THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENTIFIC MEN TOWARDS REVELATION.

The following is an address recently delivered to the students of the Congregational College in the Victoria parade Congregational Church, by the Rev. S. J. Whitmee, of Samoa :—

No one who understands the spirit of the present age will deny that it is one of unexampled progress. The sum of human knowledge has largely increased of late. In no branch of knowledge has this been more evident than in that which we call natural science, or the knowledge of nature. Astronomy, the science of the heavens and the queen of natural sciences, has made wonderful progress since the application of the spectroscope to astronomical observations. Under the researches of a few masters, geology, or the science of the earth, has, to a great extent, been rescued from its past chaotic condition, and has been developed into order, connecting itself in the remote past with astronomy, and forming in some of its aspects almost a part of that science. We are also developing a meteorological science (a most unhappy name, by the way) which is not only instructing us in the conditions affecting weather upon the surface of the earth, but which is likewise giving us valuable hints respecting the intimate relations existing between the earth and other heavenly bodies. Thus, again, this new science dovetails into astronomy.
With regard to those sciences which are now included under the name biological the science of living things, the advance during the past few years has simply been wonderful. A few years ago the prime object of our naturalists seemed to be to form immense curiosity shops, and to make heterogeneous collections called museums of natural history. The objects gathered together they industriously described and divided into genera and species. But the majority of these so called naturalists had apparently not the most remote idea as to what lay behind these genera and species, the chain linking all the heterogeneous parts more or lees intimately into one homogeneous and consistent whole. Now, however, a true naturalist no longer confines himself to the collection and classification of natural objects. He studies the relations existing between each and all. He analyses for the sake of the comprehensive synthesis which is to follow. He sees in nature, not a heterogeneous and disjointed assemblage of objects without order or connexion between them, but the various parts of one consistent and orderly whole. Beginning with the dawn of life, as we are able to discover it in the shadowy past, we are now able, with more or less certainly, to follow the progressive stages by the records written in the rocks. We can also link on the present to the past, and trace the connexion existing between present and familiar forms with the strange ancient forms which have long ceased to exist. We have even come to recognise a connexion between the two great divisions of living objects—animal and vegetable—and have learned that they to a great extent run into one another and overlap on the border land.
Now these are great changes. And great changes are never made without a good deal of commotion. We have been travelling rather fast, and fast travelling often shakes the nerves of weak people, and otherwise disturbs them. If such weak people fail to understand the principles upon which the rapid progress is made, they are likely to be still more alarmed and they think nothing but disaster and destruction are before them and all concerned. This is the case with a good many people at the present day with regard to the advancement of science. There are also some other common tendencies of our nature which manifest themselves prominently in times of commotion and of great progress. These are, the tendency to rush from one extreme to another, and also that of carrying the application of a newly discovered principle or law beyond all reasonable bounds. These are also now exceedingly prominent. We are suffering from both of these tendencies.
The great change which has been made in the study of biology is chiefly owing to the partial or complete acceptance of those theories which are associated with the names of Darwin, Wallace, and Herbert Spencer. And whatever we may think of those theories as a whole, those who have studied them must acknowledge that they are, to a great extent, based on truth. They have also done much good by setting us thinking about the relations of things which, but for them, would have been unthought of by men generally. But, on the other hand, these theories have been terribly abused, and pushed beyond all reasonable limits. Extreme evolutionists, catching hastily at these theories, have impetuously rushed to an extreme, wide as the poles asunder, from the theories and the recognised belief and teaching of theologians. With this new light thrown upon nature and her operations, they have recognised the law, but have in some cases, I am sorry to think, been unwise and illogical enough to ignore the existence and operation of the Law giver. Very illogically and unreasonably, they have attributed to nature herself the origin of those laws which they see, and which a truly logical, reasonable, and unbiassed mind must see have been imposed upon her by her Maker. This is a recoil from one extreme to another. Liberating themselves from the theological shackles which held men at the one pole, they have wildly sped on their course, until they have brought up in the midst of the dreary desolation of the opposite pole.
These evolutionists have also given way to the other tendency which I mentioned. Seeing the principle which obtains to a great extent in nature, viz., that of continually changing forms, and the development of one form out of another they have carried that principle to excess, supposing all the higher forms of life to be developed from the lower. Not contenting themselves with facts as far as they go, they bring the imagination to supply the want of facts, and thus leap over chasms which imagination alone is capable of vaulting. Then they gravely argue from, and dogmatise on, their own imaginings as if they were bona fide facts which could not be gainsaid. That is the abuse of a principle. The late F. W. Robertson used to say some thing to this effect:— that every error had its foundation in some truth. I am inclined to think there is much truth in that assertion. Error is usually perverted truth.
Now, I believe the doctrine of natural selection or even a moderate form of the evolution theory, has a very great deal of truth at the bottom of it. It has truth at its foundation. But very much of the superstructure erected upon it is I think, absolute error. What we have to do is to discriminate between the foundation truths and the errors built upon them. But this is what a great many good and religious people will not do. They make a principle responsible for all the errors foisted upon it, and then reject what may of itself be good, because of the abuse to which it has been subjected. Hence much of the odium which has been cast by religious people upon science and especially upon everything which bears the slightest relationship to what we call natural selection and evolution. Some extreme evolutionists wise in their own conceits have tried to ignore the existence of an Almighty Creator and ever watchful sustainer of the universe. They have violently tilted against not only the prejudices but also the dearest and most reasonable religious convictions of Christians. Many of their less than half informed followers have taken up with the theory which they suppose does away with the necessity of acknowledging the existence of a moral Governor of the universe. And too many of the religious public blindly accept these ultra views of the few rationalistic, scientific men, and the many would be wise dabblers in science and atheism. Because such men talk of the opposition between science and revelation, these believers accept it as a fact that such opposition actually exists. Hence they set themselves against science, and uncharitably class the vast majority of scientific men with the irreligious and the atheists. If a minister of the gospel should happen to possess any special interest in, and knowledge of, biological science, this fact alone raises the presumption in their minds that he must be unsound in his theology; they look askance at him, shrug their shoulders, and with mingled pity and blame they think he is in a fair way to make shipwreck of his faith.

Now I wish for a few moments to vindicate science and scientific men from this wholesale condemnation.
1. I have already said there are some scientists whose belief and teaching are decidedly rationalistic and atheistic, but I do not think many of this class are to be found in the front ranks of science. A few names will occur to you, and they are only a few, but they belong to men who have made a great noise in the world, and who have many followers among the half informed multitude. Hence the frequency with which we hear their names.
2. A much greater number of our foremost men of science have, I believe, a sincere respect for religion, and are by no means willing to give up their claim to be sincere Christians. But they have become convinced that the recent teaching of science does not harmonise, in many particulars, with traditional belief. They notice with concern the hubbub raised by theologians on account of what they call the rationalistic tendency of scientific research. Not being in many instances theologians themselves, such men of science think there must be some ground for the view held by theologians that scientific facts are contrary to revelation. With sincere regret they come to this conclusion. But they cannot resist the convictions which their researches in nature raise in their minds, and they are told by those who ought to know, that such conclusions are contrary to Divine revelation. The result is they come to think the error must be on the side of revelation. They conclude that the Bible though a useful book, and one which did very well in former times of ignorance, is now too antiquated, and too much behind the age to meet the requirements of the present enlightened times. Such men do not willingly give up the religious convictions they have inherited from their fathers, and which have been strengthened by education. But their faith is continually being shaken by the apparent antagonism of religion and science. I believe a good many scientists in English speaking countries belong to this class. They are losing their faith by what they think to be the opposition of religion to scientific facts. Some of them have not gone very far on the road to scepticism, others are farther on the way. They have lost their respect for traditional beliefs and they manifest a measure of contempt for religion and for religious teachers. They know how resolutely "the church" (so-called) opposed all kinds of scientific progress in past ages; how she fettered men's minds with her dogmatic shackles, and threatened eternal damnation on all who dared to differ from her dogmas. These men see that in many minsters of the gospel, and other good Christians in the present day, still hold to and dogmatise on the narrowest of creeds, and that they manifest very little Christian charity in judging the opinions of those who differ from them. Hence, thinking their difficulties cannot be reasonably met, they break loose from what they call sacerdotal dogmatism, and drift on towards a dreary rationalism.
3. There is however another class of scientific men who maintain a foremost position their respective sciences, and who at the same time are humble believers in Divine revelation and sincere followers of Christ the Saviour. These men are not narrow on either side. They are not blinded by prejudice. They are not believers in infallibility either in the church or in the world. They believe in the Bible as the word of God, and they also believe in nature as the work of God. They accept facts from both. They reconcile them as far as they are able. They see many mysteries, and difficulties but they do not hastily jump to conclusions. They discriminate between the Word of God and the traditional human interpretations of that word. They do not recognise the inspiration of chronologists, whether they be divines or geologists. Where facts seem to clash, and the mysteries seem inexplicable in the light they possess, they do not deny the facts, but they seek more light; and they defer the formation of a positive opinion until sufficient light shines upon them. There are many well known scientists who occupy this position. I am also happy to think there are some honoured and useful ministers of the gospel who occupy it. But I fear this cannot be said of the majority of ministers. I am sorry to think there is a very great lack of information in many ministers on the most prominent scientific questions of the age; those questions which are agitating men's minds and shaking men's faith in revealed religion. A lack of information gives use also to bitterness and narrowness in the judgment of scientists, and of the bearings of their scientific speculations.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, the field on which the future battle between Christianity and infidelity will be fought is that of natural science. And if such be the case, it is of the very highest importance that ministers of the gospel should possess scientific culture. We ought all of us to be Christian scientists, and scientific Christians. If we are to maintain a position in the van of progress, and continue to be recognised as leaders and teachers of the people, this is what we must be. We shall never convince people of error by dogmatism. We shall never win people from scientific scepticism unless we are able, from our own knowledge of both sides of the question, to convince their reason, and show them the better way. The study of science is becoming very general. There is a growing demand for scientific instruction in all classes of schools. And the conviction is growing in our universities that physical science ought to command at least as much time and attention as the ancient classics, and that university honours ought to be given for proficiency in science as well as in any other branch of knowledge. The press is becoming alive to the importance of scientific knowledge. And the educated public is rapidly gaining a considerable amount of scientific information; for science is not only taught by some of the most fascinating writers, but many scientific subjects are of such interest, that a person who once dips into them can never satiate his thirst for more knowledge.

And the pulpit ought not to be behind the schools, the press, or the thinking and reading public in this respect. The education of a minister of the gospel should be of the broadest character possible. No other professional man needs one so comprehensive. He has to meet and to teach all classes and conditions of men. He has to encounter all the different phases of thought. He occupies a prominent position before the eyes of all, and men look to him for counsel and guidance in all their intellectual as well as in all their other difficulties. Hence he needs to be a many sided man, and to be more than respectable in all the phases of his character and knowledge. I would not therefore advocate scientific culture at the expense of other branches of knowledge. Of course all those studies usually included in the curriculum of theological students must have their proper place as of primary importance. It is also well that as large a knowledge as is practicable of the classical languages and literature of Greece and Rome should be obtained, and modern European languages should be added if possible.

But none of these need hinder a student in the pursuit of scientific studies. Indeed some of them will both help in, and be themselves studied to greater advantage by the aid of, scientific research. You may think I am going rather far and giving a range of study far too broad to be comprehended within the limited period usually given by students for the ministry to professional study. And this brings me to one point which I wish specially to press upon your attention. It is that scientific studies should not be limited to the period of a university or college curriculum. I would say this of every subject of study which is worth any thing. But I would say it with special emphasis with regard to physical science. A college course ought never to be regarded as more than an initiation into the study of a lifetime. It merely furnishes the key. If a man is satisfied with what he gains at college, and does not use the key there obtained to unlock other stores of knowledge, all I can say of him is, he is not fit for the work of the ministry. The advantage of a study of physical science is, that it may be carried on by an intelligent and educated man at all times. And I would commend this thought to present ministers as well as to students. Whether we walk the streets of the city, or the fields and bush of the country, whether we are on the sea, or on the land, the works of God are ever before us. By day and by night we may ever study them. And we shall not only derive personal benefit from them but shall also gain stores of knowledge which will enable us to communicate benefits to others.

I will now specially enumerate a few of these benefits to be derived by ministers of the gospel from a study of natural science.
1. It fosters a habit of observation. This is valuable to any man, but especially to a teacher of man. You know it is said the eye sees in an object only that which it brings the power of seeing. What a difference there is between men in this matter of observation. The grandest picture is to the uneducated eye merely a daub of paint. The most magnificent natural scenes are to many men simply so many hills and valleys, rivers and lakes, trees and rocks. It may be they will not see the hill unless they have to climb it, or the river unless it cuts off their course. To them a tree is a tree, and an animal is an animal, and nothing more... The habit of observation thus fostered furnishes a man with rational employment and recreation, and makes life far more enjoyable than it otherwise possibly could be. I can say this from my own personal experience in an isolated position where I have been thrown very much upon nature for a kind of friendship and for all the recreation I enjoyed.
2. The observation of nature which scientific culture necessitates is calculated to expand the mind and ennoble the soul. God has given us two books —the Bible and Nature. Each has its place. We are not, I trust, likely to exalt the book of nature to the place of the book of revelation. But do we not unduly neglect the study of the book of nature? Nature and revelation ought to go together. The man sees god in his works must derive ideas there from which even revelation cannot teach him, although they are not contrary to revelation. The spheres of the two are different, and yet agreeing one to the other. The one is the counter part of the other (its other part) and both are needed to make a perfect whole. We see God's glory in all his works in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath. In the universal law and order which obtain in His universe, and which affect alike things animate and things inanimate, we cannot help seeing that which will be profitable to ourselves, and which will enable us to communicate benefit to others.
3. I come to a more directly utilitarian point of view. Such culture as that I advocate will furnish ministers with additional matter for thought and illustration in their public preaching. What realm of knowledge is so wide and so rich as the realm of nature? And to the intelligent student of nature what other subject of study (the sacred Scriptures alone excepted) will furnish him with so many fresh and telling thoughts? The Bible has been lightly spoken of as an inexhaustible mine. And the book of nature is another mine second alone to the Bible. The Great Teacher himself drew from nature some of his most striking illustrations, and we may with great benefit to ourselves and to those to whom we minister follow his example in this respect.
4. There is another advantage upon which I wish to lay particular stress. It is this that scientific culture will put the minister of the gospel more into sympathy with the better educated and more thoughtful portion of his audience. I know that real men of science are few and far between, and are not found in any great numbers in our congregations. Still they may be found there now and again. And there are a good many educated men who have given sufficient attention to scientific subjects to understand the bearings of the great questions in the realm of nature which are agitating thoughtful minds. I am compelled to say I fear such men feel very little respect for what most ministers have to say on such questions. They think ministers do not understand these questions, and perhaps they are to a great extent right in thinking so. As an example of what I mean I will mention three instances which have come under my own notice during the present year. One of our most prominent scientific men in England, in writing to me a few months ago, on some of the present biological problems, mentions in his letter Dr. Abbott's volume of University sermons recently published on " The Relations of Faith and Science," in these words:— " I have just got into my hand a book written with more sense than is usually found in such productions." Those few words show us what he thinks of us and our productions. Early in the present year I was discussing the bearings of the evolution theory with a well known naturalist and traveller who paid me a visit in Samoa. This gentleman is a member of the Episcopal Church. He thought ministers generally were extremely ignorant and intolerant on this subject. He said to me, " Whenever our clergyman begins to talk in his sermons about Darwinism, and about scientific men, I always have some amusement, for he manifests the most deplorable ignorance and intolerance, and talks the greatest nonsense imaginable." Since I have been in Australia I have met with a gentleman who makes no pretensions to being a scientist, but who has read a good deal on scientific subjects, and is acquainted with the works of such men as Darwin, Wallace, Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall. He very honestly said to me, "I seldom go to church nowadays, for I find our minister is quite behind the age. He knows absolutely nothing about the most prominent questions of the day. I feel that he cannot teach me anything, and so I stay at home and spend most of my Sundays in reading scientific books." These are three examples which show us the opinion of three representative men respecting ministers. They represent the highest scientific thinkers, the working naturalists, and the educated and thoughtful professional and business men. We sometimes, with Burns, wish for the power "to see ourselves as others see us." When the mirror is held up it may not present a very flattering portrait. But we ought manfully to contemplate it, and be willing to learn whether it be a faithful likeness.
We often hear complaints that the thoughtful and educated classes neglect the ordinances of religion. If such be the case are ministers in any way to blame for it ? Be it far from us to pander to the rationalistic tendencies of the age, and mutilate the gospel, or preach it with the mere wisdom of words, for the sake of attracting those who have no sympathy with spiritual things. But it may be that we fail to obtain the respect and attention of some men because we do not keep ourselves in the van of the intelligence of the age. I know from personal observation, from contact with men, and from the newspaper press, that this is the opinion of many concerning us. To come near home. I will read an extract from the Melbourne letter of " Our Own Correspondent," to one of the Adelaide papers written no longer ago than the 21st of November. It was written apropos of the late races. The writer says :—"Here (in Melbourne, remember) it is a fact that the protests of the pulpit and the religious press are as little heeded as the idle wind." And he continues :—"It is a marked feature in Victoria that the pulpit has an insignificant and rapidly decreasing influence on the community at large, and along with this has sprung up—from what ever causes it may have arisen—an undisguised and universal lack of respect for the cloth." I will not pretend to say whether that be true. You are better judges on that point than I am. If it be true, I will not venture to say why it is so. All I will say is, that it is our duty to see to it, that such a state of things does not come about on account of our lack of such culture as is within our reach. We have never subscribed to the creed that a minister is more likely to be taught by the spirit of God, and more useful in winning souls if he be uncultured, than he is if he be highly cultured. But we believe we should gain all the knowledge we can, do all we can, and, in a measure, be all things to all men, that we may win some.
5. Another advantage which a Christian minister will gain from scientific culture is that it will enable him to meet scientific sceptics and honest thinkers who have doubts arising from scientific theories upon their own ground. It is important that we should be able thus to meet the scientist, and also that we should be able to meet the dabbler in science, who thinks it adds to his learned appearance to retail the stock-scientific objections to revelation and Christianity. Scientific men are continually protesting against the dogmatism of theologians who, without special knowledge, presume to pronounce an opinion on scientific facts and theories. This is reasonable, although it would be very easy to point to notable examples of scientific men, with no special theological knowledge, who speak with as much dogmatism on points of theology as my theologian does. Still it is no argument to say we are no worse than our opponents. We wish to be better than they when they do that which they ought not to do. What we need is such a broad, comprehensive, and enlightened view of facts, and so little party bias that our opinion will command the respect of all, whether they agree with us or not. We ought to feel that the best and most scientific men living can not pooh pooh and disregard the calm expression of our views . We ought to gain the respect of unprejudiced and good men wherever they are to be found, and to gain a hearing which will tell for good upon those who are in danger of being led astray through the lack of intelligent guides, who can enter into their feelings, see things from their own standpoint, show them the fallacies under which they are labouring, and lead them to the truth.

 The Argus 29 December 1876,