476 The Possibility of a Future Life. (October, 
do not think that it would be difficult to find examples of 
individuals,—perhaps even of races,—tending in this direc- 
tion. There are, then, in mankind as it actually exists two 
types more or less strongly marked. On the one hand, we 
find the men of intelle&i, of speculation—using the term in 
its German acceptation—obje¢tive in their aims, and seeking 
every where for law and sequence. On the other hand, we 
perceive the men of moral, emotional life, subje¢tive, craving 
in all things, and above all things for personality, will, pur- 
pose. The authors of the work before us recognise the 
existence of these two classes—or, better, two tendencies— 
under the names of followers of the ‘“‘ How” and disciples 
of the ** Why,’—though they fail to see much which this 
distin¢tion involves. 
We have, then, before us two variables, each of which 
may be increased or decreased without producing any cor- 
responding or even inverse augmentation or diminution in 
the other; nay, either of which might conceivably be wholly 
wanting. Is not this proof sufficient of mutual indepen- 
dence, isolation? Our imagined visitor from Procyon or 
Vega might surely then declare that between tendencies 
both perfectly legitimate, yet at the same time mutually 
independent, collision cannot have arisen without the aid of 
much depraved ingenuity. Disputes between Religion and 
Science—or, in other words, between man the believer and 
man the discoverer—are about as rational as war between 
two sets of beings inhabiting different media, and each 
incapable of existing in the sphere of the other. 
But unfortunately the Christian records, like those of vari- 
ous so-called Heathen systems, open with a cosmogony. Or 
let us rather say unfortunately ecclesiasticism will persist in 
treating this magnificent poem as a literal history. Upon 
this cosmogony, coupled with certain passages in the Hebrew 
and Greek Scriptures capable of being treated as astro- 
nomical, physical, geological, and biological utterances, it has 
founded a code of natural philosophy. ‘To reject this code, 
or to bring forward either deductions or facts at variance 
therewith, it has anathematised as ‘“‘ infidelity.” Huznc 
ille lacryme! The quarrel, if quarrel it be, has been be- 
gun, not indeed by Religion, but by those who took upon 
themselves to speak in her name and defend her supposed 
interest. Onthe other hand, the followers of Science, not 
content with insisting upon their own rights, executed from 
whose life is free from all vices because the energies of his being are totally 
absorbed in speculative research. Said an eminent German Pietist, Count 
Zinzendorf:— Between devotion and lust there is but one step.” 
