Contemporary Literature [pp. 541-573]

544 CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE. [July,
can be no conflict between these facts. The conflict can be only "between
the inferences of the rhilosopher and the interpretations of the theologian."
It is a great point gained if all parties can be made to keep this distinctly in
view, that the controversy is not about things indubitably proved, but between
the fallible inferences from, or interpretations of those things, confidently put
forth by men. Between any two of these, conflict may arise, because both
are false, or one is true and the other false. Numerous instances are recited
in this volume in which human tools have been found imbedded in strata which,
many geologists confidently asserted, conclusively proved the existence of marp
in the pre-historic era, while in the end they turned out to be of Roman
manufacture. Any number of analogous cases of alleged geologic proof of
the pre-historic antiquity of man have been similarly exploded by ultimately
finding a new and right interpretation of the facts supposed to prove it. So
of many forms of opposition to Scriptural tenets founded on similar misinterpretations of the facts alleged to sustain them.
3. Hence follows the irrrpossibility of at once demonstrating the harmony
of all the facts of religion and science, because there must often be long and
patient waiting for the true explanation which evinces such harmony. But
when such true explanation is reached, this harmony must and will appear,
and all apparent contradictions will disappear. Faith should not therefore
be shaken by any present seeming discrepancy between facts in science and
doctrines of revelation.
4. This is all the more so as the natural sciences are incomplete and, therefore, natural theology must have an imperfect foundation and be itself imperfect, while, Christian revelation being complete, the supernatural theology
founded upon it must be much nearer perfection than the former. Hence
Christian scientists should be slow to admit alleged scientific conclusions
hostile to received interpretations of Scripture, and wait till they are thoroughly
sifted and tested before rejecting or accepting them, and trying to torture the
Bible into accord with them. "Christian apologists," says Dr. Fraser very
forcibly, "have often egregiously erred, not only in accepting statements as
to supposed facts, but in admitting the reasoning which has been eagerly
founded upon thenm, and in making a fruitless attempt to twist Scripture into
harmony with what science itself has afterwards disowned." "Isolated or
unexplained facts have been too often dragged in to give testimony against
some Scriptural statements, and have been too easily held sufficient to push
aside those accumulated evidences to its truth, which history or science orboth had indisputably established."
5- On the other hand, it is impossible so to separate science and religion
that either can ignore or treat as false what is proved true by or in the other
-that we can allow that to pass for truth in science which contradicts what is
supported by the unquestioned testimony of God in His Word. It is fashionable to say, and is in one sense true, that the Bible was not given to teach
science, i.e., truth in scientific form. It is no less certain that what God there
affirms is true, and that no genuine science can deny or refuse to recognize it,
for, as Dr. Fraser well says, "although not given to teach physical science,