In other times, attempts, more or less unsuccessful, have been made to restore natural amity between these embittered adversaries. The Euhemerism of the Greeks was an effort to explain the legendarj' su- perstitions of Greece so as to render them acceptable to the enlightened doubts of Hellenic philosophy. See EuiiEMERus. A second and more elaborate plan for the maintenance of the expiring reverence for the di- vinities of the pagan world was hazarded by the Neo- Platonists. See Neo-Platonisji. Botli experiments signally failed. In a much later period, with wholly dissimilar weapons, and with much vaster interests at stake, the illustrious Leibnitz undertook to reconcile religion and reason in a treatise equally remarkable for the classical elegance of its stvle, and for the vigor and profunditj' of its argumentation. It was negative in its character, and onh' offered a compromise. Such was also the comjilexion of the admiralile work of bishop Butler on tlic Analogi/ of Natural and Revealed Religion. In consequence, these luminous essays only interpose as landmarks in the midst of the waves be- tween the hardy scepticism of the beginning and the revolutionary atheism of the close of the 18th ccntuiy. The war has become more determined, even though it may have gradually lost much of its earlier bitterness. Extremists on both sides now declare that there is an implacable antagonism between faith and science. Ministers of religion may be found denouncing the procedures and conclusions of science as " enmit}' with God," and as incompatible with revealed truth ; as if the laws of the creation could be at variance with the declarations of tlie Creator. Adepts in scientilic re- search, on the other hand, proclaim the deceptiveness and inanity of all religious doctrine as contradictorj"- to the clearly ascertained processes of the universe ; as if the phenomena of matter could controvert the constitution of the human mind, and the ineradicable instincts, appetencies, and requirements of the human heart.
Yet, even in this apparently hopeless state of dis- cord, renewed endeavors have been made to l)riug the great adversaries into harmonious union. The most recent and the most notable of these is that of Herbert I Spencer, which is plausible in its pretensions, liut most ! delusive in its results. It is singularly insidious in
FAITH AND REASON
465
FAITH AND REASON
design and in execution. It betraj's with a kiss, and deals a mortal stab while inquiring, "How is it with tliec, my brother?" It recognises the universality', the indestructibility, the necessitj' of religious belief, admits the impossibilit}' of ignoring or dispelling the attributes of a Supreme Being, and 3'et attenuates ev- erything thus admitted till it sublimates these con- ceptions into a vaporous phenomenalism, a misty hal- lucination of the human mind under tlie perennial hy- pochondria of a morljid fantasy. No suspension of anns has been obtained, because each party hopes for a decisive victory. But the prolongation and exacer- bation of this strife are most disastrous, not merelj' to the legitimate authoiitj' of religion, but to the equally legitimate demands of science. One portion of the Christian community is repelled from the prompt ac- ceptance and the zealous encouragement of the discov- eries of science by the apprehension that the buhVarks of revealed religion ma}' be surrendered to an unspar- ing foe. Another portion rejects the teachings of the Church and of the Christian creed from disgust at an unreasoning and unreasonable opposition to science. A third party, intermediate between the two,_ extends a hand to both ; surrenders whatever rationalism ques- tions, and professes to retain in a changed sense all that is essential in the dogmas of religion. Mean- while, those of vicious inclinations find an excuse for the indulgence of their passions and the rejection of moral restraints in an intelligent repudiation or in a doulitful acknowledgment of religion ; while the mul- titude, careless and stolid, pursues its private ambi- tions or personal whims without regard to the obliga- tions of this life, without concern for that great here- after which occupies no place in its thoughts. The conciliation of faith and science thus becomes more ur- gent than in any former time, and its urgency is in- creased bj' the difficulty of accomplishing it in the midst of contentions between reciprocally rcpellant coml)atants, armed on the one side with the thunders of the Almighty, the promises of heaven, and the terrors of hell, and on the other with the dazzling panoply of modern investigation, and witli weapons wreathed with the laurels of a centur_y of scientilic achievements. The re-establishment of fraternal union between two so widely alienated disputants must be an arduous and always a somewhat doubtful task. "(2'<'s concordahit tcintam conlrarietatem?''^ A mere truce will answer no good purpose. It would simph' convert a running sore into a purulent condition of the Avhole system. The conciliation, to be efficient, must rest on an essen- tial harmony of principles, on a recognised dissimilar- it}' of aims and applications. Even then tlie agree- ment may be liable to occasional rupture from recipro- cal jealousies ; but room must be allowed for partial dissent, as in these high questions no more can be ex- pected than an imsteady conqiiiescence — discordta con- cors. Whether even this agreement is attainable must be uncertain till it has been attained; it may be re- served for that blessed expansion of our discernment when we shall no longer "see as through a glass dark- 1}'." But, in the mean time, there is a higli obligation resting upon those who would repudiate neither the sanctifying influences of a holy life, nor the illumina- tion of secular learning, to seek out the grounds of reconciliation, and to renew the marriage of the liber- al arts with theology. This seems to be the appropri- ate duty and the peculiar aspiration of the present age, and tlie imperfect or delusive efforts made in this direction indicate the latent consciousness that it is so. The instinctive nism, often grievousl}' misdirected, al- ways precedes the solution of the great enigmas of hu- manity. Before any reasonable liope, however, of a satisfactory' result ciin be entertained, it is necessary CO ascertain the conditions of the problem, and to dis- cover among the obvious and multitudinous discrepan- ces whether there is any essential identity between the opposing forces. If there is, there may be a pros- Ill.— G o