EDITOR'S TABLE. 



1\1 



vestigation in astronomy, geology, phys- 

 iology, and the various branches of 

 natural phenomena; and it is those who 

 are now pushing scientific methods of 

 thought into fields where they have 

 hitherto been um-ecognized, that are 

 most obnoxious to criticism as med- 

 dlers, disturbers, and destructives. The 

 world at length accepts the work, and 

 when it is accomplished will even ap- 

 plaud those who began it ; but it as 

 yet by no means recognizes the neces- 

 sity of sharper questioning, of explora- 

 tion in new fields, of a more inexorable 

 scrutiny of old opinions, or the neces- 

 sity of accepting the initial work of pio- 

 neer thinkers as legitimate and indis- 

 pensable. 



And so it is that intrepid scientists 

 like Prof. Tyndall, who push on the 

 front and give battle right and left, must 

 take the consequences, as their prede- 

 cessors have done in tlie past. The 

 President of the Bi-itish Association 

 took a step forward at Belfast, and has 

 been in hot water ever since. He as- 

 sumed the broad, advanced ground that 

 the exploration of the universe, so far as 

 it is accessible to human faculties, be- 

 longs to science ; and that every system, 

 doctrine, or belief, that has hitherto 

 been put forth regarding the nature, 

 origin, or government of the universe 

 which lays claim to the character of 

 knowledge, must submit its pretensions 

 to be passed upon by the tribunal of sci- 

 ence. Science having given to man the 

 universe as we know it, has established 

 its claim to be intrusted with the whole 

 field of intellectual exploration into its 

 methods and laws. It was undoubtedly 

 a bold step for President Tyndall to 

 take, but it was inevitable by the logic 

 of the history of thought. That the 

 batteries should have been opened upon 

 him all around was quite natural, and 

 is but the repetition upon a somewhat 

 larger scale of what has been going on 

 in a smaller way ever since the scien- 

 tific study of Nature began. 



One of the controversies which grew 



out of the position taken by Tyndall, 

 before the British Association, was 

 with Dr. James Martineau, who is car- 

 rying it on vigorously and expansively. 

 He first attacked the Belfast Address 

 in a discourse entitled "Religion as 

 afi"ected by Modern Materialism," de- 

 livered to the theological college of 

 which he is principal. To this Prof. 

 Tyndall replied in a new preface to the 

 ''Fragments of Science," which ap- 

 peared in the Monthly of last Decem- 

 ber. Dr. Martineau now rejoins in the 

 February Contemporary^ in an elabo- 

 rate article, with more to come. "We 

 should be glad to print his paper if it 

 were within limits practicable for the 

 Monthly. But twenty-three pages, 

 with the expectation of as many more, 

 would consume more space than we can 

 spare, and it is of less importance that 

 we should issue it, as Mr. Putnam, Dr. 

 Martineau's American publisher, will 

 shortly furnish it to interested readers. 



We may, however, briefly take note 

 of Dr. Martineau's general position. 

 He assumes tliat mischiefs arise, to 

 both science and theology, from con- 

 fusing their boundaries, and these he 

 attempts to define. He seems to re- 

 gard them as coordinate departments 

 of investigation, and " that, in their 

 dealings with phenomena, science in- 

 vestigates the ' How,' and theology the 

 ' Whence.' " But on this view theolo- 

 gy becomes obviously but one division 

 of science, and is swallowed up by it. 

 In investigating the " how " of things 

 we are simply inquiring into one phase 

 of their order, and in investigating their 

 " whence " we are but inquiring into an- 

 other phase of the same order. More- 

 over, we are finding that the investiga- 

 tion of the " how " involves the inves- 

 tigation of the " whence ; " so that both 

 procedures are directed to the solution 

 of a common problem. Where are the 

 defining boundaries when one thing is 

 lost in another ? 



The more common theological po- 

 sition takes the " whence " out of the 



