560 
A Change of Front . 
[September, 
these features are revealed, though in very different forms 
and degrees. Man is still regarded as differing from the 
rest of the animal kingdom not merely in degree, but in 
kind. Nature is still declared perfect, and defended against 
the charge of “cruelty;” pain and suffering, if they cannot 
be fairly denied, are explained, away ; beauty is pronounced 
substantially universal, and is supposed to have been called 
into being for the special delegation of man ; and last, but 
not least, the purposes of God are assumed as fully known 
and understood, according to the old use and wont of tele- 
ologists. 
Between the two treatises before us there is a well-marked 
difference. The Bishop of Carlisle approximates much more 
closely to the position of modern man of science than does 
Mr. H. B. Baildon. He may, indeed, justly claim our warm 
thanks for having drawn a distinction which, though it has 
escaped the notice of mankind for ages, must, when once 
pointed out, be accepted as strikingly natural. We hear, 
from time to time, complaints of the “ atheistic tendencies” 
of modern Science, and of the dangers to be apprehended 
in consequence. The Bishop replies that “ We want a new 
word to express the faCt that all physical science, properly 
so called, is compelled by its very nature to take no account 
of the being of God : as soon as it does this it trenches upon 
theology, and ceases to be physical science. If I might coin 
a word I should say that science was atheous , and therefore 
could not be atheistic ; that is to say, its investigations and 
reasonings are by agreement conversant simply with observed 
faCls and conclusions drawn from them, and in this sense it 
is atheous , or without God. And, because it is so, it does 
not in any way trench upon theism or theology , and cannot be 
atheistic , or in the condition of denying the being of God.”* 
The distinction thus drawn is perfectly satisfactory ; but 
the practical application of the principle turns upon the 
recognition of the boundary line between the spheres of 
theology and of physical science, between the natura naturans 
and the natura naturata. The necessity of respecting such 
a “ scientific frontier ’’the Bishop sees and enforces. He 
holds that it is “not a mere arbitrary line to be laid down 
by treaty, but is like one of the great watersheds of Nature 
which no human arrangements can alter.” This we fully 
grant, but we fear that it will be less easily traced out and 
recognised. Where is the legitimate boundary of physical 
* It must be admitted that Mr. Baildon draws a similar distinction, though 
he doss not employ the happy term “ atheous ” as contrasted with atheistic. 
