verse. It is pathetic, it is tragic, to behold a sincere and lofty ethical movement seeking vainly to establish itself upon an Agnostic foundation. Who cannot foresee the end of such a movement? Either it will seek, before it is too late, a new foundation in Scientific Theology, or else it will die of intellectual and spiritual thirst in Agnosticism. For it stands written in the nature of things that, amidst the fury of contending passions, the Moral Ideal itself shall go to the wall, unless it drink omnipotence from the Divine Idea.

This is the living issue which confronts all who have at heart the real service of mankind-the issue between Agnosticism and Scientific Theology; and it must be settled in the world of thought. Henceforth, for all educated men, the unity and continuity of method in common sense, science, philosophy, ethics, religion, has become an axiom; henceforth the only avenue to the knowledge of truth is the Scientific Method. It is futile indeed to dream of reversing that irreversible verdict of the nineteenth century. But whether, or not, this method can discover the Divine unity of the universe, and thus prove that Nature is but another name for God-this is the issue, still unsettled in the world's doubting mind and troubled heart, which assigns to all Liberal Ministers alike one and the same task. Put into the fewest words, the issue is-Scientific Theology, or No Theology at all. Now, if ever, is it time that the great God should let loose a thinker on this planet.

If, then, there is to be any permanent ministry of Liberal Religion, it must plant itself upon Scientific Theology. Real knowledge of the constitution of the real universe, as at once Nature and God: there is no other ground left for it to stand upon. Religion which is not liberal, and which, therefore, addresses itself in vain to this Agnostic age, may still stand upon the arbitrary authority of sentiment, society, tradition, church, creed, book, or individual voice. But religion which is liberal can

stand only on natural truth in its universality on the method which investigates and discovers truth in the limitless freedom of science. Natural truth-what other foundation is possible for anything liberal? For us, therefore, this is the supremely practical question of questions: what does Nature, in its widest and highest sense, reveal of God to Man?

What the illustrious Agassiz said to one who thought he had discovered the universal philosophy of science was singularly, even prophetically, true.

"I believe," said Agassiz, "in the existence, in the nature of things, of just such a science as you claim to have discovered; and in this I differ from most scientific men, who seem as yet to have no conception of Unity of Law, and who would therefore regard your whole pretension as Utopian. Further than this, I believe that we are just in this age on the verge of making the discovery; and that somebody will make it. Whether you have it or not, I am of course unable to say. The presumption is strongly against any individual claimant. . . . Indeed, I doubt whether, if you have all you claim, the scientific men, so called, will be the first to appreciate it. We are all intense specialists; and, when the Unitary Science comes in the world, it will be something so entirely aside from our fixed habits of thought, that I think it will find its first appreciators, probably, among men of enlarged and general culture, rather than among specialists in science."

No man of the nineteenth century has shown a broader mind or a profounder philosophical insight than Agassiz showed in these words; and I believe that the future will find them prophetic. In the Christian Examiner of March, 1866, it was said: "Theism and Atheism are in the scales, and Science holds the balance." That statement will not now be doubted by any who are acquainted with the real drift of modern thought. In the final upshot, what men think of God must depend on what they know of Nature; and that knowledge is

Science.

But what men think of God cannot depend on the results of any one special science, nor yet on any mere patchwork or mosaic of results of all the special sciences; it must depend only on universal science, world-science, scientific philosophy. Neither physics, nor mechanics, nor biology, nor any other special science, can alone generate an adequate world-conception. He alone who, in all the results of all the special sciences, grasps their one strictly universal principle, and thereby discovers the scientific demonstration of God in the scientific method itself, he alone, I say, can comprehend what scientific theology means, or speak with convincing power to the profound, widespread, and sincere intellectual doubt of the modern world.

Without advancing any personal claim whatever, permit me to take advantage of your indulgent kindness, and to make here the first public confession of certain painfully matured results of thirty years' thinking, which, in the momentous and arduous enterprise of developing a scientific theology out of the scientific method itself, appear to be principles of cosmical import. The grounds and evidences of these principles, in part now in process of publication elsewhere, must here, of course, be wholly waived; time fails, and the occasion is unfit. But perhaps I can make them intelligible, as a contribution to that "Unitary Science" which the great Agassiz foresaw and foretold.

I. In all its investigations, Science devotes itself to the study of genera and species in themselves-to the discrimination and exact determination of innumerable kinds of things -in a word, to the study of universals as realities. Now a truly philosophic theory of universals, which must underlie and can alone explain the scientific method, brings to light a law of illimitable significance and absorbing interest: namely, that, in every genus or species, the Thing and the Kind reciprocally reveal each other through the essential nature which is common to both. For instance, the individual Man and the universal Mankind reciprocally reveal each

men.

other through the Humanity, or class-essence, or essential human nature, which is common to both. This law is presupposed in every induction from experience, in every deduction of reason, nay, in every syllogism of the science of reasoning itself; without it, we could not reason from the nature of individual men to that of the race, or from the nature of the race to that of individual But the innumerable kinds of things contained in Nature are all so grouped and connected together, that every kind or genus is itself a thing to a higher genus; and hence the universe of Being is only the highest kind of kinds. In this way, it is plain, every kind and every thing in Nature more or less reveals Nature as it exists in itself-manifests to the human understanding something of its total constitution or essence. Here, then, we have a Natural Law of Revelation, in accordance with which Infinite Being reveals something of its own innermost essence in every genus, and every species, and every thing, which Science discovers and knows in Nature. In truth, the reality of a World-Order is itself the possibility of a World-Science. From this it follows that it is neither more nor less than intellectually absurd to declare the essential nature of Infinite Being "unknowable by man"; and the central principle of all Agnosticism is shown to be in flat contradiction of the fundamental law of Science.

II. There are but three ultimate kinds of actual existence, three ultimate Types of Real Being; namely, the Machine, the Organism, the Person. If science is to conceive the real universe at all in its unity and universality, it can conceive it only as belonging to one of these three types. The distinctive principle of the Machine is mechanical causality, or cause and effect in Motion; the distinctive principle of the Organism is organic finality, or end and means in Life; and the distinctive principle of the Person is ideal morality, or right and wrong in Conduct. Causality, Finality, and Morality are, therefore, the three ultimate Principles of Real Being.

III. Profound analysis and comparison of these three real types and their essential principles, as manifested in actual experience, lead to a discovery of transcendent sublimity. Each and every one of us is, at once, a Machine, au Organism, and a Person; each and every one of us comes under the law of Causality in Motion, of Finality in Life, and of Morality in Conduct. The three types and the three principles are united in one harmonious system and one harmonious action in the Person, and in the Person alone; they meet, they unite, in nothing else within the whole scope of human experience. Here, then, in human experience and positive science, lies the only possible foundation for a scientific conception of the universe which shall embrace within itself all the elements of known truth. The Machine involves, but does not explain, the Organism; the Organism involves, but does not explain, the Person; but the Person both involves and explains the Organism and the Machine. All types of real being, therefore, are united and identified in the constitution of the Person; all principles of real being are united and identified in the principle of Personality. The greatest discovery of the nineteenth century thus far has been that of the Correlation and Unity of all Real Forces in One Omnipresent and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed. But, if what I have said is true, then this discovery must pale before that of the Correlation and Unity of all Real Principles in One Omnipresent and Eternal Person by whom all things live. For this discovery, if confirmed at last by the universal reason of mankind, is the

complete and unanswerable demonstration of God by the Scientific Method.

Thus Real Personality, finite and relative in Man, infinite and absolute in Nature, is the last word of science and philosophy the first word of ethics and religion. Without recognition of the truth for which that word stands, there can be no scientific philosophy, and no ethical religion that can last. Is not man's moral nature rooted and included in his personal nature? If so, ethics for man must be rooted in man's personality. But ethics for man, if it is to possess any commanding authority or create any supreme obligation, must be rooted in ethics for the universe; and ethics for the universe must be rooted in a Universal, a Divine Personality.

I make no apology to the unscientific liberalism which calls itself Agnostic for thus adopting, defending, and vindicating that obnoxious word "personality." I stand here for no party and no sect; I stand here solely for the integrity of truth, and for the right of intellect to pursue truth in the absolute freedom of science. In the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, as the only possible foundation for real religious knowledge, I see the only intellectual ground left for a Liberal Ministry to stand upon; for the freedom of science is the very ideal of freedom, and the assured results of science are the only basis for effective appeal to the modern mind. But this ground of Scientific Theology, avowedly taken and faithfully kept, is the indestructible foundation for a temple of Liberal Religion more beautiful and more grand than the world has ever yet beheld.

I was asked by the Secretary of this Conference to read a paper at this time on the questions: "Is the general supply of ministers failing? If so, why?"

Going forward to make investigations regarding the matter, the conclusion to which I found myself gradually, but irresistibly, brought was that the ministerial supply, whether in the denominations outside or in our own body, is not failing,—indeed, is not showing any signs of failure. This puts me in a difficult position. I can hardly devote a paper, or even a part of a paper, to giving reasons why for a condition of things which seems to me not to exist. What, then, is to be done?

Under the circumstances, what, I presume, those who assigned this topic would have me do is simply to discuss the general subject of ministerial supply, presenting such thoughts regarding that as may seem to me most important and most suitable to this occasion.

I will not detain you by any detailed statement of the grounds on which my conclusion is based, that the supply of ministers in this country is not on the decline. I find certain statistical tables which show that, of the graduates of Harvard and Yale and several other leading colleges, a percentage much smaller than in some former times now seek the ministry as a calling. I also find a book or two and several articles in reviews and magazines-all of a rather sensational nature-declaring the decadence of the ministry, and claiming (generally without letting us know on what ground their claim is based) that the ablest young

men of the land are more and more going into other vocations. I also find a considerable number of earnest, fervent, well-intentioned reports and appeals which have been read at one time or another before conventions of various religious bodies, aiming to stir up those bodies to do more in seeking out young men for the ministry, by picturing in extravagant language the destitution that is coming upon the pulpit. I can only say of these various claims that they do not stand looking into. Few of them profess to give definite facts or figures; and, where they do, they are generally of that selected kind by means of which one can prove anything. It has been wittily said, "Nothing is so false as facts, except figures." The force of the saying is easily seen when one undertakes to sift the figures and so-called facts of the pessimistic wails that come to us, sometimes from enemies of the churches and sometimes from the churches themselves, regarding the decline in the ministerial supply and the decadence of the pulpit. A little thoughtful looking in a single direction will make clear what is the essential truth in the matter. Everything shows that the churches of the country taken as a whole are prospering. Every important denomination is growing. Some are grow

ing very fast. New churches are multiplying on every hand. The best statistics we have seem to make it undeniable that both churches and church membership are increasing in the country not only as fast, relatively, as the increase of population, but faster. But this could not be if there were a serious lack of ministers. New churches

become possible only when there are men to be put at their head,—nay, to go forward and organize them. Old churches can prosper only when their pulpits are filled, and filled with good and able preachers. The truth is, go to almost any one of the leading denominations, and you will find that it has more ministers than churches; and the young men coming into its ministry are so numerous that there is no falling off in the ratio of ministers to societies. That Harvard and Yale and a few other universities give a smaller proportion of their graduates to the church now than formerly is quite true; but this simply means that the relation of the church to these institutions has changed, and that many other new sources of ministerial supply are making their appearance. Turning from other denominations to our own, we find a similar condition of things. It is particularly difficult to gather statistics in connection with our body; but there seems to be nothing to indicate that the ministerial supply is smaller among us, or smaller in proportion to the demand, than it has been at any past time in our history.

However, this does not mean that our present ministerial supply is adequate. It is adequate only on the supposition that we are not to grow. Indeed, even if we were to remain with only our present number of churches, a larger number of candidates for our ministry would enable the process of selection to be carried further, the effect of which would be to give us abler and more efficient preachers and pastors. But we ought to grow; and, if we are to grow, a larger ministerial supply is simply indispensable. We want ministers for three purposes: first, to meet the needs of our four hundred churches now in existence; second, to take charge of the new churches which are now being organized more rapidly than ever before in our history; third, to become themselves creators of new churches, and thus carry Unitarianism forward to a career of prosperity and organized advance such as it has never known, but which, I believe, is wholly within the bounds of what ought to

be and may be. It is easy to say that the supply should wait for the demand, that it will be time enough to seek for more young men for our ministry when we have more churches for them. Yes; but in everything else we see men acting on the principle that supply creates demand as well as follows it, and why should we not in religion? If we want young men to become ministers so as to supply the churches we have, we ought also to want them to become ministers so as to help us to multiply our churches. It is the almost unanimous testimony of those best qualified to speak,-that is to say, of those who have had most experience in the practical work of disseminating our faith and organizing new churches,-that our greatest missionary need is men; that our ability to establish new societies is measured almost exactly by the number of able and consecrated men available for service; that, if we had men of the right kind, we could organize churches at once in scores, if not hundreds, of towns and cities in this country where now our gospel is not heard,churches not a few of them self-supporting from the beginning.

Of course, money is necessary for missionary work: indeed, we have not a tithe of the money we ought to have, considering the demand for church extension and for the dissemination of our gospel that is upon us. But, if we had more men, it would be easier to get more money. If we had this year twenty able,consecrated, well-equipped young men, ready to plant churches in twenty new cities, what a lever that would be, for example, in the hands of Secretary Reynolds in his attempt to raise that $100,000 he has so urgently asked for! Moreover, if these twenty young men were of the right kind, a considerable proportion of them would find in the fields themselves where they took up their labor much of the money required for their support and the establishment of their churches. I am not talking vague dreams in saying this: I am talking facts such as are being brought to light all the while in the practical experience of our body in its mis