586 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



between the natural and supernatural had not been clearly drawn, in 

 some cases because it was honestly believed that supernatural occur- 

 rences had happened and could be substantiated by suflBcient evidence, 

 and that such occurrences were calculated to throw new light upon 

 the relation of God to man. If this belief was a delusion, theology must 

 fall back upon the evidence of Nature. She may have to alter her 

 idea of God, she may have to regard liim with fear and cold awe as 

 in the days before the Gospel was published; she may cease to be a 

 faith, and may become instead an oppression a scientific superstition. 

 But theology will remain notwithstanding a perfectly legitimate sci- 

 ence, one which, whether under that name or under another, men will 

 always study with an interest they can feel in no other, one which 

 stands in a more intimate relation than any other to morality, and 

 must always be taught in conjunction with morality. 



We lay it down, then, that the subject of theology is the relation 

 assumed by the universe toward human ideals, and, as we propose 

 here to waive the question of the supernatural and to treat the universe 

 as consisting solely of the order of Nature, this will be the same thing 

 for our present purpose as the relation assumed by Nature toward 

 human ideals. But here we must beware of a common misconception. 

 It is often said that when you substitute Nature for God you take a 

 thing heartless and pitiless instead of love and goodness. Undoubt- 

 edly the God in whom Christians believe has much more of love and 

 goodness than can be discovered in Nature. But when it is said that 

 there are no such qualities in Nature, that Nature consists of relent- 

 less and ruthless laws, that Nature knows nothing of forgiveness, and 

 inexorably exacts the utmost penalty for every transgression, a con- 

 fusion is made between two different meanings which may be given to 

 the word Nature. We are concerned here with Nature as opj^osed to 

 that which is above Nature, not with Nature as opposed to man. We 

 use it as a name comprehending all the uniform laws of the universe 

 as known in our experience, and excluding svich laws as are inferred 

 from experiences so exceptional and isolated as to be difficult of veri- 

 fication. In this sense Nature is not heartless or unrelenting ; to say 

 so would be equivalent to saying that pity and forgiveness are in all 

 cases supernatural. It may be true that the law of gravitation is quite 

 pitiless, that it will destroy the most innocent and amiable person 

 with as little hesitation as the wrong-doer. But there are other laws 

 which are not pitiless. There are laws under which human beings 

 form themselves into communities, and set up law courts in which the 

 claims of individuals are weighed with the nicest skill. There are laws 

 under which churches and philanthropical societies are formed, by 

 which misery is sought out and relieved, and every evil that can be 

 discovered in the world is redressed. Nature in the sense in which we 

 are now using the word, includes human nature, and therefore, so far 

 from being pitiless, includes all the pity that belongs to the whole 



