The Continental Monthly, Volume 5, Issue 4 | Page 5

of its history it should fail to be true to itself!
After the Christian world came generally to accept the statement of
Chalmers that the writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the
world, and before science had begun to moot seriously the questions of
the unity of the race, the universality of the Noahian deluge, and the
antiquity of man, it was the custom of clergymen generally to reëcho
the true Protestant strain. They claimed science. They expected much
of her. They wished full and free discussion in order that still stronger
ramparts might be erected around the citadel of their faith. Why should
the tone be changed now? In the year 1840, the Rev. Albert Barnes, of
Philadelphia, who has long occupied a highly respectable and
influential position among the clerical body in this country, in an
address on the 'Progress and Tendencies of Science,' delivered before
the literary societies of one of the colleges of Pennsylvania, gave

utterance to the following noble sentiments:
'It has cost much to overcome this'--that is, the panic fears of Christian
people at the amazing progress and discoveries of science--'and to
restore confidence to the Christian world that the researches of science
will never permanently clash with the doctrines of revelation. But the
Christian world has come to that; and science is to receive no more
obstruction henceforth from any alarm that its discoveries will
contravene the revealed truth of God. No future Galileo is to be
imprisoned because he can look farther into the works of nature than
other men; and the point which we have gained now, is that no
obstruction is to be thrown in the way of science by any dread that any
scientific truth will infringe on any theological system. The great truth
has gone forth at last, not to be recalled, that the astronomer may point
his glass to the heavens as long and as patiently as he pleases, without
apprehending opposition from the Christian world; the chemist may
subject all objects to the action of the crucible and the blowpipe, 'with
none to molest him or make him afraid;' the geologist may penetrate to
any part of the earth--may dig as deep as he pleases, and no one may be
alarmed.'
This exhibits true Christian courage and confidence, and has the
genuine Protestant ring. It is based, however, on the supposition that no
possible conflict can arise between science and his understanding of the
Scriptures, and it is doubtful whether the same equanimity could be
maintained even in the author's mind if the 'progress and tendencies of
science' should take an unexpected direction. Thus, in the same address,
he says:
'One fact is remarkable. The geologist proves that the world has stood
many thousands of years, and we cannot deny it. He points to fossil
remains, and tells us of orders of animals that lived many years before
the Mosaic period of the creation of man. The Bible tells us that MAN
was created about six thousand years ago. Now, the material fact is,
that amid all the fossil remains of the geologist, and all the records of
past times, there is no proof that man has lived longer than that period;
but there is abundant proof to the contrary. Amid all on which the

geologist relies to demonstrate the existence of animals prior to the
Mosaic account of the creation, he has not presented us with one human
bone, or with one indication of the existence of man.'
This is one of the facts, among others, upon which 'the friends of
science and revelation have equal cause to congratulate themselves and
each other.' But what if the fact should change? What if not only one,
but many fossil human bones should be found? How is a divine, who
has already said that the Bible teaches the modern origin of man, to
avoid panic fears? Science is cumulative in its evidences, and it is
somewhat hazardous to undertake to say, at any point, that the ultima
thule of discovery has been reached.
We reiterate now, in the conclusion of these preliminary matters, the
sentiment of Mr. Barnes that science must be free and untrammelled.
No matter what discoveries may be made, what traditions overturned,
what faiths unsettled, science must have a free rein and an open course.
It must be so; unless we return to mediæval darkness and despotism.
Science, to be science at all, must establish its conclusions by its own
methods, and its methods must be intact and supreme, no matter what
facts they force upon the belief of mankind. It cannot accept any
extraneous authority. It cannot admit any foregone conclusions. It
cannot accept the statements, for instance, of the first chapter of
Genesis as astronomical, meteorological, geological, or ethnological
facts, as