is connected with competency to enter upon critical inquiry as to the
harmony of religion and science. What has been said as to knowledge of
the Bible as a prerequisite for the discussion of our problem, must
equally hold as to science. One thing, however, needs to be fairly
stated and deliberately allowed; the possibility of intelligent and
adequate criticism does not imply full acquaintance with scientific
methods, and personal ability to test the results of their application.
Most of us must be content to take our scientific knowledge on trust, as
Chaucer did, when he declined to enter upon the intricacies of
astronomical study, because he was too old for making satisfactory
progress.[D] To accept scientific conclusions without personal
verification is simply inevitable. When scientific men themselves have
come to a general agreement, and are not any longer in conflict on a
particular conclusion, this must be enough for the great majority of
intelligent inquirers. There is not, in this, absolute security for
accuracy, but neither is there such security in the circumstances for
scientific men themselves, and there can be no reasonable ground for
hesitancy or complaint, either on our part or on theirs, if we are ready
to accept general agreement as sufficient testimony for the time. It
would be utterly impracticable and unreasoning to insist that we can not
intelligently accept the conclusions of astronomy unless we are able to
go through the mathematical processes; or the main facts of human
physiology unless we have verified each position by personal
investigation into the structure of the organs, and the conditions of
functional activity. Conjectures find from an intelligent public no
higher acknowledgment than is due to conjecture, simply because those
who have devoted themselves to research in the department concerned are
not agreed in attributing to them any higher significance. On the other
hand, conclusions are accepted as true, however much they may be at
variance with previously existing conviction, when the great majority of
scientific inquirers have admitted the observations to be undoubted or
the reasonings conclusive. This is the only conceivable test. It is
that which scientific thinkers must themselves recognize as the rule of
credence in all departments of investigation lying beyond their own
familiar field of study; and it is that which is naturally accepted by
the whole body of non-scientific readers and thinkers interested in the
advance of knowledge. All practiced theologians, and all upholders of
religion on the ground of intelligent warrant for belief and practice,
only take the ground of common intelligence when they accept implicitly
the conclusions reached by scientific procedure.
Whatever then may be the evidence of conflict between science and
religion, and whatever the difficulties lying in the way of working out
reconciliation, there is clear warrant for claiming common ground from
which to start, and that so ample and secure that it is provided by
scientific inquiry itself, and generally accepted by educated men of all
classes. There can be no patchwork contrivance, made up of what may be
taken to be final statements of theological and scientific positions. We
do not aim at some agglomeration of materials gathered from opposite
quarters and brought together with the design of constructing a compact
and durable unity. Neither from the side of religion, nor from that of
science, could such a proposal find countenance. Each must work from its
own basis, the one from Revelation, the other from Nature. Each must go
on its own course of development and active service, unaided and
undeterred by the other. And from age to age in the world's progress it
must continue part of the task connected with intelligent existence, to
go from one to the other, in search of the lines of harmony. From both
sides must come an impulse to this search for agreement. From the
scientific side, by an intellectual necessity, for all intelligent
research presses on towards unity in a complete conquest of the region
of investigation, pushing out in distinct lines with full conviction of
the harmony of being, and of conclusions expressing so much of this
harmony as has been definitely ascertained. And what is no less certain,
though not so freely admitted, all investigation as to the laws of
existence, even that which proclaims confidence only in observation,
with inference from what it discloses, is urging the human mind onward
to a higher range of questions as to existence beyond observation, and
the causes of things visible. Impotent in the extreme has been the voice
of a "positive" philosophy, denouncing the search for causes, sounding
its trumpet call to rally all divisions of scientific workers to search
exclusively for facts, as if such workers were but a band of quarrymen,
boring, blasting, and gathering up shattered fragments of rock. For
facts must science ever search; with nothing short of ascertained facts
can it be satisfied; but, having found them, it must classify and
harmonize, seeking for the laws which regulate their occurrence, and for
the causes by which they may be rationally explained.
On the other hand, from the sphere of religion must ever arise a
powerful impulse to seek harmony of conviction with the verified results
of scientific research. This may be expected to prove a more urgent and
practical necessity than that which operates from within the region of
science. The belief in a personal Deity, as the source of all dependent
existence, and the controller of all, leads by a necessity both
intellectual and spiritual to a search for order in all things, and a
harmony of the universe. Viewed only as an intellectual
discipline,--and this is an important though partial view of
it,--religion develops what may be described as the intellectual
instinct, craving for knowledge, with expectation of order and harmony
everywhere, and with prospect of ample reward for patient research.
Religion, beginning with the conception of a transcendent Being,--seeing
in finite existence a creation and a cosmos,--gives more powerful
stimulus to search for harmony of truth, than can be said to spring from
science. The latter by the necessity of its procedure begins by
contracting thought in order to concentrate, and is apt to encourage its
most devoted servants to work on isolated divisions of existence,
relegating to a distant future the greater and more puzzling task of
contemplating the harmony of all sciences. It is, then, by pressing into
view an urgent practical and personal need, that religion may be said in
the history of individual life to contribute the strongest motive power
towards such intellectual effort as is concerned with the harmonizing of
all truth. This will appear in personal experience according to the
intellectual activity of the individual, under the requirements of his
religious life, and in study of all that belongs to the system of the
universe. This being recognized and avowed, as following from the very
nature of religion, it devolves on the Church in all its divisions,--the
brotherhood of believers,--to manifest a genuine and profound interest
in the progress of science, making felt in the world the full influence
of the spirit, at once scientific and religious, which seeks to discover
and demonstrate the harmony of created existence.
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's _Life of
Lessing_, p. 361.
[B] Plato's _Republic_ II. 380, 381.
[C] See Appendix 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.
LECTURE II.
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 wise rule 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 proportion to
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
has been 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 this question 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 to believe 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 the vitality 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 added without 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 London at 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 usual seized 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 further shown 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.