SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Auckland, March 5.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 349, 9 March 1889, Page 3

SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Auckland, March 5.

St Paul's Chukch was again crowded on Sunday evening, when the Rev. E. H. Gulliver, M. A., delivered the third of his series of lectures on "Science and Religion."

AN EXPLANATION. Upon entering the pulpit, Mr Gulliver said it might perhaps bo due to the congregation to explain why he had felt it right to curtail the original course of addresses upon science and religion. In the first place, they were aware that there had been a certain amount of criticism induced by the lectures. To himself, poisonally, that -was a matter of complete indifference, but it must be borne in mind that ho was not preaching in his own church. It must be remembered that he was speaking in the absence of the incumbent ; therefore, such criticism caused an amount of delicacy of feeling in the matter, and he had decided that it would be wiser under the circumstances to reduce the couise, and consequently this would be the final lecture

SOME CONTRADICTIONS. Now it became necessary to review \eiy briefly points raised in the last address, more especially as in one or two matters his words had been misinterpreted and misunderstood. Those who had followed him carefully must have seen that the underlying thought was that modern reasoning and modern science had exercised a very sure modification upon Biblical belief. In order to illustrate that, he had taken one or two great ideas — the age of the earth and the a«e of man — not as the Bible stated them, but as it was popularly thought that it did. No one with the slightest knowledge of the dead languages would presume to commit himself in the matters ot dates and numbers, for he would know how very easy it was for a mistake to occur. Nevertheless, within the few decades of the present time it was generally understood that the age of the world was 6,000 years, andthatconsequcntly the age of man might be the same. They would see from that how mistakes must have arisen in the past. On the oae hand they had the statement o£ the Bible as regards the creation of the world and of man ; on the other hand the interpretations given upon the statements contained in the Bible, based upon traditions going back to antiquity when critical knowledge was non-existent, and the facts which were now at hand were not to be had. How, then, could it be urged that in any way they were trenching upon the inspiration, sacredness, and wisdom of the Bible when they tried as far as they could to point out errors, which had arisen through ignorance in the ancient days? The critical knowledge of modern times showed them that there were errors. Take, for example, the book of Genesis, with its original account of the creation of the world and of man. It contained at least three sepai-ate traditions. There were two accounts of the flood, both derived from ancient traditions which had somehow become mixed together in the mind of the writer of the book. They also found by calculations that the Levitical law as they now had it was not known until 1,000 years after the death of Joshua. That might seem a tremendous statement to make, but let them see what it really meant. There was no doubt that the hand of Moses might be seen in the Levitical law. In the time of .Ezra, 450 years later, there was no doubt that the Levitical law in its completion was in the hands of the Jewish people, but between those times ifc was evident that the Levitical law had been put together. It was not the simple product of 40 years' wandering in the desert. It had gone through gradual developments, from the simple to the complex, and yet the Levitical law was found in the Pentateuch. Examination showed that for a long time there was a most remarkable innocence of what was contained in the Levitical law. All through the book of Judges, again, this was noticeable in the fact that Gideon set up an altar and had a golden ephod, and also in Jephtba sacrificing his daughter. Samson loses the favour of God not because of his conduct, but on account of his having had his long hair cut off, and thus ceased to be a Nazarite. This absence of a knowledge of the Levitical law could also be seen in the actions of Saul, Samuel and David. Samuel's life was directly contradictory to the Levitical law. He uas not of the order of the priesthood, but was taken by his mother and consecrated to the priesthood. They found him sleeping where the ark of God vias. Under the Levitical law that was certain death. They saw that groves and images were allowed to remain in the time of Saul and David. That showed that the old simple ritual was still permitted to remain. They next came to Josiah, and here they found that the book of the covenant was discovered. That showed that before it was unknown. If they saw the work ot Josiah they found that it was the second book of the law, and it was not until the time of Ezra that they had the whole Levitical law existing in Isiael. In tbe face of such things surely it was no insult to God to mention that these errors existed. If it was "the opinion of scholars and others who were well qualified to speak that during the whole time the Levitical law was passing from the simple to the complex, it wa« no insult to God— and to the Bible, which they all valued— to open their eyes to these j facts. '

• RECONCILIATION. j And now for the reconciliation. Of course he had nob time to go as fully into the matter as he would have wished. They had seen religion and science depicted like two great armies prepared for the fight, as ib were ab daggers drawn. The question then arose : " Are there no means of reconciliation?" Must ib be a death struggle in which each must fight to the bitter end ? He was not going to lay down a new Gospel, but merely to bring forward one or two points which he thought might lead towards reconciliation, for surely if such could be done it were better to do it. Take.the first words in their creed, " I believe in God the Father Almighty." Row i it clung round, them with memories of the past I How often bhey had repeated it, and yet when they tried to trace the words they found themselves face to face with one of the most awful mysteries. The same -with the first article of their canons, which commenced, " Theie is but one true living God," &c. They knew that in those words they had the result of the most subtle andgreat brain which the earth had ever seen, but they felt at the end they were facing something which they were unable to comprehend, something which they could not explain. It was a great mystery. Now to pass on to science. In it also they found a kindred mystery. Take astronomy. They might trace the communications which one sphere had with another, they might calculate eclipses, bub after they had realised ib as fully as they could, what remained ? Then passing through the great realms of space what did they come to? Could they state what was beyond — whether there was a limit, or wa« ib boundless infinity of space ? That was bard to understand. They could see the

[ limit of the Church, they mightjcomr.reheml the limit of a country, or even of the whole world, but when they came to put limits to the mighty space abovo them, when they found system upon system beyond even power of imagination and thought, Avhen they came to speak of limits they could not realise it, for they felt that there must be something still further on beyond. Equally so they could not realise an eternity of space. Hero, then, they had come to a mystery. JN T ot only did it occur in astronomy, but in other blanches of science. Take, for instance, their own lives — the convolutions of their brain. The gcalpel of the anatomist or physiologist might lay bare the formation ot the brain to their gaze, they might have pointed out to them the various nerves which determined their powers, but when they saw the brain still in death how then could they understand where it had derived its power? Who, looking at it, could lealiso that there were determined and oiiginated the dreams of the poet, the' marvellous force of the orator, or the visions which theartist transferred to the canvas, and which remained to ehaim them afterwards. Thus they were still face to face with mystery. No matter what branch of science, it was still the same, they met that which they could not describe or realise. They were just in tiie same position as one who was colour blind to the beauties of the spectrum, or like one born deaf to whom the glorious harmony was unknown. So they felt that in both religion and science there was underlying them an element of mystery, not contradiction — mystery winch eluded their mental powers, not contradiction which insulted them. Here, then, was the first point in which he thought religion and science had common ground. The second point was truth. He did not mean any clear definite scheme of truth such as they were fond of laying dow n for others and themselves. He meant the rules of intellectual truth as laid down by science in all its branches. They believed that their Bible was inspiiecl, but although they believed in inspiration they could not say that the interpretation;* of it likewise had been given by inspiration. Just the biime as with other books, certain Dowers of criticism were required, such, for instance, as knowledge of certain woids, of grammatical words, which by wrong interpretation might alter the sens.c, and which must be properly understood if they wished to learn that which the Bible wanted to teach. In Shakspere and Dante, almost eveiy year some fresh discovery was made showing more clearly the thoughts which had been in the brain of the writer. And weie they insulting the Bible in saying that it must submit to similar criticism ? The Bible must submit to the arbitration of the intellect, whether it be with regaid to facts of knowledge or of history, and if they were men of common sense they must be guided by the decision resulting from such arbitiation by intellect. Was it not that which had effected the Reformation when Luther objected to indulgences, or when, later on, Gardener and Bonner weie in favour of transubstantiation ? Cranrner and Ridley opposed it, as it was impossible for one body to be in two places at the same time. It was opposed to common sense, and when such arguments were brought forward the reformation was piactically won. Besides these two things which religion and science had in common there was also the grand moral law. The Bible taught them the rules of a noble life, which, if followed, would make the world better. It taught them to live so that all they did would be pleasing both to God and man. That was what the Bible did, and science did the same, and v. as at one with them in the legend of love which was set before them in the life of their master Christ. They all must admit the marvellous beauty of that life, so magnificent that it stood above them all just the same as some lofty mountain peak towered o\er the sunounding plains. It said plainly, there is the sum total of what humanity could be. In all these science and religion were at one. It was not religion itself, only something which they had in common. That was what they wanted, though it was not to be expected that the swords would be sheathed at once. Whatever was clone towards reconciliation between the two gi eat armies must be done step by step. Still, if anything could be done ton aids getting a basis of agreement), it was well that it should be done. They were now living in critical times. All around theie was a marvellous vitality which seemed to rule them Ie appeared like the time of spring, when all the foices of nature were pushing themselves up. All the other plants were breaking forth into new life excepting one dry and witheied tiunk, which was unable to accept the life of the spring. It alone had no part in the growth. While all around was this marvellous vitality and everything was changing, was the only exception to this new growth to be that which they called religion? Surely they were justified in thinking that they were entitled to bring to bear upon it what new light they could. In justice to the Great God whohad placed them upon theearthand endowed them with the power of reason, let them utilise it in this matter and do not think that they •were doing God despite. Let them bring the light ot science to bear upon these old traditions which were now oppo&ed to the acre in which they lived, and believe that in doing so they would be doing that which was most pleasing to Him.