Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

future creation" and that "the light called everything into existence." In 1678, Ralph Cudworth, "one of the greatest glories of the English Church," published his Intellectual System of the Universe, in which he argued vigorously in favor of the origin and maintenance of the universe as a slow and gradual development of nature in obedience to an inward principle.

In every age there have been princes and theologians of the Church who have welcomed the progress of science, and those who headed the advance were generally firm believers in the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. Great scholastic divines like Roger Bacon, Albert Ballstadt, and Vincent of Beauvais were pioneers in geography, chemistry, and natural history. A cardinal of the Church early in the fifteenth century published a geographical picture of the world, which was the text-book of Columbus, and is cited by Humboldt as the chief authority of the time. Copernicus was a canon of the Church of Frauenburg; and it is fair to suppose that Galileo had a higher concern than fear of the Inquisition when he wrote to the Archduchess Christina to prove that his discoveries could be reconciled to Holy Scripture.

Third. From the survey of these facts, we may deduce a corollary, which gives a significant element in, and a new meaning to, the "warfare." It is a conflict, not between theology and science, but between old tradition and new truth. It has its origin, not in anything peculiar to, or essentially related to, religion, but simply in the ignorance and obstinacy and inertia of the human mind in all ages. In every department of thought a new theory is a disturbance and an affront. It intrudes upon men's intellectual leisures. It breaks crystallized thought and dislocates mental habits. With the mass of people, a new fact, and especially a new theory, is an intellectual tramp who is unceremoniously turned from the door with an exhortation to work for his living. This is especially true in regard to theories which compel us to revise those interpretations and opinions, which, while not authorized by, are more or less associated with, our religion. The new theory has got to fight and turn out of doors the old theory before it can take its place. We think that it can be proved that, through all the Christian centuries, the theologians have generally adopted the science of their day. With the rest of the world, they may have hesitated and questioned and challenged, but in the

end they have accepted from the scientists of the period their certified facts and even their plausible theories, and have adjusted thereto the current dogma, and interpretations of Holy Scripture. In the alleged conflict between theology and science, therefore, it was not so much theology, as the old science under a mask of theology, that fought the new science. The whimsical speculations of Voltaire regarding the fossils show how little Christianity had to do with the opposition that greeted the geological theories of his time. In the case of Galileo, the Church, it is true, seems to have worked a scientific scandal into its history. Popes, archbishops, and cardinals dallied and temporized with, but at last conspired to crush, the heliocentric theory, which Copernicus had projected and Galileo had proved. But the papal court was not the only culprit. Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin vied with the Church of Rome in denunciations of the new astronomy. The world of the day was committed to the Ptolemaic system, and, of course, interpreted the Bible in accordance with that system. Beyond question the Church was in fault, and jeopardized its reputation on a tender point. Still we cannot but think that Mr. White pushes it rather fiercely against the wall. At all events, the specific crime of the eccleslastics seems to have been that they were not in scientific advance of the world, and went beyond argument in defence of the old astronomy. Perhaps it was the memory of the costly blunder of Popes Paul V. and Urban VIII. that suggested to Pius IX. his treatment of Mr. Mivart's book entitled Genesis of Species. Mr. Mivart himself contributes this significant bit of history. "My Genesis of Species," he says, "was published in 1870, and therein I did not hesitate to promulgate the idea that Adam's body might have arisen from a non-human animal, the rational soul being subsequently infused. Great was the outcry against such a view, but I forwarded my little book to the Supreme Pontiff, and thereupon Pius IX. benignantly granted me a Doctor's hat, which the late Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster bestowed on me at a public function."

This comforting incident gives us an easy transition to our fourth point, which enables us with gratitude and a quiet mind to pu upon our shelves the History of the Warfare. Through all the conflict, the so-called defeats have been the enlargements and enrichments of theology. Barring the use of the obnoxious word

"theology," there are numerous passages in Mr. White's book which indicate that, in this conclusion, he and the Christian world are in substantial agreement. Speaking of the decay of the ancient belief that comets are signs in the heavens sent as tokens of Divine wrath, he says: "No catastrophe has ensued either to religion or morals." The same may be said of the decay of all the superstitious glosses with which even the learned of the unscientific ages read their Bibles. In some quarters, the idea prevails that Christianity on the whole has suffered, that her sacred records have been impugned, and her intellectual claims impaired by the fact that certain theories regarding the age and structure of the universe and certain deductions from Holy Scripture have been demolished by the hammers of science. On the contrary, these corrections of ancient mistakes have fallen easily and naturally within the accredited, historic lines of the Christian Faith, and the legitimate interpretation of salient passages of the inspired documents. The cry of Bellarmine and the bishops against Galileo that "his pretended discovery vitiated the whole Christian plan of salvation"; of John Wesley, that "giving up witchcraft is giving up the Bible"; of the fanatics of his day against Newton for "dethroning Providence" by his law of gravitation, have failed of verification. The Christian world has found enriched meanings in its Bible and its creeds by accepting the conclusions of science, in the spirit of that profound and devout word of Kepler: "I think the thoughts of God."

Cosmas, an Egyptian monk of the sixth century, lapsing from the teachings of the earlier theologians, Origen, St. Clement, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, touching the earth's sphericity, conceived the universe as an oblong box, after the fashion of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and this grotesque cosmography, as we may well believe, was abundantly supported by texts of Holy Scripture, and for several centuries was supposed to be the only orthodox theory. If we compare this with the nebular hypothesis of Laplace, which is generally accepted by intelligent theologians of to-day, can there be any question to which interpretation the first chapter of Genesis the more easily lends itself? If we compare the ancient and even now lingering idea of creation, which even St. Augustine repudiated, with the theory of the evolution of the species, of which the late Aubrey Moore-one of the VOL. CLXV.-No. 488.

7

most brilliant names that Oxford has given to the English Church-said: "It may fairly claim to be an established doctrine," and "an advance in our theological thinking,"-can we deny that the development theory has enriched our conceptions of God and life? In his Bampton lectures on "The Relations Between Religion and Science," Bishop Temple-enthroned the other day at Canterbury-tells us that whether in the case of special creation or evolution, "the creative power remains the same; the design with which that creative power was exercised remains the same. God did not make things, we may say; no, he made them make themselves; and surely this rather adds than withdraws force from the great argument. It seems in itself something more majestic, something more befitting Him to Whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years,' thus to impress His will once for all on His creation, and provide for all its countless variety by His one original impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what He had previously made."

Iu illustration of the present aspect of the warfare between theology and science, we recall the fact that the grave of Charles Robert Darwin was made next to the grave of Sir Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey.

WALTON BATTERSHALL.

THE QUEEN'S PARLIAMENTS.

BY H. W. LUCY (TOBY, M. P., OF “PUNCH”).

PART II.

I AM Sometimes asked whether, in reviewing personal experience extending over nearly a quarter of a century, I observe any deterioration in the tone and manner of the House of Commons. With the suffrage widely extended, the consequent admission of working members, and the large leavening of the aristocratic mass with the professional and trading classes, it is assumed that the standard of the House must have been lowered. How great has been the change in this last respect since the Queen came to the throne is witnessed by the testimony of Mr. Gladstone, who calculates that there were not five members of the Conservative party of 1835 who sat in the House of Commons by reason of their connection with trade or industry. Is the House of Commons better or worse for the revolution in this respect that has taken place during the more than sixty years of the Queen's reign?

My humble opinion is that, on the whole, the sitting House of Commons, the latest product of almost manhood suffrage, is the best mannered I have known. In this respect it even runs the risk of being described as dull. But that is not a criticism to be safely adventured, as was shown by its predecessor, in the main equally well mannered, which one July night suddenly flared up in fierce free fight in presence of the shocked mace and the paralyzed Chairman of Committees. There are profound possibilities latent in any House of Commons. It is as uncertain as the sea, one moment a waste of placid smiling water, the next lashed into fury by a cyclone.

It is no new thing to hear the House of Commons of the day

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »