4 i 8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The escape from this dilemma which is attempted by giving up the 

 physical world to science, reserving the moral world for theology, is 

 only a temporary escape. Let it be granted that the authority of the 

 sacred books refers solely to to the phenomena of human nature in the 

 double aspect of the relations of man to God and his relations to so- 

 ciety. If they contain explicit statements which are at variance with 

 our moral culture such as that God is " jealous " and " vindictive," or 

 that sinners will be consigned to everlasting torment they must have 

 some other guarantee of their truth than the ratification of moral con- 

 sciousness, since that rejects them; and if they contain statements re- 

 specting man's nature which are at variance with experience when they 

 can be verified, how shall we accept their authority when the statements 

 are beyond verification ? 



When the statements are ratified by experience and moral culture, 

 theology can give these no extra sanction; when they are not so rati- 

 fied, theology cannot make them acceptable. By way of illustration of 

 the conflict between Science and Theology, in their explanations of 

 human phenomena, with the precepts which are founded upon each, let 

 us take the case of disease. 



Very little is accurately known of its causes; but whatever they are, 

 science, recognizing disease as the result of some disturbance of the 

 organic functions, seeks the unknown causes in the known properties 

 of the substances composing the organism. Theology, which uniformly 

 explains the unknown by the unknown, invokes a supernatural cause 

 for this natural effect. It declares that God sends diseases as chastise- 

 ments and lessons. Nor is this declaration withdrawn when common- 

 sense objects that the chastisement is often an injustice and the lesson 

 an enigma. The innocent are seen to suffer even more than the guilty, 

 and no one knows why they suffer; no one can regard the punishment 

 of the child for the sin of its father as in agreement with human justice. 

 But you say, " All men are guilty ? " Then why are not all punished ? 

 And why are animals and plants also afflicted with diseases ? Have 

 they, too, the burden of Adam's disobedience ? There was a time when 

 such explanations reconciled the doctrine with observation; but nowa- 

 days cultivated minds shrink from the conception of " imputed sin " as 

 a rational explanation of human and animal suffering. 



In applauding this progress we must also point out the logical in- 

 consistency of those w r ho maintain the absolute authority of the texts 

 of which such conceptions are the necessary applications. Theology 

 maintains its doctrine even when theologians set aside the practice 

 which that doctrine ordains. To claim absolute submission to the 

 physician's formulas, and yet refuse to follow his prescriptions, is surely 

 irrational ? Yet this is the case nowadays. When the supernatural 

 theory of disease was undisturbed by positive knowledge, prayers and 

 incantations were the remedies in vogue ; but now even those who will 

 not acknowledge the theory to be an antiquated error practically disa- 



