204 
The Future “ Martyrdom of Science .” 
[April, 
Again, the two powers which were brought in presence of 
each other in the first centuries of Christianity regarded the 
world from respectively different points of view. The 
“ philosophers ” aimed at tracing faCts to physical causes, 
and, in as far as they had succeeded in arriving at definite 
knowledge, they saw in all phenomena the working of un- 
varying law. The fathers of the Church, on the contrary, 
sought everywhere for moral causes. In all that is they saw 
or supposed to see personality, will, purpose, arbitrary and 
even inconsequent. Whether these two opposite views 
might not ultimately admit of reconciliation neither saint 
nor sage cared heedfully to ask, and the elements of a 14 very 
pretty quarrel ” were therefore near at hand. This funda- 
mental opposition between the philosophic and the religious 
conceptions of the universe has often been set forth, and is 
noted here solely by reason of its parallelism with another 
antagonism which is springing up in our days. Till very 
lately none of the branches of natural science, nor, it might 
be said, the general spirit and method of science, seemed to 
approach the territory which the self-styled advanced thinkers 
in philanthropy, in social reform, and in statecraft claim as 
their own. Man, whether as an individual or as a member 
of a community, was openly, or at least tacitly, excluded 
from the “ kingdom of Nature.” The differences between 
man and man were, and still are, traced exclusively to edu- 
cation, to position in life, and to other outward post-natal 
circumstances, or else to the different atftion of the free-will 
of each individual. The distinctions between nations, with 
perhaps some little reference to the climate, the soil, the 
produ<ftions, and the geographical position of their countries 
— conceded very grudgingly — were and still are accounted 
for by laws and institutions. Society was considered as a 
something modifiable almost at will by the educator and the 
statesman. Till lately these views reigned uncontested ; but 
modern science, especially since the great reform in Natural 
History, has restored man to his place in the “ kingdom of 
Nature,” just as the astronomical reform of Galileo and his 
contemporaries “ restored earth to her place in the heavens.” 
Anthropology, psychology are now brought into intimate 
relations with biology, and sociology itself — if such a disci- 
pline can really be constituted — will be studied with reference 
to the organisations existing among the lower animals. Is 
it probable that such a change in point of view can fail to 
lead to inferences novel, and therefore unwelcome ? Is it 
likely that the moralists, the historians, the orators, and the 
metaphysicians will listen patiently to so new and strange a 
