HARMONIES OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. 313 



but against principalities and powers, that is, against the Revolution 

 and against Science. Hasty minds, poetic imaginations, ready theo- 

 rists, will never be content to see a mere coincideujce in this. They 

 will not admit that theology has been undeservedly charged with all 

 the sins of that ancient corporation called the Christian Church, with 

 which sins in reality it had nothing whatever to do. It is much more 

 convenient to imagine the Church as the body of which theology is 

 the soul, and to trace all the body's actions to the natural disposition 

 of the informing soul. By this easy process we arrive at the conclu- 

 sion that theology is an essentially conservative and stagnant principle, 

 with the strongest natural affinity for despotism, privilege, respecta- 

 bility, and every kind of antiquated pretension ; that, in short, it is a 

 way of viewing the universe which inevitably leads to all the vices 

 peculiar to old endowed corporations. And that an institution which 

 is opposed to the Revolution should be at the same time at war with 

 Science will never be thought a mere coincidence. Party spirit will 

 be adroit enousrh to make it out that Science and Revolution are as 

 soul and body on the one side, as theology and conservatism are on 

 the other; that people who believe in miracles must necessarily side 

 with capital against labor, and that large standing armies follow logi- 

 cally from a belief in benevolent design. 



As to the mistake which lies in confounding theology with super- 

 naturalism it is not necessary here to do more than repeat shortly 

 what was said in the first chapter. First, then, there is no necessary 

 connection between theology and supernaturalism. It is quite pos- 

 sible to believe in a God, and even a personal God, of whom Nature is 

 the complete and only manifestation. Supernaturalism is part of the 

 reigning theology, but it is not any necessary part of theology, as 

 such. Secondly, when it is said that supernaturalism is identical with 

 theology, this is not true at all, even of the reigning theology, i, e., of 

 modern Christianity. Such a notion has sprung from a confusion of 

 ideas. In the controversy between Christianity and Science it has be- 

 come usual for shortness to give the name of theology (meaning Chris- 

 tianity) to that part of theology which science controverts. This is a 

 very usual and, if rightly understood, a very harmless controversial 

 practice. The agreements between theology and Science may very 

 properly be overlooked by controversy which is only concerned with 

 their differences. But it is the mistake constantly made by contro- 

 versialists to adopt this abridged notation, as I might call it, outside 

 the domain of controversy. For example, Catholicism means two 

 quite different things according as the word is used in controversy or 

 not. In controversy with Protestantism, Catholicism means worship 

 of the Virgin and the saints, transubstantiation, purgatory. But no 

 mistake could be more monstrous than to suppose that if all these 

 doctrines were removed Catholicism would disappear. On the con- 

 trary, by far the larger half would remain worship of God, worship 



