FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[A]"If God had held all truth in his right hand, and in his left the ever-living desire for truth, although with the condition that I should remain in error for ever, and if he should say to me 'choose,' I should humbly incline towards his left, and say, 'Father, give: pure truth is for thee alone?'"—Wolferbuttel Fragments. See Zimmern'sLife of Lessing, p. 361.[B]Plato'sRepublicII. 380, 381.[C]SeeAppendix I.[D]"'Wilt thou learne of sterres ought?''Nay, certainly,' quod I, 'right naught.''And why?' quod he. 'For I am old.'"House of Fame, B. II, 487.

[A]"If God had held all truth in his right hand, and in his left the ever-living desire for truth, although with the condition that I should remain in error for ever, and if he should say to me 'choose,' I should humbly incline towards his left, and say, 'Father, give: pure truth is for thee alone?'"—Wolferbuttel Fragments. See Zimmern'sLife of Lessing, p. 361.

[B]Plato'sRepublicII. 380, 381.

[C]SeeAppendix I.

[D]"'Wilt thou learne of sterres ought?''Nay, certainly,' quod I, 'right naught.''And why?' quod he. 'For I am old.'"House of Fame, B. II, 487.

[D]

"'Wilt thou learne of sterres ought?''Nay, certainly,' quod I, 'right naught.''And why?' quod he. 'For I am old.'"

House of Fame, B. II, 487.

EXPERIENCE GATHERED FROM PAST CONFLICTS.

There have been within quite recent times conflicts as to the relations of science and religion, which have now lost their living interest. All classes greatly affected by current literature, and scientific discussion, whether ranking themselves on the side of religion, or otherwise, were deeply moved by them. It appeared at the time, as if some new position were to be marked off, destined to affect our whole conception of the government of the universe. The expectation was not verified; public interest died away; and preparations for conflict were abandoned, on account of the unexpected discovery that there was nothing to fight about.

It is a wise rule affecting our busy life, crowded with present-day duties, that we allow subjects quietly to drop out of view which have lost living interest. But this wiserule is turned to unwise ends, if it make us forgetful of the lessons of the past. Scientific progress consists in the abandonment of untenable positions, for occupancy of others proved to be more reliable. Accordingly the conflict which seems to threaten the interests of religion wears now one aspect and now another, as determined by the stage of scientific progress which has been reached. But all intellectual progress is an evolution, bearing at every moment some trace of what has been left behind, as well as evidence of accretion. A large amount of the experience connected with intellectual life is gathered from events connected with abandoning positions of past interest, as well as from those associated with what is new. I propose, therefore, though within comparatively narrow limits, to refer to past conflicts, quite recent, but practically at an end. The ebb and flow of intellectual interests follow in such rapid succession, and each is so absorbing during its continuance, that we readily forget the tangled waste buried from sight under the spring-tide of rising expectation. We easily lose sight of the past, even though it lie close at hand, and as we feel the pulse of life beat high in proportionto the vividness and apparent value of our prospects, we are ever liable to overestimate the importance of the present position, thus severing ourselves too readily from all that lies behind. There may be reason for cutting down bridges in the rear, if there be apprehension of cowardice in the ranks; but where the calmness and courage of resolute progress are found, there is no need for a yawning chasm behind. It is true, indeed, that just beyond some bridges recently crossed, there lie a good many traces of humiliation. And it is according to the tendency of human nature, whether religious or anti-religious, to turn away from that which occasions uneasiness. But there is a moral, as well as an intellectual demand, for thoroughness in recognizing the continuity of events. The scientific spirit can not excuse a covering up of past failures, as the formulating of verified results must imply testimony concerning them. It is of the very nature of religious conviction that we should learn from the failures of the past, and should advance out of them with higher wisdom. By common consent, therefore, we can have no accurate survey of the present situation, without making account of what hasbeen recently passed, as well as what may be regarded as pressing upon our notice in these days.

We do not need to travel a long way to the rear in order to discover how far astray we may be, both in expectations and in apprehensions; how readily we may get into confusion as to the interests involved in exciting controversies; and how much we need caution, making allowance for our partial survey of facts, and our uncertainty as to what may open up.

By way of illustration, I shall refer to the history of discussions concerning so-called "spontaneous generation," mixed up with ascertained facts as to protoplasm, bathybius, or "living slime," as it has been called, and bacterium. The question eagerly discussed was whether there might be origin of life, without development from germ, seed, or ovum. The problem was one of those suggestions apt to arise under pressure of new conjectures and theories. While the scientific world was astir on the question of development, attention was turned for a time towards the possibility of a fresh beginning of organic forms, life which should be no development, but should rather seem as an uncaused existence,—"spontaneous generation." It might have been urged that the suggestion was contrary to reason; that "inexorable logic," of which we often hear from scientific observers, forbade the supposition; that all the conditions of scientific thought were against it; that the very conception of "spontaneous generation" was a logical inconsistency, alien to the requirements of scientific thought, as implying uncaused existence; but we were reminded that we are prohibited from supposing any thing is impossible in the pathway of science, that observation must be first, and reason only second, and accordingly the needful experiments went on under all due precautions. The brief chapter in the history of science which records expectations and results connected with these experiments, well deserves to be remembered. It is here selected for illustration, both on account of its inherent importance, and its relation to the theory of development, which must afterwards have special attention.

Some descent is required from ordinary scientific observation to the level where thisquestion is discussed. From the germ-cell, we pass down to an albuminous substance spread over the ocean-bed, said to have life, or we descend to microscopic organisms, such as bacteria; and a step lower down still, we are introduced to the question whether in water passed through the boiling process so as to guard against the presence of germinal forms, we may not witness the origin of life.

The question so raised had additional interest because of the bearing it might have on the first appearance of life in the history of this world. This interest was shared on both sides, by those who held that creation is a conception not only alien to scientific thought (which it may well be[E]), but inconsistent with it; and by those who regarded creation as the only conception adequate to meet rational requirements. The question had at the same time a direct practical interest connected with public health, on account of its bearing upon the diffusion and vital tenacity of spores or germinal forms capable of spreading contagious disease.[F]

The controversy on this subject was at its height in the years 1876, and 1877, having a large amount of most careful and difficult experiment devoted to it. The result has been a valuable addition to scientific knowledge as to the vitality of germinal forms, and a quietus to theories as to "spontaneous generation."

The direct object placed before the scientific mind when the discussion arose was this,—to ascertain whether an origin of vital activity could be observed in the midst of materials from which all germinal forms of life were certainly excluded.

The selection of materials to experiment upon was for a time according to the fancy of the experimenter. It was not proposed that a vacuum should be made by withdrawal of all air from a glass vessel, thereafter watching for the appearance of some organic form. Nor was it suggested that pure water might be taken from a spring, and boiled, and left standing under daily observation. A great variety of materials was selected to provide an infusion which might afford the conditions for application of scientific tests. In this way the following materials were used and tested, infusion of turnip, of pounded cheese, hay,meat, fish, besides egg-albumen, blood, and urine. Vegetable productions, animal tissue, and secretions of the human body closely connected with vital processes, were thus subjected to test. In the history of investigation, attention ultimately concentrated on the infusion of hay and on urine. Observations were conducted in Paris and London; results were published from time to time; singular divergence became apparent in these recorded results; this led to controversy, which became so keen, that the Academy of Sciences in Paris appointed a commission of three to adjudicate upon a challenge given by M. Pasteur of Paris to Dr. Bastian of London; which Commission met in Paris on 15th July, 1877, but never adjudicated in the matter.[G]

The perplexities encountered in conducting observations arose chiefly from two causes: the difficulty of ascertaining the temperature at which living organisms were certainly destroyed, and the materials sterilized; and that of guarding against interference with this state when established, by contact with the atmosphere. The latter perplexity, involving much care, skilful manipulation, and mechanical contrivance, was at last overcome by the construction of glass tubes, separating for a time the distinct materials, with facility for their mixture at the proper moment without contact with the air.

The true scientific difficulty, however, was determination of a reliable test for destruction of germinal forms, either adhering to the materials, embedded in them, or floating in the atmosphere. The history of observations bearing on this question is deeply interesting. In the earlier tentative experiments, the material placed under observation was boiled; it was concluded that no vital organism could endure this process; and the material was kept for a time in a temperature of from seventy to eighty degrees Fahr., which was regarded as favorable to the development of life. In process of time, a deposit appeared in the tube, and this when examined under the microscope was found to contain bacteria,[H]living, moving germinal forms so minute as to require high magnifying power for their discovery. Here then was "spontaneous generation." Who could be so credulous as tobelieve that minute organic forms could live through the boiling process? If this appeared too absurd to fancy, then spontaneous generation, or actual origin of life out of non-organized matter, must be held to be established. It was only the audacity of prejudice, and hopeless alienation from the "advanced thought" of the time, which could induce any one to doubt, in face of these experiments, carefully recorded and published.[I]Scientific observers of great experience and reputation felt it needful to express themselves with caution, leaving results to be tested.

A considerable number of investigators began to turn their attention to the subject, and a period of seven years was occupied before the results became so certain as to be practically final. Pasteur, Pouchet, and Joubert were at work in France, Crookes, Child, Beale, Roberts, Bastian, Tyndall and others in England.

All experiments concentrated upon certainty in sterilizing the substance operated upon. Pasteur pointed out that the chemical properties of the infusion affected thevitality of the microscopic germs inclosed in it; and Roberts at a later stage confirmed this by independent investigation, proving "that slightly alkaline liquids are more difficult to sterilize by heat than slightly acid liquids."[J]In this way, it was shown that distinct records of temperature were needful, greater intensity of heat being required in some cases than in others, in order to secure destruction of germs. The facts were illustrated by hay infusion, "the acid infusion invariably remaining barren after a few minutes' boiling, and the neutralized infusion invariably becoming fertile after a similar boiling."[K]The neutralizing element was liquor potassæ, and the next question started was this, Did the liquor potassæ enable the germs to live longer under the boiling process, or did its infusion operate so as to originate life where germs no longer had any existence? A contrivance was adopted by which the boiling could be applied to the hay infusion, while the liquor potassæ was kept enclosed in another part of the tube, ready to be addedwithout exposure to the air, after the boiling process was over. When added in this way, "the liquor potassæ had not any power to excite germination:" the expectation that a certain mixture of acid and alkali would originate life was disappointed; all the earlier experiments were discredited. Still, some clung to their expressed belief, for there is a prejudice of advanced thought, as there is a prejudice of old beliefs. Tenacity of avowed opinion, with strong love of research, prolonged the inquiry, and led to more decided evidence.

The controversy was conducted by Dr. Roberts against Dr. Bastian, while all the experiments of Professor Tyndall were converging upon the same conclusions as those reached by Roberts.[L]That Bastian had obtained bacteria after boiling, admitted of no doubt, and he naturally clung to this fact as encouraging; others regarded it as only misleading. Bastian maintained that the alkali had a positive power of originating life, and stated one hundred and twenty-two degrees Fahr. as favorable to the appearance of life. Roberts took ten examples of sterilized urine, and twenty-nine examples of fermentible liquids which had remained over from the earlier experiments of 1873-74, and these thirty-nine examples were subjected to careful experiment and observation. In the first ten cases, the tube was heated in oil for fifteen minutes up to two hundred and eighty degrees Fahr.; the ten tubes were then set in a warm place (from seventy degrees to eighty degrees Fahr.) for a fortnight; the contents were transparent; the alkali was then allowed to mingle with it, and the tubes were placed in an incubator kept at a temperature of one hundred and fifteen degrees Fahr.; at the end of two days there was a sediment, and the liquor was clear; the tubes were replaced in the incubator, the temperature being raised to one hundred and twenty-two degrees Fahr. as recommended by Dr. Bastian; there they continued for three days; they were then withdrawn and placed under the microscope, but no trace of living organism was found either in the fluid or in the deposit under it. The twenty-nine cases, including a variety of vegetable and animal preparations were next treated in like manner, and with like results. Tyndall's experiments were reported to the Royal Society of Londonat the same time, with exactly the same result. M. Pasteur had previously reported to the Academy of Sciences in Paris to the same effect. It was thus proved by a mass of evidence that if proper precautions were taken to destroy germinal forms, no mixture of alkali with acid, whatever the variety of materials selected, was adequate to produce life.

A few months later than the communications of Roberts and Tyndall, that is, May, 1877, the results of ten years' experiment, first by Mr. Dallinger himself, and thereafter by Mr. Dallinger and Mr. Drysdale conjointly, were communicated to the Royal Institution, London, on "the origin and development of minute and lowly life forms.[A]" The purpose of these experiments was to watch the growth of the minutest germs, capable of being seen only under a powerful microscope, putting to actual test their tenacity of life. The largest objects were one-thousandth of an inch, the smallest, the four-thousandth of an inch. Six distinct forms were selected for observation, and their history was made out. A magnifying power of five thousand degrees was used. In the glairy fluid a monad larger than usualseized on a smaller; they became fused after swimming about together; the single object then appeared a motionless spec; this proved to be a sac, from which at the close of a period varying from ten to thirty-six hours, it burst, and young spores became visible in the fluid, which were kept under observation till they reached maturity. Special interest was connected with these observations not only as illustrating the growth of spores, or germs; but as allowing application of the test of heat at different stages of growth. When this test was applied, it was found that one hundred and forty degrees Fahr. was sufficient to cause the death of adults, whereas the young spores were able to live notwithstanding the application of three hundred degrees Fahr. for ten minutes. In this direction fresh discovery was to be made.

In June 1877,—a month later,—Professor Tyndall gave the record of further researches.[M]These presented additional results as to degrees of temperature requisite for destroying microscopic organisms. It had been already shown that alkaline liquids are more difficult to sterilize, than acid liquids; it was furthershown that the death point was higher in air, than in water; for Professor Tyndall extended his researches to air, as well as liquid. First dealing with the fluid form, he found germs possessed of vitality so singular that five or six hours of boiling did not destroy them, and in one case eight hours was insufficient for the purpose. In this connection, he came to the conclusion that some germinal orders were more easily destroyed than others.

When dealing with bacteria, he found that they differed from other forms in this, that they rose to the air as if it were a requisite, whereas other germs, such as those belonging to the process of fermentation, could exist without oxygen. This led to an additional form of experiment, with the view of deciding whether bacteria could be destroyed by withdrawal of air; and if so, whether the bacteria would reappear after the existing microscopic life had been stifled. Tyndall began by applying the air-pump. Under this process the bacteria were enfeebled greatly, but not destroyed. Thereafter Sprengel pumps were used, by means of which the air dissolved in the infusions was withdrawn, as well as that diffused in the spaces above. Innumerous cases there was success in destroying the germs by removal of the air in this way without any boiling process. In these cases, the air was carefully restored, precautions being adopted to guard against admission of germinal forms, and in no case did life reappear in the infusions. As in the more common style of experiment, the warmth suitable could not charm the life back again; so in this, the restoration of oxygen, could not secure restoration of life.

Thus evidence from all sides directed surely to the conclusion that the alleged discovery of "spontaneous generation" was a delusion, the result of hasty and insufficient experiment. Dr. Bastian, nevertheless, stuck heroically to his original position, and came into conflict with M. Pasteur of Paris, by means of a communication which the English Professor had sent to the Academy of Sciences in July of the previous year, 1876. In the beginning of 1877, M. Pasteur threw down an explicit challenge to Professor Bastian, which resulted in the appointment of a commission to observe the experiments and adjudicate. With this terminates the history of nearly ten years of curious and singular investigation, and Dr. Bastian himself has supplied the history of the closing scene, laying open the whole correspondence to public investigation, as if he were unconscious of the complete demolition of his favorite theory of "spontaneous generation." The 15th of July, 1877, witnessed the close of a battle he had been fighting against steadily increasing odds, and which he had begun in June, 1870. Dr. Bastian's position was "that a solution of boiled potash caused bacteria to appear in sterile urine at fifty degrees Cent., added in a quantity sufficient to neutralize the latter." These he regarded as the physico-chemical conditions for spontaneous generation of bacteria.

The challenge from M. Pasteur was in these terms;—"I defy Dr. Bastian to obtain, in the presence of competent judges, the result to which I have referred with sterile urine, on the sole condition that the solution of potash which he employs be pure,i. e., made with pure water and pure potash, both free from organic matter. If Dr. Bastian wishes to use a solution of impure potash, I freely authorize him to take any in the English or any other Pharmacopœia, being diluted or concentrated,on the sole condition that that solution shall be raised beforehand to one hundred and ten degrees for twenty minutes, or to one hundred and thirty degrees for five minutes."

A Commission was appointed by the Academy, and Dr. Bastian agreed to appear before it, but only on conditions he laid down greatly restricting the range of inquiry. He ignored the first and most searching form of M. Pasteur's challenge; claimed that the adjudication of the Commission should be only on the second; and further stated that if the Commission were "to express an opinion upon the interpretation of the fact attested, and upon its bearings on 'the germ theory of fermentation,' or 'spontaneous generation,'" he would respectfully decline to take part in this wider inquiry. The Commission refused to be restricted to the worst form of the experiment, and to be bound to withhold an opinion as to its bearing on the question of "spontaneous generation." Dr. Bastian went to Paris, but the members of the Commission declined to deal with less than the challenge given, and the meeting was never properly constituted. "Thus ended," as Dr. Bastian has said, "the proceedings of this remarkable Commissionof the French Academy." The proceedings ended before they had begun. Dr. Bastian by his restrictions, surrendered the real question at issue, and practically acknowledged that he would not submit it to the judgment of the Commission. He sought only testimony as to his own form of experiment, which there was then good reason to know was accurate, because M. Pasteur had stated a temperature too low, and a time too short, but which was at the same time an experiment of no scientific value for establishing "spontaneous generation." Thus ended a battle which had been protracted long after it was to all observers manifestly lost.

The discussion thus narrated may be easily overestimated, but there seems even more risk that the manifest failure should lead to an oversight of the value of the protracted investigations. These convey lessons of special value to scientific inquirers on the one hand, and to theologians on the other. They are of great value for illustrative purposes in such a course of lectures as the present, and that because they provide needful training for intelligent observation of the advance of science.

The promulgation of the development theory of species has given a conception of the unity of organic life in the world, which even in its most modified form has an imposing grandeur. Influenced by this, scientific men are naturally concerned to make out, if possible, some connection between inorganic and organic being. To work at this, is part of the inevitable task of science, even though the result should be only to establish the helplessness of science in dealing with it.

We have chemical and dynamical theories of life which stimulate repetition of experiments, in the hope that some grand discovery may be made. Those just described present a curious illustration. In the circumstances, we can well understand the persistence with which Dr. Bastian clung to his supposed discovery of the physico-chemical conditions for production of living organism.

Science finds in these experiments a fresh lesson of the need for caution, guarding against the hampering influence of popular notions, as in reference to the probable effects of the boiling process. For if the experiments have proved a failure so far as support to a theory of spontaneous generation is concerned, they have revealed a tenacity of life belonging tothe lowest microscopic organisms, far beyond higher organic forms, and the consequent weakness of ordinary human devices in struggling against the development of such germs. These experiments also emphasize the need for attention to the laws of rational procedure, as well as to skill in experimental observation, if science is to be exempted from needless toils.

Theology has here also a lesson of patience, for it may well leave science to do its own work, undisturbed by apprehensions as to possible consequences to morality and religion. All that the telescope can reveal, and the microscope can make known, through years of experimenting, we wish to have discovered, for only thus shall we come to understand the world's lessons of wisdom and power lying far beyond the range of our unaided vision. All the churches of Christ have reason to hail the extension of scientific knowledge. Those who set high account on patient interpretation of the written Revelation, have reason to value this laborious reading out of the lessons written in the book of Nature.

A wider and more general result may be expected than that which bears directly onthe relations of science and religion. All intelligent readers of scientific discussions will find discipline from pondering these experiments. They illustrate the toil connected with scientific research, the risks which beset such inquiry, and the limits of scientific investigations. There lies in these experiments a warning of the constant need for falling back not only on the laws of evidence, but also on the laws of reason. The mere conception of "spontaneous generation," rigidly interpreted, were a curiosity, coming wonderfully near a contradiction of scientific thought itself, which seeks for causes, and repudiates uncaused occurrences. There may naturally enough be a discovery of the chemical elements belonging to definite types of organism, or of the form and measure of energy operating in life. Even when surmising "that possibly we may by the help of physical principles, especially that of the dissipation of energy, sometime attain to a notion of what constitutes life, mere vitality, nothing higher," Professor Tait has thought it needful to add, "but let no one imagine that, should we ever penetrate this mystery, we shall thereby be enabled to produce, except from life, even the lowest formof life."[N]If it were suggested that physico-chemical elements could originate life, chemistry would easily supply the ingredients. If it were hinted that reliance might be placed exclusively on the action of air or of heat for producing living organism from inorganic matter, this were to fall back on the old elemental philosophy of ancient Greece, which the thought of Greece easily repudiated without the aid of experimental science.

Attention is, however, here concentrated on the failure of these experiments meant to establish "spontaneous generation," and in this failure we find illustration of the fact that supposed conflicts between science and religion are often misunderstandings and nothing more, based on unreliable experiments or unwarranted expectations.

One other fact deserves to be recorded and placed in companionship with that just stated, that some of the alleged conflicts between science and religion are delusively so described, on account of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of religion. They are fictitious articles, requiring to be properly branded, and quietly laid aside. A single illustration maysuffice, taken from Dr. Draper'sHistory of the Conflict between Religion and Science, which is easily accessible, and reasonably claims some attention in connection with the present subject. The criticism here offered is not meant to carry a general condemnation of the book. This work includes a vast deal more than it's title suggests; in the midst of much that is extraneous, there is not a little of valuable historical matter written in a clear and attractive style. The book is, however, in many parts misleading, often by its style suggesting that the author has allowed himself to be carried away in his eagerness to make out serious conflict. The plan of the book is hardly compatible with fairness. This may be illustrated by reference to the grounds for selecting illustrations of Christianity. Our author says, "In speaking of Christianity reference is generally made to the Roman Church, partly because its adherents compose the majority of Christendom, partly because its demands are the most pretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought to enforce those demands by the civil power."[O]In view of these explanations, it may be in asense satisfactory, as suggesting more harmony between science and religion than the general tenor of the book conveys, that Professor Draper has "had little to say" respecting the Protestant and Greek Churches. But the reasons for making the Roman division of the Church representative of the whole are far from satisfactory. It is as if one were bent on fighting, but determined always to select the weakest antagonist to be found. Nor is the case improved by the defence offered. Dr. Draper says, "In thus treating the subject, it has not been necessary to pay much regard to more moderate or intermediate opinions, for, though they may be intrinsically of great value, in conflicts of this kind it is not with the moderates, but with the extremists, that the impartial reader is mainly concerned. Their movements determine the issue."[P]This is, I think, an unwise conclusion. Extremists may determine the erratic deflections of a movement; they do not decide its issues. They discover the heat, rather than the thought, involved in intellectual conflict. They contribute to vortex movement, rather than onward.

In consequence of his plan of procedure,Dr. Draper gives often a misleading view of the relative positions of religion and science. A reference to Chapter VI. will afford illustration. The subject is, "Conflict Respecting the Nature of the World." The two prominent contrasts placed at the head of this chapter are these:—"Scriptural view of the world; the earth a flat surface: scientific view; the earth a globe." These are, indeed, complete contrasts; but the question is, Are they accurately stated? Is there any warrant for saying that Scripture teaches that the earth is a flat surface? Most Bible readers of the present day will take this as quite a discovery. That there was long and earnest discussion of the question whether the earth was flat or a globe, is certain. But it is erroneous to refer to Scripture as the source of the former position. The opening of the chapter sufficiently disposes of the suggestion. Dr. Draper says,—"An uncritical observation of the aspect of nature persuades us that the earth is an extended level surface which sustains the dome of the sky, a firmament dividing the waters above from the waters beneath; that the heavenly bodies—the sun, the moon, the stars—pursue their way moving from east to west,their insignificant size, and motion round the motionless earth, proclaiming their inferiority. Of the various organic forms surrounding man none rival him in dignity, and hence he seems justified in concluding that every thing has been created for his use—the sun for the purpose of giving him light by day, the moon and stars by night. Comparative theology shows that this is the conception of nature universally adopted in the early phase of intellectual life. It is the belief of all nations in all parts of the world in the beginning of their civilization."[Q]

In determining the relations of religion and science it is impossible to accept a passage so general, and full of mixed references as this. There is, indeed, no reason to complain of statements as to the general impressions resulting from "an uncritical observation" of nature, and of the testimony which may be drawn from "comparative theology." Such references are to be valued, as belonging to an important branch of inquiry; but they are not to be mixed up with statements concerning Scripture teaching. Such commingling leads to confusion, and deprives a discussion of historical accuracy and scientific precision. In view of the immense practical, as well as scientific interests involved, it is needful to guard against loose statements encouraging a belief in conflict between religion and science, where no such conflict exists. The passage here selected is taken as an example, and its criticism will indicate what claims religion has a right to make upon scientific men in their management of such discussions. It may be that with equal reason a similar claim can be turned upon defenders of religion in view of their criticisms of scientific discussions. But the real value of such investigations, from whatever side they come, depends upon accurate and guarded statement. It is to be feared, however, that Dr. Draper's theory that "extremists determine the issue," may tempt him to favor a different rule.

To state that the scriptural view of the world is, that "the earth is a flat surface," is misrepresentation. And the variety of form into which this statement is thrown throughout the chapter makes it greatly worse. Thus our author speaks of "the flatfigure of the earth, as revealed in the Scriptures,"[R]as if this quasi-scientific statement were part of Bible revelation. Again he speaks of "the theological doctrine of the flatness of the earth" being irretrievably overthrown.[S]Once more, where speaking of the Copernican system of astronomy, he speaks of Copernicus not only as influenced by his exposure to punishment from the Roman Church, but as being "aware that his doctrines were totally opposed to revealed truth."[T]These successive statements involve additional exaggeration.

Our author gives no references which the reader may examine for himself. There can be little doubt that he points to the exceedingly grand and impressive passage at the opening of the book of Genesis. But in that passage there is nothing to support the statement that "the flat figure of the earth" is part of Bible revelation. That the earth has been supposed flat, and that this is really taught in Scripture, are two very different things. The Bible which says, that "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep," and records the will of the Supreme Ruler at a later stage in these words, "And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear,"[U]does something quite the opposite of teaching that "the earth is a flat surface."

Nor do the Scriptures teach that "the earth sustains the dome of the sky." In remote times such an opinion as to the resting-place for the great dome had its supporters. But there is no pretext for attributing the teaching of this to the Bible. The scriptural statement is "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." There is no reader of these words, even if he have only "an uncritical observation of the aspect of nature," who can suppose that the "firmament" here means "the dome of the sky." This statement places certain waters "abovethe firmament," and there is no one who is at once a reader of the Bible, and an observer of nature, who thinks of the clouds as above thesky; but every one knows that there is an expanse which bears these water treasures far up from the earth's surface. The word rendered "firmament,"[V]from the Vulgatefirmamentum, really means "expanse," and most naturally and obviously refers to the atmosphere surrounding the earth, upon which the clouds are borne aloft, and carried to and fro. Taking into account the want of scientific knowledge of the structure of the earth in far past ages, and the representations inconsistent with facts which found currency, the true marvel is that the statements of Scripture so simply and naturally harmonize with discoveries not made till the sixteenth century of the Christian era. This is a marvel which will more deeply impress us the longer it is pondered.

If we extend our consideration to the cruder notions which found acceptance in the dark ages, such as that to which Bruno referred, that the earth is a flat surface,supported on pillars, the scriptural evidence pled in its favor appears grotesquely inadequate. The passages are these. First stands Hannah'soutburst of devotional feeling on the occasion of presenting her son Samuel before the Lord. In magnifying the greatness of God, she says, "the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them."[W]Next come the utterances of Job, when enlarging on the power of the Almighty. In one of his replies to his irritating counsellors, when speaking of the works of Jehovah, he says, "which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."[X]In another passage of similar construction, he says of God, "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof."[Y]There is no Bible reader who can readily fall into such an obvious mistake as to treat these highly figurative utterances, as if they were formal revelations concerning the structure of the universe. As well might we, in reading the words of Paul concerning the position and influence of prominent disciples in the early church, in which he says that James, Cephas, and John "seemed to be pillars," proceed to deduce from this statement the revelation that the spiritual kingdom is aflat surface on which are based the pillars upholding the heavenly kingdom into which the Saviour has entered.

This short reference to the structure and relative position of the earth, will suffice to illustrate the fact that in dealing with the alleged conflicts between religion and science, it is needful to cast aside a number of manufactured difficulties, which do not arise from legitimate interpretation of Scripture. The particular criticism here introduced is adopted for a general purpose,—to lessen complications, and secure a proper understanding of the actual relation of the Bible to scientific research.

From a very early period in the history of scientific inquiry, it has been more or less clearly recognized that the Bible is not a science-revelation, but a revelation of religious truth and duty, discovering the true ideal and destiny of man in fellowship with God. Let us have it kept clear on both sides, that there is no divine revelation of scientific truth. Nature is its own revelation, and the only revelation, whose secrets must be laboriously sought out by successive generations of investigators, from all of whom is required patient, persevering research, with undeviating and single love of truth. Those early inquirers who found themselves in painful contact with the persecuting power of the Roman Church, such as Galileo, and Bruno, recognized to some extent that conflict with the Church and conflict with the Bible were not exactly identical. And those of us who are clearly and resolutely on the side of religious faith and religious life, have need to ponder this lesson of history, that those defending the Bible have not always been guided by its teaching in their defence, and have not always fully apprehended the Bible teaching on the subject with which their efforts were concerned.

But what we most need in these days to keep conspicuous is the true view of the Bible as a professed revelation from God. It does not profess to be a revelation of facts such as scientific appliances are adequate to ascertain, while it does profess to discover facts both as to the universe and as to man, which science can not approach. It is not a history of the earth, but it includes within it, historical records of events closely connected with man's moral and spiritual well-being. It does nottrain man "to regard himself as the principal object of the care of Nature";[Z]it does not even suggest thought in this direction, but it teaches that God cares for righteousness more than he cares for material things; that man as a being of flesh and blood is unspeakably insignificant, his life being "even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away";[AA]that his spiritual life, in the love of God and in fellowship with him, is immeasurably great, the purpose of the Bible concerning man, as revealed by Jesus Christ, God's Son, being this, that man shall be like to God in moral purity.

From these few statements it may readily appear what is the attitude of the Bible towards science. It leaves man to his own research for the structure of science in all its divisions; it proffers no help in such work; but has a range of application quite beyond the area traversed by science.

In this way we find the natural interpretation of inevitable conflicts in the past, which have been roughly and often inaccurately described as conflicts between religion and science. These conflicts were in the strictest sense inevitable, simply because thought and discovery have been progressive; and it is impossible for those not personally engaged in research to accept without reluctance new representations of familiar facts. If men long continued unwilling to admit that the earth moves round the sun, and that the rising and setting of the luminary are delusions, while the succession of light and darkness is real, we can not wonder at this slowness of assent, or charge it to the power of religious thought. The conflict was not between religion and science, but between popular notions and scientific observations. Often in the earlier periods of awakened thought, following the slumber of the middle ages, the contest accidentally wore a religious aspect, but it was so only because the higher intelligence and the general work of instruction belonged to the religious orders.

If, however, we give due weight to historical facts, it will appear that the rectification of common thought as to the form of the earth, and its place in relation to the heavenly bodies, was achieved through the conflict of a later science with an earlier. Science hasfirst taught one thing, and then abandoned its old positions to teach something different, and if religious thought was at times found in the ranks of the antagonists of change, it was only as the popular thought was opposed, and as all had been placed in opposition by the earlier forms of scientific teaching. We rightly interpret the facts, only in representing that science both makes its own difficulties and clears them; first presents the imperfect or erroneous views which are to be swept away, and afterwards trains men to more careful sifting of evidence and exercise of thought, thereby clearing and widening its own path.

Thus are we enabled to trace the boundaries of two distinct regions of thought, closely related, yet clearly separated. Science can not do the work of religion, nor can religion do the work of science. Each must fulfil its own part, and abide its proper tests. Science has its own place and its own task. Religion will simply wait upon science, leaving it to make its own discoveries, gladly accepting each one of them as it is established. The most reverend students of the Bible do not regard it as a revelation presenting a key to scientific research; though they do not hesitate toexpress their conviction that neither in express statement, nor in the spirit inculcated, does it place itself in antagonism to the search for truth, or the claims of any conclusions which can be legitimately described as philosophical or scientific. But its upholders press this consideration specially on scientific men, that the Bible has this title to be regarded as a book for all nations and for all ages, that it has proved itself intelligible to men in ages the least enlightened, and has also maintained a commanding influence in ages specially distinguished and favored by the advance of science and the widening power of literature.

Back to Index Next