48 
without demonstration to the rank of natural laws; that a 
host of facts, many of which I mentioned, were directly opposed 
to them; that some alleged facts I could demonstrate by 
plain arithmetic, to go no higher m mathematics, to be a . 
And how was I met by my rationalistic opponents . That t ey 
were incompetent, from their ignorance of science, to enter at 
all into the scientific view of the question. .They regaide 
authority rather than discussion from abstract principles or the 
fects and phenomena of nature. That some whom they 
esteemed as scientific authorities differed from me 
fore I was told that I must discuss the science of the question, 
even where science and revelation were supposed to come into 
collision with each other, before a purely scientific body. 1 hese 
men were in a minority ; but, if such a minority could be found 
among a small body of theologians, I think I could adduce no 
stronfer evidence of the want of such an institution as that 
W6 The supposed 8 opposition between science and revelation 
may be dhdded into two great divisions,-an opposition of 
principles ; an opposition of facts. This controversy is an old 
K and has already been well fought out m the literature^ 
this country. In its old phase this opposition was so com- 
pletely answered by the advocates of revelation that the conti o- 
versyfor the time ceased with all but the avowed sceptic and 
infidel. With the progress of science, and metaphysical rathe 
than physical discussion, the old controversy has been revived 
under a somewhat different aspect; though m reality its true 
character is scarcely, if at all, altered. „ sciences 
Philosophical principles and assumed facts of ne w science 
are now once more set in formidable array against the claims 
of revelation to the acceptance of a well-educated or ra mna 
man. The principle of modern rationalism which has been 
thought by some so destructive to the claims of revelation m _ e 
written Word of God, has been imported, as an acc^ted pn j 
ciole and law of truth, into the realms of purely puy sica 
science A false principle, borrowed as if an accepted truth from 
science by the P purel? literary man, after doing its utmos 
work of destruction in the theological world, has been impor 
back as if unquestionable into the realms of science. 
If I am asked what I mean by this principle of so- 
called rationalism, I will adopt a definition of one of its ajvo- 
cates “ It is tlie supremely important fact that tJie g 1 ^ 
ol ,11 phenomena within the -1^ 
law carries with it as a consequence the rejection of th 
colons ” Now, here we have an old objection m a new mess 
We have here an assumption that the progress of model n sci 1 
