By means of its crude surmises he frames a kind of theological theory which he weighs against all inspired teaching, and claims to support with a purely rational demonstration; and when any of his researches or speculations appear inconsistent with received interpretation of scripture, he is in haste not merely to unsettle that interpretation, but to impugn the very fact of inspiration, together with the entire doctrinal system it upholds. Science becomes in his hands a crazed parricide, rather than the sane daughter of theology, and with every new discovery aims a deadly blow at the very breasts which nurtured her.

If it be maintained that the former species of ultraist is on the decline, it must be granted that this latter is on the increase. He has been emboldened by the marvels of modern research and the tolerance of the age to advance from the portal to the very shrine of revealed truth. One doctrine after another he is assailing with scientific theories, and undermining by speculative processes. The christology of scripture he thinks to have made obsolete by the discovery, that our earth, once supposed to be the scene of a divine incarnation and center of the universe, is but an insignificant planet lost among myriads of suns. Against its cosmogony, he arrays the nebular hypothesis and the geologic ages. He menaces its anthropology with the theory of indigenAnd as to its soterology, ecclesiology, and

ous races.

eschatology, he does not even admit the fact or need of revelation, but dreams of another gospel, church, and millennium, which are to be the pure product of

reason.

Thus the extremists, on both sides, reach a like degree of divergence and opposition, and in their aims or tendencies are alike destructive. Were either to prevail against the other, an original power of human nature would be annulled, and a vast accumulation of human knowledge dispersed. The real issue made by them, however unwittingly, is whether philosophy shall extirpate theology, or theology shall extirpate philosophy; or, stated more practically, whether civilization shall reduce Christianity to superstition, or Christianity reduce civilization to barbarism.

Now, the prime error of such ultraism is plainly a false view of the normal relations of reason and revelation. There is nothing in the idea of either to necessitate collision or conflict. Viewed in the abstract, the finite and the infinite mind, the divine and the human intelligence, cannot be presumed to be in a state of logical opposition. Each may have its own distinct sphere, method, and aim; and, at the same time, safely concede the like to the other. To put them at war, would be only to force them into abnormal action. It may be taken as an axiom, that it is at once contrary to reason to oppose revelation, and contrary to revelation to oppose reason. So that, where any antagonism springs up between them, it

must be treated as simply anomalous, and such abatements made as follows:

1. It is apparent rather than real. Often it consists of mere logomachy, which would disappear on a close comparison of terms and views. Theological creeds and scientific theories come into conflict, not because of any actual disagreement between the facts of nature and the truths of scripture, but solely because of some false exegesis on the one side, or some false induction on the other. All truth must be found consistent with itself, when freed from admixture with error.

2. It is temporary rather than permanent. The least developed sciences are those which are in this stage of antagonism, while the most exact and complete are already passing into one of lasting harmony. As our philosophy and our theology mature, they will correct and complement each other, until at length they shall stand forth coincident. The unity of knowledge is as axiomatic as the unity of truth.

3. It is, in some of its effects, salutary rather than hurtful. By means of it, the several growths of reason and revelation in history have been disentangled, and left to a freer and more fruitful development. The former have been emancipated from ecclesiastical domination and fanatical interference, and the latter from unsafe alliances with bigotry and superstition; while in both departments new enthusiasms have been kindled and a minuter divi

sion of labors promoted. The fiercest controversy has only disciplined them, and, in the end, found them to be but friends who had mistaken each other for foes.

By such proofs as these, it may be shown that the two kinds of cognition, whatever else they may be, are not hostile and exterminant, but distinct and separate, limiting each other with boundaries which neither can pass except at its own peril. Let the philosopher, then, who would invade theology be warned by that heathen fable wherein "men and gods are represented as unable to draw Jupiter to earth, but Jupiter able to draw them up to heaven;" and let the theologian who would invade philosophy, be warned by that saying of a Christian sage, “If you will try to chop iron, the ax becomes unable to cut even wood."

In contrast with this class, and perhaps occasioned by it, is another which we have termed the indifferentists. These are the theologians and philosophers who insist upon a strict indifference between reason and revelation, or who would respectively have reason to rationalize without revelation, and revelation to dogmatize without reason. They stand aloof from every question into which scripture and science can enter. In mutual dread of invasion, they seem to have agreed upon a division and joint occupancy of the domain of truth, while as to any common ground between them, they will keep up a kind of

armed neutrality or truce until either shall have demonstrated his power to take and hold it in defiance of the other.

The theologian of this class does not invade, but simply ignores the province of reason. In his view, the facts of nature have nothing to do with the truths of scripture, and are to be treated as absolutely irrelevant. When any scientific theory assails his exegesis, he is at no pains to inquire into the relative truth or value of either; and when any scientific discovery sheds new illustration upon a revealed doctrine, he shuns it as a questionable admixture of the sacred with the secular or profane. He clings to the interpretations of a former and darker age, and, in the face of all the light of modern research, refuses either to correct or improve them. Theology, the true mother of the sciences, is turned by him into a monster who spurns them even when they come with joined hands to kneel at her feet.

This species of neutral is a creature of modern controversy. Alarmed at the disastrous inroads of skepticism, he is fain to think there can be no peace or safety but in indifferency, and will therefore allow, within the limits of orthodoxy, the most opposite opinions upon scientific questions. In astronomy, he will not inquire whether other worlds also illustrate the God of scripture, or are but a mere meaningless waste of matter. In geology, he will not decide