Are science and religion here in harmony in the form and measure compatible in the circumstances? This qualified and guarded form of the question is obviously required, for religious thought does not profess to be scientific, or in any sense authoritative as to the phenomena of nature, that is, as to the facts which observation alone can ascertain, or as to the immediate causes by which these facts are to be explained. On the other hand, science is exclusively a knowledge of nature, consisting of methodized observations concerning distinct orders of facts, and rational inferences founded upon these. It can not in true sense be concerned with the supernatural, but can only present conclusions as to the order and processes of nature, which by subsequent and independent exercise of our intelligence may be contemplated in their relation to the conception of the supernatural, as Intelligent First Cause. This subsequent exercise of thought, whether critical or constructive, is more properly the task of philosophy, in prosecution of those reflective and speculative exercises, which, proceeding from scientific conclusions as accepted data, consider their intellectual value as contributing towards a theory of the universe. Scientific men will, of course, more or less readily pass over to take some share in such philosophic speculation; just as religious men, purely under the impulse of religious interests, will be more or less disposed to do, in proportion to the range of their intellectual life. What is here said is not intended as an argument for any restriction upon such speculation on the part either of scientific or of religious men, for such questions are common property, and the arguments bearing upon them are to be tested by all. But it is of some consequence, specially in the present unsettled and sensitive state of the public mind, that it be clearly recognized that science is not itself responsible for the thoughts of scientific men on these questions; and that religion is not responsible for the thoughts of religious men upon them. Science can not determine any thing as to a philosophy of the supernatural, any more than religion can determine any thing as to a science of nature. Whether we take the violent and even passionate antipathy to any acknowledgment of the supernatural which is found in the Essays of Clifford, or the profoundly reverential acknowledgment of the Deity in the writings and life of Faraday, science is to be credited with neither. And so in like manner, when we have violent denunciations of science professedly in the name of religion, or intelligent appreciation of its high value from accredited upholders of religious truth, religion itself is to be credited with neither the one nor the other. This is a matter which comes within the range of ordinary intelligence. It may indeed belong to philosophy to formulate and develop the arguments in strict harmony with the