Darwin's theory of pangenesis. 91 



He, therefore, would establish for philosophical 

 science inside the range of theology, a rule that he 

 would not admit in the range of philosophical science 

 as connected with biology. 



Am I to take every average physiological scribbler 

 on the globe as authority in biology ? In a field 

 of investigation which was nowhere elaborately 

 studied previously to 18G0, am I to adopt the av- 

 erage views even of magazine-writers, infallible as 

 the more brilliant periodicals claim to be ? No : we 

 are to look to experts in biology for our facts. And 

 so, in our interpretation of the Scriptures, we are to 

 look to experts. We are to take the agreement of 

 rival experts in the field of theological science as 

 supreme authority, just as we take the agreement of 

 rival experts in the field of biological science as final 

 assurance of accuracy. When Frederick Harrison 

 accuses this learned group of Germans of not follow- 

 ing the scientific method emploj^ed by physical re- 

 search, Ulrici replies that for twenty-five years he has 

 been teaching the applications of that method to the 

 relations of religion and science, and that if we are to 

 be sternly true to the law of cause and effect we must 

 infer the existence of some substance in which our 

 sense of identity inheres. Ulrici affirms that it is 

 stern, exact inference from the surety of our per- 

 sistent sense of identity, that there is something to 

 which that sense belongs. There cannot be any 

 seeing, unless there is something that sees. There 

 cannot be feeling, unless there is something that 

 feels. Now, we have a persistent sense of identity ; 



