the lights of the church and the light of science-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



Rawlinson　trusted　so　implicitly　in　1859；　is　relegated　by　all

serious　critics　to　the　domain　of　fable。



But　if　scientific　method；　operating　in　the　region　of　history；　of

philology；　of　archaeology；　in　the　course　of　the　last　thirty　or

forty　years；　has　become　thus　formidable　to　the　theological

dogmatist；　what　may　not　be　said　about　scientific　method　working

in　the　province　of　physical　science？　For；　if　it　be　true　that　the

Canonical　Scriptures　have　innumerable　points　of　contact　with

civil　history；　it　is　no　less　true　that　they　have　almost　as　many

with　natural　history；　and　their　accuracy　is　put　to　the　test　as

severely　by　the　latter　as　by　the　former。　The　origin　of　the

present　state　of　the　heavens　and　the　earth　is　a　problem　which

lies　strictly　within　the　province　of　physical　science；　so　is

that　of　the　origin　of　man　among　living　things；　so　is　that　of　the

physical　changes　which　the　earth　has　undergone　since　the　origin

of　man；　so　is　that　of　the　origin　of　the　various　races　and

nations　of　men；　with　all　their　varieties　of　language　and

physical　conformation。　Whether　the　earth　moves　round　the　sun　or

the　contrary；　whether　the　bodily　and　mental　diseases　of　men　and

animals　are　caused　by　evil　spirits　or　not；　whether　there　is　such

an　agency　as　witchcraft　or　notall　these　are　purely　scientific

questions；　and　to　all　of　them　the　Canonical　Scriptures　profess

to　give　true　answers。　And　though　nothing　is　more　common　than　the

assumption　that　these　books　come　into　conflict　only　with　the

speculative　part　of　modern　physical　science；　no　assumption　can

have　less　foundation。



The　antagonism　between　natural　knowledge　and　the　Pentateuch

would　be　as　great　if　the　speculations　of　our　time　had　never　been

heard　of。　It　arises　out　of　contradiction　upon　matters　of　fact。

The　books　of　ecclesiastical　authority　declare　that　certain

events　happened　in　a　certain　fashion；　the　books　of　scientific

authority　say　they　did　not。　As　it　seems　that　this　unquestionable

truth　has　not　yet　penetrated　among　many　of　those　who　speak　and

write　on　these　subjects；　it　may　be　useful　to　give　a　full

illustration　of　it。　And　for　that　purpose　I　propose　to　deal；　at

some　length；　with　the　narrative　of　the　Noachian　Deluge　given

in　Genesis。





The　Bampton　lecturer　in　1859；　and　the　Canon　of　St。　Paul's　in

1890；　are　in　full　agreement　that　this　history　is　true；　in　the

sense　in　which　I　have　defined　historical　truth。　The　former　is　of

opinion　that　the　account　attributed　to　Berosus　records

a　tradition





not　drawn　from　the　Hebrew　record；　much　less　the　foundation　of

that　record；　yet　coinciding　with　it　in　the　most　remarkable　way。

The　Babylonian　version　is　tricked　out　with　a　few　extravagances；

as　the　monstrous　size　of　the　vessel　and　the　translation　of

Xisuthros；　but　otherwise　it　is　the　Hebrew　history　down　to　its

minutiae。　（p。　64）。





Moreover；　correcting　Niebuhr；　the　Bampton　lecturer　points　out

that　the　narrative　of　Berosus　implies　the　universality　of

the　Flood。





It　is　plain　that　the　waters　are　represented　as　prevailing　above

the　tops　of　the　loftiest　mountains　in　Armeniaa　height　which

must　have　been　seen　to　involve　the　submersion　of　all　the

countries　with　which　the　Babylonians　were　acquainted　（p。　66）。





I　may　remark；　in　passing；　that　many　people　think　the　size　of

Noah's　ark　〃monstrous；〃　considering　the　probable　state　of　the

art　of　shipbuilding　only　1600　years　after　the　origin　of　man；

while　others　are　so　unreasonable　as　to　inquire　why　the

translation　of　Enoch　is　less　an　〃extravagance〃　than　that　of

Xisuthros。　It　is　more　important；　however；　to　note　that　the

Universality　of　the　Deluge　is　recognised；　not　merely　as　a　part

of　the　story；　but　as　a　necessary　consequence　of　some　of　its

details。　The　latest　exponent　of　Anglican　orthodoxy；　as　we　have

seen；　insists　upon　the　accuracy　of　the　Pentateuchal　history　of

the　Flood　in　a　still　more　forcible　manner。　It　is　cited　as　one　of

those　very　narratives　to　which　the　authority　of　the　Founder　of

Christianity　is　pledged；　and　upon　the　accuracy　of　which　〃the

trustworthiness　of　our　Lord　Jesus　Christ〃　is　staked；　just　as

others　have　staked　it　upon　the　truth　of　the　histories　of

demoniac　possession　in　the　Gospels。



Now；　when　those　who　put　their　trust　in　scientific　methods　of

ascertaining　the　truth　in　the　province　of　natural　history　find

themselves　confronted　and　opposed；　on　their　own　ground；　by

ecclesiastical　pretensions　to　better　knowledge；　it　is；

undoubtedly；　most　desirable　for　them　to　make　sure　that　their

conclusions；　whatever　they　may　be；　are　well　founded。　And；　if

they　put　aside　the　unauthorised　interference　with　their　business

and　relegate　the　Pentateuchal　history　to　the　region　of　pure

fiction；　they　are　bound　to　assure　themselves　that　they　do　so

because　the　plainest　teachings　of　Nature　（apart　from　all

doubtful　speculations）　are　irreconcilable　with　the　assertions

which　they　reject。



At　the　present　time；　it　is　difficult　to　persuade　serious

scientific　inquirers　to　occupy　themselves；　in　any　way；　with　the

Noachian　Deluge。　They　look　at　you　with　a　smile　and　a　shrug；　and

say　they　have　more　important　matters　to　attend　to　than　mere

antiquarianism。　But　it　was　not　so　in　my　youth。　At　that　time；

geologists　and　biologists　could　hardly　follow　to　the　end　any

path　of　inquiry　without　finding　the　way　blocked　by　Noah　and　his

ark；　or　by　the　first　chapter　of　Genesis；　and　it　was　a　serious

matter；　in　this　country　at　any　rate；　for　a　man　to　be　suspected

of　doubting　the　literal　truth　of　the　Diluvial　or　any　other

Pentateuchal　history。　The　fiftieth　anniversary　of　the　foundation

of　the　Geological　Club　（in　1824）　was；　if　I　remember　rightly；　the

last　occasion　on　which　the　late　Sir　Charles　Lyell　spoke　to　even

so　small　a　public　as　the　members　of　that　body。　Our　veteran

leader　lighted　up　once　more；　and；　referring　to　the　difficulties

which　beset　his　early　efforts　to　create　a　rational　science　of

geology；　spoke；　with　his　wonted　clearness　and　vigour；　of　the

social　ostracism　which　pursued　him　after　the　publication　of　the

〃Principles　of　Geology；〃　in　1830；　on　account　of　the　obvious

tendency　of　that　noble　work　to　discredit　the　Pentateuchal

accounts　of　the　Creation　and　the　Deluge。　If　my　younger

contemporaries　find　this　hard　to　believe；　I　may　refer　them　to　a

grave　book；　〃On　the　Doctrine　of　the　Deluge；〃　published　eight

years　later；　and　dedicated　by　its　author　to　his　father；　the　then

Archbishop　of　York。　The　first　chapter　refers　to　the　treatment　of

the　〃Mosaic　Deluge；〃　by　Dr。　Buckland　and　Mr。　Lyell；　in　the

following　terms：





Their　respect　for　revealed　religion　has　prevented　them　from

arraying　themselves　openly　against　the　Scriptural　account　of　it

much　less　do　they　deny　its　truthbut　they　are　in　a　great

hurry　to　escape　from　the　consideration　of　it；　and　evidently

concur　in　the　opinion　of　Linnaeus；　that　no　proofs　whatever　of

the　Deluge　are　to　be　discovered　in　the　structure　of　the

earth　（p。　1）。





And　after　an　attempt　to　reply　to　some　of　Lyell's　arguments；

which　it　would　be　cruel　to　reproduce；　the　writer　continues：



When；　therefore；　upon　such　slender　grounds；　it　is

determined；　in　answer　to　those　who　insist　upon　its　universality；

that　the　Mosaic　Deluge　must　be　considered　a　preternatural　event；

far　beyond　the　reach　of　philosophical　inquiry；　not　only　as　to

the　causes　employed　to　produce　it；　but　as　to　the　effects　most

likely　to　result　from　it；　that　determination　wears　an　aspect　of

scepticism；　which；　however　much　soever　it　may　be　unintentional

in　the　mind　of　the　writer；　yet　cannot　but　produce　an　evil

impression　on　those　who　are　already　predisposed　to　carp　and

cavil　at　the　evidences　of　Revelation　（pp。　8…9）。





The　kindly　and　courteous　writer　of　these　curious　passages　is

evidently　unwilling　to　make　the　geologists　the　victims　of

general　opprobrium　by　pressing　the　obvious　consequences　of　their

teaching　home。　One　is　therefore　pained　to　think　of　t