logical writings of the Scholastics, especially of Aquinas and Suarez. Distinctions, such as between the state as society and as political power, between public and private happiness, between material and spiritual goods, as well as the nature and limits of political power, were drawn with accuracy. The author shows how the Christian theory of the state differs on the one hand from the theories of Hobbes and Rousseau, and, on the other, from the celebrated theory of C. L. Haller, who antagonized Rousseau with a purely artificial theory. The Christian philosophy is a mean between these two extremes, holding that rights are not derived from God immediately, but mediately as the author of nature in which rights are immediately founded. The reason gives a priori principles and axioms which furnish the foundations of all institutionalism. The study is exceedingly interesting and serviceable, especially as correcting certain crude views of civil society which are sometimes attributed to the Scholastics. Der Materialismus. Gewürdigt durch Darlegung und Widerlegung. Von G. M. Schuler. Pp. iii, 294. Berlin: Druck u. Verlag der Germania, Actien-Gesellschaft fur Verlag u. Druckerei. Mrk. 3.- A popular and very servicable exposition of the character of materialism. The eighteen chapters of the work treat of as many phases of this enemy of institutions. The work shows wide reading, and, by its references and quotations, is a very good compendium of the literature of opinion on the subject. The positions of materialists are for the most part represented in their own words, while the arguments which are brought against them are drawn from philosophers, statesmen, and ecclesiastics. The author has shown great skill in the arrangement of his material, and brings it to bear upon points in question with much force. The aim taken throughout the work is not merely to combat a doctrine, but to show, in the words of Aquinas, that "the being of God is not an article of faith but a truth of the reason." The literary qualities of the work furnish pleasure with instruction. BAD LIEBENSTEIN, GERMANY. Mattoon M. Curtis. THE ANDOVER REVIEW VOLUME XIV-PUBLISHED MONTHLY-NUMBER LXXXIII. NOVEMBER, 1890 CONTENTS PAGE 1. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. Principal Alfred Cave, D. D. 441 2. THE REORGANIZATION OF CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES. A. E. Dunning, D. D. 453 3. LEADERS OF WIDENING RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE. I. THOMAS ERSKINE. Miss Agnes Maule Machar. 4. PRAYERS SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE. Rev. Edward Hungerford. 5. "IN DARKEST ENGLAND AND THE WAY OUT". GENERAL BOOTH'S SOCIAL PLANS. Mr. Robert A. Woods 6. DOGMA IN RELIGION. Professor Smyth 7. EDITORIAL. SUNDAY-SCHOOL BIBLE STUDY CANON LIDDON'S PREACHING THE "RADICAL CHANGE" AT THE MEETING IN MINNEAPOLIS 8. LETTERS AND LIFE. Professor Hardy 9. THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. 464 479 485 . 491 509 512 519 A GENERAL VIEW OF MISSIONS. SECOND SERIES. IX. CHINA (CONTINUED). Rev. 525 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF NINE ON THE METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION AT Jodl's Geschichte der Ethik in der Neueren Philosophie, 545.- Guyan's La Morale 11. BOOKS RECEIVED BOSTON HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY NEW YORK: 11 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET The Riverside Press, Cambridge LONDON: WARD, LOCK & CO., WARWICK HOUSE, SALISBURY SQUARE Entered at the Post Office at Boston as second-class matter ERMS SINGLE NUMBERS, 35 CENTS YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION, $4.00 555 THAT there has been, and still is, a conflict between Religion and Science, I do not stay to illustrate at any length. Let it be granted that the treatment of Galileo by the Inquisition is an indelible blot upon the church of that day. Let it be also granted that the burning of Giordano Bruno was a crime. Nay, for the sake of argument, let the somewhat colored and warm description presented by Dr. Draper in his well-known "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science " be esteemed to be truth, cold and colorless truth. For physical science has indubitably had to fight its way, harassed on all sides by the mounted troops of religion. And I am old enough to remember with shame the personal attacks which were made in many a pulpit and religious periodical upon the illustrious author of that remarkable book which has revolutionized, nay constituted, the science of biology, I mean, of course, Darwin's "Origin of Species." All I will venture to say in extenuation of the conflict is that the fault appears to lie rather in human than in religious nature. Not without advantage to the race, all new truth has to pass through war to victory. All new views, whether concerning nature or man or God, must be prepared to throw down their gage, and be ready to do battle with all comers, before they can be received into the honored company of accredited truths. I do not even know that it would be wise to say, would it were otherwise! But if there be fault, the fault is a fault of human nature, not merely of religious nature. Religious men treat scientists no Copyright, 1890, by HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & Co. worse than they treat religious men, nor, let me add, than scientists treat each other. Man is slow to learn that coercion is a poor minister of truth, just as man is slow to believe that all per secution for opinion, express or social, is ill-advised. Alas, that toleration is a virtue of such slow growth! Alas, that freedom of opinion is a doctrine more frequently preached than practiced! In what I have to say upon the conflict between religion and science, I am anxious not to take either side. Acknowledging, and lamenting, the existence of the conflict, believing, as I do, that the conflict is based largely upon mistake and wholly on unwisdom, my desire is to say a few words as a mediator and peacemaker. For let men calmly and carefully consider what science is, and what religion is, and they will speedily come to see that any conflict between religion and science is, like so many great wars, the result of misunderstanding. For what is science? Science is not nature: science is the product of the human mind considering nature. The distinction is important. God creates nature; man creates science. Science is man's interpretation of nature. Nature is divine in origin; science is human. Doubtless, in endeavoring to acquaint himself, by observation and experi ment and thought, with the facts and laws of nature, the man of science is endeavoring to rethink the divine thoughts embodied in nature; nevertheless, man's rethinking is man's rethinking. From the facts nature provides man constructs the science. Algae and fungi, mosses and ferns, horse-tails and lycopods, acrogens, endoand gens, exogens of many kinds exist in nature; man observes and classifies these facts of vegetation, and constitutes the science of botany. The habits and instincts and structure of man, the wide world over, are open in nature to observation; therefrom man builds up the science of anthropology. Science, then, is not nature; science results when man carefully considers nature. Now what is religion? Religion is not theology. Again the distinction is important. Religion provides the facts from which man makes theology. Theology is the product of the human mind considering religion. In fact, theology is to religion, what science is to nature. Nature is the subject-matter of science; religion is the subject-matter of theology. Religion, like nature, belongs to the domain of facts, not of the interpretation of facts; theology, like science, belongs to the domain of the interpretation of facts. Like nature, religion is divine in source; theology, like science, has a human |