FEBRUARY 15, 1901.] 
sence of the so-called elementary bodies. 
Some of these problems will undoubtedly 
be solved as knowledge of the material 
world increases, but others are destined to 
remain inscrutable to finite minds and 
a3 such may be called scientific ‘mysteries.’ 
We can construct ingenious arguments 
based largely on assumptions, and reason 
ourselves into the notion that our hypoth- 
eses explain the questions at issue, but 
after all we know very little beyond the 
effects observed. 
These problems arise in every depart- 
ment of organized knowledge ; the student 
of chemistry does not have to look far 
afield to encounter mysteries, though he 
does not commonly so style them; phe- 
nomena of ordinary experience challenge 
the interpretation of philosophers. What 
do we actually know of the chemical force 
ealled affinity? Who can tell why the at- 
traction between A and B is so much 
stronger than between A and C, or why 
one element forces another out of its com- 
bination with a third? What chemist who 
has watched under the microscope the 
beautiful, symmetrical manner in which 
minute particles of a substance separating 
in solid form from solution, arrange them- 
selves in geometrical figures obeying well 
established mathematical laws, can pretend 
to explain the cause of the astounding be- 
havior of the inert, lifeless matter? 
But I desist from propounding further 
queries, the answers to which are buried in 
impenetrable mystery. A student of ele- 
mentary chemistry, impressed with the 
ability of the teacher to explain natural 
phenomena, asked him: -‘ Professor, why 
is gold yellow’? Whereupon the profess- 
or, waiving the customary explanation [?], 
reverently answered: ‘ Because God made 
it8o12 . ° 
Is it unfair to scientists to say that they 
sometimes take refuge in obscure language 
to veil their ignorance? It may help our 
SCIENCE. 
245 
imagination to affirm that carbon and other 
elements occur in ‘allotropic’ forms, but 
does this statement adequately explain the 
phenomenon? To term the peculiar action 
of certain bodies, which themselves suffer 
no change while they effect decompositions 
or combinations in others with which they 
are brought in contact, as ‘ catalytic’ may 
be soothing to the mind, but is it scientific? 
Is it satisfactory? One hundred and fifty 
years ago the properties of water were said 
to be caused by its ‘aquosity’! 
In this study we have confined our il- 
lustrations to the physical and chemical 
branches of science, but they might well be 
drawn from astronomy and from the bio- 
logical sciences; inthe former, one becomes 
acquainted with 
“Realms yet unrevealed to human sight,’’ 
as well as with the conception of infinity in 
space and in time; in the latter, one en- 
counters the unfathomable mystery of the 
origin of life. It is evident that in pursu- 
ing any branch of knowledge the seeker has 
Opportunities of familiarizing himself with 
ideas contained in the phrases, ‘ invisible 
world,’ ‘infinity,’ ‘mystery,’ and with facts 
that require application of all the powers 
of the imagination and of reason, to grasp 
which he exercises faith. 
Most scientists having this mental train- 
ing, in which acts of faith are demanded at 
every step, find it natural to apply this 
faith to their hypostasis of the spiritual 
world; they thus acquire belief in an in- 
serutable Divine Being, who exercises al- 
mighty wisdom and power in the guidance 
of the material universe, and who has made 
Himself known to humanity by revelation. 
To such persons it does not seem more 
difficult to believe in spiritual force and its 
influence on mankind, than to believe in 
the existence of energy and its effects on 
matter. Huxley, who certainly can not be 
accused of religious bias, is said to have 
