CORRESP ONDENCE. 



701 



©orriJBp^otttltttCje. 



SCIENTIFIC IMETHOD AND THE 

 BIBLE. 



Editor Popular Science Monfhly ; 



Sir: I have read with great interest 

 an article in tlie 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 ac- 

 cept 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 author- 

 ship and the sources from which it was 

 compiled, and the names of its authors; 

 hut 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 be- 

 cause they are found to be true by intel- 

 lectual apprehension and logical reason- 

 ing. Indeed, to think of understanding 

 them by intellectual processes is " un- 

 scientific beyond hope of pardon." 



It is conceded that " the stifling of 

 thought and of investigation into what 

 might lead men away fi'om 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, be- 

 tween 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 be- 

 yond 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 

 ^losaic line which scientists are forbid- 

 den to cross, but the " spiritual veri- 

 ties " must not be questioned. There 

 are some revelations which, in the lan- 

 guage 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 re- 

 verse the entire science of astronomy " 

 in the face of revealed truths? "To ac- 

 cept the truth as revealed by God and 

 to acquiesce in it is the part of a good 

 mind," said Melanchthon in condemn- 



ing Copernicus. " Who will venture to 

 place the authority of Copernicus above 

 that of the Holy Spirit?" said Calvin. 

 \'erily, his unpardonable sin was " in- 

 vestigating the truths which are dis- 

 tinctly taught in the Bible," which re- 

 quired 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 ac- 

 cessible 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 intui- 

 tively reaches the conclusion that some- 

 thing is true it is true, the most posi- 

 tive evidence to the contrary notwith- 

 standing. Certainly, no other fact is 

 better established in all human history 

 than the truth of witchcraft, if we ad- 

 mit 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 Avithin such pre- 

 scribed limitations? Or scientific study 

 of the Bible itself which excludes from 

 its province the so-called spiritual reve- 

 lations which it contains? One might 

 naturally think that the primary pur- 

 pose of all the critical study of the 

 books, authors, and structure of the 

 Bible was to learn just what these dis- 

 tinct truths it teaches are. But what 

 bearing can this study have upon the 

 question, being but an intellectual pro- 

 cess with which the essential truths are 

 disconnected, which only come by reve- 

 lation? 



Higher criticism can not hold perma- 

 nently such an untenable position. It 

 must either go backward to an infal- 

 lible book, or an infallible interpreta- 

 tion 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 re- 

 strictions. The truths which it contains 

 are to be ascertained by " apprehending 

 intellectually " and " reasoning logical- 

 ly," in the same manner as with other 

 books written by religious leaders in an- 

 cient times. Any halting between these 



