metaphysical considerations, and to give a materialistic turn to the mind of the student, just as the opposite course of study -that of doctrinal theology-often creates a disinclination. and a disability for scientific observation and research.

The risk of contracting such a one-sided habit of thought is less where the whole circle of the sciences has been studied than where the attention has been directed to one branch only: but who is there that is able, even in this infant stage of scientific history, to bring under intelligent review every realm of nature? Assuming, however, that the student is tolerably well acquainted with the necessary data for the foundation of his argument, when he makes the attempt to expound his views, he finds himself isolated from the mass of thinkers and readers; for not alone is physical science still very young, but it is somewhat conceited, and its votaries have invented a phraseology to distinguish themselves from the vulgar throng; so in science, as in law, medicine, and for that matter in theology also, the soundness of a man's doctrine is often measured as much by the words he employs as by his facts and logic. First, therefore, the natural theologist has to learn what satisfies himself, then he must convince others, often very unwilling to believe, in a manner suited to their capacity.

In the second place (or perhaps the order of reasoning should have been reversed), the mind of the student himself should be free from any bias calculated to warp his judgment; for however talented he may be, however persevering and industrious in the accumulation of facts, and conscientious in the determination of laws; the moment those clash with the theological prejudices of his youth

or manhood, orthodox or otherwise, that moment they lose much of their metaphysical value. To such a man, science and theology never can harmonise, though he may endeavour to discover the correct relations between them; and too frequently, indeed, such an attempted concordance militates more seriously against the progress of truth, than the direct attacks of either side, upon the opposite system of theology. Again, whilst the present state of feeling obtains against "rationalists," a large amount of moral courage is needed in anyone who ventures to come boldly forward and maintain the immutability of natural laws. What may be said privately in conversation, and is often listened to with an earnest desire for instruction, cannot so safely be published without the risk of that modern phase of persecution, social ostracism. That risk is, however, diminishing daily, and it would be as unjust as offensive to the great mass of intelligent readers, to deny that the form of cowardice is fast dying out which makes a man conceal his desire to learn, or assume an attitude of offence against one who honestly differs from him in theology, lest he should himself be suspected of infidelity.

The form which a private controversy on the subject of science and revelation usually assumes is this: The outspoken natural or rational theologist will avow his disbelief in the infraction of the laws of nature to satisfy the supposed requirements of any man, age, or people. He will say that the equilibrium of the universe is so perfect, and that all its forces are so intimately correlated, that the minutest reversal of any one of its recognised laws would inevitably disturb the whole fabric: That it is, in his view, absurd to suppose that it should be necessary for the Almighty thus

to interfere with his established order of things, for the purposes of religious or moral instruction and reform, the more so, as it is a familiar truth that He may and does appeal direct to the consciences of men; whilst in his wisdom He continually employs ordinary physical means to enforce obedience to moral laws without any disturbance in the regular sequence of cause and effect.

The reply of a temperate orthodox reasoner, to such a profession of faith, or scepticism, whichever we like to term it, is usually twofold. First, that the laws of God in nature are as yet but little known, and that when they come to be fully understood, the contradictions between revelation and science will disappear (that means, of course, disappear in favour of orthodoxy), for that the Almighty cannot possibly contradict himself. Secondly, that as revelation has regenerated the human race, and brought man nearer to God, whilst science has as yet done nothing for religion, but has sought to discredit revelation, the teachings of science should be received with the utmost suspicion, and certainly not with the same trust and confidence as the revealed Word of God. Very often the discussion ends here, or the gordian knot is cut by an emphatic profession of faith on the part of the orthodox, that even the most extravagant story is entitled to acceptance if its truth be vouched by Scripture, whilst the most indisputable scientific theory deserves not a moment's consideration, if opposed to the revealed Word.

Sometimes, however, the argument advances a stage farther; and the first statement, that science is still in its infancy, and that when the laws of nature are better understood they will be found not to conflict with, but to

support revelation, is met by the opposing circumstance that scientific experience is every day cutting the ground foot by foot from under those who maintain the accuracy of events in natural history as recorded in Scripture, which would not be credited by any person of sound mind if they had been described elsewhere. And as to revelation having regenerated Man, that is to say in the sense in which it is regarded by the rationalist, namely, the direct association between the Divine and human mind, he will not only concur in the doctrine, but will probably say that it falls far short of the truth, and that the dictates of common sense, the study of past history, and the observation of society as it exists to-day, all go to prove that the holy spirit of God is entering more and more largely into the human race, notwithstanding the orthodox theory of Man's fallen condition. And the rationalist may perhaps carry the war into the enemy's country, and end the debate by saying that if on his part the orthodox theologian is shocked to find his cherished views of the Deity which have brought Him down in the body to his own level and allowed of oral converse between Man and the Most High attacked by scientific men; so these, who claim to be as much the children of God as the "true believers," are equally scandalised to find that in an age which calls itself intellectual as well as spiritual, the masses should still cling to the old materialistic views of the Deity, inculcated at a period when men could understand those things alone which were impressed upon their organs of sense, and would only obey moral and religious commands when they were rigidly enforced by the sternest physical mea

sures.

Now, this is really the attitude assumed by the respective parties to the controversy, and if the reader will divest himself for a moment of any doctrinal views which he may entertain on the subject, it will be obvious to him, that before there can be chance of "reconciliation," one or other of the disputants must give way, and that the concession must be the result of reason, and not of emotion. Be that as it may, it is the bounden duty of the expositor of science to refrain from glossing over what appears to him to be the truth; and if free from the prejudices or apprehensions of doctrinal theology, he is bound to state that no amount of recorded human testimony, especially such as has been transmitted from a barbaric age, can overthrow the evidence of his senses or interfere with the logical inferences to be drawn from the careful observation of natural phenomena.

To qualify such a statement, to conceal the truth, or to attempt a reconciliation between what appears true and false, merely to escape obloquy, is as vain as it is dishonest. But there is another consideration, which may be justly reckoned amongst the difficulties of the student and expounder of the laws of God in nature, and that is the necessity to avoid the useless infliction of pain upon others, of giving unnecessary shocks to the feelings of conscientious worshippers. If there be one circumstance more than any other which makes dissimulation venial on the part of an author, it is the fear that in seeking to reform, he should merely succeed in prematurely destroying; or lest, measuring the feelings of those who have never passed the limits of emotional religion by his own thoughts, accustomed, it may be, to deal too familiarly with sacred subjects,