fear that, if Cuba were once independent or annexed to Mexico or Colombia, slavery would be abolished in that island, a step which would have been in conflict with the policy of the United States, then governed by the slave power, which naturally supported slavery. The question of slavery was then at the bottom of every important move of the United States, foreign and domestic, and it colored or discolored all her important transactions. Perhaps the idea of acquiring sometime the island of Cuba was another reason which dictated Mr. Clay's action.

The question of the independence of Cuba was considered in the American Congress which met at Panama in 1826, and the idea of sending an armed expedition to liberate that island was abandoned on account of the opposition of the government of the United States, as appeared from a communication from Mr. Poinsett, United States Minister to Mexico, to Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, of September 23, 1826.*

The Panama Congress.-When Simon Bolivar proposed the assembling at Panama of a congress of the American nations to agree upon some continental policy, President John Quincy Adams laid before Congress, in his annual message of 1826, the question of the representation of the United States at that Congress. The coalition against the Adams administration, which ultimately became the Jacksonian party, made its first great fight on this measure. It called forth long debates and aroused great excitement in the House of Representatives, because it was not an ordinary mission, and seemed to have far greater importance than any question of foreign relations that had previously come under discussion. It was believed to be an attempt to make a confederation or league of all the American countries, and thus to a certain extent extinguish the individuality of the United States.

This discussion lasted from February 3 to April 21, 1826, when the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported a resolution declaring that it was expedient to appropriate the necessary funds to send representatives to the Panama Congress. This resolution was approved by a vote of 143 to 54, and passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 19.

The United States delegates to the Panama Congress were instructed to attend the Congress in a merely diplomatic character, without discussing or accepting any proposition of alliance bind

* American State Papers, Series of Foreign Relations, Page 361, Volume VI.

ing the United States. These restrictions had been embodied in an amendment presented both in the House and Senate, which had passed the House, but was finally rejected, because it was considered an infringement upon the prerogatives of the Executive. As it expressed the views of Congress, however, its provisions were embodied in the instructions to the Commissioners.

I understand that one of the objects of that Congress was to accomplish the independence of the Island of Cuba, but the idea did not meet with the approval of the United States, and that fact prevented the Panama Congress from arriving at any practical result.

Conclusion. It is clear that the United States did not in any practical manner assist the American colonies of Spain to achieve their independence.

I hope that this statement of facts will serve to show that the Spanish colonies in America achieved their independence by their own efforts and without the aid of any foreign nation, and that if some of them expected such aid they never got it. I trust, also, that it will dispel some errors prevailing on that subject.

M. ROMERO.

THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY.

BY THE REV. WALTON BATTERSHALL, D. D.

SOME time ago the late Mr. Huxley told us that "extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules." The recent death of the distinguished professor registered a notable loss to the science and literature of the day; and the theologians who still survive have no desire to weave into the wreath that they lay on his grave the Scotch thistle which not infrequently they found in his rhetoric. We quote his picturesque phrase chiefly because it is a sort of prophetic distillation of the contents of two large volumes recently published by the former President of Cornell University, now our ambassador at the court of Berlin, entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.

This book, not without reason, has been called a monumental work. Its author has won an eminent place in the educational world and the higher ranges of political life. A vigorous and acute mind, with an aptitude for history and with an exceptional outfit, has given us the result of the labor of many years devoted to the excavation of the famous and obscure battle-fields which figure in the annals of modern science. The exploring spade has been struck deep into the soil, and ancient weapons of quaint and curious fashion have been dug up and artistically arranged in an archæological museum, which invites and rewards. the interest of the student.

Needless to say, this History of the Warfare of Science with Theology confirms the conviction which we all more or less entertain that the brilliant mot of Mr. Huxley holds a large pinch of truth.

The untimely fate of the extinguished theologians need give A more important fact touching this History

us no concern.

of the Warfare is the impression that probably will be left upon the mind of the reader that Science and Religion are natural foes, between whom war has been decreed from generation to generation, who lie off on the common of the world's thought in hostile camps, and whose inevitable and inveterate conflict of interest sooner or later breaks through whatever truce may be declared.

By explicit words the historian of the warfare deprecates this conclusion. He is at pains to tell us why, in contrast with Professor Draper's volume on The Conflict Between Science and Religion, he entitles his book The Warfare of Science with Theology. He informs us that the germ of the book was a lecture called "The Battlefields of Science," in which the following thesis was maintained:

"In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evil both to religion and to science, and invari ably; and on the other hand, all untrammelled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and of science."

An admirable statement of a profound truth, which we all recognize, and which forbids at once regrets for the past and trepidations for the future.

The distinguished author, moreover, betrays his good intent and his fashion of definition in this passage from his preface:

"My conviction is that science, though it has evidently conquered dogmatic theology based on Biblical texts and ancient-modes of thought, will go hand in hand with Religion, and that, although theological control will continue to diminish, Religion, as seen in the recognition of 'a Power in the Universe not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,' and in the love of God and of our neighbor, will steadily grow stronger and stronger, not only in the American institutions of learning, but in the world at large. May the declaration of Micah as to the requirements of Jehovah, and the definition of St. James of 'pure religion and undefiled,' and, above all, the precepts and ideals of the Blessed Founder of Christianity Himself, be brought to bear more and more effectively on mankind."

It is far from our purpose to review the massive and valuable contribution to our current literature launched with this devout prayer, but the unwarrantable conclusions that may be gathered from the book, and the limitations of view disclosed in the last quotation, justify in our mind the statement of a few thoughts

that cluster about the well-worn theme of the conflict between theology and science.

There is so much distrust and misconception in regard to both science and theology, so much ignorance of the precise scope, material and method of the two, such a widespread suspicion that at last theology has been driven from the field, or at least has deserted the lowlands of the controversy, and, like a savage tribe retiring before a more highly organized civilization, has taken refuge in the pathless forests and inaccessible fastnesses of the mountains, that any intelligible and reassuring word on the subject is not without value.

In the first place, what do we mean by the warfare between Theology and Science? Who, in fact, are the contestants?

A good deal of the acrimony and abuse that enter into the alleged warfare would be obviated if we could get rid of the illusion of personification. Science and Theology are not two historic champions who have gone down to Ephes-dammim with polemical intent, like the shepherd boy of Israel and the Philistine. The one, to speak roughly, is simply a group of facts, the other, a group of beliefs, that lie in different planes and atmospheres of thought; yet are held together by the complex needs and functions of our nature, and contribute to the common stock of our intellectual furniture. Every thinking man has his science and theology, not always perfectly adjusted, but still working no fissure in his mental integrity. Like the Vicar of Wakefield, who migrated from the blue bed to the brown, he is by turns a theologian and a scientist. When he consults his physician or overhauls his drains, he adopts the scientific interpretation of life. When he cries to God in some fierce pressure of sorrow or peril, he adopts the theological interpretation of life. Each has its claim, its sanction, its practical issue. The alleged conflict between theology and science is simply the dispute of men who exploit one method of interpretation to the discredit and exclusion of the other.

Still further to clear the air, let us proceed to definitions. What do we mean by the word "science" and the word "theology"?

It is a curious fact that each of these terms, in the popular use, has suffered both a restriction and an expansion of meaning. Theology, which was once the queen of sciences, is in these days