The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-29
seienee and Religion.


With mingIings OF reerst,
Nor needs yon honored emgy
To bid US, . not orget." ~
science and Religion.
rror,e,nondepce of the New York Tribune.]
srhe snh;sc, for debate on the last day OF
a.. sess;on NJ the second Annual Congress
of the Protestant EpiscoPa! Cnu!cn, p pt,.
ndeInbia vas Mutual Limitations OF ne.
Tr;nyls and Scientific Inquiry" The hrst
rssSer wos the Rev. DR.. William Il. Hunt
;noson az Worcester, Mass, who SAID:
For theelogians theology il the science OF
sciences. Including all forms OF knoWiedse,
True theology will boldly claim astronomy,
geology. and all other sciences. There Is 8
Contest between scientists and religion, ana
in This discussion the theologian has Claimed
foo much. and too late. Theology writes her
own death.warraut when she undertakes TO
saw she il one of the sciences. Let her rise
and assert. her own prerogative OF motner.
hood and uueenship. The contest alluded
to Is more direct between the mixed sciences
than TIE pure science. Geometry has no guar.
Tel with religion or theology, but geology
11as been at war with Genesis ever since the
science came into general study. GOD ana
conscience are the postulates OF the laeo-
1ogian, Using for the facts Of theology iacts
of nature and science, we preserve the idea
That the building is Of God. 1t Is only from
The standpoint of theology that all things
can be made harmonious. 1t does not DO 10
say that broken theology lies along the path
of the Church. So is the path Of science
stseWn with broken sciences. There is no
new religion ready to take the place Of the
old: there is no apprehension on this sub.
Sect. Having confessed our feelings We must
] ask the scientists tetreat our postulates with
more respect. If the existence of God is
not demonstrable, still less is His non-exist-
ence, and the dicra merely is sure to distress
all those who make 1t, as it is easy to decaim
against theology and laugh at it.
The Right Rev. Thomas n. Clark, bishop
of Rhode Island, followed. He said:
We hear that there is O conflict in the
science of theology. Theology Is the science
of God. say that God has revealed himself
to us through nature, through His servants,
and through Him In whom all OF the God
head is manifest. The facts Of science lie in
one domain, and the facts of historical the
ology lie in another. Neither do 4 appre-
bend any trouble from the law Of evidence.
I do not think we are likely to comprehend
the degree in which infdelity Is creep
ing into the minds of the rising gene
ration. 1t becomes the clergy to take
into consideration the relations between the
ologr and science. Ii we would cope sue
cessfully with the scientific iDfidel of the age
we must rid our theological beliefs OF unne'
cessary loads. One Of these loads Is the the
DRY Of the verbal infallibiity Of the Scrip
lures, an incumbrance of faith not recognized
by the early general councils or in the stand.
ards Of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
Another Is certain forms Of belief so deroga-
tory to the character of Almighty God that
no man who believes In ordinary human
virtue ought to accept them.
The Rev. C. C. Tiffany, of New York, spoke
of the Indefinite apprehension among church.
members that science is going to get the
better of religion. They imagine that science
and religion are, like picket guards Of hostile
srEnies, all the time trying to get pop at each
other. The real attitude of the two is one Of
friendly, mutual aid. They need each other.
The integrity of enc is the Integrity of the
other. The only school Of science that can
damage theology Is the materialistic, and that
; cuts the ground from under the feet of
pretends that conscience Is only the result of
nervous irritation, and thus destroys the idea
Of freedom and responsibility, it proves by
the same argument that onr intellectual pro-
;cesses are just as iikely to De delusion.
The Rev. Dr.. Leeds, Of Baltimore, said
that all theological iEquiry is necessarily
scientific IN, its own department.. Theology
\ 10 the queen Of all the sciences, and all true
Ascience ia essentially Christian. The pre-
sumption that there was creator, and that
the universe IS o prodifct of evolution that
{ had no beginning, is not scientific, because
p he spectrum analysis proves that the mole
4 Giles of the most Gistaat planet are the same
,aStEose of the matter, around us, and that
Thy undergo no change. They were there
9oN either created as they now are, or they
areaucreated. and thug the Deity himself.
Th6Church Is to blame for the arrangement
OF mpy Of the best minds Of the age from her
fold. There Is no irreconcilable conflict be.
: t1eeSscIence and revelation. $500
2t The, Rev. DR.. William Newton, of IPhila.
! delpbiA insisted that between the facts OF
sciencetnd religion there could be no dis
crepaHcl It's the Interpretation men give
TO The fats that makes an apparent conflict.
He referrtd to Professor Proctor's change Of
OPINION d to the development theory, and
z said that Sheu he wished to learn the facts
4 OF astronomy he wonad sit at Proctor's feet
1bnt when hk wanted conclusions from thoge
5acts he pre6rred 10 think for HIMSELF He
Eidlsuaed Darwls's theory Of the descent OF
: ssaan, aod said that the great feat OF the sci,
/, enee OF the day was 10 show thst man was
b derived from auvule a25.1000 OF "a inch 10
diameter, and differing In respect from the
uyules OF other animals; and that human
z language ame from the discovery by some
wise old ape that he could utter cultural
sounds.
49, ~. z rs.F - ~ {.