784 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of any other race. Let there, then, be no misunderstanding : science is 

 not concerned to prove that there is no God, nor even that a future 

 life is an impossibility ; it simply obeys an instinct of self-preservation 

 in seeking to repel modes of thought and belief which, in their ulti- 

 mate issues, are destructive of all science. 



One has only to reflect for a moment, in order to see how much 

 theological baggage the orthodox disputant throws away, when he 

 confines his arguments to the two points of God and a future life. 

 Were it thrown away in sincerity, argument might cease ; but no, the 

 manoeuvre is first to make a formidable demonstration as champion of 

 two cardinal doctrines which in themselves arouse little opposition, 

 even where they do not commend assent, and then to apply the results 

 of the proceeding to the benefit of those parts of the system which 

 had been kept in the background. It is not in the interest of a simple 

 theistic belief, unconnected with any scheme of theology, that the 

 Bishop of Ontario writes : what he has at heart, I venture to say, is 

 that men may believe as he does. The theism of Francis Newman, or 

 of Victor Hugo, or Mazzini — all convinced theists — would be very 

 unsatisfactory in his eyes, and it may be doubted whether he would 

 take up his pen for the purpose of promoting theism of this type. It 

 should, therefore, be thoroughly understood that, while his lordship is 

 professedly combating agnosticism, he is really waging war on behalf 

 of that elaborate theological system of which he is an exponent — that 

 system which bids us look to the Bible for an account of the creation 

 of the world and of man ; and which requires us to believe that the 

 Creator found it necessary in former times, for the right government 

 of the world, to be continually breaking through the laws of jihysical 

 succession which he himself had established. In arguing against the 

 doctrine of evolution, he labors to establish the opposite doctrine of 

 the creation and government of the world hy miracle. 



The question therefore is. Can science be free and yet accommo- 

 date itself to the whole elaborate scheme of Christian orthodoxy? 

 The great majority of those who are most entitled to speak on behalf 

 of science say No ; and it is this negative which his lordship of On- 

 tario converts into a denial of the two doctrines above-mentioned. 

 But let those who are at all familiar with the course of modern thought 

 ask themselves if they recall in the writings of any leading philosopher 

 of the day arguments specially directed against the hypothesis of God, 

 or even against that of a possible future state of existence for human- 

 ity. What every one can at once remember is, that the writers who 

 are called " agnostics," the Spencers, Huxleys, Tyndalls, and Darwins, 

 plead for the universality of Nature's laws and the abiding uniformity 

 of her processes. That is what they are concerned to maintain, be- 

 cause it is upon that that all science depends. Scientific men in gen- 

 eral are but little disposed to disturb any one's faith in God or immor- 

 tality, so long as these doctrines are not associated with or put for- 



