33 LETTER IV. MORAL AND PHYSICAL STUDIES. MY DEAR FRIEND, "Science and Revelation," you say, are therefore, so to speak, in different planes, "and cannot come into collision unless we con"found the one with the other." So far as the "therefore " in this sentence refers to the assumption of a difference between Science and Revelation, because the one is progressive, and the other improgressive; because one concerns the things of earth, and the other the things of heaven; because the habits of mind and the moral discipline required for them are dissimilar;—I must, in conformity with what I have said in my first two letters, dissent from your conclusion. But I have intimated that there is a ground upon which I can accede to it, provided the terms of it are a little altered. D The student of the Bible and the student of physics are, I conceive, moving in different planes in this sense, that any discoveries which are made to the former must be through the relations and conditions of human life; that the whole order of the universe must be for him subordinate to man, and contemplated in reference to man; that for the other, human life is only one of the facts of the universe; its order must be regarded as comprehending man. The forgetfulness of this distinction between the functions of the moral and the physical inquirer has been a fruitful cause of "collisions" between them in all ages. They have occurred, and would occur continually were there no Bible, and were no transcendent worth attached to its teachings. The collisions ought, I conceive, to be fewer, at last ought to cease altogether, because such a book as the Bible exists; because we accept it as marking the true order and character of the discoveries respecting man. If it has not produced that effect, if the Bible has been made an excuse for the collisions, this must be owing, it strikes me, to some of those mistakes, respecting the object and form of the Bible, at which I hinted in my first letter; to some of those transgressions of its commands, departures from its spirit, neglect of its warnings, upon which I dwelt at the end of my second letter. Scientific men may have been guilty of these, more or less. But I am not able to estimate their mistakes or their temptations, whereas I do know something of ours. And if we profess to be teachers of the Bible, we must be bound to a clearer understanding of its purpose, to a stricter observation of its maxims, than they can be. You think" that a man may be excused if he "takes no interest in the arguments of those who "try to prop up Revelation by remarkable con"firmations founded on Science." I entirely acquiesce in this opinion, though I do not accept your statement of the relations "between Science and Revelation" as a true one. I feel it difficult to excuse any believer in the Bible who does look out for these remarkable confirmations. I cannot help suspecting him of feeling a little insecurity about the ground upon which he is standing. He is paying a compliment to physical science, which, though I reverence it greatly, I cannot pay it. He is tacitly asserting that physical demonstrations are more trustworthy than moral demonstrations. I do not confess them to be so; and I believe that much of our fearfulness about the Bible results from a secret notion that they are so. I cannot help seeing, however, a good as well as a bad side in this eagerness for physical confirmations of moral truths. There is latent in it, an acknowledgment that the results of the two methods must ultimately harmonize if each is pursued faithfully. The mischief lies in the feverish anxiety to get this result at once, and in the sacrifice of fidelity to which such anxiety inevitably leads. The religious world offers a premium to the scientific inquirer to make his conclusions fit the Bible conclusions. So it produces a race of quacks, who can always prove what they are wanted to prove; men in spirit much like the false prophets of old. And it often, I am afraid, bribes men of real insight and diligence to suppress or misrepresent facts and their own convictions, lest they should injure their reputation. A heavy price is paid for these momentary triumphs. The discomfiture which follows of course, appears to shake the edifice which had been buttressed so feebly and so needlessly; numbers suppose that the very foundation of it is undermined. And yet this is the smallest part of the calamity. To obtain these physical facts on its side, the Bible suffers greater perversion and contraction than the facts have suffered. We lose the very messages which it delivers to us, whilst we are straining our ears for proofs that it is not deceiving us. That "struggle to protect the Bible from the "last new theory propounded at the British Association," which you so justly despise, is another effect of this passion for "confirmations." If we can get any distinguished member of the British Association to speak in our favour, we are full of ignominious rapture; if any of its members throw out opinions which contradict ours, or may lead to a contradiction of ours, we are full of a terror as ignominious. I know no more encouraging proof that the God of truth is still among us, much as we are offending Him with our lies in His Name, than that the faith of scientific men in the Bible has not wholly perished, when they see how small ours is, and by what tricks we are sustaining it. "I have listened," said an old official of a certain University, "for forty years to the sermons at St. "and, thank God! I am a Christian still." Thank God! there are Christians still among -'s, scientific men, though they have been listening |