SCIENCE AND RELIGION. 8i 



enfolded in the words, " He maketh his sun to sbine on the evil and 

 on the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and upon the unjust " 

 he contends only for the displacement of prayer, not for its extinction. 

 He simply says, physical Nature is not its legitimate domain. 



This conclusion, moreover, must be based on pure physical evidence, 

 and not on any inherent unreasonableness in the act of prayer. The 

 theory that the system of Nature is under the control of a Being who 

 changes phenomena in compliance with the prayers of men, is, in my 

 opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. It may of course be rendered 

 futile by being associated with conceptions which contradict it, but 

 such conceptions form no necessary part of the theory. It is a matter 

 of experience that an earthly father, who is at the same time both 

 wise and tender, listens to the requests of his children, and, if they 

 do not ask amiss, takes pleasure in granting their requests. We know 

 also that this compliance extends to the alteration, within certain 

 limits, of the current of events on earth. With this suggestion offered 

 by our experience, it is no departure from scientific method to place 

 behind natural phenomena a universal Father, who, in answer to the 

 prayers of His children, alters the currents of those phenomena. Thus 

 far Theology and Science go hand in hand. The conception of an 

 ether, for example, trembling with the waves of light, is suggested 

 by the ordinary phenomena of wave-motion in water and in air ; and 

 in like manner the conception of personal volition in Nature is sug- 

 gested by the ordinary action of man upon earth. I therefore urge no 

 impossibilities, though you constantly charge me with doing so. I do 

 not even urge inconsistency, but, on the contrary, frankly admit that 

 you have as good a right to place your conception at the root of 

 phenomena as I have to place mine. 



But, without verification, a theoretic conception is a mere figment 

 of the intellect, and I am sorry to find us parting company at this 

 point. The region of theory, both in science and theology, lies behind 

 the world of the senses, but the verification of theory occurs in the 

 sensible world. To check the theory we have simply to compare the 

 deductions from it with the facts of observation. If the deductions be 

 in accordance with the facts, we accept the theory : if in opposition, 

 the theory is given up. A single experiment is frequently devised by 

 which the theory must stand or fall. Of this character was the deter- 

 mination of the velocity of light in liquids as a crucial test of the 

 Emission Theory. Accoiding to Newton, light travelled faster in 

 water than in air ; according to an experiment suggested by Arago, 

 and executed by Fizeau and Foucault, it travelled faster in air than 

 in water. The experiment was conclusive against Newton's theory. 



But while science cheerfully submits to this ordeal, it seems im- 

 possible to devise a mode of verification of their theory which does 

 not arouse resentment in theological minds. Is it that, while the 

 pleasure of the scientific man culminates in the demonstrated harmony 



VOL. II. 6 



