Rejecting the Scriptures as of mythical origin, and regarding the universe as an enigma insoluble by man, they differ among themselves, as to whether they shall deny the reality of the Finite or the Infinite, and agree only in degrading the one, and defying the other. Did not St. Paul do well to warn us against the oppositions of science, falsely so-called, the "great swelling words," and "proud, contentious spirit" of its devotees ?

Never was this spirit more rife than now. Never before did it find utterance in such pompous phrase. Never did this false philosophy so vaunt itself as if it would crush Christianity in the madness of its rage, and, by the boldness of its onsets, setting all rational calculations at defiance.

Tho Church has despised its methods, and, therefore, too often ignored its existence, and disregarded its inroads.on the faith. The results, indeed, are not discernible in a day, and it may be never seen in connection with their causes. Nevertheless, these causes exist, are active and efficient in producing the evils of unbelief, first, in the closet of the scholar, and then through the pages of our popular literature, and even from some (so-called) pulpits.

In this state of things, what is the duty of Christian men— what becoming in the clergy more especially? If we let these men alone, they go on publishing their views, and proclaiming that we are frightened into silence by their formidable weapons. of attack. They arrogate to themselves the learning and thought of the age, and the highest results of modern civilization. They boldly assert that the points on which they are compelled to differ from the Church are those of scholarship, science, well-attested principles of philosophy. They affect to pity us as benighted, behind the age, and personally past mending, hopelessly sunk in superstition.

Now, Christian scholars may, and do smile at all this, but if they allow it to pass unchallenged, it has the effect of proof positive on the popular mind, especially when repeated a thousand times, and in a thousand forms, as it has been and will continue to be.

But what shall be done? To descend into the arena of

satanic strife, and to bandy there personal abuse with these men, would be as repugnant to our feelings as it would be inconsistent with our character, whether Christian or clerical.

Science, physical and metaphysical, being the ostensible. ground of these attacks, obviously the weapons of our defense must be drawn from the same source. This is no disparagement to the Scriptures, or to the scriptural argument, since these were not designed for this mode of warfare, nor would their authority be allowed by our opponents, however conclusive it might be.

Further, apologetic, or merely defensive arguments, are not sufficient. A merely defensive attitude is weak, as a position. and a mistake as policy. The Christian warfare is aggressive in all its phases, and in none more so than in this.

No Christian doubts the existence of a personal Deity, or that the Author of Nature and of the Bible is one God. If all believers were natural philosophers, each would be competent to contest the dicta of a skeptical philosophy, out of the fullness of his own mind. But since all are not born or bred philosophers, it becomes the duty of Christian scholars in this age to give particular attention to such departments of learning as will best qualify them to meet and repel the assaults of infidel sciolists. If Christian men, and especially the clergy, will but give such a degree of attention to Natural Science in particular, as its present importance demands, the day is not distant when the injurious impression of an antagonism between Science and Scripture, reason and faith, will be wholly removed.

If feasible, we should advocate the endowment of professorships of Natural Science in all our Theological Seminaries, and make acquisitions in this department of knowledge second only to that of the Sacred Science of Christian Theology. Such a scheme, however desirable, is impracticable for the present, and we therefore earnestly commend to our clerical brethren, as well as to candidates for holy orders, the study of those great works which teach us all that can be learned on these subjects, at least from books.

Among the authors of such works none rank higher than

those whose names are placed at the head of this article. Humboldt, in particular, is the man whose name is a tower of strength. There is no higher general authority on the subjects in the range of his writings, and few are the topics excluded from his extended surveys and wide generalizations. Born on the fourteenth of September, 1769, and educated at Göttingen, he early began his travels by making tours of observation through the principal countries of Europe, including England.

Visiting Spain in 1799, with a view of entering Africa via Cadiz, he received from the Spanish Court such overtures as induced him to turn his steps towards America. From 1799 to 1804 he prosecuted, in the New World, those researches in physical geography which have contributed so largely to extend his reputation among us and in Europe. The next twenty years were passed in Paris, in preparing his great works for publication.

In 1828 he visited Siberia under the special protection of the Russian government, though happily not in the usual form in which this protection is afforded those whose travels extend to that boreal clime. After 1830 he lived chiefly at Berlin, where he was held in the highest honor, both by the court and citizens. To all foreigners he was by far the most interesting person in Prussia, or on the continent. The last twenty years of his life were mainly devoted to the preparation and publication of the Cosmos, so justly called by Bunsen, "The great work of our age."

The Cosmos, then, is his chef d'œuvre, for which he had a half-century to prepare himself by unrivalled opportunities, unwearied studies, and unequalled genius. His life-long work performed, his life-poem sung out, in the Cosmos, he now rests from his earthly toils, and we enter into their results. And we deem this the fitting occasion, the first offered us since his decease, to add ours to the general voice of mourning at his departure.

He died full of years and full of honors, but the death of such a man as as IIumboldt is an irreparable loss to the world whenever it occurs. We speak, of course, as men, knowing

well that the same good God who endowed his mind so richly, has other and, it may be, richer blessings in store for us.

Some may demur to unqualified eulogy of Humboldt, be cause he was not so decided and decisive in the expression of religious opinions as we could desire. We are no more unmindful of this than others, and regret it as much as they. But we must remember that science was his speciality, and so pursued by him as to lead to results essentially, if not technically religious. If we are unwilling to accept and apply these results to the evidences of religion, others are at least ready to pervert them to irreligious purposes, and to plead our indifference as proof of the propriety of their practice. Of course we speak now of those conceptions and beliefs which are fundamental, which, underlying all religious faith, are as essential to the Christian as to any other.

The theories most destructive of Christian belief are those of Atheism and Pantheism, theories far more prevalent as theories than we are apt to think.

Now the essence of both these theories, though by opposite extremes of error, is the rejection of the doctrine of a personal Deity, Creator of all that exists out of Himself.

What we need in addition to the merely instinctive conviction of God's existence, as revealed in the Bible, is such a scientific conception of the universe as will enable us to combat successfully all the subtle theories which skeptics are ever propounding, and by which they gradually poison the public mind.

The Cosmos of Humboldt is a great store-house of facts and principles which will aid us in the formation of this conception as well as in the task of an intellectual exposition of it.

Even though the name of God scarcely appear in the pages of such a work, it is enough for our purpose, if its great lessons, fairly construed, lead us to Christian conclusions. And this we believe to be true, not merely of the Cosmos, but of every other truly scientific system or work. It may not be in words to this express purpose, but none the less certain is the inevitable consequence. As when Humboldt clearly intimates. the conviction of his own mind as to the essential unity of the

universe, where he says: "The fundamental principle of my work on the Cosmos, as enunciated by me more than twenty years ago, in the French and German lectures I gave at Paris and Berlin, comprehended the endeavor to combine all cosmical phenomena in one sole picture of nature, to show in what manner the common conditions, that is to say, the great laws, by which individual groups of these phenomena are governed, have been recognized; and what course has been pursued in ascending from these laws to the discovery of their causal connection. Such an attempt to comprehend the plan of the universe-the order of nature-must begin with a generalization of particular facts, and a knowledge of the conditions under which physical changes regularly and periodically manifest themselves; and must conduct to the thoughtful consideration of the results yielded by empirical observation, but not to a contemplation of the universe based on speculative deductions and development of thought alone, or to a theory of absolute unity independent of experience.

"It is by a separation and classification of phenomena, by an intuitive insight into the play of obscure forces, and by animated expressions, in which the perceptible spectacle is reflected with vivid truthfulness, that we may hope to comprehend and describe the universal all in a manner worthy of the dignity of the word Cosmos in its signification of universe, order of the world, and adornment of this universal order."

To a mind capable of applying what may be learned from Humboldt, the absence of direct application to the evidences of religion, in this great naturalist, will by no means weaken the force of his indirect and incidental testimony. And certain we are that it would be as unworthy as inexpedient, for the clergy ever to speak of this work in particular, or the spirit of scientific men generally, as if either were hostile to the teachings of the Bible.

A gentleman of the highest scientific attainments and of corresponding reputation, both at home and abroad, a devout Christian and a communicant of our Church withal, recently remarked to us, that his rector frequently alluded to science and scientific men as if they were of the age and school of