Chapter IV: Appendix: I. Relations of Science and Religion 313 (2)

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.

When dealing with bacteria, he found that they differed from other forms in this, that they rose to the air as if it were a requisite, whereas other germs, such as those belonging to the process of fermentation, could exist without oxygen. This led to an additional form of experiment, with the view of deciding whether bacteria could be destroyed by withdrawal of air; and if so, whether the bacteria would reappear after the existing microscopic life had been stifled. Tyndall began by applying the air-pump. Under this process the bacteria were enfeebled greatly, but not destroyed. Thereafter Sprengel pumps were used, by means of which the air dissolved in the infusions was withdrawn, as well as that diffused in the spaces above. In numerous cases there was success in destroying the germs by removal of the air in this way without any boiling process. In these cases, the air was carefully restored, precautions being adopted to guard against admission of germinal forms, and in no case did life reappear in the infusions. As in the more common style of experiment, the warmth suitable could not charm the life back again; so in this, the restoration of oxygen, could not secure restoration of life.

Thus evidence from all sides directed surely to the conclusion that the alleged discovery of "spontaneous generation" was a delusion, the result of hasty and insufficient experiment. Dr. Bastian, nevertheless, stuck heroically to his original position, and came into conflict with M. Pasteur of Paris, by means of a communication which the English Professor had sent to the Academy of Sciences in July of the previous year, 1876. In the beginning of 1877, M. Pasteur threw down an explicit challenge to Professor Bastian, which resulted in the appointment of a commission to observe the experiments and adjudicate. With this terminates the history of nearly ten years of curious and singular investigation, and Dr. Bastian himself has supplied the history of the closing scene, laying open the whole correspondence to public investigation, as if he were unconscious of the complete demolition of his favorite theory of "spontaneous generation." The 15th of July, 1877, witnessed the close of a battle he had been fighting against steadily increasing odds, and which he had begun in June, 1870. Dr. Bastian's position was "that a solution of boiled potash caused bacteria to appear in sterile urine at fifty degrees Cent., added in a quantity sufficient to neutralize the latter." These he regarded as the physico-chemical conditions for spontaneous generation of bacteria.

The challenge from M. Pasteur was in these terms;--"I defy Dr. Bastian to obtain, in the presence of competent judges, the result to which I have referred with sterile urine, on the sole condition that the solution of potash which he employs be pure, _i. e._, made with pure water and pure potash, both free from organic matter. If Dr. Bastian wishes to use a solution of impure potash, I freely authorize him to take any in the English or any other Pharmacopoeia, being diluted or concentrated, on the sole condition that that solution shall be raised beforehand to one hundred and ten degrees for twenty minutes, or to one hundred and thirty degrees for five minutes."

A Commission was appointed by the Academy, and Dr. Bastian agreed to appear before it, but only on conditions he laid down greatly restricting the range of inquiry. He ignored the first and most searching form of M. Pasteur's challenge; claimed that the adjudication of the Commission should be only on the second; and further stated that if the Commission were "to express an opinion upon the interpretation of the fact attested, and upon its bearings on 'the germ theory of fermentation,' or 'spontaneous generation,'" he would respectfully decline to take part in this wider inquiry. The Commission refused to be restricted to the worst form of the experiment, and to be bound to withhold an opinion as to its bearing on the question of "spontaneous generation." Dr. Bastian went to Paris, but the members of the Commission declined to deal with less than the challenge given, and the meeting was never properly constituted. "Thus ended," as Dr. Bastian has said, "the proceedings of this remarkable Commission of the French Academy." The proceedings ended before they had begun. Dr. Bastian by his restrictions, surrendered the real question at issue, and practically acknowledged that he would not submit it to the judgment of the Commission. He sought only testimony as to his own form of experiment, which there was then good reason to know was accurate, because M. Pasteur had stated a temperature too low, and a time too short, but which was at the same time an experiment of no scientific value for establishing "spontaneous generation." Thus ended a battle which had been protracted long after it was to all observers manifestly lost.

The discussion thus narrated may be easily overestimated, but there seems even more risk that the manifest failure should lead to an oversight of the value of the protracted investigations. These convey lessons of special value to scientific inquirers on the one hand, and to theologians on the other. They are of great value for illustrative purposes in such a course of lectures as the present, and that because they provide needful training for intelligent observation of the advance of science.

The promulgation of the development theory of species has given a conception of the unity of organic life in the world, which even in its most modified form has an imposing grandeur. Influenced by this, scientific men are naturally concerned to make out, if possible, some connection between inorganic and organic being. To work at this, is part of the inevitable task of science, even though the result should be only to establish the helplessness of science in dealing with it.

We have chemical and dynamical theories of life which stimulate repetition of experiments, in the hope that some grand discovery may be made. Those just described present a curious illustration. In the circumstances, we can well understand the persistence with which Dr. Bastian clung to his supposed discovery of the physico-chemical conditions for production of living organism.

Science finds in these experiments a fresh lesson of the need for caution, guarding against the hampering influence of popular notions, as in reference to the probable effects of the boiling process. For if the experiments have proved a failure so far as support to a theory of spontaneous generation is concerned, they have revealed a tenacity of life belonging to the lowest microscopic organisms, far beyond higher organic forms, and the consequent weakness of ordinary human devices in struggling against the development of such germs. These experiments also emphasize the need for attention to the laws of rational procedure, as well as to skill in experimental observation, if science is to be exempted from needless toils.

Theology has here also a lesson of patience, for it may well leave science to do its own work, undisturbed by apprehensions as to possible consequences to morality and religion. All that the telescope can reveal, and the microscope can make known, through years of experimenting, we wish to have discovered, for only thus shall we come to understand the world's lessons of wisdom and power lying far beyond the range of our unaided vision. All the churches of Christ have reason to hail the extension of scientific knowledge. Those who set high account on patient interpretation of the written Revelation, have reason to value this laborious reading out of the lessons written in the book of Nature.

A wider and more general result may be expected than that which bears directly on the relations of science and religion. All intelligent readers of scientific discussions will find discipline from pondering these experiments. They illustrate the toil connected with scientific research, the risks which beset such inquiry, and the limits of scientific investigations. There lies in these experiments a warning of the constant need for falling back not only on the laws of evidence, but also on the laws of reason. The mere conception of "spontaneous generation," rigidly interpreted, were a curiosity, coming wonderfully near a contradiction of scientific thought itself, which seeks for causes, and repudiates uncaused occurrences. There may naturally enough be a discovery of the chemical elements belonging to definite types of organism, or of the form and measure of energy operating in life. Even when surmising "that possibly we may by the help of physical principles, especially that of the dissipation of energy, sometime attain to a notion of what constitutes life, mere vitality, nothing higher," Professor Tait has thought it needful to add, "but let no one imagine that, should we ever penetrate this mystery, we shall thereby be enabled to produce, except from life, even the lowest form of life."[N] If it were suggested that physico-chemical elements could originate life, chemistry would easily supply the ingredients. If it were hinted that reliance might be placed exclusively on the action of air or of heat for producing living organism from inorganic matter, this were to fall back on the old elemental philosophy of ancient Greece, which the thought of Greece easily repudiated without the aid of experimental science.

Attention is, however, here concentrated on the failure of these experiments meant to establish "spontaneous generation," and in this failure we find illustration of the fact that supposed conflicts between science and religion are often misunderstandings and nothing more, based on unreliable experiments or unwarranted expectations.

One other fact deserves to be recorded and placed in companionship with that just stated, that some of the alleged conflicts between science and religion are delusively so described, on account of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of religion. They are fictitious articles, requiring to be properly branded, and quietly laid aside. A single illustration may suffice, taken from Dr. Draper's _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, which is easily accessible, and reasonably claims some attention in connection with the present subject. The criticism here offered is not meant to carry a general condemnation of the book. This work includes a vast deal more than it's title suggests; in the midst of much that is extraneous, there is not a little of valuable historical matter written in a clear and attractive style. The book is, however, in many parts misleading, often by its style suggesting that the author has allowed himself to be carried away in his eagerness to make out serious conflict. The plan of the book is hardly compatible with fairness. This may be illustrated by reference to the grounds for selecting illustrations of Christianity. Our author says, "In speaking of Christianity reference is generally made to the Roman Church, partly because its adherents compose the majority of Christendom, partly because its demands are the most pretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought to enforce those demands by the civil power."[O] In view of these explanations, it may be in a sense satisfactory, as suggesting more harmony between science and religion than the general tenor of the book conveys, that Professor Draper has "had little to say" respecting the Protestant and Greek Churches. But the reasons for making the Roman division of the Church representative of the whole are far from satisfactory. It is as if one were bent on fighting, but determined always to select the weakest antagonist to be found. Nor is the case improved by the defence offered. Dr. Draper says, "In thus treating the subject, it has not been necessary to pay much regard to more moderate or intermediate opinions, for, though they may be intrinsically of great value, in conflicts of this kind it is not with the moderates, but with the extremists, that the impartial reader is mainly concerned. Their movements determine the issue."[P] This is, I think, an unwise conclusion. Extremists may determine the erratic deflections of a movement; they do not decide its issues. They discover the heat, rather than the thought, involved in intellectual conflict. They contribute to vortex movement, rather than onward.

In consequence of his plan of procedure, Dr. Draper gives often a misleading view of the relative positions of religion and science. A reference to Chapter VI. will afford illustration. The subject is, "Conflict Respecting the Nature of the World." The two prominent contrasts placed at the head of this chapter are these:--"Scriptural view of the world; the earth a flat surface: scientific view; the earth a globe." These are, indeed, complete contrasts; but the question is, Are they accurately stated? Is there any warrant for saying that Scripture teaches that the earth is a flat surface? Most Bible readers of the present day will take this as quite a discovery. That there was long and earnest discussion of the question whether the earth was flat or a globe, is certain. But it is erroneous to refer to Scripture as the source of the former position. The opening of the chapter sufficiently disposes of the suggestion. Dr. Draper says,--"An uncritical observation of the aspect of nature persuades us that the earth is an extended level surface which sustains the dome of the sky, a firmament dividing the waters above from the waters beneath; that the heavenly bodies--the sun, the moon, the stars--pursue their way moving from east to west, their insignificant size, and motion round the motionless earth, proclaiming their inferiority. Of the various organic forms surrounding man none rival him in dignity, and hence he seems justified in concluding that every thing has been created for his use--the sun for the purpose of giving him light by day, the moon and stars by night. Comparative theology shows that this is the conception of nature universally adopted in the early phase of intellectual life. It is the belief of all nations in all parts of the world in the beginning of their civilization."[Q]

In determining the relations of religion and science it is impossible to accept a passage so general, and full of mixed references as this. There is, indeed, no reason to complain of statements as to the general impressions resulting from "an uncritical observation" of nature, and of the testimony which may be drawn from "comparative theology." Such references are to be valued, as belonging to an important branch of inquiry; but they are not to be mixed up with statements concerning Scripture teaching. Such commingling leads to confusion, and deprives a discussion of historical accuracy and scientific precision. In view of the immense practical, as well as scientific interests involved, it is needful to guard against loose statements encouraging a belief in conflict between religion and science, where no such conflict exists. The passage here selected is taken as an example, and its criticism will indicate what claims religion has a right to make upon scientific men in their management of such discussions. It may be that with equal reason a similar claim can be turned upon defenders of religion in view of their criticisms of scientific discussions. But the real value of such investigations, from whatever side they come, depends upon accurate and guarded statement. It is to be feared, however, that Dr. Draper's theory that "extremists determine the issue," may tempt him to favor a different rule.

To state that the scriptural view of the world is, that "the earth is a flat surface," is misrepresentation. And the variety of form into which this statement is thrown throughout the chapter makes it greatly worse. Thus our author speaks of "the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in the Scriptures,"[R] as if this quasi-scientific statement were part of Bible revelation. Again he speaks of "the theological doctrine of the flatness of the earth" being irretrievably overthrown.[S] Once more, where speaking of the Copernican system of astronomy, he speaks of Copernicus not only as influenced by his exposure to punishment from the Roman Church, but as being "aware that his doctrines were totally opposed to revealed truth."[T] These successive statements involve additional exaggeration.

Our author gives no references which the reader may examine for himself. There can be little doubt that he points to the exceedingly grand and impressive passage at the opening of the book of Genesis. But in that passage there is nothing to support the statement that "the flat figure of the earth" is part of Bible revelation. That the earth has been supposed flat, and that this is really taught in Scripture, are two very different things. The Bible which says, that "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep," and records the will of the Supreme Ruler at a later stage in these words, "And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear,"[U] does something quite the opposite of teaching that "the earth is a flat surface."

Nor do the Scriptures teach that "the earth sustains the dome of the sky." In remote times such an opinion as to the resting-place for the great dome had its supporters. But there is no pretext for attributing the teaching of this to the Bible. The scriptural statement is "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." There is no reader of these words, even if he have only "an uncritical observation of the aspect of nature," who can suppose that the "firmament" here means "the dome of the sky." This statement places certain waters "_above_ the firmament," and there is no one who is at once a reader of the Bible, and an observer of nature, who thinks of the clouds as above the sky; but every one knows that there is an expanse which bears these water treasures far up from the earth's surface. The word rendered "firmament,"[V] from the Vulgate _firmamentum_, really means "expanse," and most naturally and obviously refers to the atmosphere surrounding the earth, upon which the clouds are borne aloft, and carried to and fro. Taking into account the want of scientific knowledge of the structure of the earth in far past ages, and the representations inconsistent with facts which found currency, the true marvel is that the statements of Scripture so simply and naturally harmonize with discoveries not made till the sixteenth century of the Christian era. This is a marvel which will more deeply impress us the longer it is pondered.

If we extend our consideration to the cruder notions which found acceptance in the dark ages, such as that to which Bruno referred, that the earth is a flat surface, _supported on pillars_, the scriptural evidence pled in its favor appears grotesquely inadequate. The passages are these. First stands Hannah's outburst of devotional feeling on the occasion of presenting her son Samuel before the Lord. In magnifying the greatness of God, she says, "the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them."[W] Next come the utterances of Job, when enlarging on the power of the Almighty. In one of his replies to his irritating counsellors, when speaking of the works of Jehovah, he says, "which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."[X] In another passage of similar construction, he says of God, "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof."[Y] There is no Bible reader who can readily fall into such an obvious mistake as to treat these highly figurative utterances, as if they were formal revelations concerning the structure of the universe. As well might we, in reading the words of Paul concerning the position and influence of prominent disciples in the early church, in which he says that James, Cephas, and John "seemed to be pillars," proceed to deduce from this statement the revelation that the spiritual kingdom is a flat surface on which are based the pillars upholding the heavenly kingdom into which the Saviour has entered.

This short reference to the structure and relative position of the earth, will suffice to illustrate the fact that in dealing with the alleged conflicts between religion and science, it is needful to cast aside a number of manufactured difficulties, which do not arise from legitimate interpretation of Scripture. The particular criticism here introduced is adopted for a general purpose,--to lessen complications, and secure a proper understanding of the actual relation of the Bible to scientific research.

From a very early period in the history of scientific inquiry, it has been more or less clearly recognized that the Bible is not a science-revelation, but a revelation of religious truth and duty, discovering the true ideal and destiny of man in fellowship with God. Let us have it kept clear on both sides, that there is no divine revelation of scientific truth. Nature is its own revelation, and the only revelation, whose secrets must be laboriously sought out by successive generations of investigators, from all of whom is required patient, persevering research, with undeviating and single love of truth. Those early inquirers who found themselves in painful contact with the persecuting power of the Roman Church, such as Galileo, and Bruno, recognized to some extent that conflict with the Church and conflict with the Bible were not exactly identical. And those of us who are clearly and resolutely on the side of religious faith and religious life, have need to ponder this lesson of history, that those defending the Bible have not always been guided by its teaching in their defence, and have not always fully apprehended the Bible teaching on the subject with which their efforts were concerned.

But what we most need in these days to keep conspicuous is the true view of the Bible as a professed revelation from God. It does not profess to be a revelation of facts such as scientific appliances are adequate to ascertain, while it does profess to discover facts both as to the universe and as to man, which science can not approach. It is not a history of the earth, but it includes within it, historical records of events closely connected with man's moral and spiritual well-being. It does not train man "to regard himself as the principal object of the care of Nature";[Z] it does not even suggest thought in this direction, but it teaches that God cares for righteousness more than he cares for material things; that man as a being of flesh and blood is unspeakably insignificant, his life being "even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away";[AA] that his spiritual life, in the love of God and in fellowship with him, is immeasurably great, the purpose of the Bible concerning man, as revealed by Jesus Christ, God's Son, being this, that man shall be like to God in moral purity.

From these few statements it may readily appear what is the attitude of the Bible towards science. It leaves man to his own research for the structure of science in all its divisions; it proffers no help in such work; but has a range of application quite beyond the area traversed by science.

In this way we find the natural interpretation of inevitable conflicts in the past, which have been roughly and often inaccurately described as conflicts between religion and science. These conflicts were in the strictest sense inevitable, simply because thought and discovery have been progressive; and it is impossible for those not personally engaged in research to accept without reluctance new representations of familiar facts. If men long continued unwilling to admit that the earth moves round the sun, and that the rising and setting of the luminary are delusions, while the succession of light and darkness is real, we can not wonder at this slowness of assent, or charge it to the power of religious thought. The conflict was not between religion and science, but between popular notions and scientific observations. Often in the earlier periods of awakened thought, following the slumber of the middle ages, the contest accidentally wore a religious aspect, but it was so only because the higher intelligence and the general work of instruction belonged to the religious orders.

If, however, we give due weight to historical facts, it will appear that the rectification of common thought as to the form of the earth, and its place in relation to the heavenly bodies, was achieved through the conflict of a later science with an earlier. Science has first taught one thing, and then abandoned its old positions to teach something different, and if religious thought was at times found in the ranks of the antagonists of change, it was only as the popular thought was opposed, and as all had been placed in opposition by the earlier forms of scientific teaching. We rightly interpret the facts, only in representing that science both makes its own difficulties and clears them; first presents the imperfect or erroneous views which are to be swept away, and afterwards trains men to more careful sifting of evidence and exercise of thought, thereby clearing and widening its own path.

Thus are we enabled to trace the boundaries of two distinct regions of thought, closely related, yet clearly separated. Science can not do the work of religion, nor can religion do the work of science. Each must fulfil its own part, and abide its proper tests. Science has its own place and its own task. Religion will simply wait upon science, leaving it to make its own discoveries, gladly accepting each one of them as it is established. The most reverend students of the Bible do not regard it as a revelation presenting a key to scientific research; though they do not hesitate to express their conviction that neither in express statement, nor in the spirit inculcated, does it place itself in antagonism to the search for truth, or the claims of any conclusions which can be legitimately described as philosophical or scientific. But its upholders press this consideration specially on scientific men, that the Bible has this title to be regarded as a book for all nations and for all ages, that it has proved itself intelligible to men in ages the least enlightened, and has also maintained a commanding influence in ages specially distinguished and favored by the advance of science and the widening power of literature.

FOOTNOTES:

[E] Science can not reach the beginning of things.

[F] See _Disease Germs, their Nature and Origin_, by Beale. London, Churchill; Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blaikiston.

[G] _Nature_ vol. xvi. p. 276.

[H] Examples of the bacteria magnified 1,800, 3,000, and 5,000 times are given in Plate I. p. 16, of Beale's _Disease Germs_.

[I] For Dr. Bastian's experiments see _Times_, April 13, 1870; and _Nature_, June and July, 1870.

[J] Contribution to Royal Society of London. _Nature_ xv. p. 302, Feb. I, 1877.

[K] _Ib._

[L] _Nature_ vol. xv. p. 302, and Appendix II.

[M] _Nature_ vol. xvi. p. 127.

[N] _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, p. 24.

[O] _Preface_ x.

[P] _Preface_ x.

[Q] _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, by J. W. Draper, M.D., LL.D., Professor in the University of New York, 12 ed., p. 152.

[R] _History of the Conflict between Religion and Science_, p. 163.

[S] _Ib_. p. 165.

[T] _Ib_. p. 167.

[U] Genesis i. 2, 9.

[V] [Hebrew: rakiya], Raqia, from [Hebrew: raka], to spread out.

[W] I Samuel ii. 8.

[X] Job xi. 6.

[Y] Job xxvi. 10, 11.

[Z] _Conflict between Religion and Science_, p. 172.

[AA] James iv. 14.

LECTURE III.

INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSE.

In view of the wide range of materials at command, and the limits of the present inquiry, there is need for some definite method of selection, which may secure a careful, though necessarily very general survey of the whole ground. That which seems to give most promise of meeting these requirements is the contemplation in order of the great leading conceptions which have received prominence within recent years in consequence of continued research under strictly scientific methods. These may be said to constitute the scientific revolution of the nineteenth century, giving occasion for reconstructing the popular conceptions of the universe. They claim to mark the truly scientific period, inaugurated by command of instruments never before within reach, allowing an immense advance in the modes of research, and placing the secrets of nature within compass of human observation as they had never been before. The intellectual conditions for observation and inference no doubt remain simply what they have been; the laws of intelligent inquiry are the same, determining sufficiency of evidence, and trustworthiness in reasoning; but the range of observation has been indefinitely multiplied, and things transcending previous conjecture have become matters of certain observation. The telescope and the microscope provided for this revolution. They brought the universe within range as it had never previously been, and thus making an enormous addition to the sum of human knowledge, suggested new modes of contemplating and explaining the facts which had been familiar through all the ages. There can be no reversal of all this--no return on the old methods. Nor can there be reversal in the sense of overturning presently recognized conclusions. There are indeed hosts of theories of which it may be safely predicted that they will be overturned and forgotten; but a veritable knowledge has been acquired, which will certainly be preserved among the treasures of the race. We now know the constituent elements of many forms of existence, and the laws which determine change and continuance, as these were never previously known; and thus there has been vastly extended for us the range of recognized facts.

To this advance, the whole human race has to adapt itself. It is not merely one class of men, but all; not merely one department of thought, but all departments which must adjust themselves to this new order of things. Religious thought is not thrown into any singular position; it merely shares in the common experience, that is, the common advantage. And we may say religious thought is most prepared for the mighty revolution. This startling success in unlocking the mysteries of nature; this sudden accession to the wealth of our ideas, apt to have an intoxicating effect upon those who value science and nothing higher, awakens reverence and gratitude in the religious thinker. The greater the application of human intelligence to the study of nature, and the greater the discoveries which reward such labor, so much greater becomes the demand upon intelligence in accounting for the origin and continuance of the universe, involving innumerable phases of activity never to be witnessed by ordinary observers who are absorbed in their daily avocations. The supernatural is not more remote from us by such discoveries as science can boast, but is in reality brought nearer. The fancy that enlarged knowledge of the natural, is steadily driving before it all recognition of the supernatural, is one of which thinking men will by and by be ashamed. That men should consider the discovery of the component parts of certain forms of existence, or of the laws of well known movements, as a _final_ disposal of the demands of intelligence, only shows how little the intellect of inquirers has been prepared for appreciation of the full demands of reason. In this connection, it should be remembered that the most profoundly scientific, have been the most cautious, least inclined to boast of discovery, or to anticipate the overthrow of the deeper convictions of the moral and spiritual life, which, as the necessaries of life in all ages, are least liable to be touched by any thing belonging to the region of science. Even after every allowance has been made for sanguine and passionate temperament, and for reaction against untenable forms of religious belief among opponents of religion,[AB] the award can not be otherwise than suggested. The facts are already on record bearing on the most testing period,--the transition from an old and restricted knowledge, to a new and greatly enlarged knowledge of the universe,--and the roll of names standing high in the annals of science, while devoted to religious faith and practice, may be accepted as a reasonable forecast of coming results.[AC]

That greater knowledge of nature by discovery of the natural causes in operation, intensifies the rational demand for recognition of Supernatural Intelligence, is the position to be maintained throughout this argument. The most rigid test of this position is to be found in the outstanding scientific conceptions concerning inorganic and organic nature, and the contrasts recognized between lower and higher organisms. The order most suitable for application of this test is progress upwards from the most subordinate forms of existence to the most complex organism. A beginning will, therefore, be male with the inorganic world, after which lower organisms may be considered, after that the relative place of higher organisms, and finally the whole class of questions concerning the powers and requirements of mind. In each of these relations, I desire to inquire into the reasonableness of our acknowledgment of the supernatural.

As the world presents a vast range of inorganic existence, we have to consider the most prominent scientific conceptions concerning inorganic elements, as these afford a general view of the material structure of the earth.

Concentrating on this region of observation, and taking no account, meanwhile, of the manifold phases of life, there are two forms of existence to be recognized, Matter and Energy. Matter is solid, visible, tangible; Energy is invisible and intangible, but measurable by the work it is capable of doing. The one may be represented as the solid inert mass, the other as the moving power whose action is the source of continual change. This duality we must regard as essential to the structure of the universe, for it is impossible to identify the two, so as to regard the world as merely a mass of matter. This duality is now commonly admitted as the result of recent scientific investigations. To quote the words of Professor Tait,--"It is only within comparatively recent years that it has been generally recognized that there is something else in the physical universe which possesses to the full as high a claim to objective reality as matter possesses, though it is by no means so tangible, and therefore the conception of it was much longer in forcing itself upon the human mind."[AD] This is Energy. "Just as gold, lead, oxygen, etc., are different kinds of matter, so sound, light, heat, etc., are now ranked as different forms of energy."[AE]

Here, then, is one of the conspicuous results of recent scientific research to which all our thoughts and theories need to adapt themselves. And it must be obvious without argumentation, that theological thought will not experience any serious shock, or even jolt, in passing over to this new line of rails prepared for it.

Taking these two, Matter and Energy, as distinct, let us concentrate for a little upon each of them separately. Let us first turn attention upon MATTER. This form of existence is most easily contemplated, as most directly presenting itself to observation. A piece of metal may best serve for illustration, such as the _iron_ out of which we form so many of our industrial implements. This metal may be mingled through earth or rock; it may be held in solution in water, or made to flow out in liquid form from the furnace; it may be hardened either in the more brittle form of cast iron, or in the more rigid form known as malleable; but through all these changes the material is the same. Further, suppose we were to receive a quantity of ore, and for the sake of experiment were to have part presented in each one of these forms, the quantity would continue exactly the same as was originally received. To quote again from the same author:--"The grand test of the reality of what we call Matter, the proof that it has an objective existence, is its indestructibility and uncreatability--if the term may be used--by any process at the command of man. The value of this test to modern chemistry can scarcely be estimated. In fact we can barely believe that there could have existed an exact science of chemistry had it not been for the early recognition of this property of matter; nor in fact would there be the possibility of a chemical analysis, supposing that we had not the assurance by enormously extended series of previous experiments, that no portion of matter, however small, goes out of existence, or comes into existence in any operation whatever. If the chemist were not certain that at the end of his operations, provided he has taken care to admit nothing and to let nothing escape, the contents of his vessels must be precisely the same in quantity as at the beginning of the experiment, there could be no such thing as chemical analysis."[AF]

If now we press our inquiry further, seeking some explanation of the ultimate nature or structure of matter, that is, the common physical characteristics of matter in all its forms, whether air, water, or solid mass, science has no certain answer to give. There is no theory of the ultimate structure of matter which has secured general acceptance. On the contrary, there is the acknowledgment that the complexity of the problem is so great as completely to baffle the present resources of science. There have been discussions, and careful investigations as to the _divisibility of matter_, and it has been generally admitted on rational grounds, that there must be in all matter particles or atoms so minute as to be quite beyond the range of the microscope. This has led to the acceptance of an _atomic theory_ as in one form or another applicable to the structure of matter, _belief_ in such particles or molecules being a natural result of scientific procedure. I say _belief_, for the existence of such ultimate atoms is not established on experimental evidence, and yet is generally acknowledged; for it is clearly enough recognized that there is a region of faith for science, as for theology, just as there must be for all ordinary exercise of human intelligence. Besides the actual divisibility of matter, we have in the same connection to consider its _compressibility_, for the recognized facts as to compression of iron, for example, or of any metal, seem to imply that there are certain particles related to each other, which can be pressed in upon each other, or brought into nearer proximity. There is, however, a clear limit to compressibility, as there is to divisibility of matter. Even if this be granted, however, we are still without a scientific account of the ultimate structure of matter. This is still a perplexity to be handed on to future workers. There may, indeed, seem to be promise of aid in the analysis of different forms of matter, as in the reduction of water to its constituent gases by the action of a galvanic battery; but such processes, however rich in suggestiveness, are insufficient to advance the main inquiry. It is oftentimes in this very class of experiments, that science at once manifests its power, and discovers the limits which encircle and restrain its efforts. It can decompose, what it can not recompose, thus leaving difficulties as perplexing as before. And besides, even when by analysis the ultimate parts or chemical constituents, of compound substances have been discovered, science is unable to demonstrate that the constituent elements are ultimately composed of distinct atoms, as for example that oxygen and hydrogen are so constituted. We are thus without a science of the ultimate nature of matter. There is, indeed, the suggestion of Sir William Thomson that matter of all kinds may be regarded as of a common nature, only variously compounded, filling space in a fluid state, and that its compressibility can be accounted for on the supposition that its ultimate forms are vortex rings capable of compression and expansion like an india-rubber ball; but this can not be regarded otherwise than as a bold conjecture, beset with a host of difficulties both physical and mathematical which neither Thomson nor any of his fellow-workers in physical science, professes to have yet grappled with.

There are thus before us the chief results of physical science, as to the nature of MATTER, when we specify that it is indestructible, that it consists of ultimate molecules or atoms, and that its compressibility is to be explained by pressure upon such atoms, or cohesion, or comparative closeness of relation between them, this being greater in solids, less in liquids, and least in gases.

From the structure of matter, we are led by science to the consideration of ENERGY, as distinct from matter. These two stand in some respect in contrast with each other. In taking a survey of the physical aspects of the world, we can not limit attention to the mere mass, or to questions bearing on its structure. Observation must now be turned on the perpetual change going on in form, arrangement, and distribution of materials. There is need for a science of all this, in accordance with which the perpetual round of change may be reduced to order by reference to causality and the laws of its operation. Thus we are introduced to our ordinary conceptions concerning _position_, that is, the situation or place of objects, or of masses of material, or even of worlds, to each other; _motion_, or change of position, modifying or altering the relations of objects; and _force_, that is the relative amount or proportion of energy at work for the accomplishment of such changes as those already mentioned. In these connections we are introduced to recently formulated doctrines of _energy_, reached in searching for "the cause which alters or tends to alter a body's natural state of rest," as this problem was indicated in Newton's first law of motion. In the earlier stages of inquiry, attention was directed mainly on the active forces of nature, as these are recognized in operation, admitting of calculation as to rate of movement on the one hand, and relative amount of force on the other. Computations of this kind were necessarily involved in research connected with the movements of the heavenly bodies. When astronomical theory had been matured and a truly scientific understanding of the solar system had been reached, physical science had next to deal with the more general problem raised by the contemplated forces of nature, having a reference at once wider and more minute. It is not possible here to do more than give a very summary view of the doctrine of energy, its mutations, dissipation, and conservation, as developed through study of the laws of gravitation, electricity, light, heat, etc., and now generally accepted. An outline will, however, suffice for an understanding of the general conclusions.

Energy is the term now employed to designate every form of power belonging to the physical world capable of doing work, and of being estimated according to the comparative amount of work it can perform. The whole phenomena of motion thus belong to this department of inquiry. The first distinction here has been described as the difference between _energy of position_ and _energy of motion_.[AG] Both of these must be taken into account in order to have a full view of the facts. ENERGY OF POSITION, is illustrated by a water-head, or reservoir, where an accumulation of water is laid up in store, ready to be drawn upon for motive power when machinery set up in a position somewhat lower is to be brought into action and made to do the work for which it has been constructed. ENERGY OF MOTION is seen when the storehouse of water is opened and the rush of the current sweeps along the prepared channel descending upon the great wheel, which sets in motion the whole machinery. In such a case as this, the amount of work done by the revolutions of the great wheel is an exact measure of the amount of water which has passed to a lower level. Or let us suppose there is only a limited supply in the water-head, and that there are no feeders, but that the streamlets and springs from which it is supplied, have ceased to flow, and let us suppose that the mill comes to a stand because of failure of motive power, the amount of work done up to that moment is the measure of the energy stored in the water-head before the sluice was opened. This illustration indicates the mode of calculation to be applied to energy in all its forms, including the great forces of nature, before which human power is as nothing. Taking thus the correlatives position and motion, we may regard the former as preparation for the latter, for, as Professor Balfour Stewart has said, "It is the fate of all kinds of energy of position to be ultimately converted into energy of motion."[AH] On this account, energy of motion most naturally exemplifies what we understand by energy; but on the other hand what has been called the energy of position must be regarded as a power distinctly calculable. If a stone be thrown into the air, the energy expended in propelling it to a certain height, is the exact measure of the energy expended in its descent. There is no need for entering here upon the calculations of the relation between energy and velocity, showing the exact proportion of the one to the other, or the ratio of increase according to velocity, which is expressed in the formula "that the energy varies as the square of the velocity," giving us an exact measure of force.

Aided by the conceptions of position and motion, we take the next step when we advance to _transmutation or conversion of energy_. What is made visible to us by motion is the transference of energy from one object or portion of matter to another. And this is the sole explanation of what occurs. There is no such thing known to physical science as the origin or creation of energy; all that is recognized is the disappearance of energy from one position and its appearance in another. If work has been done, energy was somewhere stored capable of doing it; a transmutation has taken place; and the work accomplished is the record of the process. In recognition of this, every machine is merely a more or less skilful contrivance for transmuting energy into a form more convenient or suitable for human purposes. The intelligence of man simply recognizes the law of transmutation, and deals with the problems which arise connected with the mechanical arrangements facilitating the process.

We next advance a further step, only to embrace another phase of the same truth,--the complement of what has been already stated,--that is, the _conservation of energy_. As we have seen, all that appears in motion, is transmutation or conversion of energy; accordingly it follows, that there is change of position, but no destruction of energy, or absolute disappearance of it from existence. This generalization is illustrated by a most attractive series of observations, introducing to a fuller knowledge of the laws of heat. The natural tendency of ordinary observation is to favor the opinion that when work has been done, energy is spent or lost. And this popular notion, which has a kind of accuracy, in so far as it is needful to make fresh draughts upon available resources, is favored by reference to the economy of our bodily existence constantly renewing its demand for fresh food supply. But this popular tendency is easily explained by the circumstance that ordinary observation makes much more account of the phenomena of motion, than of the development of heat as a direct consequence. The machinist can not, indeed, afford to make little of the consequences of friction; but the ordinary observer makes much more of mass, and complication of mechanical contrivance, and velocity of movement. From this he passes easily to the fabric, or other production, sent forth; and then he may occupy himself with calculations bearing on the expenditure for coals and labor, along with tear and wear of machinery. But scientific observation has concentrated much more on the evolution of heat, and out of this has come the completed theory of the laws of energy. In this way, it became matter of distinct calculation that friction and percussion convert energy into heat.

Along with these observations we have to remark upon an attendant conclusion, which has an important bearing on all speculation concerning the destiny of the universe. I refer to the fact that transmutation of energy involves a deterioration and dissipation of energy. As in the history of energy, improved position adds to the advantage for the doing of work, so transmutation tends to diminish the advantage or utility of the energy for human purposes. Thus the energy expended in working a machine gives return in a product of recognized value, but the energy spent in contending with friction generates heat which is of no practical value in respect of accomplished work. Or as the latter fact has been stated by Professor Balfour Stewart, friction proves "itself to be, not the destroyer of energy, but merely the converter of it into some less apparent, and perhaps less useful form."[AI] In this connection, scientific observation was directed upon the appearance of heat simultaneously with the disappearance of visible energy. Gradually the conception dawned upon scientific observers that _heat is a form of motion_, and this has found general acceptance, although it is impossible to give direct proof of the doctrine. The conclusion has been supported by all the experiments of Davis, Rumford, Joule, Colding, and Helmholtz. This conception having been launched as to the probable explanation of heat, it immediately found, in accordance with the analogies of scientific thought, a greatly extended circle of application. Light and sound came to be classified with heat, as only different forms of motion. It would involve too extended a range to include here a detailed account of these experiments, or to consider what is involved in dissipation of energy, as bearing upon a still wider aspect of the order of things in the universe. I must, therefore, be content with the reference just given to the conception of heat as a form of molecular motion; and in doing so may revert to the consideration already adduced, that this is another doctrine of scientific _belief_, of which there is a constant tendency to increase the number, as science widens the range of its inquiries and speculations.