concerning the independence of the fields of Theology and general Science
severally, and the consequent impossibility of collision between them, how
much more true is that statement, from the very nature of the case, when
we contrast Theology, not with Science generally, but definitely with
Physics! In Physics is comprised that family of sciences which is
concerned with the sensible world, with the phenomena which we see, hear,
and handle, or, in other words, with matter. It is the philosophy of
matter. Its basis of operations, what it starts from, what it falls back
upon, is the phenomena which meet the senses. Those phenomena it
ascertains, catalogues, compares, combines, arranges, and then uses for
determining something beyond themselves, viz., the order to which they are
subservient, or what we commonly call the laws of nature. It never travels
beyond the examination of cause and effect. Its object is to resolve the
complexity of phenomena into simple elements and principles; but when it
has reached those first elements, principles, and laws, its mission is at
an end; it keeps within that material system with which it began, and
never ventures beyond the “flammantia mœnia mundi.” It may, indeed, if it
chooses, feel a doubt of the completeness of its analysis hitherto, and
for that reason endeavour to arrive at more simple laws and fewer
principles. It may be dissatisfied with its own combinations, hypotheses,
systems; and leave Ptolemy for Newton, the alchemists for Lavoisier and
Davy;—that is, it may decide that it has not yet touched the bottom of its
own subject; but still its aim will be to get to the bottom, and nothing
more. With matter it began, with matter it will end; it will never
trespass into the province of mind. The Hindoo notion is said to be that
the earth stands upon a tortoise; but the physicist, as such, will never
ask himself by what influence, external to the universe, the universe is
sustained; simply because he _is_ a physicist.
If indeed he be a religious man, he will of course have a very definite
view of the subject; but that view of his is private, not
professional,—the view, not of a physicist, but of a religious man; and
this, not because physical science says any thing different, but simply
because it says nothing at all on the subject, nor can do so by the very
undertaking with which it set out. The question is simply _extra artem_.
The physical philosopher has nothing whatever to do with final causes, and
will get into inextricable confusion, if he introduces them into his
investigations. He has to look in one definite direction, not in any
other. It is said that in some countries, when a stranger asks his way, he
is at once questioned in turn what place he came from: something like this
would be the unseasonableness of a physicist, who inquired how the
phenomena and laws of the material world primarily came to be, when his
simple task is that of ascertaining what they are. Within the limits of
those phenomena he may speculate and prove; he may trace the operation of
the laws of matter through periods of time; he may penetrate into the
past, and anticipate the future; he may recount the changes which they
have effected upon matter, and the rise, growth, and decay of phenomena;
and so in a certain sense he may write the history of the material world,
as far as he can; still he will always advance from phenomena, and
conclude upon the internal evidence which they supply. He will not come
near the questions, what that ultimate element is, which we call matter,
how it came to be, whether it can cease to be, whether it ever was not,
whether it will ever come to nought, in what its laws really consist,
whether they can cease to be, whether they can be suspended, what
causation is, what time is, what the relations of time to cause and
effect, and a hundred other questions of a similar character.
Such is Physical Science, and Theology, as is obvious, is just what such
Science is not. Theology begins, as its name denotes, not with any
sensible facts, phenomena, or results, not with nature at all, but with
the Author of nature,—with the one invisible, unapproachable Cause and
Source of all things. It begins at the other end of knowledge, and is
occupied, not with the finite, but the Infinite. It unfolds and
systematizes what He Himself has told us of Himself; of His nature, His
attributes, His will, and His acts. As far as it approaches towards
Physics, it takes just the counterpart of the questions which occupy the
Physical Philosopher. He contemplates facts before him; the Theologian
gives the reasons of those facts. The Physicist treats of efficient
causes; the Theologian of final. The Physicist tells us of laws; the
Theologian of the Author, Maintainer, and Controller of them; of their
scope, of their suspension, if so be; of their beginning and their end.
This is how the two schools stand related to each other, at that point
where they approach the nearest; but for the most part they are absolutely
divergent. What Physical Science is engaged in I have already said; as to
Theology, it contemplates the world, not of matter, but of mind; the
Supreme Intelligence; souls and their destiny; conscience and duty; the
past, present, and future dealings of the Creator with the creature.
4.
So far, then, as these remarks have gone, Theology and Physics cannot
touch each other, have no intercommunion, have no ground of difference or
agreement, of jealousy or of sympathy. As well may musical truths be said
to interfere with the doctrines of architectural science; as well may
there be a collision between the mechanist and the geologist, the engineer
and the grammarian; as well might the British Parliament or the French
nation be jealous of some possible belligerent power upon the surface of
the moon, as Physics pick a quarrel with Theology. And it may be
well,—before I proceed to fill up in detail this outline, and to explain
what has to be explained in this statement,—to corroborate it, as it
stands, by the remarkable words upon the subject of a writer of the
day:(46)—
“We often hear it said,” he observes, writing as a Protestant (and here
let me assure you, Gentlemen, that though his words have a controversial
tone with them, I do not quote them in that aspect, or as wishing here to
urge any thing against Protestants, but merely in pursuance of my own
point, that Revelation and Physical Science cannot really come into
collision), “we often hear it said that the world is constantly becoming
more and more enlightened, and that this enlightenment must be favourable
to Protestantism, and unfavourable to Catholicism. We wish that we could
think so. But we see great reason to doubt whether this is a well-founded
expectation. We see that during the last two hundred and fifty years the
human mind has been in the highest degree active; that it has made great
advances in every branch of natural philosophy; that it has produced
innumerable inventions tending to promote the convenience of life; that
medicine, surgery, chemistry, engineering, have been very greatly
improved, that government, police, and law have been improved, though not
to so great an extent as the physical sciences. Yet we see that, during
these two hundred and fifty years, Protestantism has made no conquests
worth speaking of. Nay, we believe that, as far as there has been change,
that change has, on the whole, been in favour of the Church of Rome. We
cannot, therefore, feel confident that the progress of knowledge will
necessarily be fatal to a system which has, to say the least, stood its
ground in spite of the immense progress made by the human race in
knowledge since the days of Queen Elizabeth.
“Indeed, the argument which we are considering seems to us to be founded
on an entire mistake. There are branches of knowledge with respect to
which the law of the human mind is progress. In mathematics, when once a
proposition has been demonstrated, it is never afterwards contested. Every
fresh story is as solid a basis for a new superstructure as the original
foundation was. Here, therefore, there is a constant addition to the stock
of truth. In the inductive sciences, again, the law is progress.…
“But with theology the case is very different. As respects natural
religion (Revelation being for the present altogether left out of the
question), it is not easy to see that a philosopher of the present day is
more favourably situated than Thales or Simonides. He has before him just
the same evidences of design in the structure of the universe which the
early Greeks had.… As to the other great question, the question what
becomes of man after death, we do not see that a highly educated European,
left to his unassisted reason, is more likely to be in the right than a
Blackfoot Indian. Not a single one of the many sciences, in which we
surpass the Blackfoot Indians, throws the smallest light on the state of
the soul after the animal life is extinct.…
“Natural Theology, then, is not a progressive science. That knowledge of
our origin and of our destiny which we derive from Revelation is indeed of
very different clearness, and of very different importance. But neither is
Revealed Religion of the nature of a progressive science.… In divinity
there cannot be a progress analogous to that which is constantly taking
place in pharmacy, geology, and navigation. A Christian of the fifth
century with a Bible is neither better nor worse situated than a Christian
of the nineteenth century with a Bible, candour and natural acuteness
being of course supposed equal. It matters not at all that the compass,
printing, gunpowder, steam, gas, vaccination, and a thousand other
discoveries and inventions, which were unknown in the fifth century, are
familiar to the nineteenth. None of these discoveries and inventions has
the smallest bearing on the question whether man is justified by faith
alone, or whether the invocation of saints is an orthodox practice.… We
are confident that the world will never go back to the solar system of
Ptolemy; nor is our confidence in the least shaken by the circumstance
that so great a man as Bacon rejected the theory of Galileo with scorn;
for Bacon had not all the means of arriving at a sound conclusion.… But
when we reflect that Sir Thomas More was ready to die for the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, we cannot but feel some doubt whether the doctrine of
Transubstantiation may not triumph over all opposition. More was a man of
eminent talents. He had all the information on the subject that we have,
or _that, while the world lasts, any __ human being will have.… No
progress that science has made, or will make_, can add to what seems to us
the overwhelming force of the argument against the Real Presence. We are
therefore unable to understand why what Sir Thomas More believed
respecting Transubstantiation may not be believed to the end of time by
men equal in abilities and honesty to Sir Thomas More. But Sir Thomas More
is one of the choice specimens of human wisdom and virtue; and the
doctrine of Transubstantiation is a kind of proof charge. The faith which
stands that test will stand any test.…
“The history of Catholicism strikingly illustrates these observations.
During the last seven centuries the public mind of Europe has made
constant progress in every department of secular knowledge; but in
religion we can trace no constant progress.… Four times since the
authority of the Church of Rome was established in Western Christendom has
the human intellect risen up against her yoke. Twice that Church remained
completely victorious. Twice she came forth from the conflict bearing the
marks of cruel wounds, but with the principle of life still strong within
her. When we reflect on the tremendous assaults she has survived, we find
it difficult to conceive in what way she is to perish.”
You see, Gentlemen, if you trust the judgment of a sagacious mind, deeply
read in history, Catholic Theology has nothing to fear from the progress
of Physical Science, even independently of the divinity of its doctrines.
It speaks of things supernatural; and these, by the very force of the
words, research into nature cannot touch.
5.
It is true that the author in question, while saying all this, and much
more to the same purpose, also makes mention of one exception to his
general statement, though he mentions it in order to put it aside. I, too,
have to notice the same exception here; and you will see at once,
Gentlemen, as soon as it is named, how little it interferes really with
the broad view which I have been drawing out. It is true, then, that
Revelation has in one or two instances advanced beyond its chosen
territory, which is the invisible world, in order to throw light upon the
history of the material universe. Holy Scripture, it is perfectly true,
does declare a few momentous facts, so few that they may be counted, of a
physical character. It speaks of a process of formation out of chaos which
occupied six days; it speaks of the firmament; of the sun and moon being
created for the sake of the earth; of the earth being immovable; of a
great deluge; and of several other similar facts and events. It is true;
nor is there any reason why we should anticipate any difficulty in
accepting these statements as they stand, whenever their meaning and drift
are authoritatively determined; for, it must be recollected, their meaning
has not yet engaged the formal attention of the Church, or received any
interpretation which, as Catholics, we are bound to accept, and in the
absence of such definite interpretation, there is perhaps some presumption
in saying that it means this, and does not mean that. And this being the
case, it is not at all probable that any discoveries ever should be made
by physical inquiries incompatible at the same time with one and all of
those senses which the letter admits, and which are still open. As to
certain popular interpretations of the texts in question, I shall have
something to say of them presently; here I am only concerned with the
letter of the Holy Scriptures itself, as far as it bears upon the history
of the heavens and the earth; and I say that we may wait in peace and
tranquillity till there is some real collision between Scripture
authoritatively interpreted, and results of science clearly ascertained,
before we consider how we are to deal with a difficulty which we have
reasonable grounds for thinking will never really occur.
And, after noticing this exception, I really have made the utmost
admission that has to be made about the existence of any common ground
upon which Theology and Physical Science may fight a battle. On the whole,
the two studies do most surely occupy distinct fields, in which each may
teach without expecting any interposition from the other. It might indeed
have pleased the Almighty to have superseded physical inquiry by revealing
the truths which are its object, though He has not done so: but whether it
had pleased Him to do so or not, anyhow Theology and Physics would be
distinct sciences; and nothing which the one says of the material world
ever can contradict what the other says of the immaterial. Here, then, is
the end of the question; and here I might come to an end also, were it not
incumbent on me to explain how it is that, though Theology and Physics
cannot quarrel, nevertheless, Physical Philosophers and Theologians have
quarrelled in fact, and quarrel still. To the solution of this difficulty
I shall devote the remainder of my Lecture.
6.
I observe, then, that the elementary methods of reasoning and inquiring
used in Theology and Physics are contrary the one to the other; each of
them has a method of its own; and in this, I think, has lain the point of
controversy between the two schools, viz., that neither of them has been
quite content to remain on its own homestead, but that, whereas each has
its own method, which is the best for its own science, each has considered
it the best for all purposes whatever, and has at different times thought
to impose it upon the other science, to the disparagement or rejection of
that opposite method which legitimately belongs to it.
The argumentative method of Theology is that of a strict science, such as
Geometry, or deductive; the method of Physics, at least on starting, is
that of an empirical pursuit, or inductive. This peculiarity on either
side arises from the nature of the case. In Physics a vast and omnigenous
mass of information lies before the inquirer, all in a confused litter,
and needing arrangement and analysis. In Theology such varied phenomena
are wanting, and Revelation presents itself instead. What is known in
Christianity is just that which is revealed, and nothing more; certain
truths, communicated directly from above, are committed to the keeping of
the faithful, and to the very last nothing can really be added to those
truths. From the time of the Apostles to the end of the world no strictly
new truth can be added to the theological information which the Apostles
were inspired to deliver. It is possible of course to make numberless
deductions from the original doctrines; but, as the conclusion is ever in
its premisses, such deductions are not, strictly speaking, an addition;
and, though experience may variously guide and modify those deductions,
still, on the whole, Theology retains the severe character of a science,
advancing syllogistically from premisses to conclusion.
The method of Physics is just the reverse of this: it has hardly any
principles or truths to start with, externally delivered and already
ascertained. It has to commence *mence with sight and touch; it has to
handle, weigh, and measure its own exuberant _sylva_ of phenomena, and
from these to advance to new truths,—truths, that is, which are beyond and
distinct from the phenomena from which they originate. Thus Physical
Science is experimental, Theology traditional; Physical Science is the
richer, Theology the more exact; Physics the bolder, Theology the surer;
Physics progressive, Theology, in comparison, stationary; Theology is
loyal to the past, Physics has visions of the future. Such they are, I
repeat, and such their respective methods of inquiry, from the nature of
the case.
But minds habituated to either of these two methods can hardly help
extending it beyond its due limits, unless they are put upon their guard,
and have great command of themselves. It cannot be denied that divines
have from time to time been much inclined to give a traditional, logical
shape to sciences which do not admit of any such treatment. Nor can it be
denied, on the other hand, that men of science often show a special
irritation at theologians for going by antiquity, precedent, authority,
and logic, and for declining to introduce Bacon or Niebuhr into their own
school, or to apply some new experimental and critical process for the
improvement of that which has been given once for all from above. Hence
the mutual jealousy of the two parties; and I shall now attempt to give
instances of it.
7.
First, then, let me refer to those interpretations of Scripture, popular
and of long standing, though not authoritative, to which I have already
had occasion to allude. Scripture, we know, is to be interpreted according
to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; but, besides this consent, which
is of authority, carrying with it the evidence of its truth, there have
ever been in Christendom a number of floating opinions, more or less
appended to the divine tradition; opinions which have a certain
probability of being more than human, or of having a basis or admixture of
truth, but which admit of no test, whence they came, or how far they are
true, besides the course of events, and which meanwhile are to be received
at least with attention and deference. Sometimes they are comments on
Scripture prophecy, sometimes on other obscurities or mysteries. It was
once an opinion, for instance, drawn from the sacred text, that the
Christian Dispensation was to last a thousand years, and no more; the
event disproved it. A still more exact and plausible tradition, derived
from Scripture, was that which asserted that, when the Roman Empire should
fall to pieces, Antichrist should appear, who should be followed at once
by the Second Coming. Various Fathers thus interpret St. Paul, and
Bellarmine receives the interpretation as late as the sixteenth century.
The event alone can decide if, under any aspect of Christian history, it
is true; but at present we are at least able to say that it is not true in
that broad plain sense in which it was once received.
Passing from comments on prophetical passages of Scripture to those on
cosmological, it was, I suppose, the common belief of ages, sustained by
received interpretations of the sacred text, that the earth was immovable.
Hence, I suppose, it was that the Irish Bishop who asserted the existence
of the Antipodes alarmed his contemporaries; though it is well to observe
that, even in the dark age in which he lived, the Holy See, to which
reference was made, did not commit itself to any condemnation of the
unusual opinion. The same alarm again occupied the public mind when the
Copernican System was first advocated: nor were the received traditions,
which were the ground of that alarm, hastily to be rejected; yet rejected
they ultimately have been. If in any quarter these human traditions were
enforced, and, as it were, enacted, to the prejudice and detriment of
scientific investigations (and this was never done by the Church herself),
this was a case of undue interference on the part of the Theological
schools in the province of Physics.
So much may be said as regards interpretations of Scripture; but it is
easy to see that other received opinions, not resting on the sacred
volume, might with less claim and greater inconvenience be put forward to
harass the physical inquirer, to challenge his submission, and to preclude
that process of examination which is proper to his own peculiar pursuit.
Such are the dictatorial formulæ against which Bacon inveighs, and the
effect of which was to change Physics into a deductive science, and to
oblige the student to assume implicitly, as first principles, enunciations
and maxims, which were venerable, only because no one could tell whence
they came, and authoritative, only because no one could say what arguments
there were in their favour. In proportion as these encroachments were made
upon his own field of inquiry would be the indignation of the physical
philosopher; and he would exercise a scepticism which relieved his
feelings, while it approved itself to his reason, if he was called on ever
to keep in mind that light bodies went up, and heavy bodies fell down, and
other similar maxims, which had no pretensions to a divine origin, or to
be considered self-evident principles, or intuitive truths.
And in like manner, if a philosopher with a true genius for physical
research found the Physical Schools of his day occupied with the
discussion of final causes, and solving difficulties in material nature by
means of them; if he found it decided, for instance, that the roots of
trees make for the river, _because_ they need moisture, or that the axis
of the earth lies at a certain angle to the plane of its motion by
_reason_ of certain advantages thence accruing to its inhabitants, I
should not wonder at his exerting himself for a great reform in the
process of inquiry, preaching the method of Induction, and, if he fancied
that theologians were indirectly or in any respect the occasion of the
blunder, getting provoked for a time, however unreasonably, with Theology
itself.
I wish the experimental school of Philosophers had gone no further in its
opposition to Theology than indulging in some indignation at it for the
fault of its disciples; but it must be confessed that it has run into
excesses on its own side for which the school of high Deductive Science
has afforded no precedent; and that, if it once for a time suffered from
the tyranny of the logical method of inquiry, it has encouraged, by way of
reprisals, encroachments and usurpations on the province of Theology far
more serious than that unintentional and long obsolete interference with
its own province, on the part of Theologians, which has been its excuse.
And to these unjustifiable and mischievous intrusions made by the
Experimentalists into the department of Theology I have now, Gentlemen, to
call your attention.
8.