, 1880-05-02

and subVerd1g all conceptions OF the Deity, we
are at loss to understand. Physical science is
not to be put down In this way. It is q great
pnase OF mans mental progress and Is destined
10 increase In influence In an acceierating ra-
Ito. There IS no doubt, furthermore that it4
growth is IN invasion Of the domain illegitt-
mately held BY theology in the past, and threat
ems the nscendency of theological systems and
IDEAS" 1t Is hardly to BIZ expected that professed
| tneo'og1ans can view this change with com.
ptacency, but that affords no excuse for getting
INTO passion with science, and striving to array
fsst fha It, Our
upon which they expend their denunciations IL
= , great body ct accredited and imprcgnable
20 declare and reiterate the accusation that it ii
atneist!c u IN its spirit and influence. How fur
truth Of nature IS ugsinst tho extstence Of Godi
and # scientific men reply to tho theologian,
Md y9a know best where will rest the
taFa The Bishop o Of Carlisle that this is mis-
about and d Wbat y % Sh9ed be thGoTa "a
points out that as commonly done it is not true
- = very slight e4amninatton OF the conditions Of
theological conclusions He draws a valid dis
tlnction between the legitimate, proper and
logical attitude Of the scientific mind 1ownrd the
conception Of Deity and the atheistic state or Of
mind; and he strives to mark this distinction by
TIE Introduction Of a new term. He says: 1T
q
the fact that all physical science, properly so
called, IS compelled by its very nature to take
no account Of the being Of God; as soon as it
be physical science It might coin a word, I
should sny that science was athcous, and there
1orc could not be athesuc,-that Is to say, its IN
Eest1gat1ons nnd reasonings are BY agreement
conversant simply with observed facts and con
cuslons drawn from them. and In this sense 1t js
At1eous, or without recognition of God And
BECAUSE it Is 10, 1t does not In any way trcnch
upon theism OF theology. aud cannot be atheis-
tsc or Ia the condition OF denying the being Of
God. Take the case OF physical astronomy TO
tho mathematician tho mechanics OF tho
the mechanics Of a clock it IS true
thnt the clock must have had a maker: but III,
mathemat1cian who investigates any problem
with him as SUCH The spring. the wheels the
escapcsncnt, and the rest OF tho works are ali II,
tnelr proper places somehow. and 1t matters
nothing to the mathematician how they came
there. AS a mathematician the INVESTIGATOR rnf
clock-1not1On takes no account Of the existence
OF clockmAkers; but he does not deny their ex-
instencc; he has no hostile feeling toward them;
ne may be On the very best terms with many Of
taem; II may be that at the request OF one Of
them who has invented some new movement he
nus undertaken the investigations. Precisely in
[he same way the man who investigates tho
of the heavens finds a complicated
system or motion, n number Of bodies mutually
attracting each other and moving according to
certain assumed IawR. In working cut the re-
suits Of his assumed laws, the mathematician
has no reason to consider how tho bodies camo
70 be rs they are: that they arc they are is
beyond his province to Inquire how they came
30 to be- Therefore, 50 fur as his Investigations
ire conceF:'ed. thsre Is no God: or, to use the
vord aboye suggested, his Investigations are
atheous. But they are not athelstic"
For the further working out Of this concep-
, ION IN h1s article, the Bishop must be held re-
5cr Me o1ly cnli attention to the posi-
II 6 liberal and rational theology,