exclaiming at every turn—

'Is it so nominated in the Bond?'

he would be leading a life very unlike what a Christian's should be. Since, then, we are bound to use our own

natural faculties in the search after all truth that is within the reach of those faculties, most especially ought we to try, by their own proper evidence, questions which form no part of revelation properly so called, but which are incidentally alluded to in the Sacred Writings. If we appeal to the Scriptures on any such points, it should be merely as to an ancient book, not in reference to their sacred character; in short, not as Scripture.'-Pp. 29 to 36

These observations are highly philosophical and worthy of attention; the more so that their author is a divine, and now a high dignitary in the church of Ireland.

The science of geology also, has been fiercely attacked as hostile to religion, and been ably defended by the Rev. Adam Sedgwick, one of its most eminent professors. In the Appendix to his Discourse on the Studies of the University of Cambridge, he has added some valuable and instructive notes, in the last of which he reproves, with great eloquence and severity, the bigoted and ignorant individuals who dare to affirm that the pursuits of natural ` science are hostile to religion.' He also chastises those writers who have endeavored to falsify the facts and conclusions of geology, for the purpose of flattering the religious prejudices of the public. There is another class of men,' says he, 'who pursue geology by a nearer road, and are guided by a different light. Well intentioned they may be; but they have betrayed no small self-sufficiency, along with a shameful want of knowledge of the fundamental facts they presume to write about; hence they have dishonored the literature of this country by Mosaic geology, Scripture geology, and other works of cosmogony with kindred titles, wherein they have overlooked the aim and end of revelation, tortured the book of life out of its proper meaning, and wantonly contrived to bring about a collision between natural phenomena and the word of God.' (P. 150.)

The following observations of the same author are exceedingly just, and completely applicable to the principles

expounded in the present work, as well as to geology. 'A Brahmin crushed with a stone the microscope that first showed him living things among the vegetables of his daily food. The spirit of the Brahmin lives in Christendom. The bad principles of our nature are not bounded by caste or climate; and men are still to be found, who, if not rcstrained by the wise and humane laws of their country, would try to stifle by personal violence, and crush by brute force, every truth not hatched among their own conceits, and confined within the narrow fences of their own ignorance.' (P. 151.)

'We are told by the wise man not to answer a fool according to his folly; and it would indeed be a vain and idle task to engage in controversy with this school of false philosophy-to waste our breath in the forms of exact reasoning, unfitted to the comprehension of our antagoniststo draw our weapons in a combat where victory could give no honor. Before a geologist can condescend to reason with such men, they must first learn geology.* * It is too much to call upon us to scatter our seed on a soil at once both barren and unreclaimed-it is folly to think, that we can in the same hour be stubbing up the thorns and reaping the harvest. All the writers of this school have not indeed sinned against plain sense to the same degree. With some of them there is perhaps a perception of the light of natural truth, which may lead them after a time to follow it in the right road; but the case of others is beyond all hope from the powers of rational argument. Their position is impregnable while they remain within the fences of their ignorance, which is to them as a wall of brass; for (as was well said, if I remember right, by Bishop Warburton, of some bustling fanatics of his own day) there is no weak side of common sense whereat we may attack them. If cases like these yield at all, it must be to some treatment

*This remark is peculiarly applicable to those who oppose Phrenology, and the doctrine of the Natural Laws. Such of them as are serious do so in profound ignorance of the whole subject.