But it is not only over the Education Question that Science and Ecclesiasticism are virtually at war, although the conflicting principles underlying this controversial difference are illustrated by that dispute. It is not only children who suffer bewilderment by being asked to reconcile irreconcilable elements in their education. Both Science and the Catholic Church profess to be searchers after and upholders of Truth, yet year by year a chasm between them widens as their fundamental differences in procedure become defined; and year by year the number of honest thinkers who cease to regard themselves as members of the Church, or as under her authority, increases. So long as Ecclesiasticism continues to maintain an attitude of resentment towards criticism of religious doctrine, so long must this exodus of intelligence from the Church induce a practical development of the Christian ideals outside ecclesiastical circles.

It cannot be too vigorously affirmed that criticism of the pretensions of Ecclesiasticism is not necessarily an attack upon Christianity. Scientific research has never harmed or demolished the truth in doctrine attributed to Christ. Indeed, the simplicity and beauty of His teaching (in so far as this can be ascertained from a careful study of the Gospels) never shines so convincingly, and never exerts greater influence for good upon mankind, than when, under rational criticism, it is freed in some measure from the accumulation of centuries of superstitious ideas too long supported by the approval of Ecclesiasticism. Science has no quarrel with Christianity as such. A Christian Church, cleansed from all that obscures and dishonours Truth—a Church devoted to the practical furtherance of the ideals contained in Christ's Gospel of Love—would always have the ready help and support of Science. It is not from the Gospel of Love that men turn away to-day, but from dogmas antagonistic to reason, substituted for that gospel and taught by the Church as Truth in the name of Christ. It is not out of a spirit of irreverence that men demand evidence of the truth of what the Church offers them as Christian doctrine, but from an earnest desire to be faithful to that ideal of Truth which is surely the religious, as well as the secular, glory of life.

The figure of Christ stands as the centre of certain axioms professedly conducive to a right understanding of life and the right conduct of men, and He drew to Himself as supporters of His doctrine all sorts and conditions of men who became more or less imbued with the ideas of their Master. The accounts of His three years' mission which have come down to us in the present forms of the Gospels may or may not truly report His actual sayings and doings, and may or may not contain doctrine actually taught by Him. What is written, or by whom written, matters less than an assurance of its intrinsic truth when such is interpreted as doctrine applicable to the spiritual needs of men to-day. All that is true in the writings connected with the mission of Christ requires no miraculous accompaniment to demonstrate its truth: the only requisite standard by which its verity should be tested is that afforded from generation to generation by the current standard of knowledge. Is not the application of scientific methods of criticism to that grand conception of life and its responsibilities which we associate with the name of Christ, the highest compliment we can pay to His memory? For whether He really spoke certain words, did certain deeds, and taught certain doctrines, as in the Gospels He is reported to have done; whether He shared the errors of His age and is directly responsible for the introduction of teaching that is incompatible with known scientific facts; or whether He has not, perhaps, been made the scapegoat for the ignorance of those who came after Him—are questions of insignificant importance compared with the necessity for eliminating falsehood, by whomsoever spoken or written, from doctrine put forth as spiritual truth for thinking men of to-day.

In the estimation of many educated and unprejudiced persons, the fabric of Church government seems to have its origin in the perverted imaginations of men rather than in the ethical teaching of Christ, so far as this can be ascertained by a careful study of the books constituting the New Testament. Considering the discrepancies in the various sayings and doings of Christ as reported by the authors of those several books, the solution of the question as to what He really said and did becomes very difficult, and is complicated in all branches and phases of the history of the Christian Faith by subsequent accretions, finding their origins in the superstitions of the age, and for which no reasonable warrant seems to exist. We have, therefore, in an endeavour to reconcile the teaching of the Church with the supposed teaching of Christ, to fall back on the internal evidence of the intrinsic truth contained in His accepted sayings and doings. Acceptance of these as true occurrences depends upon how far they are consistent with established scientific facts. Truth is Truth, whether its unveiling to the understanding be achieved by Science or Religion. Investigation of the evidence of a supposed truth either, by certifying its verity, leads to its surer stability, with proportionate increase of honour; or, by tracing and eliminating error, gives higher value to the remaining purified residue. If the supposed teaching of Christ were found to be consistent with the modern teaching of Science, the mutual endorsement would be a further guarantee of the verity of the question in point, both in its religious and its scientific aspect. But if an examination of Christian doctrine reveals the presence of dogma utterly irreconcilable with known scientific facts, then, if the cry for Truth raised by both teachers is sincere, the rejection of that which defiles Truth is incumbent upon the disciples of Religion as well as upon those of Science.

The belligerent attitude of Ecclesiasticism towards criticism of her doctrine reflects indirectly discredit upon the Founder of Christianity. To bolster up falsehood taught and written in Christ's name is no honour to Him. The magnification of natural into supernatural occurrences, out of mistaken zeal for His glory, and the refusal to accept the verdict of rational investigation of the evidence for the truth of such occurrences, is not the way to further the ends of Christianity. Is it conceivable that the founder of a code of ethics calculated to meet the needs of men could desire exemption from an examination of the doctrine he taught and believed to be true, or, still less, of doctrine taught in his name, for the truth of which he has given no guarantee? Is it possible that Christ would have resented the idea of a future amplification of His doctrine on the lines of truth by men who perceived the spirit of His teaching, and who desired to honour Him by freeing it from its envelope of superstition, reflecting the errors of the ages through which it had passed? Did not He promise to men a Comforter who would abide with them for ever: "Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.... The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.... When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me" (St John xiv. and xv.).

Did not Christ thus challenge the criticism of the future? Did not He plead for His teaching to be tested by the Spirit of Truth which, proceeding from God, the Father of all life, is present in the world as the guiding principle of all knowledge then, now, and to come? What is that sin against the Holy Ghost impossible of forgiveness, but sin against the Spirit of Truth, which is a deliberate falling short of the glory of God?

II
THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS UNSEEN

The difficulty felt in reconciling the idea of man's possession of an immortal soul with his supposed evolutionary physical descent is in many cases responsible for the exclusion of the scientific interpretation of life from the religious outlook. It is very naturally asked at what point in his development man obtained the spiritual faculty designated by the name of Soul, possession of which constitutes his chief claim to immortality. If he be indeed the product of an evolutionary process entailing the precursion and sacrifice of millions of generations of beings inferior to his present organisation; if his progenitors existed at some remote and unrecorded period of the history of the world, when distinction between man and beast was unknown, when did his separation as a spiritual creature occur? If some process of psychical evolution endowed him with a soul, may not other creatures than man, as yet insufficiently developed, obtain eventually similar spiritual attributes? How then, can the destiny of man be said to be superior to that of the beasts? Is there really such a thing as the soul? What are its distinctive qualities, and how is its presence in personality to be recognised? In short, is a belief in the immortal soul of man compatible with the evolutionary theory of his physical descent? If acceptance of the scientific explanation of his ancestry destroys the justification of his hope for immortality, is not life thereby robbed of its spiritual significance?