After having dealt briefly with (A), (B) and (C), I would show that (D) is the most practically important of these four conclusions.  For the fundamental hypothesis which I began by mentioning is just the opposite of this.  Whether tacitly or expressly, it has always been assumed by both sides in the controversy between Science and Religion, that as soon as this that and the other phenomenon has been explained by means of natural causation, it has thereupon ceased to be ascribable [directly] to God.  The distinction between the natural and the supernatural has always been regarded by both sides as indisputably sound, and this fundamental agreement as to ground of battle has furnished the only possible condition to fighting.  It has also furnished the condition of all the past, and may possibly furnish the condition of all the future, discomfitures of religion.  True religion is indeed learning her lesson that something is wrong in her method of fighting, and many of her soldiers are now waking up to the fact that it is here that her error lies—­as in past times they woke up to see the error of denying the movement of the earth, the antiquity of the earth, the origin of species by evolution, &c.  But no one, even of her captains and generals, has so far followed up their advantage to its ultimate consequences.  And this is what I want to do.  The logical advantage is clearly on their side; and it is their own fault if they do not gain the ultimate victory,—­not only as against science, but as against intellectual dogmatism in every form.  This can be routed all along the line.  For science is only the organized study of natural causation, and the experience of every human being, in so far as it leads to dogmatism on purely intellectual grounds, does so on account of entertaining the fundamental postulate in question.  The influence of custom and want of imagination is here very great.  But the answer always should be to move the ulterior question—­what is the nature of natural causation?

Now I propose to push to its full logical conclusion the consequence of this answer.  For no one, even the most orthodox, has as yet learnt this lesson of religion to anything like fullness.  God is still grudged His own universe, so to speak, as far and as often as He can possibly be.  As examples we may take the natural growth of Christianity out of previous religions; the natural spread of it; the natural conversion of St. Paul, or of anybody else.  It is still assumed on both sides that there must be something inexplicable or miraculous about a phenomenon in order to its being divine.

What else have science and religion ever had to fight about save on the basis of this common hypothesis, and hence as to whether the causation of such and such a phenomenon has been ‘natural’ or ‘super-natural.’  For even the disputes as to science contradicting scripture, ultimately turn on the assumption of inspiration (supposing it genuine) being ‘super-natural’ as to its causation.  Once grant that it is ‘natural’ and all possible ground of dispute is removed.