more modestly from the sight of men. She is certainly less dogmatic, less
dictatorial, less abounding in positive assertion, than what now passes
for "science," in the popular estimation. Perhaps Mr. Herbert Spencer
represents the scientific side of a greater number of questions agitating
the public mind to-day, than any other one man, and he is still
industriously engaged in solving, or endeavoring to solve, a greater
number of social problems. And yet the most enthusiastic admirer of this
gentleman will be forced to admit, when driven to the wall of actual
controversy, that one-half, if not two-thirds, of his more formidable
statements, put forth in the name of science, remain undemonstrated as
scientific truths. We are thankful enough, however, for the one-third he
has vouchsafed us to let the other two-thirds pass as the dogmatic
achievements of his wonderfully gifted pen.

Professor Beale asks the question, whether "a man who has the gift of
science must ever be wanting in the gift of faith?" It is certain that
this inquiry sharply emphasizes the antagonism at present existing between
materialistic science and religious faith. But there is only one reason
why this antagonism should be continued, and that is, the persistent claim
of science to superior recognition in all cases where there is the
slightest apparent conflict between the two. Certainly no man ever did
more to popularize the genuine truths of science in this country than
Professor Agassiz, or worked more successfully to that end. He was willing
to place the decorative wreath on the starry forehead of science, but
refused to pluck from the soul "the starry eyes of faith and hope," that
man might be dwarfed down to the "nearest of kin" to the anthropoid ape.

When we come to this assumed relationship in genetic types, we have not so
much as laid the first abutment of the bridge by which these revivers of
Lucretian materialism would span the chasm between mind and matter,