through this dominion, becomes day after day more free from earthly restraints, but each day more and more a slave to his earthly passions; when blinded man builds altars, and sings praises to his own skill and wit, instead of to his Heavenly Father, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift -oh! have not even the ancients foretold, what must become of such a generation in that wonderful fable of the daring of Prometheus, who, with violent hands stole from heaven its vivifying fire? What we here speak of is no anxious dream, no unreal imagination; no! undeniable is the existing tendency in this generation, to consecrate the temple which our pious forefathers reared to their Father in heaven, to man, the fleeting son of an hour."

Who is to blame for this forgetfulness of God by the cultivators of science, but the churches that have omitted to teach the sacred character of Nature, and to acknowledge her instruction as Divine ?

To those whose understandings have embraced the views which I am now advancing, and whose religious sentiments have been interwoven with them, "this eternal sacredness" stands forth in all the beauty, brightness, and intensity, which it ever possessed in the minds of the men of the seventeenth century. Mr Carlyle adds: "We think that too," (viz. the "sacredness of the universe," "cant and a creed." Yesmen of science, whose religious sentiments have never been led to recognise the Divine adaptations in nature as proclamations of the Divine will and attributes, but who have pursued their investigations from intellectual or interested motives alone, do regard the views which I am now advocating as cant and a creed." To such individuals I can only say that the religious sentiments exist in man; that the experience of all ages shews that in youth they may be directed to almost any object, and will thereafter cling to it as sacred throughout life; and the question is-Whether their legitimate direction is exclusively to dogmas and formulas of belief in reference mainly to another world, framed by fallible men in the dark ages as true interpretations of Scripture; or also towards that revelation which is addressed by the great Ruler of the universe to man in nature, and adapted to promote his improvement and enjoyment?

If we can persuade the people that the course of nature, which determines their condition at every moment of their lives, "is the design-law-command-instruction (any word will do), of an all-powerful though unseen Ruler, it will become a religion with them; obedience will be felt as a wish and a duty, an interest and a necessity." The friend from whose letter I quote these words adds: "But can you per

* A Selection from the University Sermons of Augustus Tholuck, D.D., &c., p. 181. London, Seeley, 1844.

suade mankind thus? I mean, can you give them a practical conviction ?" I answer: In the present unsatisfactory condition of things, the experiment is at least worth the trying. Whatever objections may exist to this proposal, something is needed to reconcile religion and science; for, as Mr Carlyle remarks, "the old names suggest new things to usnot august and divine, but hypocritical, pitiable, and detestable. The old names and similitudes of belief still circulate from tongue to tongue, though now in such a ghastly condition not as commandments of the living God, which we must do or perish eternally; alas, no, as something very different from that."

CHAPTER II.

DEFINITION OF THE WORDS SCIENCE AND RELIGION, AND ELUCIDATIONS OF THE COMPLEX CHARACTER OF RELIGION.

In an enquiry into the relation between science and religion, it is necessary to define what is meant by these terms. By science, then, I understand a systematic exposition of correctly observed facts concerning the constitution, qualities, modes of action, and relations of the objects of nature.

It is unnecessary to enlarge on the definition of science; but, as much obscurity exists with respect to the nature and objects of religion, it may be useful to enter more fully into an elucidation of this subject.

It is generally acknowledged that there is a distinction between the emotional and intellectual faculties of men, but the mind being considered by many persons as a single power, the distinction is, in their view, one of nomenclature merely. Phrenological observations lead to a different view.

There is in the brain an organ for each primitive emotion, and one for each primitive intellectual faculty. And not only are these organs distinct from each other in space, but the natural vigour of each emotion, and of each intellectual power, depends on the size and condition of its organ.

Religion is not a product of intellect alone. No kind, quantity, or quality, of intellectual conceptions, will generate religious emotions. On the other hand, the religious emotions which prompt us to reverence and adore, cannot reach definite objects without the aid of the intellectual powers. These objects, also, may be physical or mental. Entwine the reverential emotions from infancy with the statue of Jupiter, and it will become a religious object: connect them with dogmas and articles of faith, and these will be reverenced as religious truths.

The kind of intellectual conceptions with which the religious emotions may be associated, will depend upon the strength and cultivation of both of these orders of faculties. If the religious organs be naturally very large and much exercised, and those of the intellect feeble and undisciplined, the emotions

may be trained to invest almost any objects with the attribute of holiness and to regard them with reverence. For example, in ancient Egypt, reptiles and birds were objects of religious veneration. In Hindostan, Juggernaut is worshipped; in Greece and Rome, Jupiter and Apollo, Juno, Venus, and Diana, and many other imaginary beings, were adored as deities. In these countries, the religious emotions were trained from infancy to reverence the statues of these imaginary personages as worthy of religious homage.

The intellectual faculties not only perceive the external objects represented as sacred, but receive the instruction concerning their qualities, which the religious teachers of the people choose to communicate; and the combination of the religious emotions with these ideas constitutes the religion of the various worshippers. When the silversmiths of Ephesus shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" it is insinuated that they knew that she was only an idol, and affected reverence for her merely for the sake of gain, because they made shrines for her temple. If this surmise be correct, their intellects were so far enlightened that the association between their religious emotions and her statue and temple was dissolved; she was no longer an object of reverence to them; but at the same time they knew that this connection still subsisted in the minds of the people, and they relied on the strength and sincerity of the popular belief as the means of exciting opposition to the apostle.

When, on the other hand, the intellectual organs are powerful and well cultivated, and those of the religious emotions feeble and little exercised, the individual will, with great difficulty, attain a strong living religious character. He may try to believe dogmas, perform ceremonies, and conform to observances; but he will feel, and penetrating observers will discover, that the unction of piety is not a powerful element in his mental constitution.

Religion, in the common acceptation of the term, means a system of divine faith and worship, and thus used it expresses only external objects. In the present treatise, I consider it as a mental state, made up of certain emotions and intellectual conceptions. In this subjective sense, these two are necessary to constitute religion.

As this proposition is a fundamental one in the discussions on which we are about to enter, and as it will probably be new to some readers, a few illustrations of it may be useful. In the following instances objects possessing in themselves no sacred qualities, are invested with such a character by becoming associated with the religious emotions.

In England, for example, grave-yards and churches are consecrated, and in Scotland they are not. What constitutes consecration? A Bishop performs certain ceremonies, reads certain prayers, and declares the ground holy and set apart to receive the bodies of believers, there to rest till the resurrection. In like manner he declares the church to be sacred, and dedicates it to the worship of God. In England, the religious emotions are, from infancy, entwined with these ceremonies and objects; and in the mind of the thoroughbredChurch of England Christian, in whom the religious organs are large and active, these places actually become sacred. He shudders at the idea of being buried in unconsecrated ground, and is shocked at the proposal to transact secular business in a church. If there were a naturally sacred character in the burial-ground and church, consecration would be unnecessary; and as it is incredible that the ceremonies change their nature, the change can occur only in the minds of the people. How are these acts viewed by the staunch Scotch Presbyterian,-one trained from infancy to venerate Calvin and John Knox, the Shorter Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and his own church-ceremonies, and taught, moreover, that Episcopalians and Bishops persecuted his ancestors to death, and still profess a religion closely allied to that of the Church of Rome? To such a person, the ceremonies of consecration appear as unmeaning and unreal as the incantations of the witches in Macbeth; the grave-yard appears to him merely a piece of ground, and the church four walls and a roof; and he regards the sacred or holy character in which these appear to the Englishman as a superstitious fancy! And why does he do so? Because he views them through his intellect alone, which experiences no emotions; while, from infancy, feelings of hatred have been associated in his mind with the Episcopalian doctrines and ritual.

With the sound Scotch Presbyterian no edifice is sacred. In Edinburgh, a theatre was long used on week days for the drama, and on Sundays as a church. The English Churchman would have revolted at this practice. A congregation of the Free Church of Scotland worshipped in a music-hall; and in the new cemeteries, a portion of the ground is consecrated. for the burial of Episcopalians, and the remainder is unconsecrated for Presbyterian use. A line on the ground-plan or a walk in the grave-yard distinguishes the parts, but no demarcation indicative of difference of character is discernible. During the agitation for repeal of the corn law, a deputation of English Repealers visited Scotland. A meeting was advertised to be held in the county-hall in a provincial town

B