There were, there are perhaps still,
two modes of reconciliation of Scripture and science, which have
been each in their day attempted, _and each has totally and
deservedly failed_. One is the endeavour to wrest the words of
the Bible from their natural meaning and _force it to speak the
language of science_." And again, speaking of the earliest known
example, which was the interpolation of the word "not" in
Leviticus xi, 6, he continues: "This is the earliest instance
of _the falsification of Scripture to meet the demands of
science_; and it has been followed in later times by the various
efforts which have been made to twist the earlier chapters of
the book of Genesis into _apparent_ agreement with the last
results of geology--representing days not to be days, morning
and evening not to be morning and evening, the Deluge not to be
the Deluge, and the ark not to be the ark."
After a statement like this we may fitly ask, Which is the more
likely to strengthen Christianity for its work in the twentieth
century which we are now about to enter--a large, manly, honest,
fearless utterance like this of Arthur Stanley, or
hair-splitting sophistries, bearing in their every line the
germs of failure, like those attempted by Mr.
Pages:
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472