precluded from assigning value to the loftier and purer thought of ancient civilization testifying against "the gods many and lords many" of the popular religion; nor do we refuse to make acknowledgment of those ruder and baser examples of religious observance appearing among tribes of uncivilized men in modern times. In defending religion, we are upholding the lofty conceptions of the Greek philosopher, who said that "God is not the author of evil, but of good only;" who declared that God "is one and the same, immutably fixed in his own proper nature,” and that "God and his attributes are absolutely perfect." * On the other hand, we can not escape the serious entanglement found among heathen idolatries, for even while such idolatries are utterly condemned, we are ready to maintain that the most irrational idolatries have more of reason in them than the life which has been emptied of religious faith and exercise.

In view of the wide range of natural religion, and the defence of it here implied, we may define religion, as the recognition of a Sovereign Intelligence originating and gov

* Plato's Republic II. 380, 381.

erning all dependent being, with the homage due from intelligent beings to the Sovereign Intelligence. This is the definition which will include all natural religion, and present the ground of its defence in view of scientific suggestions and perplexities.

But taking the Christian religion as the crown and centre of religious life in the world, we have a more full and commanding testimony as to the glory of the divine nature, and the genuine exercises of a religious life. He is God creating and sustaining all, ruling in righteousness, revealing himself in Jesus Christ, whose glory is "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." He is a God seeking the reconciliation of the guilty with himself. He is a God of mercy, calling all intelligent creatures to fellowship with him, and requiring them all to be "holy even as he is holy." Such is a summary of the teaching of Scripture as to the Divine Being, and our relation to him. Thus are we guided in our utterance before him, "O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isa. xxxvii. 16).

I content myself with a mere summary; for a full knowledge we must take the Bible itself, knowledge of which must be presumed as the condition of criticism, though criticism has been abundant which has borne witness to ignorance of the revelation criticised,ignorance so marked that had it applied to science it would have been held a proof of incompetence for criticism. We are now to take the Bible representation of God, and of his relation to us; and on the other hand of man's faith in him, and spiritual devotion and service. These are the materials to be harmonized with the teachings of science, by demonstrating that the testimony of science points to a government of the universe harmonizing with the testimony of Scripture. And here it is needful that there be explicitness, that our thesis may be placed beyond doubt. The purpose is not merely to show that science lays no foundation for denial of a Supreme Intelligence, or for an atheistic conception of the universe; nor merely that it affords no place for belief in Deity without knowledge of his nature, for utterance of an empty name, without intelligible content, or an agnosticism, which affects to cele

brate the praises of Ignorance, in homage to the name of science; nor merely an immanent or indwelling Deity, who is in all things, and all things in him, so that he is the unifying power, the soul and life of all that is, including those strange contrasts which we call good and evil; but passing all these representations as strange and alien to the Bible, to show that religion and science find their harmony in recognition of a Transcendent Deity, a personal Deity, distinct from the universe,—a personality ruling in righteousness, and delighting to meet the desires of intelligent beings longing after the perfection of holiness.

I can imagine that some devoted students of science are prepared to object to having any share in a discussion which is to include as one of its terms such a purely spiritual conception as this, involving a spiritual relation,and having as its practical expression a spiritual life.

Not a few scientific men may be prepared to say that all this is quite remote from the region with which they are familiar,-that science can hardly be said to come into contact with such a spiritual region of inquiry. And I grant that there is reason for urging

such a consideration. Science can not occupy the place of religion, any more than religion can occupy the place of science. But if there be any on that account feeling themselves precluded from entering on the discussion, they do thereby proclaim themselves disqualified for making any affirmation as to conflict between the two courses of thought and interest. The logical fairness of this argument admits of no challenge. Either scientists must refrain from assertions of conflict, or they must take the declarations of the Bible, and prove their antagonism to the teachings of science, recognized as belonging to a different sphere of inquiry. As well propose to criticise the conclusions of astronomy in disregard of spectrum analysis, as propose to criticise the intellectual worth of religion in neglect of its spiritual significance.

I next pass over to inquire what Science is, taking its own testimony concerning its province and purpose, as I have taken the testimony of religion. Science has for its sphere or province the whole field of outward observation; and has for its purpose the explanation of facts within this field, either by means of direct observations as to the re