Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

One result, and perhaps the first to be looked for, is an increased consecration to the missionary service of the church. This is the response to be expected from young men. It would be impossible to believe in the genuineness of any broad religious movement, at the present time, which did not result in some immediate advantage to missions. Were it not true that the missionary service offers the natural outlet for an enlarged. spiritual energy, the present necessities of the missionary fields are such as to create a diversion into this channel. The most significant statement made at the last meeting of the American Board was that in reference to the decline, during the past years, in the numbers of candidates for missionary service, culminating in the serious fact that the last year not one had offered himself as a missionary. Under this decline of the missionary spirit, the demand for men has become simply imperative. The older fields must be reinforced, in many cases with men qualified to meet the increased demands of the missions in educational work. In the newer fields, men are wanted in groups to establish and organize for future results. While, in Japan, the call is for immediate response, with a view to the permanent and independent establishment of Christianity in the nation. If the heart of the church is really quickened and enlarged the sources of missionary supply will be reopened. The young men of the church will surely share in the common enthusiasm. Some who are in the process of education will consecrate themselves in advance to missions, and others who are closing their educational course will reconsider their earlier consecration in the light of the present necessity. We may confidently hope that the same missionary activity will soon be seen in our colleges and seminaries which has been for some time going on in the English universities, young men organizing into groups and bands with definite plans for work in special fields where they are most needed.

Another result to be hoped for, and no less demanded, is a change in the attitude of the average business - man toward the social problems which are vexing the church and Christianity. It would be manifestly unjust to say that the present attitude is that of personal indifference, but would it be unjust to say that it is irresponsible, indecisive, and therefore unhelpful? Does the average business-man give, for example, the same serious thought to his duty toward those with whom he comes in contact through his money, that the average young man in preparation for the ministry gives to his duty toward those whom he may reach through personal effort? Does he make the like study of his relations to those who are under his influence? Does he adopt in its meaning, if at all, the motto of Paul,—"I seek not yours but you! not, why does he not? Is he exempt under the law of Christian consecration? Or can life any longer be divided into the sacred and secular? Can Christian society exist and allow the daily business to create suspicion and alienation between man and man? Certainly not. The time has come when Christianity requires of men of business that they be more

י ?

If he does

than honest, or generous, or benevolent, in the sense in which those terms have been heretofore understood. It requires of them that they be considerate, studious, and courageous, in respect to those human interests which are involved in the making or in the control of wealth. We affirm, without fear of dispute, that it demands more consecration, as well as more consideration, for a young man to enter business to-day, for other than personal ends, than for him to enter the ministry. He puts himself into relations where his action, his vote, his influence, will tell more directly for or against Christianity. There are corporations in the metropolis of the country, which are reported by the press to be in receipt of an annual profit of from ten to twenty per cent., which have yielded to the demand of their employees for a reduction in the hours of labor from fourteen hours a day, only under the threat of a strike. How can the church expect to Christianize society, if it cannot humanize corporations in which it is reasonable to suppose its membership may be concerned? We acknowledge that there are not a few conspicuous examples of the brave and unselfish administration of wealth. There are individual capitalists and corporations which, by their action, have virtually eliminated, within the reach of their influence, the disturbing elements of Socialism. These are enough to show what can be done. They show, also, that the contribution to social problems which Christianity now asks of the business-man is his thought. Money cannot buy conclusions, nor provide a substitute for patience in the endeavor to right social wrongs. But the general feeling, we apprehend, in business circles, is that of personal irresponsibility or helplessness in the presence of those questions which are classed under the somewhat indefinite and much misunderstood term, Socialism. Certainly, the business-men of the church are not taking the initiative in the solution of these questions, and yet the practical solution of them lies in their hands, and no amount of consecration in other directions can make amends for the want of fair and careful thought at these points.

And still another result which may be expected as the outcome of a genuine spiritual awakening is an increased freedom and boldness on the part of the church in its approach to truth. The church, in its present temper, is in no sense intolerant. Whenever its temper has been tested on public occasions, the verdict has been clear and emphatic against all assumption of authority in the matter of belief. Neither has the church failed to discriminate between thought which is still creative and vital, and spent thought, thought which, because it is spent, has become dogmatic and declamatory.

But there is a manifest tendency just now to separate the work of the church from its beliefs. The cry of the hour is, Work, work, work! not because work is more urgent now than always, but because there seems to be a better agreement in respect to work than in respect to faith. It is feared that any free and full discussion of vital truths would prove unwise. Theology is ruled out. The church is taking refuge in

activity. Of course, this state of things is temporary.

The church can

not afford to take counsel for long time of its fears. It cannot leave its beliefs behind. Beliefs, in the natural order, go before duties and give the inspiration to them. It is one office of the Spirit, in his work, to keep truth in its normal relation to life and service. Union in work cannot last long without a substantial unity in faith. Certainly it cannot be maintained upon the basis of ignoring or evading questions of faith. The formula of unity is so simple that nothing can be left out, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

A NOTEWORTHY CONTROVERSY.

THE subject in dispute is the account of creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis. The combatants are Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Huxley, Dr. Réville, and Mr. Drummond. The arena is the pages of the "Nineteenth Century." The discussion was opened by Mr. Gladstone, and his name gave it a great publicity, which was widened by the appearance of Mr. Huxley in opposition. Dr. Réville is quite well known as author of a work on the history of religions, and as Hibbert Lecturer in 1884. Mr. Drummond, the popular author of that overestimated book, "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," is at present sure of a hearing. Dr. Réville had criticised Mr. Gladstone's opinion that there is a relationship between the Homeric poems and the Hebrew traditions as they are recorded in the book of Genesis. Incidental to the discussion of the Olympian mythology arose this controversy about the Biblical account of creation, but upon it the interest of the debate hangs, and to it the larger portion of the published articles is devoted. Almost any debate these eminent men might prosecute would be worthy of notice, but their contention on a subject which is supposed to involve important interests of theology and religion is indeed noteworthy.

The conduct of the discussion is an example to all lesser disputants, in respect to the perfect courtesy and dignity which are never forgotten, even when opinions most directly conflict. Staggering blows are given, in a quiet way and with a grim humor which are inimitable; but almost perfect justice is done by each disputant to the others, and there is obviously more earnestness to find the truth than to gain a triumph. Also, as is usual in fair discussion, the opponents find themselves, in the end, more nearly in agreement than they had supposed at the outset.

We cannot but regret, however, the revival of this old discussion, and the appearance of so influential a person as Mr. Gladstone in the character of a reconciler of the book of Genesis with science. The attempt to find a reconciliation sufficiently exact to be worth anything for evidential purposes is doomed to failure from the start, and the result is that those who do not accept the Bible as a revelation attach more importance to such a defeat than it deserves, and draw inferences from it which are by no means legitimate. It is wonderful, to be sure, that Mr. Gladstone,

with his years, and with the public cares which are so engrossing, can find time to pursue classical studies, to become familiar with so many scientific treatises, and to write careful and extended papers on associated subjects. But what we get, after all, is the second-rate work of a first-rate man. When surprise was once expressed at the enthusiasm of one who admired the preaching of a certain woman, he replied that his admiration was awakened not because a woman preached so well, but because she could preach at all. That the prime minister of England can do respectable work in a province so remote from that which claims his absorbing devotion is remarkable; but for all that he has not helped but rather damaged the cause he intended to advance, and at all events his opinions must take their chances on their own merits and not under the shelter of his famous name.

Mr. Gladstone undertakes to show that the cosmogony of the first two days of Genesis corresponds with the nebular hypothesis, and that the subsequent account of the appearance of life in plants, fishes, birds, animals, and man, corresponds with the accepted conclusions of biology and geology, as to the order of time in which they succeeded one another. His argument is that this almost exact correspondence of the Bible with science proves the account to be a revelation with evidence which almost compels assent.

man.

Mr. Huxley confines himself to the successive orders of life, and denies that scientific observation yields the proof which Mr. Gladstone would deduce from it. Thus, in his first article, Mr. Gladstone had classified as follows: (a) the water population; (b) the air population; (c) the land population of animals; (d) the land population consummated in This is the order in Genesis, and, says Mr. Gladstone, "this same fourfold order is understood to have been so affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact." Then he asks how it came that the author of the first chapter of Genesis knew that order, and possessed knowledge which natural science has only within the present century for the first time dug out of the bowels of the earth.

Mr. Huxley is not slow to dispute these alleged conclusions of science. He declares that this order is not the observed order. The air population did not, he asserts, stand midway between the water population and the land population. Many birds and insects must have appeared after terrestrial or land population. The organization of a bat presupposes a terrestrial quadruped, and winged insects presuppose wingless insects, and, therefore, creeping things, which could hardly creep without land to creep on. So some of the water population must have followed the land population. The "great whales" mentioned in Genesis, as well as all air-breathing inhabitants of the sea, are descended from terrestrial quadrupeds. Thus, Mr. Huxley maintains, some portion of the land population must have preceded and not have followed some important portions of the water and the air population. He thinks it highly probable that

animal life appeared first under aquatic conditions; that terrestrial forms appeared later, and flying animals only after land animals; but the great majority, if not the whole of the primordial species of each division, have long since died out and been replaced by a vast succession of new forms. But the forms of life described in Genesis are those existing in the time of the writer and existing still. These are later creations. Since the primordial creations which have now disappeared, except for some traces in the rocks, it is probable that the creation or appearance of the members of the water, land, and air populations must have gone on contemporaneously. In a later paper Mr. Gladstone uses more specific terms, and gives the order as invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, birds, mammals, man; but he is worse off than before, for fishes in scientific usage are only part of the inhabitants of the water mentioned in Genesis, and the same is true of birds and reptiles. When Mr. Gladstone claims that the beginnings of the different orders of life are correctly given in the Bible, and that it is not meant that each group was completed before any of the next group appeared, he has gained nothing, for it is denied that even the beginnings were in the order indicated in Genesis. At length Mr. Gladstone says, "He (Mr. Huxley) holds the writer responsible for scientific precision. I look for nothing of the kind, but assign to him a statement general, which admits exceptions; popular, which aims mainly at producing moral impression; summary, which cannot but be open to more or less of criticism in detail." But this is giving up the argument from a correspondence of Genesis with science; for partial agreement and partial disagreement with facts is not a conclusive proof of a revelation.

We need not follow Dr. Réville in his discussion of the earlier verses of the chapter. He very clearly shows that they are far from being an anticipation of the nebular or any other scientific hypothesis; that violence must be done to the original Hebrew as well as to the conclusions of science to obtain such agreement.

Mr. Drummond appears as the Elihu of the debate to utter, apparently, the last word. We think him singularly unfortunate in the opinion he advances as to the function of Revelation. It is entirely proper that he should call attention to the fact that modern theology does not interpret the Bible as it was interpreted a generation or two ago. He would, however, be more nearly correct to affirm that some modern Biblical scholars, who are evangelical too, have given up certain theories of inspiration which were once current. But when he says that modern theology on the whole is as far in advance of the theology of fifty years ago as the science of to-day on the whole is in advance of the science of Cuvier and Herschel, he claims too much. Certainly the agreement of scientists concerning the universe is more general than the agreement of theologians. concerning the Bible. But what we complain of is Mr. Drummond's distinction that Revelation gives only that knowledge which men could not gain for themselves. He quotes with strong approval this sentence:

« НазадПродовжити »