St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-10-11

SCIENCE VS.. RELIGION
Eoumenical Delegates Talk
Learnedly and Long on the
Subject.
Unbelief and Criticism Great
Forces in Modern Pro-
gression.
The Former Seeks to Hide Be-
hind the System Of the
Latter.
Ex-President Hayes Views
on Injustice to Criminal
Classes.

w OCbs w. Liz lOulbil
days session of the Methodist ecumen-
zeal council was presided over by Rev.
DIR. William Arthur, of England. Prayer
was offered by Rev. John Wakefield, of
| Canada. Rev. DR.. a. S. Hunt, of New
York, one of the secretaries of the
American Bible society, read Scrip
ture lesson from the Book of Job.
Through Secretary King the commit
tee on business reported the following
resolutions and memorials, which were
| held for consideration at a later day:
Resolution concerning an address to the
Methodist MEMBERS and churches for
ecumenical conferences; resolution on
the appointment of a general foreign
missionary council for Methodist
churches; memorial IN reference to the
closing of the Columbian exposition on
Sunday. The regular programme of
the day was then taken up, the subject
for discussion being the "Church and
Scientific Thought"
The first essay was prepared by Percy
W. Bunting, editor of the Contemporary
Review, entitled 1.-THE Influence of
Modern Scientific Progress on Religious
Thought" When we speak of the in
huence of scientific Thought, the writer
SAID, we all mean the great theory OF
evolution, which has changed not only
our thoughts, but our methods of think
ing, and has transferred both science
and theology to new plane. Speaking
broadly, the former system of ideas
was statical; it sought to formulate the
Constitution OF Nature
and man conceived as working in GER
tain fixed orbits, according to certain
established rules. The newer system
deals with nature and man conceived
and impelled as a whole along a certain
order of progress towards future end;
IL is dynamlcal, and is conceived not so
much with what is, as with what is to
be.
In order to take this view, the writer
held that it was not necessary to adopt
particular theory of the methods of
the limitation of evolution. The
evolutionary process may prevail
within certain bounds or may be held
universal, absolute, all explaining.
what is important is the broad view of
progress by development, which has
given new mould to thought. 1t does
not appear to me, he says, again, that
the voice of science is in favor of the
goodness Of God. The idea of a Creator
of benevolent purpose but limited pow
erS Is, after all, an eccentricity in our
day. The supreme goodness is an IN
tuition of the heart.
The mind and heart both resent per-
manent chaos and desolation. Gods
moral character is to be learned from
His moral creatures. from the characters
He has made, not from His stones. yege-
tables and beasts. On the whole, the
question Of the fatherhood of God seeks
and can receive little or no light from
any part Of His creation short of man.
The belief in Immortality rests Ultimate
ly in the belief in the fatherhood of
God. God is not the God of the dead,
but of the living-the two thoughts
stand or fall together. The hope of i'm
mortality has never rested upon phys
ical basis. What modern thought has
done has been rather to smooth away
the physical difficulties in its way.
Treating of the spiritual history of
man, the writer says: In this view, man
kind have come into the world by grad
ual process, developed out of creatures
mira human, but possessing alreauy
premonitions of intellectual and even
moral qualities, in the form of instincts.
Consciousness, volition, conscience are
produced gradually, side by side with a
growing complexity of physiological
structure, which is probably necessary
to their manifestation, and the inter
action of society develops ethics and
perhaps religion. LIZ we can perceive
the growth OF mind aud soul from child
to man, accompany the physical growth.
the Increase of wisdom and stature-and
still believe in the reality of the soul,
where is the difficulty in accepting the
same view for the race?
Unbelief and Criticism.
Rev. DR.. Milton S. Terry, of Evanston,
ILL.,, spoke on the attitude of the church
toward the various phases of unbelief.
He said that unbelief was not the Of
spring of the difficulties of religion, but
of the preserve tendencies of the heart
OF man. 1t was not the result of scien-
titic research, but of lack of moral train
ing. Some averred that all religion was
superstition and baDe to the human
race. This took the form of system. 1t
was the old familiar form-it was
Satan's device.
Rev. w. T. Dawson. of England, said
Biblical criticism is now science. 1t
is very young science, though not
younger than many of Its strong and
thriving sisters. 1t is still young. how
ever, and its frame IS by no means fully
formed and set. but it claims to be
treated as science, and must be reck-
oned with as such by religious teachers.
The church should beware of setting its
face resolutely against scientific Chris
tian'criticism. 1t must not take MP DO
Sition that might soon prove untenable.
Rev. Dewart, of Toronto, held that
the great problem confronting the |
church was the necessity of reconciling |
the results of criticism and Christian |
doctrine. The time to settle differences |
by the use of great names had passed.
If any man did not believe in science, |
he did not believe in God, had been said |
before; bnt it was equally true now. |
There was danger of the church PLAYING !
the ostrich and by hiding its head try to |
ignore the things outside.
Religion and Science.
Rev. James Trabtree, of England, |
thought it very desirable to establish |
the greatest friendship between re- |
ligion and science. In any divorce be.
tween them it is religion that will suf- |
fer. The Christian faith and its records |
must not shrink from the most search |
ing criticism if that criticism is made by |
a seeking heart. We only expose our
selves as thinkers and teachers to ridi- |
Guile, If we assume that all those who |
criticize US do so out of a bad heart |
This age claims the right which other |
ages have had to put its own construc-
tion upon truth.
Chairman Arthur, addressing the |
e1uncil, said evolution was the linrolt |
ing of a thing from itself. Give the |
Hover the sun and rain and it would |