1. Genesis. — The first chapters of this book have been the great bone of contention, theologians having been wont to assume that Moses asserts the formation of the entire universe, or at least of our own globe, with all its internal and superficial furniture, in .six literal days; while scientists at present in the main contend for an immense period of astronomical and geological vitas, which they claim that they read in the nebular reduc- tions, the rocky strata, and the vital evolutions. But a close inspection of the phraseology of Moses shows that he has not committed himself to either of these op- posite opinions. He simply states in ver. 1 the fact of God's creation of our own planet and its solar system, substantially as they now exist, without specifying any particulars as to the time, mode, or order of the process; and in the following verses he narrates successive stages of a subsequent special creation of the present vegetable and animal tribes, either over the earth generally or possibly in a particular locality onh% The Bible and modern science thus appear to be discoursing upon two entirely different subjects, and cannot possibly contra- dict each other.
SCIENCE
448
SCIOPPIUS
2. The Anttquily of Man. — The questions of the an- tiquity and unity of the Iniman race upon the earth are indeed more explicitly touched upon in the Bible, but modern science has hitherto adduced nothing adequate to overthrow the Biblical testimonj'. Tresumptions to the contrary, it is true, have been raised in some quar- ters b}- certain phenomena; but these admit of so ready an explanation on other grounds, and are rebutted by so many other facts, that scientists at large still hold fast to the opinion that man is of comparativelj- recent ori- gin, and must have sprung from a single family.
3. The Flood. — The universality of Noah's tlood as to the surface of the globe, although we admit the first in- ference from the Biblical account, is found on a closer examination not to be necessarilj- intended by its lan- guage; and a consideration of its uselessness and im- practicability for the mere purpose of drowning a few thousands in a particular locality induced expositors to limit its prevalence long before the modern scientific objections ;vere thought of.
4. The Resurrection, etc, — The doctrine of the sur- vival of the soul after death, and of the resurrection of the body, are coming more and more to be seen to be not only not incompatible with physiological science, but to be almost necessary deductions from ps3'chologi- cal and metaphysical reasoning, even apart from revela- tion. If the miraculous element be admitted into nat- ure, and hard facts demand its occasional intervention, as well as its primal impulse, all difficulty on physical grounds vanishes from these problems of the future world. The impercejitible but frequent renewal of the material organism actually furnishes a striking illustra- tion of the continuity of identity in the midst of appar- ent dissolution and atomic change.
5. Alleged Unscientific Statements. — But it is said that certain specific statements of Scripture are shown by science to be false. For instance, in natural history the coney and the hare are classed with the ruminants (Lev. xi, 5, 6; Deut. xiv, 7), whereas in fact they have no cud; and the ant with non-hybernating insects (Prov. vi, 6-8; XXX, 25), whereas in truth it lies torpid all winter. The answer to this is that the Scripture writers give a correct account of an actual phenomenon, although their descriptions are not couched in scientific terms. Their language is alwa3-s optical, i. e. in accordance with the exterior or apparent phenomena. As, in the case of the hare, thej' undoubtedly refer to the constant motions of the lips, which seenis like chewing the cud. They were not mistaken as to the fact which thej' meant to state, nor do they use language which when properly interpreted conveys a false impression. If their hearers or readers already had an impression scientifically erro- neous in some respects, they were not bound to correct that impression, provided it did not interfere with the purpose or truth which they had in view. Popular lan- guage always uses this liberty, but it is not therefore chargeable with untruth. Science is simply system- atized knowledge, and therein it differs from popular or general information. The facts remain the same both to the scientific and unscientific man; they are onlj' viewed in a different light and with different associa- tions. The Biblical writers, of course, having no scien- tific notions or standpoint after the Baconian school, ig- nore its nomenclature, and express themselves in the plain language of fact or sensible iihenomena. They broach no theories, they employ no technical terms; they confine themselves to actual things in their phe- nomenal forms. This is a universal rule with them. Hence they seem to disagree with science whenever its rigid canon of verbal precision is applied to them, for of course their vocabidary is different; but the dispute is aljout words onlv, while the things meant are identically the same. The sacred writers, in scholastic phrase, if 3'ou please, use solecisms in grammar, inelegancies in rhetoric, the nrffumentum ad hominvm in logic, an un- scientific terminology throughout — for such was their vernacular; but they never fall into error as to matter