THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

OCTOBER, 1858.

ART. I.-1. Scripture and Science not at Variance; with Remarks on the Historical Character, Plenary Inspiration, and Surpassing Importance of the earlier Chapters of Genesis. By JOHN H. PRATT, M.A. Archdeacon of Calcutta; Author of the Mathematical Principles of Mechanical Philosophy.' Second Edition, with new matter. London: Thomas Hatchard, Piccadilly. Calcutta: R. C. Lepage and Co. 1858.

6

2. The Testimony of the Rocks; or, Geology in its Bearings on the two Theologies, Natural and Revealed. By HUGH MILLER, Author of The Old Red Sandstone,' Footprints of the Creator,' &c. &c. Edinburgh: Shepherd and Elliot, 15, Princes Street. London: Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1857. 3. Creation and the Fall: A Defence and Exposition of the first three Chapters of Genesis. By the Rev. DONALD MACDONALD, M.A., Minister of the Free Church, Edinkillie. Edinburgh: Thomas Canteth and Co. London: Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1856.

THERE are many points at which Science and Revelation come in contact with each other, with more or less of apparent antagonism. That they should have points in common is the direct and very obvious consequence of their both having reference to the necessities of human nature, both purposing, or at least resulting in, the amelioration of its circumstances and condition. And it requires but little reflection, to be enabled to see that the appearance of discord between the two is equally a matter of necessity. If we confine our attention to the fact, that the one is in a certain sense stationary, whilst the other is progressive, this alone is sufficient to demonstrate that science in its advancement must appear to clash with revelation. This would be the case, were revelation ever so clear, and definite, and free from mystery; supposing, that is, any uncertainty

to attach to the methods and conclusions of science for the time being. On the supposition that revelation was perfectly understood, science, unless each step were entirely secured and free from error, must of course exhibit discrepancies from revealed truth, so long as it refused to be guided or influenced by revelation. Every one who knows anything of the history of science, is aware of the partial views of truth which once prevailed in any given department, as well as of the entirely erroneous theories which for long periods of time prevailed in the world.

What

In other words, the fact that science is progressive, and capable of improvement, implies that at different periods it will exhibit statements and arguments at variance with each other, and with the truth. That such has, in point of fact, been the case, does not add any evidence to this truth, which is a necessity involved in the very idea of the imperfection of man's faculties; but it is only necessary to refer to any one of the physical sciences,—such, for instance, as Astronomy, the most symmetrical and complete of them all; or Geology, the one which has exhibited the most violently contradictory theories,-to be convinced that the statement is amply borne out by facts. is here alleged supposes an abstract case, quite impossible of being realized, viz. the entire independence of revelation and science, and the equally absurd hypothesis, that revelation is perfectly clear and comprehensible at all points. The reader will easily perceive that these remarks are intended with especial reference to physical science. It may serve to clear our notions, if, for a moment, we turn to the relation in which moral science stands towards revelation. It will not be pretended by any, however adverse to revealed truth, unless indeed. by such as adopt exploded theories of morality, that there is any established discrepancy between the ethics of the Bible, and the ethics of pure science. We do not care here to determine how far this happy result is owing to the light which moral science has borrowed from revealed truth. At least it will be admitted that the Bible nowhere contains any systematic treatise on morality, and that it does not appear to be any part of its design to solve the difficult questions in this science which have at different periods perplexed philosophers. Some of its books, however, do contain wondrous exhibitions of insight into the working of men's hearts, as well as acquaintance with the adaptation of man's nature to the circumstances under which he is placed. Now some clashing might have been expected between the conclusions which ethical science seemed to be establishing, and the enormous amount of direct statement and implied truth in the chapters of such books as the Proverbs,

and the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Ecclesiastes, and that of the Son of Sirach. Such discrepancies will be found to exist between these and the theories which appear in any, the best of heathen systems. And if Christian systems of morality have been checked and guided in their course by especial reference to works which were considered inspired or authoritative, it is nevertheless a testimony to the value and the truth of scientific results, and what professes to be Divine revelation, that they are in harmony with each other. We do not say that everything is clear and easy, intelligible and unmysterious. On the contrary, we doubt not that there will ever remain insolvable difficulties, but the amount of agreement is such as to render these difficulties quite useless to the disputant who would wish to raise an issue between science and revelation. Now precisely similar is the result which might beforehand be expected to appear from the relations of physical science to revelation, supposing that to enlighten mankind as to the laws of the universe were in the same degree the purpose and design of revelation, as it is to throw light upon the workings of the human mind. In this latter case, it is not so much the purpose as the indirect and unavoidable result, that information is given as to the laws of moral science. However practical be the object of revelation, and however little the practical may appear prominent in scientific investigations, the subject, man, is the same in both, and the moral philosopher might therefore have expected to be aided in his investigations by reference to the inspired writers in Holy Scripture. But it does not seem à priori probable, if one may so speak, that the investigators of the secrets of nature would find much help in a series of works, which, however often, and with whatever purpose they may refer to natural phenomena, make little or no allusion to the laws of nature. On the contrary, it would have been altogether at variance with the doom of toil and labour to which man is condemned, if he could at each instant refer to a guide which could neither err itself, nor be mistaken by him who consulted it, to guide him in his path.

It was then to be expected that Scripture, professing to contain a revelation from Almighty God, should be so far consistent with itself as not in the particular instance of physical science to reverse the law which itself has laid down in recording the sentence passed on the first man: In the sweat of thy 'face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground.' And certainly it will not be pretended on any hand that Scripture does reveal to us much that is calculated to assist us in

1 Genesis iii. 19.

1