He who is as sure as he is of his own existence that the God of truth is at once the
God of nature and the God of revelation, cannot believe it to be possible that His voice
in either, rightly understood, can differ, or deceive His creatures. To oppose facts in
the natural world because they seem to oppose revelation, or to humor them so as to compel
them to speak its voice, is, he knows, but another form of the ever-ready feeble-minded
dishonesty of lying for God, and trying by fraud or falsehood to do the work of the God of
truth. It is with another and a nobler spirit that the true believer walks amongst the
works of nature. The words graven on the everlasting rocks are the words of God, and they
are graven by His hand. No more can they contradict His word written in His book than
could the words of the old covenant graven by His hand on the stony tables contradict the
writings of His hand in the volume of the new dispensation. There may be to man difficulty
in reconciling all the utterances of the two voices. But what of that? He has learned
already that here he knows only in part, and that the day of reconciling all apparent
contradictions between what must agree is nigh at hand. He rests his mind in perfect
quietness on this assurance, and rejoices in the gift of light without a misgiving as to
what it may discover....
Few things have more deeply injured the cause of religion than the busy fussy energy
with which men, narrow and feeble alike in faith and in science, have bustled forth to
reconcile all new discoveries in physics with the word of inspiration. For it continually
happens that some larger collection of facts, or some wider view of the phenomena of
nature, alter the whole philosophic scheme; whilst revelation has been committed to
declare an absolute agreement with what turns out after all to have been a misconception
or an error. We cannot, therefore, consent to test the truth of natural science by the
word of revelation. But this does not make it the less important to point out on
scientific grounds scientific errors, when those errors tend to limit God's glory in
creation, or to gainsay the revealed relations of that creation to Himself. To both these
classes of error, though, we doubt not, quite unintentionally on his part, we think that
Mr. Darwin's speculations directly tend.
Mr. Darwin writes as a Christian, and we doubt not that he is one. We do not for a
moment believe him to be one of those who retain in some corner of their hearts a secret
unbelief which they dare not vent; and we therefore pray him to consider well the grounds
on which we brand his speculations with the charge of such a tendency. First, then, he not
obscurely declares that he applies his scheme of the action of the principle of natural
selection to man himself, as well as to the animals around him. Now, we must say at once,
and openly, that such a notion is absolutely incompatible not only with single expressions
in the word of God on that subject of natural science with which it is not immediately
concerned, but, which in our judgment is of far more importance, with the whole
representation of that moral and spiritual condition of man which is its proper subject
matter. Man's derived supremacy over the earth; man's power of articulate speech; man's
gift of reason; man's free will and responsibility; man's fall and man's redemption; the
incarnation of the Eternal Son; the indwelling of the Eternal Spirit---all are equally and
utterly irreconcilable with the degading notion of the brute origin of him who was created
in the image of God, and redeemed by the Eternal Son assuming to himself His nature.
Equally inconsistent, too, not with any passing expressions, but with the whole scheme of
God's dealings with man as recorded in His word, is Mr. Darwin's daring notion of man's
further development into some unknown extent of powers and shape, and size, through
natural selection acting through that long vista of ages which He casts mistily over the
earth upon the most favored individuals of His species....
Nor can we doubt, secondly, that this view, which thus contradicts the revealed
relation of creation to its Creator, is equally inconsistent with the fullness of His
glory. It is, in truth, an ingenious theory for diffusing throughout creation the working
and so the penonality of the Creator. And thus, however unconsciously to him who holds
them, such views really tend inevitably to banish from the mind most of the peculiar
attributes of the Almighty.
Source:
From: Samuel Wilberforce, Essays Contributed to the Quarterly Review, 2 Vols., (London, 1874), I.92-95
Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton.
This text is part of the Internet
Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
© Paul Halsall, November 1998
