PROFESSOR TYNDALL'S SCIENCE.

THERE are very few men, however decided their views against revealed religion, who like being called Atheists. Professor Tyndall does not. His astonishment at the forces of Nature amounts to reverence, and he avers, even when the subject of his discourse does not necessitate his doing so, that "no creed of Atheism can solve the mystery of mysteries." His reverential way of speaking of the unseen unknown Artificer, or Primary Force, might put to shame the presumptuous familiarity of some who rush unawed professedly into the presence of the Most High, and speak of Him as if they understood all His ways. Yet Professor Tyndall does not know God, and, in stating that he does not, he seems to take credit for an amount of humility which it is not quite evident that he really possesses. Whilst he quotes with approbation the well-known sentiment of what is probably the oldest book in the world" man cannot by searching find out God"-he leads us to infer that because Science cannot find Him out He must be unknown. He takes no direct cognizance of the idea that God has revealed Himself to man. Or if He shows us by his arguments that he is conscious of the thought it is by his endeavour to contend against it. On his own showing, therefore, he places God at such an immeasurable distance from himself as fairly to lay himself open to the charge of practical atheism.

But the Professor knows very well, and would have us understand that he knows, that there are men as practical Atheists as himself, who, notwithstanding, make some considerable profession of acquaintance

with God; he is therefore bold to accuse his accusers of scepticism in their own creed, on the somewhat natural assumption that otherwise they would show less alarm at his expressions.* I think, undoubtedly, there is some ground for this charge of scepticism. It may be said Why should a Christian man, knowing what, and in whom he believes, be troubled at the utterances of a man of science unless he had some misgiving that the knowledge to be obtained by the study of nature is more certain than the knowledge which is directly revealed? It is natural that the man of science who does not trouble himself about revelation should think so, but surely his one-sided utterances need give no trouble to a firm believer in revelation more than arises from the evidence which they convey of there being another unit added to the great number who are known to be living without God in the world. Why not accept the proven facts of science fearlessly (none of these have ever yet belied revelation) as we would accept the beneficial works of the engineer or the labourer, without feeling that the want of a living faith in God on their part, if it be so, at all lessens for us the value of their work? We travel from place to place availing ourselves of the most wonderful results of human intellect, and we warm ourselves comfortably at home by the aid of no less wonderful persistency of human labour, and we rejoice, and say that all this is good, without thinking of the oaths, and the curses, and the godless lives which have, in all probability, been expended on our comfort. Why should we be alarmed when the chemist, the geologist, and the physiologist give us the result of their labours and researches, and forget God in the doing of it? I

*See report in the newspapers of a lecture by Professor Tyndall on "Crystalline and Molecular Forces," delivered on Wednesday, the 28th of October, in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester.

say, if we have implicit faith in our principles, language like this might seem more dignified and more consistent with our faith, than the bitter censure which has been so freely expressed upon Professor Tyndall's "Inaugural Address.

But though there is a truth, there is also a fallacy in such language, and the taunt of scepticism made by the Professor against those who censure him is more showy than logical. In his address he assumes for science a distinct position of pre-eminence. The engineer, the artizan, and the coal-miner do not do this. He brings the forces of science abreast of the forces of religion and tries to pass them, in order to reclaim a kingdom which it is the prerogative of the Godtrusting only to conquer, and provokes on the borderland of Knowledge and Ignorance a trial of strength between the two forces. Virtually, though in the most correct and gentlemanly manner, and with abundant evidence that he believes in the strength of his own position, he defies the armies of the living God. The godless work of the labourer or of the engineer is not of this character. It has in it nothing that is antagonistic to the work of those who labour in the heavenly vineyard. Neither in the work of Professor Tyndall simply as a man of science is there anything of this defiance of the agency which God has ordained for the regeneration of society. Therefore, as already intimated, it is not the Science taught by Professor Tyndall in his inaugural address before the British Association at Belfast, that app ears tome to be so extremely objectionable as to call for protest from Christians; nor even the views expressed by the Professor of the relation of Science to religious thought; but it is, above all, his views of the relation of scientific work to the regeneration of society. The former have no practical issue, except evolving the latter, and if false will simply be lived down by Chris

tian men. The latter are directly antagonistic to all Christian work. Yet in the Professor's argument the former was its logical connection, and is, therefore, worthy of examination. We will consider the primary objection first.

Professor Tyndall, in his address, after working upwards in a sort of history of Science till he evolves the Darwinian theory of evolution with especial reference to human life, distinctly affirming as a reasonable scientific deduction from accumulated evidence (though not as absolutely proven), that matter contains within itself all the forces of life, proceeds to state, that "the lifting of the life is the essential point. If dogmatism, fanaticism, and intolerance be kept out, various modes of leverage may be applied for lifting the life to a higher level." We are not allowed by the context to understand this in the sense which the merely isolated passage might seem to imply, viz., that much may be done by the aid of Science, in an enlightened Christian spirit, to elevate the moral and social condition of mankind; which would be simply a truism. He has already reverently placed his unknown God at the extreme distance of inconceivable Eons. In his view, therefore, it is evident that all yielding to the natural (if it be natural) human instinct of prayer to such a far-off Being must be fanaticism; all assertion that such a Being has ever directly revealed Himself to man must be dogmatism; and the claim which Christianity has ever made to be the only power which can effectually and permanently raise the life of man to a higher level must be intense intolerance. Between such views of Science and Christianity there can be no compromise, but only war, till, in the struggle for existence between the two opposing armies, the weakest shall succumb.

Can nothing be done, then, to alleviate the bitterness of this struggle, and to hasten the issue-a strug

gle as between twin brothers? As a Christian speaking to Christians, I would say much may be done by us. When, as in the case before us, a definite statement is made as the result of scientific investigation which is antagonistic to Christianity, both in fact and purpose, Christian men must protest. But we have no occasion to protest against the results in detail of scientific investigations, of which, perhaps, from our training, we can form no independent judgment, merely because they seem to point to conclusions contrary to the religious prejudices of our education.

Science has done much for religion in removing superstition; there is room for it to do more yet. It is, even in the hand of Professor Tyndall, a witness to the truth of Christianity, by its confession that it cannot find out God. It is just because it cannot find out God, that God has revealed Himself to man by other means.

As Christians, then, let us accept fearlessly the proven facts of Science, and let us wait patiently, and with Christian charity towards the investigators, for the result of scientific research, even if the apparent tendency of such research be to establish theories opposed to some of our religious ideas. Nothing can affect us as regards those fundamental truths which are based upon our practical experience of the Christian life. There is no reason why we should not hold much that we believe, as subject to correction. For instance, it is a zeal without knowledge which would tenaciously hold by such an illogical statement as that the whole truth of revealed religion must stand or fall with the correctness or otherwise of beliefs which seem at present to be the natural outcome of certain difficult passages in the Pentateuch. in the Pentateuch. Yet virtually this is what some Christian disputants maintain, thereby needlessly offending the honest convictions of scientific men.

At the same time a fair and charitable mode of dealing with scientific theories, which seem opposed