THE TORCH GF REASON, SILVERTON, OREGON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1S%. a n d acceptance of f a c t s ’ is, from the nature of thing-, in­ compatible with the "accepting of revelation ami clinging to a creed.’’ There is hut one plan by which one am, the satin* person may he both a scientist ami a theologian, and th at plan is to m ake a divis­ iug to know w h a t m u st rem a in un- in(p ,jrv ru m o rs o f had c o n d u c t of experience. ion of time and liecome each in knowable, and thereby deceiving w|,ich lie had heard (Gen. xviii. 20 The c o n tra s t het ween science ami turn. A certain time generally . w, J n g r m is told otì to theology, and d u r­ ference between dream s and re a l­ I m ing a h i e to u ing it the person tries io talk, th in k , S c ie n c e , ities, of furnishing the invisible i hey ha « I the I and act as a theologian. I lie re­ laws <»f t heir 1 m ainder of the time is devoted to what th eo lo g ian s like. the s«Tvice of science, and acting of creating God after our ow n im ­ e a rth ly king w In n the at- tributes of omniscience and om ni­ Science discovers facts, hut theol- in aee »f«lanee with the fa d s she age. We maV m»w contrast science potence came to he conceived; the ogy accepts revelation, ami clings has discovered. 1 he great F a ra ­ vit,i theology. In two respects they ¡Jea o f Inan breaking the laws of to creed.-.’’ Science, as the Bishop day himself, one «»I tin* most ♦•mi­ nent scientists ol the century, ire sim ilar; in all others they are (locj j,ecaIne absurd. “ No man m<»st truly says, cmild not accept! lived in this twofold existence. »pposed. Science ami theology are can elller a sir«mg m an’s bouse and “ finality in belief,’’ seeing that her During the »lay he thought and >oth-‘theories of th in g s,’“ and are |,js g(MI,ls unless he first bind dogmas rest ♦ nt »rely on the verifiea- acted on the strictest principi» s >oth based upon assum ptions. l||e sllo llg m an.’’ If two forces ! tion of experience. Theology, on the 1 o f science while in th»* evening he The assum ption of science is nieet, the weaker cannot prevail, i other hand, dealing as she d o e s1 would talk and act as a m em ber of the obscure theological sect •that eternal, invariable order To suppose so is as much a c m - with things outside the range of called Sam lem ania ns. F a ia d a y reigns over the whole univei.se, ij-adielioii in term s as it is to talk verificathui, can accept this final-, during the day ami Fareday in th e were practically two hat no fact, m ental or m aterial, (,f a broken law of nature in the ity; an d , feeling instinctively that evening jxists except as a link in an end- scientific sense. If God wills that her feet rest upon the ground, not distinct persons. But, in this, F ara d ay only repre­ less chain of cause and effect, the njan s| la|j n,,t (|4, a certain act of reason, hut of im a g in a tio n , she sents the vast m ajo rity of men. eing in n a tu re sim ilar to man; contradiction is veiled by the sup- to spend ;dl her time in laboriously , to the dogmas am i legends of an age bat invariable order does not exist: position th at, although man can searching ............... n for facts that is, for when theology was in its prim e ami [hat m iracles have happened, do fo ra tim e overcome God, yet til- tru th — within the horizon of the science an infant, and then for the still happen, and m av happen at tim ately God’s superior strength knowable. In the eyes of a th e o l- rest of the week they th in k and act any tim e; th a t no fact exists except wiR be proved. A nother explana- ogian this is m iserable work, without hesitation, as if they had as a product o fth e will of the m an- tory supposition is th at G od h as W hile science is g ru b b in g (as be never heard of revelation and had This like God. created in man a thing called “ free th in k s ) in the e a rth —in the nar- no faith in ancient legends. Science regards it as the proper w ill,” which has been left uncon- row field of experience theology inconsistency, if conscious, wouhl »bject of inquiry—to ascertain, and diiioned by any cause. Still an- . is soaring „ in the sky, in tin* bound- he productive of gieat moral d eteri­ to express in correct formulas, the other mode of treating toe diffi- less universe of existence, seeing o ra tio n by lessening th»* love »»I »rder in which facts occur. These eulty is to put it aside w ith the re- what eye has never seen, hearing tru th ; hut as it is lor the m ost p art when found by invariable experi- m ark that the fact of m an acting what ear has never heard, ami unconscious— people generally not ‘iice to be correct, she calls ‘‘laws contrary to the will of God is a learning what it is impossihh* for reallv believing what they think ,f’ ni.ture.” A broken law of na- “deep m v stery .’ “ W hen a crime the unaided hum an mind to con- they believe— th is e v ilis much less lure is, from a scientific point of is com m itted, if it was allowed ceivc. Here indeed in her n a tu ia l than m ight he expected. The a t­ view, a contradiction in terms. that man couhl not break clem ent, beyond the realm s of ex- tem pt a t reconciliation by tw isting T heologv a sse rts th a t th e p ro p e r a law o f God, nor act c o n tra ry to peri cnee, theology docs enjoy the and stretching revealed doctrines to aim ami object of all inquiry is to his will, God would he m ade a di- freedom she desires: she is be- m ake them lit perforce with the tacts know what is the will of the m an- reet p articip ato r in the crim e— a yoml the reach of criticism , and ex- discovered by s»*ienee is much more like (Jod; th a t this knowledge is to supposition th a t would he Id a - empt from all necessity to change, deteriorating m orally th an uncon­ he found in hooks called collectively phemy. Yet, on the other hand Seeing, then, that science and scious inconsistency. It is really “ Divine R evelation,” w ritten by it is a contradiction in term s to say theology are the very opposites of m elando Jv to se * a tt *m pt - mad»* to men of old time, who were inspired that a creature could overcome each other, it must be a fu tile task stretch tw enty-four hours into m ill­ in a m iraculous m anner, or in the Ids A lm ighty C reator. This is a to reconcile them : The one is the ions of years; to transm ute the le­ w onl-of-mout h utterances of men great m ysb^ y, and as such it must product ol reason and expet i»*m*e, | gends of Noah and Jonah into h is­ of a certain class set ap a rt to com- he left.’’ the other of im agination and feel- tory; and to try to force the word m unicate it, ami th a t all other In theology this resource for get- ing. Yet repeated failure does not ‘‘creation’’ to mean itsopposite“ evo­ knowledge is at best com paratively ting rid of a difficulty by labelling seem to discourage the attem pt, lu tio n .’ These and such-like en- useless and, if opposed to this, det- it a “ m ystery,” and so putting it The explanation of this is simple. deavors to reconcile modeln science rim ental. T he breaking of G od’s on one side, is a very necessary A person horn, reared, and schooled with ancient theology are worse than laws by m an is not only possible,1 one. In science, when facts and under the influence of theology futile: they have a distinct tendency but constant; and a large proper- theory do not agree, the theory is n a tu ra lly clings to the creed of his to destroy the greatest of all vir­ tion of theological forms and cere- at once and w ithout hesitation re- m other. To pull up what has its tues truthfulness.—.John Wilson. monies consist hut of devices to pro- jected. In theology this is iinpos- roots deep in the feeling necessarily A B E N E D IC T IO N pitiate God, with a view to escape sihle. The fundam ental theory, causes great pain. On the other Now, as we are about to resume the punishm ent which his anger th a t God is m an-like, is contained hand, it is impossible to deny the thus caused would certainly bring, in a m iraculous revelation. Touch trium ps of science. The evidence again our daily vocations of life, let These forms and modes of propitia- th a t with the hand of criticism , for her tru th s is overw helming, us each take with us th ein sp iratio n tion, identical in principle with the and theology eeases to exist. W hat, then, is this ageof transition, of love, friendship and charity. means adopted by peoples to propi- Hence the origin o fth e theological more natural than the wish to ae- Let us think freely am i w ithout pre­ judice, expressing our convictions tiate ea rth ly rulers, include saeri- dogma, th at of all virtues faith is cept the teachings of science flee, prayer.* flattery, self-abasem ent the greatest, and th a t of all sins w ithout giving up the dogma of with th a t courage which fear- no evil. and self-inflicted pain, such as fast- doubt is the most fatal. “ He th a t theology? They both profess to he Let us seek liberty, subdue p as­ ing, injury to the body, wearing of helieveth and is baptised shall he true, and tru th is single; there must filthv clothing, living aw ay from saved; and he that helieveth not therefore, he only a seeming eon sion, he wise and bless h u m an ity frie,uls__in fact, a ll forms of misery shall he dam ned.” Science says: tradiction. Let us find out the way with all our m inds am i hearts: be —all of them self-inflicted in this All I assume is that facts exist, of reconciliation. The task, like faithful in all things, rise above de­ world to gain the favor of (iod in and will continue to exist, ih an in- the discovery of perpetual motion, ceit, lead lives of p u rity ami the next. And g ra n tin g th a t the variable order. My dogmas are to be is a fascinating one; hut it is equally ] tru th ; and the fruit- of our rig h ­ n atu re of God is m anlike, these accepted not absolutely, but alw ays hopeless. Science and theology teousness snail abide forever. D. theological custom - are rational. subject to verification by experience; are m utually opposed: the “ dis- G. Crow. In the theologies of people in the same -tage of intellectual and Theologv is a “ theory <»f thing.«?' moral developm ent as the Hebrew based, as we have seen, upon an e r­ A braham , whose God was -upp»»< e to ,»♦ the on discarded.’ lb e o lo g y , o th e r h a n d , deals w ith a .-abject in w hich verification is im po ssib le, th e nature of God not being a subject e o v e ry