218 G. MACLOSKIE, D.SC, ETC., ON COMMON ERRORS 



wliolesome trutli which ought to commend itself to our 

 liearts. The following notes are also directly suggested l>y a 

 historical review of onr problem, and appeal to" those who 

 attempt the conciliation of science and faith. 



1. In view of the relative independence of the testimony 

 for rehgious and scientific doctrines, all that should be ex- 

 pected is a general harmony ; and to press for excessive 

 conformity is dangerous. In fact no sound method of 

 homologizing the Bible and natural science has been dis- 

 covered ; nor was it ever possible in the formative stages of 

 science to effect their harmony. Thus it comes that all the 

 well-meant efforts in this direction have been necessarily in 

 great measure failures ; and any efforts that we may make 

 must be provisional, as they have to do with sacred exegesis 

 and scientific opinion, which are growing, and therefore 

 changing, things. Munro Gibson has enforced this principle 

 by reminding us that men have fought for ]\Iilton"s ideas as 

 passionately as if Paradise Lost had been added to the 

 Canon. The same error is gladly accepted by sceptics, who 

 insist on the Miltonic idea of creation as the only Scriptural 

 idea, and therefore insist on the incompatibiHty of Scripture 

 with well-established science. To harmonize Scripture and 

 science is good, if the harmony be provable beyond doubt ; 

 even a general refutation of charges of their discordance is 

 useful. It should be remembered that there is a large un- 

 explored hinterland between our science and the exegesis 

 of the early chapters of Genesis ; and the anti-scientific 

 divine is always sure to join hands with the anti-religious 

 man of science in filling this region with nnpassable barriers. 

 We must, however, carefully keep our interpretations of 

 Scripture untainted by our scientific ideals, and we must 

 keep our science clear of theological glosses. If Hugh 

 Miller had succeeded in engrafting his Testimony of the Rocks 

 upon the narrative in. the Book of Genesis, every new 

 departure on either side would have brought a ru})ture. 

 Some parts of the bright volume on Natural Law in the 

 Spiritual Worlil nppear to us to err in this respect, often 

 modifying its theology for the sake of completely harmoniz- 

 ing with its science. It would also be Avrong, Ave think, for 

 churches to readjust their deliverances as to the creative 

 week, so as to embody [Miller's or any other particular view 

 of the creative days ; although it nn'ght l)e proper to elimi- 

 nate from them any definite interpretation which has been 

 proved to Ik- untciinblc The general liarnion\- of the 



