Mr. Bixby is sometimes quite happy in stating the objections which scientists urge against religion, but we regret that he also sometimes fails to make good his refutation of their views. Thus, on page 149, he presents the argument of science in these words: “Theologians may talk glibly of soul and over-soul, Creator and creation, absolute and Infinite; they may fancy that they understand them; but they are deceiving themselves, mistaking a familiarity with words for a genuine understanding of things. Their high-sounding terms are but covers to their real ignorance.” Indeed, this is a common objection made by those whose habits of mind have been formed in the laboratory, and who have never troubled themselves much about metaphysics. Still, the objection should be met in a patient and painstaking mood, and answer given according to our lights. Mr. Bixby makes his rejoinder a retorqueo argumentum by showing that science, too, bristles with difficulties and is beset with mysteries; that it borrows from conjecture more even than religion does; and that it can never hope to level all the hills and fill up all the valleys which lie along its course. This is very true and very apposite, but it may be asked: Does it contain an answer to the objection as stated? We rather think not. Cannot it be proved that we do really possess some knowledge of the Infinite and the Absolute, and that the apparent unintelligibility of these terms is to be sought for and found rather in the ignorance of those who object to them? The Infinite differs for us
subjectively from no other object of thought on the score of adequacy, since we can have an adequate idea of nothing. Not even of the simplest material objects that surround us can we have at the best more than an inchoate and imperfect knowledge. How, then, can we be expected to conceive the Infinite, except in a very shadowy way, “as in a glass darkly”? Still, the fact that we speak of the Infinite and assert its attributes, that we distinguish Infinite Being from finite, and that our hearts fly towards it in unappeasable longing, is open guarantee that we have some knowledge of it, which is all that the most exacting can demand. Therefore those who confound infinite knowledge of the Infinite, which appertains to the Infinite Being alone, with that subjectively finite knowledge of it which we all possess, display an unpardonable ignorance. This is our answer to those who object that Infinite, as one term, is unintelligible, and we see no necessity for classifying it with the impenetrable secrets with which science is confronted at every step. The same may be said of the term absolute; and though we do not agree with the views of the absolute taken by Mansel, Hamilton, Kant, and Spencer, we know at least that the term has a meaning, that it implies total independence, and is based on that divine attribute which the scholastics denominate Aseity. Mr. Bixby is too timorous in his utterances. He seems to write under a Damocles’ sword, fearing to offend those great men who tread in the stately van of science. But if he hesitates to be dogmatic in one direction, he does not hesitate to be aggressive in another; and when his mood inclines that way, he sets up as the target of his
shafts the doctrines and definitions of the Catholic Church.
In order to prove that Bixbyism is the only religion which is at all reconcilable with science, and to brush aside any pretensions Catholicity might entertain in the same direction, he quotes the following:
“Let him be anathema—
“Who shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions even when opposed to revealed doctrines.”
This proposition does not meet the approbation of Mr. Bixby. If it does not, then its contradictory must be true, which implies that a scientific utterance may be true in the face of an opposing revealed truth. It is to be borne in mind that the revealed doctrines in question are supposed to be revealed, and revealed by God, and the whole statement is resolvable into this: Notwithstanding that God (in whom Mr. Bixby is a believer) has positively affirmed that a given statement is true, Mr. Tyndall or Prof. Huxley may affirm the contrary with impunity—nay, rather with a better title to our acceptance of their views—
“At nos virtutes ipsas invertimus.”
or, as Caramuel says, “We thus sweeten poison with sugar, and color guilt with the appearance of virtue.”
But in order to place himself still more en rapport with his adversaries, Mr. Bixby, seemingly forgetful that he either surrenders the gage or else resolves the conflict into a tilt with a windmill, expresses himself to the following effect: “Religion has no exclusive source of information, but such sources only as are common to all branches of human knowledge.” If this be true,