15 
the logical relation which subsists between the doctrines of 
actual Science and of actual Religion is a fact of transcendent 
theological importance," he continues* (pp. 302, 303) : — 
“ I might insist on the evil done by such a state of things, both to 
religion and to science, but at this moment I wish rather to enter my protest 
against the principle from which the evil itself ultimately springs. Has 
Science any claim to be thus set up as the standard of belief? Is there any 
ground whatever for regarding conformity with scientific teaching as an 
essential condition of truth, and nonconformity with it as an unanswerable 
proof of error ? If , there is, it cannot be drawn from the nature of the 
scientific system itself. We have seen in the preceding pages how a close 
examination of its philosophic structure reveals the existence of every 
possible philosophical defect. We have seen that whether Science be regarded 
from the point of view of its premises, its inferences, or the general relation 
of its parts, it is found defective ; and we have seen that the ordinary 
proofs which philosophers and men of science have thought fit to give of its 
doctrines are not only inconsistent, but are such as would convince nobody 
who did not start (as, however, we all do start) with an implicit and inde- 
structible confidence in the truth of that which had to be proved. I am 
far from complaining of the confidence. I share it. My complaint rather 
is that of two creeds [the religious and the scientific] which from a 
philosophical point of view t stand, so far as I can judge, upon a perfect 
equality, one should be set up as a standard to which the other must 
necessarily conform.” 
3. That until the principles here asserted are recognised as 
the basis of the mutual relations of Religion and Science, the 
work of reconciling their apparent discrepancies will be both 
endless and unprofitable, I have no doubt whatever. We, on 
the Christian side, not only admit, but earnestly maintain, 
that while the creed of Religion is consistent with Reason, yet 
it could not be constructed by Reason, and it requires in us a 
higher faculty, viz., that faith which is “the substance of 
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen/' to supple- 
ment human reason and make the foundations of Religion in 
our own minds secure. We contend that, on the other hand, 
Science is in a similar position ; that to construct its creed 
Reason needs to be supplemented by much that is not strictly 
logical, by a scientific “ instinct/' an unreasoning and certainly 
not infallible intuition, which some men possess in a far higher 
degree than others, and the necessity for which leaves the 
world in general much more dependent on authority for their 
scientific belief than men ever are, or have been, in Religion, 
wherever they have access to Holy Scripture. For there 
neither is, nor can be, any standard and guide for the scientific 
intuition, such as the Bible supplies for faith. 
4. It is not my purpose, however, to-day to discuss further 
* “ A Defence of Philosophic Doubt,” &c. 
f The italics are mine. 
