We give below some intersting excerpts from a paper on the above subject by the Rev. Canon R. B. Girdlestone, M.A., read before a meeting of the Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society of Great Britain. This society was organized in London, England, upwards of thirty years ago by scholars and scientists interested in a liberal and unprejudiced investigation of religious and scientific subjects, and a fair and candid discussion of the same.

Its primary objects are officially announced to be:—

"First.—To investigate fully and impartially the most important questions of philosophy and science, but more especially those that bear upon the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture.

"Second.—To associate men of science and authors who have already been engaged in such investigations, and all others who may be interested in them, in order to strengthen their efforts by association; and by bringing together the results of such labors, after full discussion, in the printed transactions of an institution, to give greater force and influence to proofs and arguments which might be little known, or even disregarded, if put forward merely by individuals.

"Third.—To consider the mutual bearings of the various scientific conclusions arrived at in the several distinct branches into which science is now divided, in order to get rid of contradictions and conflicting hypotheses, and thus promote the real advancement of true science; and to examine and discuss all supposed scientific results with reference to final causes, and the more comprehensive and fundamental principles of philosophy proper, based upon faith in the existence of one eternal God, who in His wisdom created all things very good."

The Rev. Mary Baker Eddy has for a number of years been an associate life-member of this society, having been specially invited to unite with this distinguished body. It numbers among its membership many other eminent Americans, has exerted a wide influence for good throughout the civilized world, and is destined to extend its radius with the extension of civilization.

It will, of course, be understood that the "science" referred to in connection with this Institute is physical or material science.

Following are some of the more salient points made by the learned Canon. We follow his capitalization strictly:

"There is a rumor current among certain classes that scientific men have dropped their belief in Christ, in the Bible, and even in God. This, as stated broadly, is not true; though doubtless there may be some slight ground for the assertion! The Bible contains at first sight some things which run counter to the principles on which modern natural science acts, and persons who do not profess to be scientific, but who have watched with interest the researches of the last fifty years, have had their faith sorely tried, and have seen the need of reconsidering their attitude towards the Bible from time to time.

"On the whole, however, the tendency of things seems hopeful rather than otherwise, and I propose to enumerate the points in which there has been an approximation between scientific research and Biblical study, and to indicate certain desiderata which must be supplied before complete harmony is established.

"I take the word science in a large sense. I include all investigations of the natural world, and I do not exclude the phenomena of human nature, the higher as well as the lower, the past as well as the present.

"I. The scientific man by no means ignores the Bible. He recognizes that it is a factor not to be overlooked, and its utterances are considered with a certain respect.

"Few would deny that the facts recorded in its pages have been a stimulus to research during the past few centuries.

"Whereas a large proportion of the Bible was a térra incognita to the historian of the past, it is so no longer. Not only have the books of the New Testament been pushed back on strictly historic and literary grounds to the century whence they professedly spring, so that their contents may no longer be regarded as mythical; but also the facts recorded in the Old Testament are taking their places among the materials which the historian of antiquity must digest and reckon with. The historic framework of the Old Testament, so far as it is not purely internal, is established in the main as historical, though not yet confirmed in all its details. Egypt and the East are rapidly yielding up their secrets, archaeology and linguistic lore are contributing their testimony, and with rare exceptions, if any, it is confirmatory of the genuineness and antiquity of the Biblical narrative.

"2. The scientific man is increasingly conscious of the limitation of his powers and functions.

"Every addition to the known opens a new vista into the unknown. Specialization is the order of the day. Physical science is itself only a specialized branch of universal science.

"Many things are given up which were the delight of old times. Men no longer hunt for the philosopher's stone, for the secret of renewal of youth, for a method of attaining perpetual motion. The investigator of nature has ceased to look for Power, and is content with Process; he does not peer into a gland with his microscope in the hope of finding the ego there. Intent on the secret of the origin of life, he has given up—or seems to be on the point of giving up—the idea that the living proceeds from the non-living without the intervention of preceding life.

"3. The scientific man no longer stumbles at some of the old difficulties which have called out the ingenuity of so many 'reconcilers.'

"He no longer measures human history by untold myriads of years, for the physicist steps in and forbids it. The longevity of primeval man is not now scouted as an utter impossibility, thanks to the investigations of the anthropologist. The story. of the Flood is to him a matter of serious study, as the debate on Prof. Prestwich's interesting paper read before the Institute has shown. The student of comparative philology is prepared to detect in the simple story of Babel some strange intervention which may account for what is otherwise unaccountable—the remarkable divergence of human languages viewed in connection with the unity of the race. The crossing of the Red Sea has been recently discussed by this Society, and was regarded as a fact, not as a fiction. I would also call attention to the correspondence now going on in the pages of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly on the stoppage of Jordan when Israel crossed.

"There are other phenomena in the Bible, such as its way of putting things, its selection of topics, and its systematic tracing of everything back to the First Cause, which are replete not only with interest, but with philosophy. Its statements concerning natural phenomena need to be interpreted with extreme accuracy, both on their positive and on their negative side; whilst the series of marvels it records are to be read alongside of its theology and its central teaching, and not as a collection of isolated curiosities or fables. They are signs; and the thing signified by them takes us to the very heart of the Creator. Inductive principles which are the keys to nature are applicable mutatis mutandis to the Bible on all the topics now enumerated; and if these are appled, there will not be any need of farfetched and ingenious 'reconciliations' between the Bible and science.

"If nature must be studied as a whole, so must the Bible. It is a collection of books by writers who unwittingly contribute to a scheme the key to which is to be found in one histroical Personage. To discuss the books without reference to the Personage is like anatomizing a body without reference to its head. We can hardly expect the scientific man in the ordinary sense of the term to study the Bible scientifically unless the theologian does so. Ordinary versions do not always bring out the technical sense of Hebrew words and idioms, and even such a man a Professor Huxley sometimes failed in his criticism of the Bible through an ignorance of Biblical science which was very pardonable in his case.

"The greatest desideratum of all is that Theism should be approached with steady steps from two sides, the Biblical and the scientific.

"It is manifest to every one who thinks at all, that God must be reached in some other way than by the telescope or the microscope. The forces and processes of the material universe do not affect His nature or touch His Being. Space and time, which are the very warp and woof of our existence, are not to Him what they are to us. We can no more see Him or comprehend Him than we can see or comprehend a molecule or an atom. How then can we study His ways?

"It is to human nature—its most spiritual part—that we must turn if we want to catch even a whisper of His real nature.

"At times we stand abashed and silenced as we realize that there are vast regions of existence of which we know next to nothing. I do not speak of the stellar but of the spiritual heavens. The Bible possesses a uniform system of psychology, of morals, and (I think) of metaphysics. Its writers are convinced that we live on the borders of two worlds whose laws are analogous—I will not say identical —and that the material world is a nursery for the spiritual. May not scientific men look into this spiritual world? Do they not recognize psychology as science? May they not investigate on scientific principles its immaterial side, where three empires meet, the psychological, the ethical, and the spiritual? ... We cannot even be conscious of the material without exercising the immaterial.

"I am not pleading for metaphysics, though I for one do not think they are yet played out, and I see no reason why the words 'subjective and objective' should not be baptized afresh in the twentieth century. I plead rather for a more careful inductive survey of the special phenomena of the universe as detected in human nature and revealed in certain phases of human consciousness, and especially in the (divine) Will.

"Yet the Will after all is the chief known factor in the universe; and with the Will we must associate the ego, and with the ego the law of Right; and whence are these? are they the fortuitous products of matter, or are they the outflow of the original personal Mind? Scientific men need not be deterred from giving the true answer through fear of playing into the hands of religion. Let them speak out their deepest and most abiding convictions on this supreme question. Surely they are prepared to affirm that the Theistic hypothesis will account for certain observed facts in the universe, and that a consideration of the spiritual side of human nature turns this hypothesis into a conviction. They are then within measurable distance of the Christian Faith, which invites the Theistic conviction to become a personal experience."

It is a custom of the Society briefly to discuss papers after they have been read. We extract the following from the remarks upon Canon Girdlestone's paper:—

"The Chairman (T. Chaplin, Esq., M.D.), —I am sure we owe our best thanks to Canon Girdlestone for his valuable and timely paper. I speak of it as timely, because I believe the Victoria Institute is now just thirty years in existence, and this paper may, in a certain measure, be regarded as a report of scientific progress during these thirty years. When this Institute was first founded such a paper could not have been written, and we surely have cause for thankfulness that so much progress has been made in this direction. For myself, I cannot help thinking that one reason why so much progress has been made, is that those who desire to reconcile science and religion have been bold in grappling with difficulties. Now there is a very great difference between boldness and rashness, and I think we all feel, as members of this Institute, that while we should be very bold in grappling with difficulties and very bold in carrying our investigations into various departments of science we should ever be strictly on our guard against drawing rash conclusions, whether those conclusions be in favor of the Word of God or whether they seem to be opposed to it.

"Mr. D. Howard, D.L., F.C.S., etc.,—I think we must all agree with our Chairman in what he has said as to the great value of this paper. The chief difficulty which one feels in discussing it is that one agrees with it so entirely, and it is always easier to attack than it is to agree.

"It is a wonderful thing to look back thirty years and to see that certainly the course of thought has not made against but for a sound religious faith. I do not say that nothing has been changed. One cannot view any branch of science without remembering a good deal of change. There is hardly a matter of physical science upon which we have not more or less altered our opinions; but progress from immature to maturer knowledge has tended not to increase, but to diminish the gulf between religious and scientific modes of thought. There has been always that ancient though certainly not commendable habit of mind that has regarded any new discovery as a weapon with which to attack religion. It is a very old habit of mind, in fact almost as old as scientific thought, and the very fact that it still exists is nothing to make one anxious. We have passed through a great change in modes of thought, scientific and otherwise.

"Looking back upon the 'confused noise' that is necessarily associated with battle, we find that in a large measure the confusion has been in the rival armies and has not belonged to the real progress of thought. Scientific and religious thinkers have learnt to understand one another as far as they have been willing to do so."