CONTENTS. The Present Antagonism of Science and Religion.-Hurtful- ness of it.-Need of a Reconciliation between them.- Causes of the Actual Antagonism of the Scientific and the Re- ligious Worlds.-Ignorance of themselves.-Ignorance of each other. Science confounded with Metaphysics and The Claim of Religion to possess Exclusive Information, and, consequently, a Rightful Sovereignty of Knowledge.— Human Conditions and Fallible Character of Religion.- The Claims of Science to possess Exclusive Information and Rightful Sovereignty of the Realm of Knowledge. -The Faiths of Science.-Grounds and Methods.-Scientific Supposed Differences between Science and Religion in their Aims and Objects.-Faith of Science in the Supersensual, in the Immaterial, in the Inconceivable, and in the Infinite 107 Supposed Difference between Science and Religion in their The Scientific Basis of Religion.-Inductive Proof of the Two Essentials of Theism, the Existence of the Soul and of PHYSICAL AND RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE. INTRODUCTION. THE Conflict now going on between the physical discoveries and theories of these latter days, and the forms of faith which have hitherto ruled the mind of Christendom, is one of the most noticeable phenomena of the intellectual movement of the times. The constant discussions from pulpit and platform, the numerous essays, pamphlets, and books, in which these two opponents are arrayed one against the other, and attack, defence, or effort at reconciliation made, allow no intelligent man or woman to remain unaware of the controversy. It is a fact so notorious that we need specify no particular instances nor details that, by a large part of the Church, modern science is looked upon as a godless and blind teacher, a sacrilegious intruder upon the domain of revealed truth, and that among almost all denominations and phases of religious thought there has been more or less suspicion, jealousy, and abuse of physical investigation. It is a fact almost equally patent that, on the part of science likewise-among many, at least, of its representatives-there is a similar hostility entertained towards religion, and that not only all ecclesiastical organizations, but all spiritual faith and principles, are looked upon as their natural foes. Now, this present antagonism of religion and science is a matter which may justly give concern, I believe, to all who have at heart the welfare of either. It is becoming quite plain to all clear-sighted observers that religion certainly cannot afford the continuance of any such quarrel. "The problem of our age," said Archdeacon Hare, in his life of Stirling, "is to reconcile faith with knowledge, philosophy with religion. The men of our age will not believe unless you prove to them that what they are called upon to believe does not contradict the laws of their minds, and that it rests upon a solid and unshaken foundation." In former conflicts the struggle had been to preserve the Church from division, or the orthodox doctrine from aberrations or perversions. In the present controversy the debate concerns the fundamental ideas of religion. Twenty-five years ago Dr. Newman said to a sectarian controversialist, "Let us discuss the prospects of Christianity itself, instead of the differences between Anglican and Catholic." To-day such a change of front is still more necessary. More than ever before it is the citadel of Christianity, rather than her outposts, that needs to be defended. The wise Christian will turn his arms from these petty skir |