the more special sense of science, the systematized knowledge derived from the study of the physical universe, then religion, both in its general and special sense, would, to a certain extent, stand outside of science. Science and religion would each have, in a certain sense, separate fields, or rather separate beginnings and points of view. They would not then be antagonistic, but supplementary. If now, looking at different realms of the Kosmos, they should both come to the same result on any point, such as the existence of God or the soul, the agreement of such independent investigations would have especial weight. But if they should fail to see exactly the same thing, this would not put them into antagonism, but rather would be what we should expect. Diverse posts of observation naturally give diverse views, especially when the subject of study, as in this case, is immense and complex. Positive testimony, of course, would have to be received from both, and united as well as might be. But negative testimony from one side would be of no avail to contradict the positive testimony from the other. Because the touch feels none of the sound-vibrations of the air, this throws no discredit on the testimony of the ear that it hears sounds. The fact that the eye sees no odour come from the flower, establishes no antagonism between it and the olfactory organ that smells it. If physical science reports that neither by the balance, the dissecting knife, nor the lens, it has found trace of any spiritual Being, this no more disproves the direct testimony of the religious faculties, that by their methods and organs they do find it, than the in

ability of the spiritual faculties to discover the laws of motion and matter disproves the testimony of science to them. If the investigation of Nature should not disclose anywhere (though I believe it does everywhere) evidence of a First Cause, this would no more contradict religion than the failure of religion to disclose the secondary causes of phenomena contradicts science. The word of each is good for its own account, and in its own sphere. Contradiction and necessary antagonism would arise only by one establishing the non-existence of the other's domain, and the entire fictitiousness of the sources of knowledge it claims, a thing which either of the two would have to step squarely outside of its own proper field even to begin to attempt. Modern physical science especially could not rightfully essay this, for one of its cardinal principles is the unity of the whole universe, the latent truth and reality of all persistent forces. In point of fact, the extreme outcome of modern scientific researches essays no disproof of the religious theories of the world, nor any demonstration that there is no God in the world, nor soul in man, but simply presents a confession of the insufficiency of physical inquiry to attain as yet, by inductive methods, a similar result. Nay, it does not seek to deny, but it openly avows, that there is an infinite mystery behind and beneath all the phenomena which it studies, all the laws it has formulated, all the secondary causes it has reached. Some men of science, it is true, from this inability of their own processes as yet to fathom the mystery, deny that any method or faculty can fathom it. But this is no

correct inference. It is instead a groundless, a thoroughly unscientific assumption. It is the faith of science that progress in knowledge is unending. The man of science must be always seeking. To identify the limit where progress is at present arrested with the absolute limit of possible knowledge, is opposed to the whole spirit of modern inquiry. Nor, if science concludes that its own. methods and instruments are unavailing to reach religious truth, is that a reason for rejecting also the testimony which the spiritual faculties have from of old given to spiritual things? Rather it is an admonition to the earnest seeker to turn in preference to this other oracle as the proper interpreter of the divine mysteries, and the better guide to its treasures.

From the scientific stand-point, then, there is no rightful quarrel between Science and Religion.

Is there any from the religious stand-point? What is there in this expression of man's spiritual nature, in any of its legitimate manifestations, that demands of it to draw a sword against knowledge of any kind? Which one of these expressions of the spiritual nature is it that needs to fight physical science? Is it love, aspiration, reverence, self-sacrifice, or any other of the religious sentiments? Is it philanthropy, purity, justice, consecration, or any other element of the religious life? Surely, none of these may properly combat science. Nor has the intellectual expression of the spiritual nature, the fundamental beliefs which, in a special sense, are called religion, any better reason for opposition to science. For the religious believer, just in proportion to

the strength of his belief in the Creative Power, the Divine Omnipotence and Omnipresence, must believe that Nature is no independent power, man's perceptive and reasoning faculties no unmeaning or deceptive instruments, but that both physical and human nature are works of God, existing as he wishes them to exist, reflecting his mind and purposes, and therefore trustworthy witnesses of him. No opening of men's eyes to the facts of the world, no disclosing of the actual methods and laws of the Creation. can do any thing else (so the truly religious should believe) than reveal the more clearly the existence and character of their Maker. It may reveal him as acting in ways that we had not supposed. It may compel Theology to revise its schemes. But this revision Religion must look upon as received from God's own hand, and as simply bringing us nearer the divine reality and truth. He who confounds the march of intellect with the operations of the devil, evidently inclines to trace his own origin to Satan rather than to believe the word of Scripture, that man was made in the image of God, and that God saw all the works that he had made, and behold they were good. To the intelligent Theist, the record which the geologist deciphers in the rocks is a revelation written by the same divine finger as that other revelation which the theologian reads in the Psalms of David or the letters of Paul. To the enlightened Christian there is truth to be learned about God everywhere in the material and moral universe; and no religious studies can be regarded as complete or satisfactory that neglect or ignore that grand source of divine instruction which God's handiwork presents to us.

23

CHAPTER II.

CAUSES OF THE ACTUAL ANTAGONISM OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.

RELIGION and Science, then, have no good cause for antagonism, but rather for amity and sympathy. Why, then, should they have had so many apparent conflicts; why should there be so much jealousy, suspicion, and ill-feeling, between scientific and religious bodies.

There are many causes. But the main ones are these three: First and chief, ignorance. Few of the religious have understood religion. They have been familiar, of course, with its practical applications; the forms of worship, the moral and philanthropical duties which it has demanded. They have studied carefully Scripture texts, and writings of the fathers, and the creeds of the councils; but about the fundamental principles of religion, its real grounds, limits, and proper domain, there has been a great lack of knowledge.7

Similarly, few scientific men have really comprehended science. Facts of chemistry, of astronomy, of geology, they have learned with wonderful thoroughness; but the principles of scientific investigation, its capabilities and limits, they have known little of. Physicists speak familiarly of scientific method, but "they could not,"