CHAPTER IX.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SCIENCE.

ALTHOUGH it does not fall within the strict title of this volume, yet it is so congruous with its design that I can not allow myself to pass over, without some remark, the influence which the Bible has exerted on science.

The objection may be heard that the Scriptures have not made any contributions to the physical sciences. But this is surely most frivolous. Suppose an infidel, who is addicted to natural philosophy, to take up the Institutes of Calvin; and, after reading a few pages, to throw the book aside with a sneer that there is nothing in it about the laws of motion or the mechanical powers. Or suppose an infidel, who has a preference for mathematical studies, to complain of Humboldt's Cosmos that it contains no pure geometry, and does not expound the differential calculus. Or suppose a third infidel, who is fond of natural history, to take exception to Herschel's treatises on astronomy that they are wanting in zoölogy and botany. Or we shall suppose that a fourth, who is a distinguished chemist, faults Brewster's Optics because they do not describe the atomic theory; or that a fifth, who is an

enthusiastic geologist, censures De Morgan's work on Probabilities, because it gives no account of extinct genera; or that a sixth, who is addicted to metaphysics, blames Macaulay because, in his History of England, he has not discussed the doctrine of innate ideas. These suppositions imply a standard of criticism so vastly absurd that they provoke a smile by their bare mention. The only fair and reasonable criticism by which to test a book, is whether, first, the subject was worth writing upon; and if so, secondly, whether its author has done that well which he undertook to do. Now the sacred penmen never undertook to write on science. Their chosen subject is theology. The only relevant question, therefore, as to the merits of their works, is whether they have handled this subject well; enlarging its field by solid contributions, and illustrating its several objects by just exposition.

Had the Scriptures made contributions to physical science, then, just in proportion to the amount of these contributions, they would have been useless as a revelation of moral and spiritual truth. Were a Bible to be given to mankind now it might allude not only to the facts, but also to the higher generalizations of modern science, and this with good effect, for its readers could understand its allusions. But with what other effect than to bewilder mankind, could the Bible have announced any one of the modern discoveries in science? Fancy it speaking to the ancient Hebrews of the diurnal rotation of

the earth, or of its annual revolution. If it was to teach science, it could only do so by commencing with its first elements: in other words, it must have been an elementary treatise on astronomy, botany, chemistry, geology, etc. And if thus a popular digest of the sciences, it must have been a very voluminous affair indeed. And one might be tempted to ask, if the masses were to master its scientific portions, what time would they have left to study its theology, or its subject proper?

Some reputable writers have expressed the opinion, that there are to be found in the Bible the germs of undeveloped science, prophetic anticipations, or oracular allusions let drop here and there prenunciating modern discoveries, which, though not intelligible in those unscientific ages, do now yield an intelligible meaning when read in the light of these times. But for our own part, we are free to confess, that we would set small value on these so-called Scriptural prelusions of science before its age. We apprehend that the Divine Author of the Bible intended to leave it to man himself to write his own books on physical science. And in this he has acted in accordance with a fundamental principle in his providence; which is, not to proclaim by a voice from heaven truths which are discoverable by the due exercise of man's own reason. No doubt it has taken a long time for man to discover true science. The Baconian philosophy dates only from the sixth millennium in the world's history;

the three magna opera on science-Bacon's Novum Organum, Newton's Principia, and La Place's Méchanique Celeste, are "far between." But then, necessary as these three great works were to its science, the world could better afford to wait for them than for a completed Bible. Accordingly it was given and its canon closed many centuries before the first of these appeared; whereas He who "knoweth the end from the beginning," foreseeing that Bacon, Newton, and La Place would yet arise, did not reveal what they, without a revelation, were to discover.

But the infidel will have it, that the Bible has been obstructive to science.

Now, it is confessed that science has had its martyrs, and that the Church kindled the pyre. With pious indignation and eloquent invective the Fathers of the Christian Church condemned the theory of the Antipodes as being opposed to Scripture. With equal indignation, but employing torture instead of invective, Pope Zachary treated Virgilius as a heretic for broaching this same theory. The council of Salamanca indignantly denounced the notion of the earth being a sphere; and the doctors of the inquisition consigned to their dungeons the illustrious Florentine who proclaimed the theory of the earth's rotation. Nor was it only the Papacy which by an appeal to Scripture attempted to lay an arrest on modern science. Our earlier Protestant divines arrayed themselves against

the system of Copernicus; and one of the most learned and eloquent of them set himself to prove from Scripture, as if it were a very article of orthodox Christianity, that the earth is stationary, while the sun, with the entire host of stars, are the only pilgrim-orbs in the firmament. Among our later divines not a few have set an anti-Biblical brand upon the researches of the geologists.

We can not justify either the scientific opinions of the theologians, or the means which they took to defend them. Still so far in apology we may plead that principle of conservatism in our nature, which makes us slow to give up old beliefs, and which, though often no better than a mental vis inertiæ, is yet useful as a counteraction to that love of novelty, which, unless met by an opposing immobility, would in its efforts at reformation produce rather a revolution. Doubtless the theologians ought not to have been so alarmed, and their fears only betrayed their ignorance alike of Scripture and of science. Still, some allowance is to be made for the tenacity even of needless alarm, when what it clings to, as with a death-gripe, are as it believes the very foundations of sacred truth. And there was, it must be owned, some reason for the anxiety of the theologians, since among the philosophers there were those who expressed what looked very like indifference as to the effect which scientific discovery might have on the credibility of the Scriptures.

But we may not content ourselves with being the