APOLOGY h\Hi THK 9T .\IHHIR88. 



B we have a very fair example of suhj.-ctive relL 

 vigor. Hut my <|iianvl with sucn exhibitions is th- 



not alwa\- repr fan. V :i<- 



reasoning can, 1 hold, dislodge religion from tin human 

 heait. Logic cannot deprive us of life, anl religion 

 life to the religious. As an expei 'h-n.-e of consciousness it 

 is beyond tlie assiiults of h^ie. Hut the ivli-jous life is 

 often projected in external f.-rms I use the word in its 

 widest sense and this embodiment of the ivlijjimis senti- 

 ment will have to bear more and more, as tin- world heron. 



more enlightened; the > tress of scientific te>ts. \\'e must 



he careful of projecting into external nature that which 

 belongs to ourselves. M\ critic commits this mistake: he 

 feels, and takes delight in feding, that I am struggling, 

 and he obviously experiences the most exquisite ph -a-ures 

 of "the muscular sense " in holding me down. His feel- 

 ings are as real as if his imagination of what mine are 

 were equally real. His picture of my " struggles " is, 

 however, a mere delusion. I do not struggle. I do not 

 fear the charge of atheism; nor should I even disavow it, 

 in reference to any definition of the Supreme which lie, or 

 rder, would be likely to frame. His "links" and his 

 " steel " and his "dread imputations " are, therefore, even 

 more unsubstantial than my " streaks of morning cloud," 

 and they may be permitted to vanish together. 



6 min.r and more purely personal matters at an 

 end. the weightier allegation remains, that at Helfast 1 

 (I my position by quitting the domain of science, ami 

 making an unjustifiable raid into the domain of theology. 

 This I fail to see. Laying aside abuse, I hope my accusers 

 will consent to reason with me. Is it not lawful for 

 scientific man to speculate on the antecedents of the solar 

 system? Did Kant, Laplace and William Herschel quit their 

 legitimate spheres, when they prolonged the intrlh etual 



HI bi-yond t he boundary of ex| Mid propoiiii'i 



the nebular t Accepting that theory as prohahh-. 



if not permitti-d t" a loleotifl folh.w tij., in idea, 



-of changes associated with th- c.nd-n-at i'ii 

 the nebiil:e; to |>i< -ture t lu> successive detarhmetit of planets 



and i MIS. and the relation of all of them to the MIII!' 



If I look upon our earth, with it^ orbital iv\ olulion and 



i rot.ition. a-- "if sin. ill iu.-of (hi- proe.>s which mad.- 



