_Editor Popular Science Monthly_:
SIR: I have read with great interest an article in the July number of
your Monthly entitled Scientific Method and its Application to the
Bible. So far as I am able to understand the writer's views, I must
certainly decline to accept some of his conclusions. The vital
teaching of his paper appears to me to be this: it is proper to apply
scientific methods to the study of the Bible so far as to inquire into
its structure, the date of its composition, its composite authorship
and the sources from which it was compiled, and the names of its
authors; but certain truths are distinctly taught in it of a
supernatural character which must be accepted because they are a
revelation of God's will, and not because they are found to be true by
intellectual apprehension and logical reasoning. Indeed, to think of
understanding them by intellectual processes is "unscientific beyond
hope of pardon."
It is conceded that "the stifling of thought and of investigation into
what might lead men away from the truth and the faith once delivered
to the saints" was instrumental in causing the barrenness in
scientific work for twelve hundred years of the middle ages, between
Hipparchus and Copernicus, and that "the same causes are more or less
at work at all times to hinder the growth of science and the extension
of scientific method." He still, however, insists that there is
limitation to human inquiry and ecclesiastical bounds beyond which
thought must not go. There are still revelations of truths which the
intellect can not perceive, and which can only be understood by "an
exercise of faith." It is no longer the Mosaic line which scientists
are forbidden to cross, but the "spiritual verities" must not be
questioned. There are some revelations which, in the language of
Huxley, "they are to hold for the certainest of truths, to be doubted
only at the peril of their salvation."
Was it not Martin Luther who called Copernicus a "fool" for trying "to
reverse the entire science of astronomy" in the face of revealed
truths? "To accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it
is the part of a good mind," said Melanchthon in condemning
Copernicus. "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
above that of the Holy Spirit?" said Calvin. Verily, his unpardonable
sin was "investigating the truths which are distinctly taught in the
Bible," which required an "exercise of faith" and were not to be
"apprehended intellectually."
The question seems a reasonable one to ask, To what authority shall we
look for knowledge and interpretation of these spiritual truths which
are not accessible by scientific study? How shall we know that they
are truths at all? I am aware that here the testimony of Christian
conscientiousness is sometimes held to be the court of last resort,
which I interpret to mean that if one intuitively reaches the
conclusion that something is true it is true, the most positive
evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Certainly, no other fact is
better established in all human history than the truth of witchcraft,
if we admit the potency of this authority. If we reject this, must we
not then fall back upon ecclesiastical infallibility as the final
interpreter of truth? And this the essayist, in his paper, declines to
argue.
Now, can there be any such thing as scientific investigation within
such prescribed limitations? Or scientific study of the Bible itself
which excludes from its province the so-called spiritual revelations
which it contains? One might naturally think that the primary purpose
of all the critical study of the books, authors, and structure of the
Bible was to learn just what these distinct truths it teaches are. But
what bearing can this study have upon the question, being but an
intellectual process with which the essential truths are disconnected,
which only come by revelation?
Higher criticism can not hold permanently such an untenable position.
It must either go backward to an infallible book, or an infallible
interpretation of it by authority, or it must go forward to the
consideration of the Bible as a collection of books of ancient
literature, to be examined without restrictions. The truths which it
contains are to be ascertained by "apprehending intellectually" and
"reasoning logically," in the same manner as with other books written
by religious leaders in ancient times. Any halting between these two
positions is only for temporary rest. No permanent foothold can ever
be gained on such a foundation of quicksand. An impassable dead line
in biblical study is indicative of the theological and not the
scientific method.