sible without such a basis. Without this primal revelation to man, in what we call natural religion, the supernatural could have had no fulcrum on which to work, just as you could never teach a child that such a thing was right or wrong unless the child had a prior conception of the idea of moral distinctions. Indeed, without this basis, revelation would have been altogether unintelligible. Christianity, while it assumes these primary religious ideas, also directs and informs them. Conscience has no teaching function; it is not the maker, but only the interpreter and executor of law.

JAMES.-Am I right, then, in supposing that Christianity has simply brought out in bolder relief, and with more vivid distinctness, truths which were apprehended, dimly and faintly of course, by the heathen mind without a revelation?

PAULUS.-You are right only so far. Christianity has indeed brought out in bolder relief doctrines which were but vaguely apprehended by the heathen mind, but it has besides widened the sphere of vision in spiritual matters. It has also answered the all important and ever recurring question, How shall a man be just with God? and has satisfied man's deep and irrepressible yearnings and longings after the Good and the Infinite.

JOHN.-Speaking of man's instinctive aspirations after something deeper and diviner than the objects of time and sense, I remember hearing Bishop Cotteral once say, in regard to these primary religious ideas which lie at the basis of natural religion, that they were not mere sentiments or emotions. They did not spring from physical wants, nor from the requirements of the intellect, but from the moral necessities of our nature-from the cravings, yearnings of man's highest, noblest, and truest self-his spirit, that which makes him human.

PAULUS.-Very beautifully expressed. Max Muller puts it very much in the same way. He says that this belief in a Supreme Being is "An immediate perception, not the result of reasoning or generalization, but an intuition as irresistible as the impressions of our senses." Augustine expresses the same truth when he says" God has made us for Himself, and our souls are restless till they rest in Him."

JAMES.-It appears to me that the evidence for what is called natural religion, or a consciousness in man of the existence of a supreme power to whom he is responsible, and also to whom he owes allegiance and homage is very conclusive. I do not see how it could be well set aside.

PAULUS. We have not been able to present you with a tithe of the evidence that could be adduced on this subject; but as you feel satisfied with what has already been laid before

you, perhaps we may now advance a step further, and look at what may be called the sphere of Science, and the sphere of religion. I regard this as a most important point, because, if they have each their respective spheres, the conclusions of the one will never come into collision with the beliefs of the other. Though their source is the same, they yet flow in different channels, and what may prove the facts of the one can never disprove the beliefs of the other.

JOHN.-I like much the idea of the distinction between the sphere of science and that of religion, as it is, in my humble opinion, from science obtruding herself on the domains of faith, and faith, on the other hand, seeking to exorcise science from her legitimate province, that these unseemly conflicts between science and religion arise.

PAULUS.-Precisely so. Science has her mission and her sphere, no less than religion. They are both lights emanating from the Father of lights, and between which there ought to be the closest harmony, as well as the deepest sympathy. On the side of religion, it is quite evident that these ideas and instincts which spring from man's deepest consciousness can never be set aside by any knowledge gained "about the relations of succession and similitude which things have to each other, or by the discovery of the laws of phenomena," or by the order and constitution of nature. As well might the sense of hearing set itself up against the authority of the sense of sight. The testimony of one sense, can never, in the nature of the case, weigh the weight of a feather, against the evidence of another. They have each their own sphere, and cannot be made to clash the one with the other. So with religion and science. It is absurd to suppose that the ethical necessities of man's moral nature can be changed, or those yearnings and aspirations after the "Living God," who is Himself the realization of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful-can ever be appeased, by any conclusions as to the laws, forces, and powers of nature; or anything relating to time, space, force, and motion. These things don't touch man's deeper wants at all; they have no relations to them. So long as man is man, he will gravitate, in his deeper nature, towards the Living God, the fountain of light and the fountain of life.

JAMES.-I now begin to see very clearly the importance of the distinction you draw as to the respective provinces of science and religion. Ultimately, it is a distinction between faith and reason-faith expressing our primary intuitions, and science embodying the conclusions of the intellect. To array these in antagonism does appear, from what you have said, to be very absurd. As well might the findings.

of astronomical science be pitted against the conclusions of geology, or the teachings of chemistry against the ascertained results of physiology.

JOHN.-I am specially pleased, Mr. Paulus, with the way you have presented this matter. It appears very clear. It seems to me that it would be just as absurd to say that the progress of science has shown that the poetry of Homer and Dante, the sculpture of the age of Pericles, the paintings of the Italian school were all a delusion, and no longer to be admired, as to say that science can set aside or settle a question belonging entirely to the sphere of consciousness-a province entirely different.

PAULUS.-Yes; that is well put. The perception of the beautiful, the sphere of taste, is not touched, and cannot be touched by any scientific discovery whatsoever. The two things lie in different planes. You cannot decide questions of taste by an appeal to the laws of physics, nor guage problems that lie deep in the sphere of consciousness by the laws of phenomena. As well might the chemist claim authority to settle the laws of grammar, or decide the design and purport of a book by subjecting it to chemical analysis.

JOHN.-It seems a bold thing, indeed, for scientists to seek to invalidate the claims of religious belief when their methods of testing it, and even understanding it, are so immeasurably inadequate. Scientific knowledge, after all, must be a very limited thing if, according to the principle of Comte, it is "confined to the discovery of the laws of phenomena."

PAULUS.-Yes; the knowledge which science develops and embodies is only relative knowledge.

JAMES.-Relative knowledge! What do you mean by that expression? Is not all knowledge relative?"

PAULUS.-Understand me. A natural object, or phenomenon, or force can only be known scientifically in so far as it can be compared with other objects, phenomena, or forces. If it cannot be compared, it is unknown. What an object of thought is in itself science has no means of informing us; and the human intellect, however cultivated and developed, has no answer to give to such a question.

JOHN.-I suspect that the alleged antagonism between science and religion has more to do with their indirect relations-with the details of revealed religion, rather than with natural religion-more with the exposition of doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture, than with any of the more fundamental conceptions which lie at the basis of all religions. Is this not so?

PAULUS.-Yes; it is more in the indirect relations, such as

No. 10.

G

Vol. 3.

you indicate, that the supposed antagonism lies. I trust our conversation on the matters that have come up has been found profitable; and I will have great pleasure in seeing you back another evening. Good night!

J. W.-E.

THE GREATEST OF ALL THE SCIENCES; OR, THOUGHTS SUGGESTED BY THE RECENT MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT GLASGOW.

IT has been said in holy writ that "as iron sharpeneth iron, so doth the countenance of a man his friend;" but, assuredly, as iron sharpeneth iron, so doth the intellect of a man his friend; and I doubt not that when learned men meet together, as they met in our city on a recent occasion, to consider both the latest findings and the latest perplexities of their respective departments, as much progress would be made in a few hours as would otherwise have been made in months and years.

But all these sections were silent when a certain period arrived. No sound was to be heard at our University where, for successive days, there had been so much bustle and stir. And why? Because it was the Christian Sabbath, or, in other words, because the claims of a higher section-namely, those of Christian Theology, were being universally respected. Perhaps some of our readers do not understand how the British Assotion holds its meetings, and how its members are able to get through so much work in a week. Well, let us inform them that those who have a certain taste or specialty meet in one class-room, where papers, which have been laboriously prepared during the preceding year, are read and discussed. Thus, the men who are fond of physical science have met in a class-room marked A, chemists have met in C, medical men in D, &c. Seven departments of investigation in all, from A to G, were busily employed; but, as we have already said, they were all silent on the Lord's Day, out of respect to the Christian section, which we may call section H-the highest section, the section of holiness, of happiness, of hope, and of heaven.

We venture to call Christian Theology the highest of all the sciences for two reasons: (1.) Its subject-matter is grander than that of any of the others. The Creator is greater than the creation. God is of more importance than His works. Anthropology is the science of man; but God made man. Physiology is the science of man's nature; but God gave him his nature. Geology is the science of the earth; but God made the earth.

Oh yes,

At

Theology is the queen of all the sciences. Then-(2.) all the others give refinement and culture for this life; but theology has inscribed above its portals: "This is life eternal." Death stalks disagreeably into the meetings of the British Association. The first time it met in Glasgow, in 1840, Hugh Miller came into notice, of whom one of the most distinguished savants present said that "he would give his left hand to possess that man's wonderful power of description;" but Miller and his eulogist have long since passed away. the second meeting here, in 1855, Brewster and Faraday attended, Christian philosophers both; but they have now reached a higher state of existence. We overheard one of the members saying to another, at the recent Glasgow meeting: 'Where is your wife? I expected to see her smiling face as well as yours." "Oh! have you not heard?" said the other, as a shadow came over his face. "She caught fever on her way home from the meetings at Belfast, two years ago, and died in a few weeks." Thank God, we repeat, that on section H is written-" And this is life eternal."

We confess that there is this difference between theological science and the other sciences which were represented at our University, that their subjects can be examined by the eye, or the microscope; whereas God cannot be seen, or measured, or weighed in a balance. And it is this very consideration, as we have just remarked, that makes theology the queen of all the sciences, that she has to do with the great and the infinite God. We do not agree with those philosophers who would draw a sharp contrast between nature and revelation; for we hold that God is revealed in nature as well as in the Bible; but, of course, our Father's voice in the latter mode of manifestation is more articulate than in the former. We do not hesitate, however, to call consciousness a microscope by which we can see into the depths of the human mind. This microscope philosophers like Kant, Hamilton, and Reid (and of the latter the city of Glasgow has cause to be proud), turned back introspectively into the depths of their own hearts, and found engraven there the words, "Free Will, Responsibility, and God." And just as the published correspondence of an engineer like Stephenson and a discoverer like Brewster, has thrown light upon their labours and the products on which their genius had already been stamped, the Bible, which God has given us, fully corresponds with his works, and illumines them with an increased significance.

It was naturally to be expected that our Father, besides revealing himself to us in Nature, and in our own minds, would reveal himself yet more clearly, as he has done in the