others discontented with anything short of its being entirely. razed to the ground. That this is the weapon chiefly employed, however, every one is aware, both those who use it and those against whom it is used. The only mistake is, that the argument is not carried far enough; for it must be clear to every logical mind that if scientific discovery is to be allowed to exercise itself on the Book of Common Prayer, there is no point at which its use can be consistently laid aside until the very root of the matter is reached. For instance, a certain amount of astronomical knowledge has induced the author of this pamphlet on the Book of Common Prayer to include such sentences as these in his scheme for an improved Liturgy:

"Worthy art Thou, O God, of our profoundest veneration; for by Thee it was that we were called into existence, and made inhabitants of this planetary world which is so richly fraught with tokens of Thy providence. It was Thy Almighty power that launched it in its orbit, and made it tributary to that stupendous orb which faintly reflects Thy glory."

Now, though this is an improvement which might have been creditable to and in harmony with the age of Copernicus, it can scarcely be said to be in harmony with the present age. For clearly a Liturgy which is really to harmonize with the best supported astronomical theories of the present age must take account of the nebular hypothesis; and whether the nebular hypothesis leaves any room for an a priori argument in favour of a Liturgy at all, is a consideration which may be left to those who have a mind for it.

The scientific argument, as has been said, is (not only with this able and conscientious writer, but also with many others on the same side) not carried far enough. The "free-thinker," if he once begins to look to modern science for his support, cannot consistently and safely stop till he rests upon that "solid basis" (as it has been called) of Evolution which made such wild havoc of the harmony of the meeting, two or three years ago, of the British Association at Belfast. If anything is to be tested by that system of reasoning which is generally

described as scientific, then everything must be so tested. The importance of recognizing this necessity is so great, that it might almost be said that no one has a right to criticise theology from a scientific point of view unless he is prepared to go this length,-to come down to the "solid basis" of Evolution and take the consequences. For any halt made at an intermediate position will only involve him in hopeless confusion, and leave him in the uncomfortable position assigned to Mahomet's coffin-suspended between two worlds of philosophy, to neither of which he can claim to belong.

Thus, then, it will be seen that the apprehension so frequently expressed in religious circles, that, if once the test of scientific analysis is allowed in respect of matters of religion, there is no point short of Atheism at which the inquirer can stop, is, in a sense, exceedingly well grounded. The ordinary man of business (and the whole British population consists mostly of such) must either believe in the religious traditions. in which he has been brought up, or he must, if he have a regard for logic and be really in earnest, go on till he finds his feet resting on that "solid basis" of Evolution already alluded to; a basis which, like the highway in the Pilgrim's Progress, is safe only for those for whom it is safe. He may begin, like the Liturgical reformer already quoted, with thinking it no harm to bring the Copernican system of astronomy within the scope of his public worship; or, in the following of Dr. Colenso, he may take exception to the arithmetic of the Pentateuch. He may perhaps go a little farther, and think it no harm, especially in such very distinguished company as he will find there, to leave himself no standing ground except the impregnable fortress of "faith in God." But here, even, he is not safe; the disease of criticism which he has contracted "eagerly pursues him still;" and having begun simply with a doubt in the probability of a miracle, or the assertion of the superiority of the Copernican system of astronomy over the Ptolemaic, he finds himself at last compelled to face the questions, "What is faith? What is God?"-questions before which the supposed impregnability of his fortress rapidly

vanishes into air, leaving him, if he would be true to the sincere spirit in which his inquiries began, with but one course open before him-to forsake his last standing ground, and to come forth and lie down desolate amid the dry bones of utter materialism, under the dominion of the unclean spirits of Darwin and of Strauss, and of all things which, in his original position, seemed utterly unholy and abominable.

Sincerely, then, might it be said to him, Do not take that first step, do not thus run the risk of undermining your own moral happiness. Unfortunately, however, so many have taken that first step, and so many have been persuaded, owing to the pressure of a well-meant but miscalculated opposition, into thinking it to be virtue to take not that step only, but many more beyond it, that it is impossible to argue on the subject as if such a mischief as this (and a mischief it must truly be regarded) were now only for the first time threatened. So far is this from being the case, that it is much to be feared there are many persons who, if they have not reached the bottom of the pit, are yet very few steps removed from it. To these it might be said that, as it was formerly their mistake, so it is now their misfortune, that they have not carried the process of scientific analysis far enough; they have not discovered the way out at the farther side of the slough; and that either because they have not the power to see it, or because they prefer to stay where they are. Pressed down by the weight of that scientific Calvinism which is so thoroughly repudiated by all really great scientific minds; doubting, because they are told that all their mental actions are associated with changes of matter, whether they have any minds or thoughts at all; it is extremely probable that they may come to fulfil the fate predicted for the Reprobate in the Seventeenth Article "fall into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation." And therefore, in the abstract, entire sympathy might be felt with those orthodox preachers against the first steps in "infidelity," as the phrase is. But, knowing that practically such warnings are of no avail, and that the tendency towards a

scientific analysis of religious matters is the sign of a “timewave" which nothing can resist, it may perhaps be a better thing to say to the "free-thinker," in his own interest, and possibly in the interest of religion also,-"Do not stand pottering with questions about miracles and inspiration and so on; rather accept the whole scientific position boldly, and save yourself from the demoralizing consequences of successive defeats; make up your mind that Biblical science is totally inaccurate; that the Biblical histories are to all intents and purposes fictional; that the existence of a personal God is an unverifiable proposition; that religious doctrines are merely the shadows of man's own nature cast upon the uncertainties around him; that thought is the collateral of changes in matter; that Darwinism is substantially true, and Evolution the great principle of the universe. Then you will be at least adopting a position of consistency, and, if there is any truth in these religious doctrines at all, if they have any real value in the universe, you will be at least taking the best course, by reason of its consistency, towards ascertaining scientifically what their value is."

Such advice might seem startling, but nevertheless it might be most sincerely given as the best advice under the circumstances; and the best it certainly would be if, as may possibly be shewn, it is upon this advice, upon this principle, that the Christian world is slowly and unconsciously acting in respect of this very conflict (as it is generally called) between Science. and Religion,-acting in that silent and mysterious way which leaves nothing untouched among all the innumerable interests involved, and brings at last out of an apparent confusion a voice of harmony which might indeed, in the sense of the well-worn proverb, be called the voice of God. It is to this complete, and yet perhaps not altogether, in external appearance at least, startling change of general opinion that reference is here meant in speaking of the ultimate tendencies of religious scepticism,-ultimate, as being the final result, even if in some respects a reactionary result, of the conscientious carrying forward of that process of scientific analysis of religion

1

to which allusion has been made. But before making an attempt to trace that process through its further stages, let us see why it would have to be regarded as mischievous if it were to stop short at the point already reached-if it were to take the unhappy pilgrim simply into the very depths of the slough of religious negation and leave him there.

It is not enough, in a paper like the present, simply to be content with re-echoing that product of so many individual experiences, that a life deprived of its religious sanction and illumination is liable to become morally deteriorated. Some reason must be assigned for this, and a reason, too, which shall be drawn rather from a philosophical than a theological source; for it were scarcely fair to expect the thorough-going sceptic to condemn himself by an argument drawn from those very considerations from which he is so desirous to be free,scarcely fair, even were it indeed possible. Granting, as almost all will grant at once, that an impaired morality is a mischief both to the individual and to his surroundings, the question then arises, What reasonable ground is there, if any, for the assertion so often made, that an impaired morality is the result of any marked subjection of religious beliefs to scientific analysis?

Now if it is considered for a moment upon what a healthy moral existence mainly depends, the ground for this assertion will be very plainly recognized. Morality is essentially personal; it consists in the conjoint action of innumerable personal impulses and personal checks (for such checks are personal even though it should be through the persons of others that they make their appeal); and the course taken in respect of morals is the exact balancing of all these impulses and checks. There is, however, this marked difference between checks and impulses, that whereas the latter are so closely interlaced with the mere physical existence as to act unconsciously, and irrespective of all differences of religion, nationality or culture, the former are in a very great degree indeed dependent for their force and nature upon these differences. The desire for wealth is as strong in the Englishman as in the Fuegian,