SCIENCE AND SERMONS.(nov24)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.

Sir,—There may have been temerity, there certainly was courage and excellent intention, in the attempt made by the Rev. Mr. Perks to adjust, for the benefit of his scanty audience at Richmond the other evening, the conflicting teachings of science and revelation. It is to be regretted that your reporter did not furnish those readers of The Argus who feel an interest in such themes, with a somewhat fuller summary of Mr. Perks's lecture. For such readers the brief notice supplied possesses, in a high degree, that quality which the elder Mr. Weller held to be the secret of successful love-letter writing—" She'll wish there was more of it, Sammy!"   I, for one, decidedly wish there were more of that slight outline of a discourse by a beneficed clergyman, designed to reconcile scripture with science, to bring Moses and Lyell into full accord, and to demonstrate that a most beautiful harmony exists between the doctrines of St. Paul and the doctrines of Darwin.

The discourse which is to accomplish all this, I respectfully submit, still remains to be delivered. Neither the reconciler nor the reconciliation has yet appeared—at least, so far as I know, and I have searched for both with keen scrutiny since I read, and read again, with rapt attention and troubled thoughts, the two discourses delivered by Dr. Joseph Dalton, Hooker and Professor Tyndall respectively, at the late meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Possessed by the enthralling interest which those wonderful expositions of the genius and achievements of modern science are so powerfully calculated to excite in the mind of any thinking man, I took up The Argus for the day, and the first thing my eyes rested upon was a leading article on the Taylor scandal. The mental descent from considerations on Hooker and Tyndall to considerations on the Rev. James Taylor was both abrupt and deep. The most inconsiderate amongst the boys and girls in the Sunday school must surely be struck with the conviction that, if the church's answer to the men of science takes the sole practical shape (as it has taken here of late) of a series of clerical scandals of variable degrees of atrocity, the church's prospects are none of the brightest. On the one side there is masterly intelligence, almost unlimited knowledge, unwearying investigation of facts, invincible patience in the pursuit of truth, rigorous logic, a sublime earnestness, and a noble persuasive eloquence; on the other side there is the daily scandalous chronicle of clerical delinquencies, and the reports of the nightly church meetings to deal with the same. I think one must allow that, in a contest so unequal, the victory already falls to the man of science.

But, grant that the "curious coincidence" I am dwelling on was, after all, merely fortuitous, and therefore misleading. Thrust out of view the detestable clerical scandals, and then I take leave to ask, what reply has the pulpit to make to Hooker and Tyndall? None at all. Is the startling challenge of the men of science to be met only by a course of persistent, silent evasion? That, surely, would be cowardice of the basest kind, and treachery to a sacred trust as well. But more—it would be confessed defeat. If Hooker and Tyndall are unanswered, and are confessedly unanswerable, then let the church abandon the field as speedily as it may. Its course is run, albeit its mission be still sadly unfulfilled.

Let it not be said that there is no challenge from the side of science. With presumptuous and self-exalting ignorance, all unknowing of its own darkness, we have nothing to do. No challenge! Why, there is that in the whole tenor of Dr. Joseph Dalton Hooker's discourse, and especially in the concluding paragraphs, which ought to make both ears of every professional teacher of religion tingle. Let them read what the President of the British Association says of the Darwin doctrines, of the results of the recent researches in prehistoric archæology, of "that most dangerous of all two-edged weapons, natural theology— a science falsely so-called," and of the grounds on which alone the reconciliation of science and religion can be founded—and then say if there be no challenge. Let them peruse Tyndall's brilliant address, and say if there be not a challenge for them in every line of it. Yes, there is a challenge; and if it be not honestly and fully accepted and answered, they may depend upon it that the young intelligence maturing around them will swiftly lead to the conclusion that there is no answer possible. It is vain, and it is dangerous, to suppress the truth as to this matter; and the truth is that, in the presence of these latest deliberate assertions of science, the sermons which shirk all reference to them are simply superfluous and impertinent rhapsodies.

I conclude by adding that the object of this letter terminates with itself. No discussion is intended, and none will be attempted, of the great questions at issue between science and belief in these columns.—I am, &c.,

Nov. 17. HABITANS IN CEDAR.

 The Argus 24/11/1868,