Let us now consider in what manner the principles already established are employed by Mr. Spencer, in his attempt to reconcile Religion and Science. The reconciliation is based upon the fact that the existence of an incomprehensible Absolute is the ultimate idea, both of Science and of Religion.

"This conclusion which objective science illustrates, and subjective science shows to be unavoidable,-this conclusion which, while it in the main expresses the doctrine of the English school of philosophy, recognizes also a soul of truth in the doctrine of the antagonist German school-this conclusion which brings the results of speculation into harmony with those of common sense, is also the conclusion which reconciles Religion with Science. Common Sense asserts the existence of a reality; Objective Science proves that this reality cannot be what we think it; Subjective Science shows why we cannot think of it as it is, and yet are compelled to think of it as existing; and in this assertion of a Reality utterly inscrutable in nature, Religion finds an assertion essentially coinciding with her own. We are obliged to regard every phenomenon as a manifestation of some Power by which we are acted upon; phenomena being, so far as we can ascertain, unlimited in their diffusion, we are obliged to regard this Power as omnipresent; and criticism teaches us that this Power is wholly incomprehensible. In this consciousness of an Incomprehensible, Omnipresent Power, we have just that consciousness on which Religion dwells. And so we arrive at the point where Religion and Science coalesce." pp. 98, 99.

Mr. Spencer then goes on to speak of the "high merit” of Religion, in that, from the beginning, it has dimly discerned this ultimate verity, and has never ceased to insist upon it. The purer Religion has become, the more clearly has it seen

Hickok's Article, "Limits of Religious Thought adjusted," in the Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1860. Perhaps there is nothing more thorough or conclusive than the Article of Professor H. B. Smith, on "Hamilton's Theory of Knowledge," in the American Theological Review, January, 1861. As a specimen of critical anatomy it is hardly surpassed by the best "Discussions" of the great Scotchman himself.

We have found that even the warmest admirers and disciples of Hamilton generally do no more than fall in with the main drift of his philosophy, while "confessing to an honest doubt" in regard to some of its particular applications, as, for example, to Cause and Free Will. Scarcely any one seems willing to employ that much abused term, "absolute," in just the sense which Hamilton assigns it. Mr. Mansel gives it such a meaning as is "the necessary complement of the idea of the Infinite," instead of its contradiction,-in this agreeing rather with Cousin; and he expressly shows that Hamilton's "absolute" is "definitely self-destructive." See the Bampton Lectures, II., and Note XIV.; but especially a remarkable passage in the Article "Metaphysics," Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIV., p. 621.

and the more strongly has it defended this great truth; yet, however gross its imperfections, it has everywhere established and propagated one or another modification of the doctrine that all things are manifestations of a Power that transcends knowledge. From age to age, Science has come in collision with Religion, and has often defeated it, by explaining away some of its mysteries, and thus compelling it to retreat from one after another of its positions; but it has never been able to make it relinquish this fundamental belief.

"No exposure of the logical inconsistency of its conclusions-no proof that each of its particular dogmas was absurd, has been able to weaken its allegiance to that ultimate verity for which it stands. After criticism has abolished all its arguments and reduced it to silence, there has still remained with it the indestructible consciousness of a truth which, however faulty the mode in which it had been expressed, was yet a truth beyond cavil. To this conviction its adherence has been substantially sincere. And for the guardianship and diffusion of it, Humanity has ever been, and must ever be, its debtor."

But a serious charge is brought against the Guardian of this great truth:

"While, from the beginning, Religion has had the all-essential office of preventing men from being wholly absorbed in the relative or immediate, and of awakening them to a consciousness of something beyond it, this office has been but very imperfectly discharged. Religion has ever been more or less irreligious; and it continues to be partially irreligious even now. In the first place, as implied above, it has all along professed to have some knowledge of that which transcends knowledge; and so has contradicted its own teachings. While with one breath it has asserted that the Cause of all things passes understanding, it has, with the next breath, asserted that the Cause of all things possesses such or such attri butes-can be in so far understood. In the second place, while in great part sincere in its fealty to the great truth it has had to uphold, it has often been insincere, and consequently irreligious, in maintaining the untenable doctrines by which it has obscured this great truth. Each assertion respecting the nature, acts, or motives of that Power which the Universe manifests to us, has been repeatedly called in question, and proved to be inconsistent with itself, or with accompanying assertions. Yet each of them has been, age after age, insisted on, in spite of a secret consciousness that it would not bear examination. Just as though unaware that its central position was impregnable, Religion has obstinately held every outpost long after it was obviously indefensible. And this natu rally introduces us to the third and most serious form of irreligion which Religion has displayed; namely, an imperfect belief in that which it especially professes to believe. How truly its central position is impregnable, Religion has never adequately realized. In the devoutest faith, as we habitually see it, there lies hidden an innermost core of skepticism; and it is this skepticism which causes

that dread of inquiry displayed by Religion when face to face with Science. Obliged to abandon one by one the superstitions it once tenaciously held, and daily finding its cherished beliefs more and more shaken, Religion shows a secret fear that all things may some day be explained; and thus itself betrays a lurking doubt whether that Incomprehensible Cause, of which it is conscious, is really incomprehensible." pp. 99-101.

On the other hand, Science, which has ever been the agent in purifying Religion, has, at the same time, often been unscientific, in its processes and solutions. Both of these points are fully illustrated by Mr. Spencer, but need not be expanded here. The faults of both Science and Religion have been the faults of imperfect development; their disagreements have been nothing more than the consequences of their incompleteness. As they reach their final forms, they come into entire harmony. The progress of intelligence has ever been dual. Though it has not seemed so to those who made it, every step in advance has been a step towards both the natural and the supernatural. The better interpretation of each phenomenon has led both towards the known and towards the unknown. The more perfectly mankind have been able to explain the processes of nature, by laws of greater and greater generality, the more mysterious and inscrutable has appeared that Power, which is manifest in these processes, and by these laws. "Though, as knowledge approaches its culmination, every unaccountable and seemingly supernatural fact is brought into the category of facts which are accountable or natural, yet, at the same time, all accountable or natural facts are proved to be in their ultimate genesis unaccountable and supernatural." Thus, as Science becomes more complete, the more does it recognize the great basis of Religion; and Religion, meantime, is purified, as well as rendered more certain, by every advance of Science. The two have been undergoing a slow differentiation, the tendency of which is to restrict each one to its own. sphere, and cause it to recognize the rightful sphere of the other. The permanent reconciliation will be reached, "when Science becomes fully convinced that its explanations are only proximate and relative, while Religion becomes fully convinced that the mystery which it contemplates is ultimate and absolute." Religion and Science are therefore necessary correla

66

tives. They stand respectively for those two antithetical modes of consciousness which cannot exist asunder. A known cannot be thought of apart from an unknown; nor can an unknown be thought of apart from a known. And by conse quence, neither can become more distinct without giving greater distinctness to the other." Science and Religion "are the positive and negative poles of thought; of which neither can gain an intensity without increasing the intensity of the other." pp. 102-108.

Probably the statements thus far given of Mr. Spencer's views in regard to the connection of Science and Religion, have sufficed to indicate the fact that the "Religion," whose cause he maintains, has not many positive elements. It may, indeed, be fully expressed in this single assertion: The Power manifest in all things must be confessed to be wholly inscrutable. Nothing more than this can be said, according to Mr. Spencer. He will not allow that anything can be known concerning this "Power"-call it God, or whatever else we may-save that it exists and is unknowable. He ridicules the idea of "dogmatic theology," in every form; and he thinks that it is fast becoming obsolete, by the progress of scientific research in enlightening the world. The possibility that this Inscrutable Power may have made some revelation of Himself (or Itself) to mankind, in addition to the "manifestations" in nature, is wholly ignored. It is thought out of the question that any true knowledge of this Absolute, Unconditioned Being, can be imparted, in any way, to the finite mind of man. It is considered illegitimate to maintain any positive opinion concerning its attributes-to say what it is-whether a Personal, Moral Intelligence, which may be likened, in some respects, to man, or whether something far different. Every assimilation of this Power to humanity in its higher attributes, on the plea that man is the image of God, is nothing but an audacious anthropomorphism, in the same category with the grossest idolatry. The true spirit of religion requires us neither to affirm, nor to deny, personality, intelligence, or any other attribute conceivable by us, as belonging to the great First Cause; but simply to confess, with all humility, that our limited minds

can know nothing whatever about the Absolute. This is true piety; while the professed familiarity of some religious teachers with the ultimate mystery of things, under the name of "religious knowledge," is the extreme of presumption and impiety.

"Volumes might be written upon the impiety of the pious. Through the printed and spoken thoughts of religious teachers, may almost everywhere be traced a professed familiarity with the ultimate mystery of things, which, to say the least of it, seems anything but congruous with the accompanying expressions of humility. And surprisingly enough, those tenets which most clearly display this familiarity, are those insisted on as forming the vital elements of religious belief." p. 110.

With special reference to the positions of Mr. Mansel, in his Limits of Religious Thought, Mr. Spencer observes:

"In all imaginable ways we find thrust upon us the truth, that we are not permitted to know-nay, are not even permitted to conceive-that Reality which is behind the vail of Appearance; and yet it is said to be our duty to believe (and in so far to conceive) that this Reality exists in a certain defined manner. we call this reverence? or shall we call it the reverse?"

Shall

After quoting some passages from an article in the National Review, entitled "Nature and God," which speaks of the universe as "the manifestation and abode of a Free Mind, like our own, embodying His personal thought in its adjustments, realizing His own ideal in its phenomena," so that we may "learn the character of God-the order of affections in Him," &c.,-Mr. Spencer remarks:

"Every one has heard of the king who wished he had been present at the creation of the world, that he might have given good advice. He was humble, however, compared with those who profess to understand not only the relation of the Creating to the created, but also how the Creating is constituted. And yet this transcendent audacity, which claims to penetrate the secrets of the Power manifested to us through all existence-nay, even to stand behind that Power and note the conditions of its action-this it is which passes current as piety! May we not, without hesitation, affirm that a sincere recognition of the truth that our own and all other existence is a mystery absolutely and forever beyond our comprehension, contains more of true religion than all the dogmatic theology ever written?" pp. 111, 112.

Mr. Spencer thinks that the attitude of theologians, in assuming to know the Divine nature by means of the human, "Can be fitly represented only by further developing a simile long current in theological controversies,-the simile of the watch. If, for a moment, we made