New-York tribune., 1890-08-31

mental positions of religion by the proviso that
Christians must use reason simply in order TO find
out when reason cannot be used. AS we nave
already intimated, this proviso makes any real
understanding between religion and science i'm
possible But there are not wanting hints In these
essays that some of the more progressive theo-
lOgians not very anxious to live up TO 1t, and
that its chief value lies in the fact that it soothes
and paciies the Bourbons in the theological
camp who must, at this critical point in the con-
test, be kept silent at all hazards. That we do
not mYsinterpret the spirit Of these essaylsts is
made clear by the following passage from the
essay on Faith, which virtually claims for reason
everything that science demands No one car do
piece of thinking for another. and hand II over
to him in a parcel Only by thinking can 1t be
known what thought is only by feeling can it be
understood what is meant by a feeling: only by
seeing, willing, loving can we have the least con-
ception of sight, or of WILL of love More
over, the modern defender of the faith is disposed
to forge weapons of defence out of the very prln-
ciples of science For instance, the cSsayist on
the Incarnation and Development declal : that be-
hind the phenomena of the universe there is
secret laboratory into VIII science cannot enter.
" Before the beginning of our present system, he
SAYS "and behind the whole course of It's con-
tinuous development, there is vast region OF
possibility, which lies wholly and forever beyond
tie power of science TO affirm or to deny IT Is In
this region that Christian theology claims to have
its roots, and of this region that 1t processes TO
give its adherents certtude, under conditions and
by methods of its own And of those conditions
and methods il earlessy asserts that they are no.
wise Inconsistent with any ascertained or ascer-
tainable result Of secular philosophy"
Now thi. is very ingenious. The scientist is
supposed to sly: Beyond certain well-defincd
limitations / not only know nothing hut in the
nature of things know nothing very
we'll" retorts the theologian, | claim to kaow
all about that region which you term the IN
know 4ble and, with that knowledge as basis,
| hereby make certain dogmatic assertions thus
and so about that region. You may not like
these assertions they may run counter 10 all Your
preconceived ideas. But your own principles,
you are estopped from dsbeieving them, for you
cannot disbplieve what you cannot dlsproVe, ana
Of course you cannot disprove the unknowable
And thus we part with the theologian and the
scientist, each standing on what he concelveS u
be his own bit Of territory, and from that safe
vantage ground expressing more less pity
mingled with contempt for lis opponent. We are
living to-day in an age where religious and IN
deed scientific opinion is in state of iuX. and
when, as we have already said. no clear outlook
is possible As for forecasting the futnle, that is
entirely out of the question. But those who
wish to know just how much orthodox theoloGians
Of good standing in the Anglican Church are will
ling to concede TO what is vaguely known rs the
spirit of the age will do well to read these cs-
saws. They faithfully reflect at once the loyalt.
and the radicalsm Of the younger generation OF
English Churchmen That such utterances should
appear in the face Of so much that Is rcacionar5
in the Anglican Communion is a hopeful sign.
If theologians were always willing 10 see what
is going on in the world about them. and were
AS willing 10 give up what j, unnecessary or un-
tenable, they would not so often be compelled 10
speak to an iDcrcdUlous or indifferent world.