We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason, but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria, who were almost more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised. Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides. This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,” expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem” and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy. The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst the authority of the Word of God has maintained its place. This having been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas, and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to