1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a00143767946e65e98d6aad67e8c4a5e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YuOVn9j2wKTsnOWIVi0JAqhT7U1x5Ilt-WwQJOY7szViEKNbhMFha8F%7EKPvSpqZlbQppfFd3Q5xXfs99iqfKftnnzhhSrIzUo0zqpqKSWGdwSRL8WKZkE1GrDHrWopxG8v4xxvGob5DEwamHuHEchQjtLvPHbcMdGBBbjXcHnrsHBjkBwf1aeuOmxegAkgtagY9jfXoYypwWfqPA%7E8PlJj-ufNvWn99tAJWH3JceBoW4egGsHeDjQ7J%7ELHRJGBfcnl4MES4S6VWeiHqyHDnxHdmWZvLx9q2ctl9uSol0k-DSkhM4tTYNbmhnCrbfrT4xQIyy3FNxO-ACvbI9IGL7zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
352cd2905c2356650924ee874ca3d7cd
PDF Text
Text
ORTHODOXY AND PANTHEISM
A SERMON,
PREACHED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
DECEMBER 29th, 1872, by the
REV. CHARLES VOYSEY.
On Sunday {Dec. 29tli) at St. George’s Hall, the Rev. C. Voyscy
took his text from the 2 Corinthians, iv. 13 v., “ We also believe,
and therefore speak.”
He said—In a splendid oration before the scholars of Liverpool
College, the Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone made an
appeal to his young hearers on behalf of the Christian religion,
warning them against the Pantheism which Dr. Strauss has
recently put forth, with all frankness and courage, in a book
entitled, “ The Old Belief and the New.”
We cannot but sympathise with the pious intention of this
warning, nor can we fail to admire the high and generous tone
which the speaker' adopted in reference to the great critic whose
opinions he deplored and denounced. The temper of the speech
was as perfect as its eloquence, and, although we may find grave
fault with some of the positions he assumed, we feel quite assured
that the speaker was honestly doing his very best for the moral
and religious interests of the youths before him, and that he was
only uttering forth the most cherished convictions of his own
heart.
In the interests of that very religion of the soul, which Mr.
Gladstone would defend with all the great powers of his mind and
tongue, we must, however reluctantly, bring to light some of the
mistakes into which he has fallen, and place the relations of
Orthodoxy and Pantheism in a new light.
I say, in the interests of time religion, we must do this; for
whether Orthodoxy be true or false, there are thousands of Orthodox
people who are truly religious, who are living lives of earnest
faith and. love towards the highest God they can conceive, and
while they thus live (kept back by some cause or other, not of
�their own fault, from rising into a higher conception) they are
truly religious; and God above, whom the best and wisest of us
know so imperfectly, will surely say of them all “ They have done
what they could, it is not their fault if they have done no more.”
So far as the words we are considering were spoken by a truly
religious man, we must sympathise with him in his repudiation of
Dr. Strauss’ Pantheism. The learned critic declares his Pantheism
with a plainness of speech which commands our gratitude. He
says, “There is no personal God; there is no future state;. all
religious worship ought to be abolished. The very name of Divine
service is an indignity to manInstead of God he offers to us
what he calls the All or Universum., This All or Universum has
neither consciousness nor reason. But it has order and law. Now
Dr. Strauss might be right or wrong. We are not now discussing
the question, we only contrast this Pantheism with the devout
language of our own hearts ; and it is no stretch of enthusiasm to
say the contrast is as between darkness and light—Heaven and
Hell. We who utterly believe in a God who has both reason and
consciousness, in One who knows all about the past, present, and
future of every one of us; in One who really love us each and all
with a fatherly and motherly affection, and who has . taught ms to
look up to Him, and love and trust Him, and seek to do His will,
foi’ the sole satisfaction of doing it; we to whom good and illfortune, health and disease, life and death, are all ministers of His
Divine will to work only for our good; we, who thus believe, should
be plunged into the outer darkness of despair if Dr. Strauss’
Pantheism were true. You may put out a man’s eyes and sentence
bim to livelong night, but in the dreary gloom there come sweet
voices of loving friends, gentle hands to make sure the companionsliip, and to guide the steps, and beams of Heavenly sunshine to
warm the chill blood in his veins, and tell him that the glorious
light still shines on. But if you put out the eyes of a man’s soul,
who across that nethermost abyss can reach him with a word of
hope, or melt the frozen fog in which his spirit is imprisoned ? The
darkness of night is as clear as noon-day compared with the
blackness of despair when the light of the soul has been put out.
But to feel this horror, in all its intensity, you must once have
known what it is to see God, and to live joyously in his presence.
To be born blind is not to suffer l,OOOth part so much as to have
ones had eyesight and lost it. The Pantheist or Atheist is almost
�always one who never was truly religious, who never did really
believe in God at all. Now and then you find exceptions of those
who have lived in the blaze of Heavenly sunshine, and then
suffered a total eclipse of faith, and as far as my experience goes
such sufferers have nearly lost their reason, and some have put an
end to their torture by suicide.
I do not wonder, then, at the earnestness with which Mr. Glad
stone pleaded with those young people not to go too near that
awful precipice. I think that passionate fear for their safety
justified him in warning them of their peril.
If we have nothing but unconscious unreasoning Universum,
we have no God. Its boasted order and law are cruel and inex
orable. Nay, rather they can have no moral significance to the
moral beings who are tortured by their caprice. Without the
heart of man to reflect the heart of God, the order and laws
manifested in the phenomena around us chiefly tell of reckless
disregard of human feeling and utter negligence of cieature happi
ness. What is it to me to be told that the greatest number are
happy, when I may be one of the wretched few whose life is a
torment ? Take away God, and the whole creation is cursed—not
a single solution left of all its malignant riddles, not a grain of
hope left at the bottom of nature’s infernal gifts. Its very joys
mock us; it sweetest pleasures grind to ashes as we taste them.
But oh! with just one gleam from Heaven, refracted from the poor
dull broken mirror of the heart of man; what light and joy
spring forth ; how all the woes of earth are relieved, how its most
suffering victims are pillowed on a mother’s breast, how its worst
despair is conquered by the feeblest hope! If we only believe in
One just a little better than ourselves, a Heavenly voice goes through
the world cheering the drooping souls on its way with the celestial
song, “ Glory to God in the Highest, on Earth there shall yet be
peace, for all is goodwill to man.” And they hear a voice
behind them saying, “ Fear not, for I am with thee. Be not
dismayed, for I am thy God. I will help thee. Yea, I will
strengthen thee, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my
righteousness.”
I must pause for a moment to explain what we mean by a
“personal” God. We use this term only in contrast to Pantheism,
It is commonly taken to imply a God in some form or other, possibly
hunian. But of course that is not the sense in which we use it,
�4
We mean by it only the individual self-conscious existence of God,
which enables him to say Ego et non-Ego—T and the Universe, [
and you. However mysterious and subtle the connexion may be
between God and matter, yet we believe God is able to say “I and
matter,” that he is able to think, and to will, and to love. This is
why we speak of a “ personal ” God, even while we have not the
remotest anthropomorphic conception of the mode of His existence,
or of the nature of His substance or essence.
To return to Mr. Gladstone’s speech. The safeguard against
Pantheism or Atheism which he proposes, is to hold fast “the
faith once delivered to the Saints,” viz., “Belief in the Deity and
Incarnation of our Lord.” These he describes as “ the cardinal
and central truths of our religion,” “confessed by many more than
ninety-nine in every hundred Christians.”
With quite as deep a horror of Atheism as he has, we neverthe
less demur altogether to his antidote, and we will give our reasons
for it.
First, in passing, we may well question whether the Deity and
Incarnation of Jesus was the faith once delivered to the Saints, or
the belief of the Apostles rhemselves. But as it is a matter of
no consequence whatever, except to the critics, we pass on at once
to give our reasons for demurring to the efficacy of the safeguard
proposed.
1st. Mr. Gladstone seems to us to make his first mistake in
identifying a belief in the Deity and Incarnation of Jesus with
religion. You will, perhaps, remember in my recent sermons on
“ Faith: Intellectual and Emotional” how I endeavoured to shew
that Intellectual Faith was not only not essential to religion, but,
for the most part, calculated to weaken and destroy religious
emotion. I will not go over this ground again, but I can quite
understand Mr Gladstone identifying the two things which are
radically distinct, because all his own religious emotion has been
derived, in the first instance, from impressions connected with the
Christian doctrines, and they are now practically bound up
together. That is, the historical Jesus, of whom his Church and
his Testament speak, has become to him a God in Heaven, and the
personal solace of his own soul. He cannot enter into the
feelings of the Jew who, while looking upon Christ as only one of
his countrymen and a mere man, lifts up his soul to Jehovah in
the words of the Old Psalmist, “ Whom have I in Heaven but
�3
Thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of
Thee.” To a votary of Mary or of Jesus, the religious man of
another creed is an inscrutable enigma, he is an object of pity ;
considered to be only a poor lame or blind traveller in a wrong
road, who shall be dealt with mercifully, if at all mercifully,
because he was ignorant; and so the real religious element which
is to be found in men and women of all creeds is thought, by all
in turn, to be peculiar to their own creed.
Mr. Gladstone’s creed may be true or false. Whether it be one
or the other, true religion is to be found connected with all creeds.
But we demur to this safeguard on another ground, viz., that it
is a belief resting solely on external authority, and not on the
reason, conscience, and love of the human soul. Any religion
coming to us on such terms, claiming belief in external authority,
must expect to have its claims challenged, its witnesses crossexamined, its authority sifted.
Now-a-days we cannot expect men and women to believe the
Deity of Christ because Mr. Gladstone believes it, or because
others before him, not a bit more entitled to credit on such a
subject, believed it. The appeal to antiquity is vain, for it proves
too much; it proves Brahminism, Judaism, Buddhism, and ever
so many things, false as well as true. Dr. Strauss himself, the
master of modern criticism, has examined these historical claims
for Christianity, and found them wanting. He began, no doubt
as many begin, by thinking that the only God in Heaven was the
God revealed in the Bible, and when he found that the Bible told
falsehoods, and that the image of God, in some places therein
described, was a foul image, to be hated and not loved by man, he
ceased to believe in God at all. He cannot have had any religion,
as we understand it, apart from his intellectual conceptions of the
Divine Being, as drawn from the Old and New Testaments,
interpreted by the Church, or else his belief in God would have
survived the shock of his discovery. But having no idea of God,
apart from what he had been taught, he came to the only logical
conclusion—that there was no God at all. Dr. Strauss will pardon
me if I have misread his experience; but it is that of thousands
and thousands. It is not merely natural, it is inevitable.
The same process is going on around us in all the religious
bodies of this country. So far as men and women have been
taught that their Bibles and Churches are the only means of
�G
knowing anything about God, so far, when they discover, as they
inevitably must, the falsehoods and errors, and impieties of their
Bibles and creeds, will they become Atheists, or Positivists, or
believers in Dr. Strauss’ unconscious Universum. Put a Bible
into a man’s hand and say to him “ This is God’s Holy Word. It
is all true, and right, and good.” If he have no religion indepen
dent of what he gets out of that book, resting on its authority
alone, then as soon as its authority is shaken, or his eyes open to
see its falseness and immorality, he loses his religion entirely, and
has no alternative at first but to make a frantic effort to swallow
it all down without another moment’s reflection, or to turn his
back on it for ever, and perhaps to sink down into the torpor and
misery of Atheism.
f
It is, therefore, not only the Christian creeds, but the Christian
method of imposing them on the acceptance of men which is to
blame for Pantheism and Atheism. You churches have done it;
You Christian Evidence champions, in your mistaken zeal; You
sticklers for dogma; You believers in moral and physical monstrosi
ties ; You slave-bound idolaters of the traditions of antiquity. It is
you that have slain these poor souls, or shut them up in the dun
geons of despair. It is on your heads that the blood of these
victims will fall, and it cries up out of the ground for vengeance
at the hands of the living God. No, not for such vengeance as
your Bible teaches, 11 a fearful looking-for, ©f fiery indignation, to
consume the adversaries ”—not that; but for the plucking up, and
tearing down, and ruthless burning of your false creeds, which are
only cruel when they are not childish and silly. All these thou
sands and thousands of stray souls, driven out by your curses from
green pastures into a waste howling wilderness—these bear witness
against you, that when they asked you for bread you gave them
only a stone; when they sought the Lord God who made them,
you set before them a fierce and burning savage, more awful than
Moloch, and then tried—but vainly—to shade his hideous image
by the Cross of Calvary; when they wanted the eternal, you gave
them only the temporal; whenthey panted for the living God, you
gave them only a dying man. Oh ! shame on your cowardice,
your childish fears, which bind you to these old wives’ fables, and
make you an incubus on the face of God’s fair earth. You make a
darkness where all ought to be light, and would be light too, but
for your crypts and cells. You make desolation where joy and beauty
�f
ought to flourish, and the songs of the happy fill the spacious air.
Is there no revelation of God in men’s own hearts, that you must
needs read solemnly your ancient tales of magic and Incarnation,
and tell them this is God’s only visit to earth, his one only con
descension to the children of men ? Does not my heart, from its
lowest depths, scorn a boon so rarely, so grudgingly, so partially
given, when I have my God with me, and about my
path and about my bed by night and by day, healing
all mine infirmities, saving my innermost life from destruction,
and crowning me with mercy and loving kindness ? What
Incarnation or Deified prophet can bring God so near to me
as he is now, has ever been, and always will be ? To make
me believe your old story would be to darken all my soul, and
drive me, as it has driven thousands, to blank despair. But
what if, besides this story of the Incarnation, your gospels and
creeds drive me to believe in the damnation of unbelievers, and
in the eternal wrath of your crucified God ? Can you expect
me to keep my reason, not to say my religion, in the presence
of such a nightmare as that? Oh, if you would really save
your young men and maidens from that horrible despair of
hcpeless Atheism, in the name of God I charge you to take from
them their Bibles and Cathechisms, and tear out those horrible
leaves which tell such awful and blasphemous falsehoods to the
dishonour of God, and the discredit of Christ. If you would have
them grow up to be religious, keep far from them the sight and sound
of those very things which you prize most dearly as “ the cardinal
and central truths ” of your religion. The new world, taught by
science, and it is to be hoped by a standard of morality not
lower than the present, will laugh at your story of the miraculous
birth, will grow impatient at the blindness of any who will
think the Incarnation a great act of God’s love and condescension,
and will become indignantly deaf to the enchantments of any
one who dares to follow up your antiquated legends with threats
of hell-fire everlasting, if they do not believe them. Take it home
to your heart while you are still earnest to serve God, that you
are doing his cause and his children infinite wrong by persisting
in enforcing your absurd creed upon an age which has well-sifted
its pretensions, and thus driving all restless souls from one extreme
of a paralysing superstition to the other extreme of a blank and
hopeless infidelity.
�But there is yet hope for men and women in this world if the
croning churches will but hold their peace. In the hearts of the
young are strains of Heavenly music, which will lure them on into
paths of holiness and peace, if the sounds be not overwhelmed by
the threats of the creeds. “ My son give me thine heart ” is no
pretty fiction of fabulist or poet; but a great multitude, whom no
man can number, have heard that celestial entreaty and have cast
themselves into the Father’s everlasting arms, Tell them far and
wide, over the whole earth, “ God is Love.” “ God is Just.”
“God is Holy.” Use what terms you will to express all that is
noblest and highest—only, “ Speak good of his name.” Dishonour
it not by your old fables. Blaspheme it not by your Bible
curses. “ Speak good of His name.” “ 0, let your songs be
of Him, and praise Him.” “Let your talking be of all His won
drous works.” “ Be telling of His righteousness and salvation
from day to day.” And then surely you will find even the young
ones more ready to embrace the holy joy, more willing to learn
more about so great and good a God; and then the poor Atheists,
too, whom your false creeds have blighted, will perchance come
back, as many have done already, under the genial rays of such a
gospel, and begin to believe in very earnest what their hearts had
so long told them was “ too good to be true.” Let it never be
forgotten that there is a third alternative between Orthodoxy and
Pantheism, a true religion of love and trust towards God, and of
love and duty towards men, without Bible, or dogma, or church ;
without Christ, or Paul, or John. And as it is most certainly true
that Orthodoxy must fall when you take away from its foundations
the bottomless pit of hell fire, so it is true that, so long as man is
man, his faith will survive the ruin of the churches, and the
burning of creeds and Bibles; and as the ages roll on, he will
wondei- not that he can walk so well without these long disused
props and crutches, but that he could ever have borne at all
such frightful and dangerous impediments to his communion with
God.
If I have spoken too fiercely, I must say “ my zeal hath even
consumed me.” I may be reproached for “pride and perverseness,”
but I am not ashamed of being proud to bear witness for the
noblest conception of God ever held by mortal man, noi’ ashamed
of a perverseness which refuses to be made the slave of foolish
ness, or the accomplice of Atheism.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Orthodoxy and pantheism. A sermon preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, December 29th, 1872
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Tracts 6.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3399
Subject
The topic of the resource
Pantheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Orthodoxy and pantheism. A sermon preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, December 29th, 1872), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Morris Tracts
Orthodoxy
Pantheism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cf8d753ad9cf970d122d197fb6d14fcd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LaVTHO7C4bHcpyMxx3QYFXOpNTWIyq1HwM7vBzRzV2mvNzLkHwUqpvHxmuUMSKgoQPrlEXgpE7pSM7Dvvzb0At5QcsJWDVbGpaAVLXaTnk0StMqUe%7E0DuXBBAi6T7o-YcDUwlhHnakhgy%7EEEBoIWT11CClK%7E2056PSMvgAs3feMonhVER49JE5QK2fAuYfsTNxHCch6QuTv204Q8-loBF6pn-HpGofVWUVxMTG1Ey8SWCF%7EHwSiY03dX%7EZU5vmqtkXMCChZHkp1FOKXq9Cid%7EId0bEKcihHb5JN5VNkyRCSKWeE8nDvs3IGbdeGphYrqWlxSit7J3n6Nvs6XT2EUXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b60a065228313d33b6afb7f8dd0d1950
PDF Text
Text
Cr ■$<
THE ORTHODOX SURRENDER.
BY
M.A. Trin. Coll. Cambridge.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
1 8 7 6.
Price Threepence.
��THE ORTHODOX SURRENDER.
Y attention has recently been called to a remarkable
article in the Church Quarterly Review. The
article in question appeared in the number for October
1875—the opening number of the Review—and a notice
of it at this time may seem to come somewhat late.
All that I can say to this is, that it is a pity it has not
been taken in hand before now, and that, too, by some
more competent writer than myself, in the pages of this
series. Failing this, I do not consider that it can ever
be too late to expose such reasoning as I shall imme
diately refer to. I hear further that several influential
publications (amongst them, the Saturday Review)
have contained eulogistic notices of the . article. But
what has principally induced me to take up my pen is
the circumstance, above alluded to, that my attention
has been called to the essay by a letter from a friend, a
man of talent and reasoning powers, and an orthodox
Christian, not perhaps without some twinges of doubt.
It would almost seem that a perusal of it has relieved
his doubts,- and furnished him with an infallible recipe
for holding certain scientific discoveries in company
with the doctrine of plenary Biblical inspiration.
Doubtless many others, similarly circumstanced, have
taken the same rosy view. To me, on the other hand,
it appears to be absolutely suicidal, to contain the most
complete reductio ad absurdum of orthodox belief that
I have met with for many years. The reader will
directly have an opportunity of judging.
M
�4
The Orthodox Surrender.
First, one word as to this Church Quarterly Review,
a serial which contains some very able papers. It is a
publication evidently, and, it is to be presumed,
avowedly inspired by the Anglican or High Church
party in the Establishment. On all points in dispute
between High and Low, we should, of course, not be
entitled to accept its utterances as likely to represent
the sentiments of any other section than that with which
it is identified. But the case is obviously different
where doctrines held in common by High and Low are
defended against a common adversary. In all contro
versies directly affecting the undivided Christian faith,
we should accept the High Churchman as a champion
of orthodoxy. Indeed, considering that all the learning
in the Church has gravitated towards that portion of it,
we should accept him as the best and most efficient
champion to be found. I may take it, then, that the
tone of the article to which I am referring commends
itself to the orthodox generally ; while, as indeed we
have evidence to show, the particular views advocated
are sympathetic to, are held, if not in the exact form
there exhibited, yet in some kindred form by, a number
of persons—Evangelical, High Church, Ritualistic, or
even Roman Catholic. And it is a matter of some sig
nificance that they have been put forth in the opening
number of the new Review. No time is lost in attack
ing the stronghold of the infidel, and the train laid for
the purpose of blowing him up is one to which any
kind of Christian may, if he thinks fit, set his hand.
The article in question, the second in the number, is
entitled “ On Some Aspects of Science in Relation to
Religion.” The first part of it may be roughly de
scribed as an argument to the effect that Evolution, if
shown to be true, is by no means inconsistent with the
idea of a personal God. In this position I for my part
heartily concur, and it is not necessary to dwell on what
does not form the subject of my contention with the
writer. Yet I can’t help saying, by the bye, that it is
�The Orthodox Surrender.
5
a pity he did not end here. “ Prove Evolution (which
you have not done yet and perhaps never will) and even
then you have not disproved a personal Deity. Indeed,
in some minds, you will rather have strengthened the
belief, or, if you please, the hypothesis.” This seems to
me common sense. In other words, Evolution is by
no means fatal to Theism, as Mr J. S. Mill has
admitted. But I suppose it would hardly have suited
an orthodox writer to go no further than this. Having
taken up the ground that Evolution may possibly be
true, yet that religion, as he understands the term, has
nothing to fear from it, he must proceed to show fur
ther that it is not fatal to the plenary inspiration of the
Bible.
This he proceeds to do, more suo, in the second
part of his article, beginning at p. 58. In this he
makes the attempt, not to reconcile—that, it will be
seen directly, would not be the proper word—science
with revelation, but to justify the holding of certain
scientific views in conjunction with certain Scriptural
statements which he himself admits to be at direct
variance with them. Evolution (on the supposition of
its one day possibly becoming part of the armoury of
science) is still the main subject or illustration put
forward ; but the process recommended by the writer,
and indeed he distinctly affirms it, is applicable to
every passage of the Bible which stands in opposition,
not merely to ingenious hypotheses, but to the teach
ings of affirmed and established science. It is appli
cable to the account of the creation of the world
generally, to the circumstantial narrative of the Deluge,
the stopping of the sun by Joshua, and, we may
perhaps add, witchcraft, and the demoniacs of the New
Testament.
I have said that “ reconciling ” is not the proper term
to use with regard to this writer’s process. Indeed, he
expressly repudiates all attempts of the kind. He tells
us, over and over again, that certain passages in the
�6
The Orthodox Surrender.
Bible cannot be reconciled with science. He intimates
that in the present condition of our knowledge, it is
scarcely honest to make the attempt. Take the follow
ing extracts :—
“ It can do nothinglbut harm to attempt a compro
mise by such glosses either of religious or scientific
truth as bring them into apparent harmony, only by
leaving out of view the real points of difficulty.............
If it is not in our power at once to give a satisfactory
solution of the apparent discrepancy, surely the safer,
as well as the more honest course, is to admit the fact.”
(p. 60).
A little further on, he speaks with apparent approval
of “the more certain, but still much disputed point
(z.e., doctrine) of the existence of the human race
through long ages of pre-historic.time” (p. 61).
Further on, he tells us that the result of bygone con
troversies between science and theology has been “ the
full acquiescence of theologians in the scientific conclu
sions arrived at.” And again, “ If we now attempt to
inquire how this good understanding has been brought
about in any particular branch of science—as, for
instance, in geology—we shall see cause to refer it,
mainly if not entirely, to the conviction of the truth of
the scientific position, as established on independent
evidence proper to itself, and very little, if at all, to the
general acceptance of any interpretations of the sacred
writings, which would bring the letter of the Mosaic
account into harmony with such theories of geology as
will commend themselves to the students of that
science (p. 61).
The writer next notices with disapproval such
attempts as those made by Dr Newman, Hugh Miller,
Dr Pusey, and others, to reconcile the language of
Genesis with the teachings of geology, and endorses
with regard to them the words used by Mr Pritchard :
“ Speaking, I trust in a most reverential spirit, and with
that caution and humility which the case demands,
�The Orthodox Surrender.
7
I feel bound to say that no interpretation of the Mosaic
cosmogony, regarded as a description of the actual
order, and actual duration, of the creative steps, has
yet been proposed, which is at all satisfactory to those
who by study and preparation of mind are most cap
able of forming a correct opinion.” (P. 62.)
Now what does all this amount to ? But I prefer to
let the writer speak for himself. The italics are my
own: “ The principle here contended for is that our
acceptance of a scientific theory should be made de
pendent, not on our estimate of attempts to harmonize
such details,” i.e., scientific conclusions with scriptural
statements, “ hut on its own proper evidence.” (P. 62).
Here is a principle against which I have not a word
to say, but how about the unfortunate “ believer ? ”
What is the course recommended to him ? The bible
makes one statement, and science makes another state
ment, and these two (says the writer) cannot by any
exercise of ingenuity be brought into harmony. In
fact, they are contradictory statements; that of science
being such as, we are told, leads to “ a conviction of
its truth.” One would imagine that there is only one
possible answer to this question. “Accept the true
statement and reject the false one.”
The author’s method is this—and the reader who has
ever so small an acquaintance with the ways of theolo
gians will have perhaps divined it, from the preceding
extracts—“ Admit the truth of both ! ” “ If it is not
in our power,”—I have already quoted part of this, but
no matter—“ If it is not in our power to give at once
a satisfactory solution of the apparent discrepancy,
surely the safer as well as the more honest course is to
admit the fact, and refer it to its real cause,” (namely,
that the two statements are contradictory 1 Oh, no !)
“ the imperfection of our knowledge, and the limited
scope of our powers of reasoning ! ” Again, “We may
surely assent to the truth of a scientific statement, when
established on as satisfactory a basis as that kind of
�8
The Orthodox Surrender.
knowledge admits of”—by the bye, what kind of
knowledge rests on a more satisfactory basis ?—“ with
out either being able to show the manner of its accord
ance with the surface meaning of some scriptural state
ment, or discrediting the latter on this account.”
Before going further I should like to try this
remarkable method by applying it to some simple and.
familiar examples. Vague talk of the above description
is often most easily dispersed by bringing the matter to
a crucial test. Let us take what is commonly called,
the creation of the world. The bible tells us that it
was created in six days, days specially indicated as con
taining a morning and an evening a-piece. Science in
forms us that it was the work of many ages. “ How,”
asks the enquirer, “ am I to assimilate these two seem
ingly opposite statements, except on the supposition
that a day means a long period, and morning and even
ing the beginning and close of each such period, or by
accepting some other hypothesis which will bring them
into accord.” “ You can’t assimilate them,” replies the
author. “ All attempts at representing the days as so
many periods of great duration are unsatisfactory and
indeed disingenuous. And every other hypothesis is
equally valueless. Your way out of the difficulty is
much simpler. The scientific statement we admit to be
true. On the other hand, as we know that the bible is
divinely inspired, and consequently infallible in every
part, so the biblical statement must be true. They
must, therefore, be capable of being reconciled in some
way that we cannot dream of. In the meanwhile, your
duty is to believe both! ” “ How on earth am I to do
that ? ” asks the enquirer. 11 Consider the imperfection
of your knowledge,” retorts the writer. “ But the two
statements flatly contradict each other. How can they
both be true ? ” “ Oh, but bear in mind your limited
powers of apprehension ! ” Again, the second chapter
of Genesis tells us that the order of creation was (1)
man ; (2) beasts and fowls; (3) woman. Science informs
�The Orthodox Surrender.
9
us that this is not true. Believe both ! or rather, as the
first chapter gives a different account, believe all three !
The bible informs us that death came into the world as
a punishment for human sin. Science acquaints us with
the fact that death was in the world ages before there
could have been human sin. Believe both : that is to
say, believe that it was a punishment for sin, and not a
punishment for sin. The bible relates in the most ex
plicit terms that the deluge covered the whole earth.
Science informs us that there are portions of the earth
which have never been thus submerged. Believe both:
believe that the whole of the earth was covered by
water, and that only a part of it was covered. Of
course the same system will make short work of all in
ternal contradictions in the bible itself. If in one
place the Deity is spoken of as all-powerful, and in
another is represented as being unable to drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of
iron—believe both ! Believe that he is all-powerful,
and that he is not all-powerful. It is all very well to
ride off on such convenient expressions as “ surface
meanings,” “ apparent discrepancies,” and the like : but
this is what the matter comes to, when fairly looked at.
Of course the method we are considering has one
advantage : it is thorough. It places every statement
in the bible under cover of any assault or criticism from
whatever quarter. “ I will grant you that 2 + 2 == 4,”
says the believer, “but if I find in my bible that
2 + 2 — 5, I shall believe that too. There must be
some way of reconciling the two additions that I don’t
know of.” This is evidently no exaggeration. Either
there was a universal deluge or there was not. Either
the sun was in being before the earth or it was not.
Either death came into the world by sin, or it came in
in some other way. If science has established one
alternative of any of these propositions, then, the other
is as absurd as that 2 + 2 = 5. Credo quia impossibile:
happy believer ! Erom this point of view the writer is
�IO
The Orthodox Surrender.
quite right in asserting that the doctrine of Evolution,
if ever proved to be true, need not frighten the ortho
dox—though his way of putting it sounds strange to
profane ears. “ It is worth while to point out that if
the literal phraseology of the bible is inconsistent with
some of the evolutionary theories, it is so in a much
more formal way with the geological antiquity of the
earth, a point now generally conceded.” “ Yet ” he adds
further on in the usual strain, “ We have come to be
agreed in admitting the truth of both ! ” i.e., we have
had worse difficulties than this of Evolution to swallow,
and have got over the process satisfactorily to ourselves.
But it will be desirable to enquire briefly at what cost
this immunity from attack of the sacred volume has
been purchased. •
Evidently, at the cost of the total surrender of
human reason: that faculty which, as Bishop Butler
has remarked, is the only thing whereby we can judge
of the truth of revelation itself. Here, however, it is
not the truth of revelation, as I understand the term,
which is in question, but the theory of the inspiration,
that is to say, the infallibility, of every verse in the
bible. The function of reason is perfectly clear in this
matter. Whenever the progress of knowledge has
established a proposition plainly contradicting some
biblical statement, we are bound to conclude that that
particular statement is not divinely inspired by the God
of Truth, inasmuch as it is opposed to the truth as he
has permitted it to reach us from another quarter not
open to doubt. This, I say, is the only reasonable
conclusion to be arrived at by one who, like the writer,
admits the contradiction, and admits that it is not to be
salved over by any process possible to human reason.
The writer’s method is simply this: “ First surrender
your reason to the dogma of the infallibility of the
Bible, and then consent to label every misstatement in
it as a mystery.” My answer is that I shall not sur
render that faculty, “ the lamp which God has lit within
�The Orthodox Surrender.
11
me,” to any book or man or body of men whatever. I
believe that to do so would be to sin grievously in the
eyes of my Maker. And what is this particular dogma
to which you call on me thus to surrender it ? Can
you produce any authoritative declaration on the part
of God himself to the effect that every line in the Bible
is infallibly true ? Have you even any plausible argu
ment to offer on the subject, from the Protestant point
of view 1 None whatever, that I have been able to
discover, except a tradition or superstition (not in the
least sanctioned by the Bible itself), with nothing to
be alleged in its favour, except that it has been held
for centuries by certain priest-governed bodies called
churches (not by your own, by the bye, as has been
established, on the strength of your own articles, by the
tribunals you are bound to acknowledge)—a superstition
assailable on many other grounds, and directly negatived
by these very passages. Consider your own position
for a moment. You admit that these passages are not
to be reconciled to our reason. You are too honest to
make the attempt. “ But I carit possibly give up my
dogma of verbal inspiration,” you cry, “ Bother reason ! ”
And when we attempt to argue with you on this
very dogma, you have nothing to offer. It is “ bother
reason 1” again. And this is the triumphant answer of
theology to scepticism in the year eighteen hundred
and seventy-five !
Surely those who can be induced to yield up their
minds to this authoritative method are victims to a
superstition in no degree more respectable than some
of the most abject superstitions of the lowest savages.
They worship a fetish in the shape of so many rags
converted into the leaves of a book, instead of being
dressed up as a doll. Popery in its worst form is only
another and hardly a more mischievous instance of this
prostitution of the faculties to an idol. The object is
different, the process is the same. “ Bother reason ! ”
And talking of superstitions, this remarkable “ method ”
�I2
The Orthodox Surrender.
would be good for bolstering up more than one of
them. Thus, a reasonable objection to some of the
Eastern religions lies in the absurd cosmogonies con
tained in their sacred books. In the Shastras, the
world is represented as having been produced by
Brahm out of an egg. Why should not the Hindoo
continue to believe in Brahm’s egg, as well as in the
teachings of science, consigning the discrepancy between
the two statements to that convenient limbo, “ the
imperfection of our faculties ? ”
As a specimen of the author’s mode of illustrating
and enforcing his method, the following may suffice :—
He has before him, as we have seen, the difficult task
of coaxing the reader into assenting provisionally to
two such propositions as these. “ The sun was made
before the world,” “ The sun was made after the world.’’
This, he says, does not seem such a wonderful feat
“ when we consider the difficulty of reconciling the re
sults of different lines of scientific enquiry.” Here
certainly “ results ” must mean, or ought to mean,
“ established scientific conclusions ; ” it cannot include
unverified hypotheses, because in that case there would
be no necessity imposed on us of reconciling two of
these that should contradict each other, inasmuch as
not only one, but both might be false. Now, here is
the author’s instance, given in a foot-note. “ The im
mense length of time, for instance, required for the
process of Evolution, in the view of some of its pro
pounders, which would exceed the limits of the possible
age of the sun, as estimated by Sir Wm. Thompson, on
physical grounds.” (Page 60.) I.e., some scientific
men have a theory which requires (on the part of only
a section of these) x2 years for the age of the world.
Some other scientific men see reasons for supposing the
world to have lasted only x years. To make this illus
tration worth anything, the possibility ought to be
indicated of our being one day called upon to hold that
the world has lasted only x years, and also that it has
�The Orthodox Surrender.
J3
lasted x2 years. Whereas, who does not see that if
neither of these be established as results, we simply
have to suspend onr judgments: as I have just said,
there is no case for reconciling (in the sense of reconcil
ing what we know to be true with what in the light of
reason is untrue.) And who does not further see that
no such case for “ reconciling ” can ever arise 1 For if
one of the two statements be established, the other is
ipso facto refuted.* Unless indeed (which has not yet
been the case), one scientific conclusion be found to
contradict another as distinctly and unmistakeably as
some of these conclusions have contradicted the text
of scripture. Then, indeed, the author’s illustration
will apply, and we shall find ourselves involved in the
same difficulties as beset the adopters of his method.
But perhaps it would be better to wait, before deciding
on our course, till the occasion shall arise.
Here is another of the author’s illustrations, which is
as bad as—it cannot be worse than—the preceding. He
instances the omnipotence of God and the free will of
man. “We may well be content to admit the truth of
each of these tenets, without being able to see how their
results fit into each other.” Admitting the omnipotence
of God and also the free-will of man, I would respect
fully ask, How do these dogmas contradict each other 1
For this is the point. Would there be any contradic
tion between (suppose) a scientific discovery of the
existence and omnipotence of God, and a biblical state
ment of free-will, or vice versa, between a scientific dis
covery of the freedom of the will and a bible declaration
of the omnipotence of God'? I apprehend that the
supporters of biblical infallibility would reply, with
perfect justice, that there was no contradiction whatever.
For that man being free, his freedom had been conceded
to him by the omnipotence of God. Of course an
* And, of course, everything that depends upon it; e.g., If
Evolution requires x2 years, proof that the world has only existed x
years, puts an end to Evolution.
�14
The Orthodox Surrender.
omnipotent Deity could break in upon this freedom at
any moment that he chose, but for wise reasons of his
own he does not appear so to choose.
I cannot help here ’briefly noticing how this writer’s
method might be worked on behalf of the Roman
Catholic Church. The ground taken up by Protestant
ism at its origin was that certain doctrines and practices
of Roman Catholicism were not to be found in Scripture
(which does not, I think, amount to much)—and also
(which is the point here), that they and others were
repugnant to scripture. But there are no passages in
the bible so plainly contradictory of any Roman
Catholic doctrine or practice, as there are scientific con
clusions flatly opposed to certain passages in the bible.
Indeed, the two former may be reconciled—every dis
passionate person admits that—but now we are told that
the two latter cannot. If then the two latter can be
held in conjunction, why not the two former ? May
not Roman Catholicism be right even where it is in
“ seeming contradiction ” (contradiction, I say, of a
comparatively trifling kind), with some “ surface
statement ” of the bible ? May there not be a way of
reconciling the two even although we cannot discover a
solution satisfactory to ourselves at the moment ? May
it not be our duty to “ believe both ? ” I have not
time or space to dwell further on this point, which I
invite the reader to ponder on. But it certainly seems
to me that this doctrine of certain things being perfectly
reconcileable with “surface meanings” in the bible,
which seem to say the exact contrary, is fatal to the
Protestant position.
To conclude these cursory remarks, this article seems
to me a significant “ sign of the end.” It is like an
army laying down its arms
“ Jam jam efficaci do manus scientiaa, ”
with a despairing cry to a “ Deus ex machina ” to help
them out of their difficulties. It was, I think, Professor
�The Orthodox Surrender.
J5
Agassiz who said that scientific discoveries usually
underwent three phases : Firstly, it was said they
were false; secondly, that they were opposed to the
bible; thirdly, when they had won their way to
acceptance over the carcases of slaughtered prejudices,
that they were quite true and quite in accordance with
the text of the bible. But there is yet another phase
into which they have entered in the minds of some,
viz., that they are true and not to be reconciled with
the text of the bible. This position, hitherto held by
sceptics only, we now see to be frankly admitted in the
11 Church Quarterly Review.” The admission seems to
me a fatal one. Religious beliefs, out of reach of veri
fication, may be held as long as the world lasts. Beliefs
founded on statements, which unfortunately for them
selves have lain in the way of advancing knowledge
and been worsted, may remain as long as a compromise
is admitted to be possible. But when their supporters
are obliged to come forward and acknowledge in all
honesty that no compromise is possible to our faculties
between their beliefs and established truths, and that
reason is to be discarded in favour of a baseless myth
upheld by mere sentiment, the victory is won : the
world will end by accepting the facts, and discarding,
not reason, hut the hazy beliefs and myths which have
crumbled under the facts. Hitherto the theologians, to
use the first Napoleon’s expression with regard to
British troops, have never seemed to know when they
are beaten. After reading this article, I cannot but
judge that some of them have an uneasy suspicion that
they are beaten. Surely to withdraw from the light of
reason into cloudland is to leave the enemy master of
the field. And this appears to me the latest “ Aspect
of Science in relation to Religion.”
TURNBULL ANU SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The orthodox surrender
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A critique of article 'On Some Aspects of Science in Relation to Religion' in Church Quarterly Review. (October 1875). From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT184
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
M.A. Trinity College Cambridge
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The orthodox surrender), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Atheism
Religion
Science
Christianity and Atheism
Conway Tracts
Orthodoxy
Religion and science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/93aa104ff5b9d7bef0a544656411ea37.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lmUbXRrD7YNTyd7zTDMxv16kfDdXAezooTvnHl7Z4me%7EKMYVy8yXJ-lgAHzTcBMOkpkhfWGsWv0BFouUAbgN3i4ic%7EEpdBA09hwPnjIBevCPNLurZ05n7-sAO4hoBhJhpS1SOTPaKRnkflUnkwq9KOrX14l%7E6A-jRqupESw0ZnVJjIBE05hQ34CmJRIa3HcXqwgPRUvjhdNlSfsPDluzEN%7EMmCMDbbhToCR5x9-Z6Uh7ZME9HvhQGDEize4cFDs6gajPV-MIs43wb-bq3MOwh2HwrKh0VAIhByY3bRB7ikHtdBFeWz2TbxTbaivUChTcnDDQXYiVrBZqHJX4b7JQuA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c7cd5484b6e65bd41cd5680d33bfd569
PDF Text
Text
THE
SCIENTIFIC BASIS
ORTHODOXY.
OF
BY FRANCIS GERRY FAIRFIELD.
1.— THE NECESSARY INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY.
HE very recent declarations of Mr. John Fiske, of Harvard,
that Positivism regards itself as the legitimate successor of
theology, have resulted in directing the attention of thinkers
in this country to that subject. The speculations of Spencer,
who must be classed as a Positivist, though vastly at variance with
Comte in some of his conclusions, cannot be regarded as menacing to
orthodoxy, except in so far (if at all) as they may affect the general
cosmological and biological theorems upon which it depends. A sys
tem of philosophy—and Mr. Spencer may insult the adjective synthetic
with it, if it suits his fancy or egotism—a system of philosophy that
has no sympathy with history, must be regarded as too partial both in
its data and conclusions to affect the intellectual and moral evolution
of the oentury, except very limitedly ; and that Spencer’s system in
volves no hearty recognition of human history, is too apparent to need
elaborate demonstration. It is like a collection of bones, without moral
vitality ; and, in the putting together of the bones even, there is occa
sionally a lack of that deeper and more comprehensive synthesis which
constitutes the profounder part of philosophy. Comte has, on the
other hand, accepted the historical necessity of some religious system,
both as psychological and social; but has begun by eliminating from it
its valuable element, to wit, its supernaturalism, which, per se, is not
necessarily theistic or dependent upon the theistic idea, but belongs to
human nature and to human history as a progressive evolution of the
unconditioned from the conditioned.
Spencer’s speculations have not sufficient sympathy with evolution
as progressive — are too static. A just system of philosophy must
begin with the recognition, not only of history as the collective body
of human acts, but as the collective body of human progress in the
struggle toward ultimate freedom, in the sharpness of which struggle
the supernatural is engendered—the supernatural being understood in
its true historical sense as the sporadic manifestation, under given con
ditions, of that higher unconditioned humanity and nature, toward
T
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
203
which both historical and geological evolution tend, and in whicli they
end.
Orthodoxy rests fundamentally upon two historical postulates,
namely, monotheism and the progressive historical evolution of the
God-consciousness in humanity. Admit these two postulates, and
the whole body of orthodox thought must be admitted as valid. Ra
tionalism is historically illogical, because it has no historical destiny,
and omits recognition of that which is to be regarded as evidence of
the progress of the evolution of the ultimate—in a word, omits recog
nition of the supernatural in history; and, for the same reason, Comte’s
religion of humanity is inadmissible. For all the purposes of philo
sophical poiesis it matters not whether the absolute be considered as
latent in humanity, that is, subjective, or as the God of the theolo
gians, that is, objective, or as the historical ultimate of humanity. The
fundamental conception is the same in either hypothesis, and, in either
hypothesis, represents an ideal sublimate which the history of human
consciousness has demonstrated to be universal. Furthermore, any
system of philosophy which, like undiluted Positivism, neglects to take
this God-instinct into account, is essentially partial, defective, and un
satisfactory. Omitting the ethical as historically interpretive of the
idea of right, and, therefore, not germane to the investigation, the
analyses of the historical manifestation of human consciousness may be
stated as threefold:
I. Philosophical or rational poiesis, which represents the struggle
of the rational intellect (Vernunfl) to apprehend the absolute in truth.
Subjectively, its processes are: apprehension and comprehension, that
is, knowledge; hypothesis and generalization, that is, ideal evolution;
-synthesis into system, that is, unification into absolute body of knowl
edge general, of knowledge particular.
II. Imaginative poiesis—art, poetry, music, and literary creation—
which represents the toiling of the imagination to apprehend and ob
jectify the absolute in beauty. As the toiling of reason is after the
absolute or ideal in knowledge, so the toiling of the imagination is
after the realization of the absolute or ideal in form, using the word in
its most comprehensive sense.
III. Inspirational poiesis—historically illustrated by the facts of
sacred history—which represents the struggle of the God-instinct to
compass the absolute in personal consciousness. For purposes of his
torical analysis, it is not necessary to postulate the objective esse of
God as postulated by theologians. Scientific disquisition assumes sim
ply the God-instinct in humanity, which is all that is necessary in
philosophical analysis, and leaves the question of objectivity to take
care of itself.
The first finds its struggle answered in the absolute in truth ; the
second, in the absolute in realization or beauty; the third, in the ab
solute in personal consciousness, the toiling after which constitutes,
philosophically, the ground of what is termed revelation.
�204
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
Subjectively, therefore, truth and beauty are pure ideas, dependent
upon reason and imagination respectively. Subjectively, too, any sys
tem of philosophy or scientific hypothesis is just as really human in
vention as is a poem or a novel—a conclusion which is as lucidly
demonstrable as any proposition in Euclid. Suppose a person unen
dowed with reason, and truth is an impossible idea; suppose the same
person destitute of imagination, and beauty is an idea equally impossi
ble. It is not necessary at this stage of the discussion to open the
question of the objective reality of either—since conception of that
reality is grounded in imaginative and rational intellect, and since the
conception is often at best mistaken for the reality itself. In the crea
tion of any philosophico-imaginative cosmogony, like that of La Place,
therefore, the evolution of system is based upon the conceptions as
material of two faculties, to wit, reason, whence the ideal in abstract,
and imagination, whence the realization of the ideal in form.
As the construction of any hypothetical cosmogony is grounded in
these two ideas uniquely, it is, therefore, necessary to reduce both to
ultimate analysis, and develop the atomic notions upon which they
respectively depend.
At first sight, the idea of truth, in all moods of consciousness,
seems to be the simplest axiom or atom of thought, of which it is pos
sible to form a conception. A more minute scrutiny, however, suggests
the hypothesis that, truth as an idea is rather deductive than atomic—
suggests, I say, the conclusion that the idea of the true is deduced from
the atomic notion of the determinate, of the fixed. The struggle of
reason (represented in philosophy) is, therefore, a toiling after the fixed,
the determinate, the absolute in knowledge. In the processes and evo
lution of philosophy, the Positivists are correct in postulating the rela
tivity of knowledge; but, in its end, if that shall ever be attained,
knowledge must be absolute. In its historical ultimate, its to think
must be succeeded by to know. In seeking to apprehend this absolute,
therefore, which forever baffles and eludes his pursuit, what seeks man
but to apprehend the mystery and solve the riddle of himself ?—for, in
the consciousness of the man is hidden the secret of the universe and
the key of the true cosmogony. Constructive philosophy necessarily
consisting of two principal parts,—the synthesis of methods and the
synthesis of doctrines,—Comte’s position as a thinker by no means covers
the whole ground. His synthesis of methods may form the basis of a
philosophical system, but is not, in itself, a system of philosophy, and
must be complemented by the synthesis of doctrines which Spencer has
attempted to constitute really a philosophical body. Mr. Fiske has been
the first to condition Positivism in definition; and its cardinal theorems
cannot be stated more lucidly than this exceedingly analytic critic has
stated them:
I. That all knowledge is relative.
II. That all unverifiable hypotheses are inadmissible.
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS O F O R T H O D O X Y.
205
III. That the evolution of philosophy, whatever else it may, is a
continuous process of deanthropomorphization.
IV. That philosophy is the synthesis of the doctrines and methods
of science.
V. That the critical attitude of philosophy is not destructive, but
constructive ; not sceptical, but dogmatic ; not negative, but positive.
These, according to Mr. Fiske, are the fundamental propositions of
Positivism. The Positive Philosophy, therefore, by no means involves
radicalism. On the other hand, historically considered, radicalism has
always been the handmaid of scepticism—has universally made its
appearance in conjunction therewith, aud more or less grounded upon
it. Positivism is essentially dogmatic, but not radical and noisy; it
maintains the quiet attitude of scientific criticism, and is not declama
tory ; attacks nothing, no faith, no belief, no theological dogma; is
satisfied with science as the developing element of civilization; enun
ciates what it deems to be truth, and waits its time. Relentless as fate,
it quarrels with nobody, but tramps strongly on, stopping only with
the cessation of scientific investigation. In its relation to past systems
of philosophy it claims to adopt the verifiable, rejecting the unverifiable element. As the latest outcome of the speculative instinct, as
emphatically the philosophy of the century and interpretative of its
spirit, it represents the present result of the philosophical poiesis his
torically considered.
In historical generalization, philosophy has run through two cycles,
and begun its third cycle in the system of Comte. The first cycle is
represented by the Greek systems. In ancient philosophy the first
period is cosmological, beginning with Thales and ending with Anaxa
goras and Demokritos; the second is psychological, represented by
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle ; the third period is one of general scep
ticism ; and the fourth is represented by Proklos whose divine light is
nearly identical with the Hegelian intuition, and completes the Greek
cycle. Mr. Lewes and Mr. Fiske regard Positivism as the end of the
modern cycle; but, more properly, it begins the scientific cycle. The
modern cycle begins with the promulgation of the method of Bacon
and the cultivation of the physical sciences; the cosmological element
cropping out in Galileo and Kepler. Its first period is ontological, be
ginning with Descartes and ending with Spinoza, whose inexorable
logic brought on a crisis and resulted in the reconsideration of the
initial conceptions of metaphysics and the rejection of the validity of
the subjective method.
This led to the second or psychological period, during which, for a
century or more, ontological speculation was abandoned or subordi
nated to psychological analysis. The adoption of the first canon of
Positivism—the relativity of knowledge—resulted from the investiga
tions of this period, and was rendered necessary by the1 inexorable an
alysis of mental operations, begun by Hobbes, and continued by Locke,
Berkley, and Hume.
�206
THE SCIENTIFIC BASTS OF ORTHODOXY.
This brought on the third or sceptical period, of which Hume ap
peal’s as the apostle, and in which Hartley’s keen analysis demonstrated
the possibility of bringing the scientific method to bear upon psycho
logical iuquiry. Sensationalism and crude materialism represent this
period in France. Against both, as the natural swing of the philo
sophical pendulum, there ensued later the tawdry superficially spiritual
istic reaction, conducted by Laromiguiere and Cousin, whose declam
atory le cœur answers to the divine light of Proklos, and ends the cycle
in France, with a fourth or intuitional period. In Germany the cycle
ends similarly, the re-examination of the subjective method by Kant
being episodical, and preparatory to the reassertion of the intuitional
by Hegel, who, again, denies the relativity of knowledge. The great
English thinkers of the century, with a caution engendered by the
Baconian method, diverge here from the logical completion of the cycle,
with the exception, perhaps, of Coleridge, who was addicted to German
ism ; Hamilton and Mansel accepting the Kantian psychology, but
stopping short of Hegelism. Thus ends the second cycle—the third
beginning with Positivism as interpreted by Spencer, in England, and
Comte, in France, and adopting substantially the cosmological system
of La Place. Pre-eminently it may be termed the cycle of the scien
tific method ; but, as to its ultimate historical deduction, it is folly to
speculate.
From this cursory generalization of the historical struggle of the
rational intellect after the fixed, the determinate, the absolute in knowl
edge, a parallel generalization of the history of the imaginative/xuLGais, it will be seen, quite unnecessary. Endlessly it everywhere repeats
the cycle—beginning with fable, merging into poetry and allegory, de
veloping into dramatic creation, and ending in pure, natural literature.
The historical manifestation of the God-instinct presents really but
one grand cycle which commences with cosmogonies. Then comes rev
elation objective, as its first rude groping after the latent absolute in
human consciousness, with its dreams, and omens, and visions. A pe
riod of transition ensues in which priestly mysteries succeed to objec
tivity. Then comes the intuitional, prophetic, or subjective- period, in
which objective revelation is abandoned, and the God is represented in
temporary union with the human consciousness. Then the final com
pleteness of the union of the God with human consciousness in the
son of Mary is asserted and accepted. Again, a brief period of pro
phetic prediction ensues, represented by the Apocalypse of St. John, in
which the ultimate historical triumph of the God-instinct ovei’ all
condition is foretold. Then comes a period of evolution ; and the
cycle, not yet completed, ends in the realization by the human of the
absolute in oonsciousness, as the ultimate deduction of the toiling of
the God-instinct after the God. The acceptance or denial of the esse
of the objective in no way affects the validity of the subjective instinct
—in no way affects the facts of its historical manifestation. The phe32
�TBE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
207
nomena are attested ; the objectivity of deity is a question with which
philosophy has no business. Truth, beauty, and deity may be subject
ive conceptions; but the supposition that they are cannot annul their
historical validity in the manifestation of consciousness. The collect
ive body of the motion of human consciousness towards freedom in all
directions—towards the absolute, in a word—constitutes, therefore,
historical progress, history being in ultimate definition the selfexpression of humanity; and at the basis of this progress, forever
restless, forever toiling towards the realization of its freedom from con
dition, tugs the God-instinct of the ego, the motive of all that is
grand and sublimated in human thought and human action. Neces
sary as the integrity of the ego is to this deduction, it may be well
here to notice the late English hypothesis that it is constituted by the
successive ideas which finds its refutation in the fact that, in the evolu
tion of ideas the consciousness is a double one—that is, I am conscious
of myself as myself, and conscious of myself as thinking.
Three profoundly instinctive and irrepressible, even fundamental,
directions of consciousness are found, therefore, if the preceding ratio
cination be valid, to underlie the historical self-expression of humanity.
They are, if coinage of the compounds may be permitted :
I. The thought-instinct, which seeks the absolute in knowledge, in
truth, in comprehension of the processes and laws of phenomenal
evolution.
II. The art-instinct, which toils to create the absolute in form, in
beauty, in objective realization.
III. The God-instinct, which struggles for the realization of the ab
solute in personal consciousness ; which attained, the history of human
consciousness as conditioned, ends.
The collective body of results, emanating from this threefold toil
ing of the human after freedom of self-expression, constitutes the es
sential facts of history, as the ultimate realization of the goal towards
which the struggle tends, constitutes its finis.
I have proceeded thus far without a break, for the sake of logical
coherence. Let me return now, and subject to analysis the idea of
beauty.
If the idea of beauty be subjected to careful analysis, it will, I
think, be conceded to be non-atomic, that is, deduced ; and if, again,
the dissection of the few poems, the beauty of which has been univers
ally acknowledged, be entered upon, their effect will be found to depend
upon a certain dreamy undulation, like the weird waving of restless
trees under moonlight, which pervades and spiritualizes their composi
tion. The atomic notion of beauty is, therefore, the undulative, the
rhythmical, the indeterminate. It is this principle that imbues
the beautiful with its soul of Faëry. From it may be deduced the
vague, the spiritual in poetic, artistic, and musical creation. Dispel
this perspective, this atmosphere of the indeterminate—imbue beauty
�208
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
with mathematical decision, and it ceases to be beauty. The jump of
iambic rhythm is less beautiful than the dreamier winding of the
anapest, or the undulative dance of the dactyl. For a similar reason,
to wit, greater sweep of undulation, the Persian rhythms are more
beautiful than the English.
It is not intended in the preceding remarks to deny the mathemat
ical relations upon which the skeleton of the beautiful in form is
grounded. In rhythmical construction the sound-waves observe a
certain mathematical regularity of recurrence, as also in music ; but
that which constitutes a mathematical system of short and long syl
lables regularly alternating, and is mere scansion, must not be con
founded with the ebb and swell of the sound-wave, the undulation of
which is the ground of the beautiful in rhythm and music. Sculpture,
painting, and the plastic arts afford, perhaps, a more distinct recogni
tion of the relation of the geometrical to the beautiful ; but, in the
study of that relation, the two must be kept separate. The mathe
matical and geometrical are, so to speak, the bones of the beautiful.
“ Beauty of favor,” says Bacon, “ is least. Beauty of color is more
than that of favor ; and the beauty of sweet and graceful motion is
best of all. There is a beauty which a picture cannot express, nor
even the first sight of life. There is no excellent beauty without some
strangeness in the proportion.” The father of the scientific method
seems here to hint indistinctly at the categories of beauty, to wit, the
beautiful in form, which is the ground of sculpture ; the beautiful in
color, which lies at the basis of painting ; the beautiful in expression,
which verges further upon the ideal than either of the preceding ; and
the beautiful in individuation, which is still subtler and more ethereal.
The last category connects the beautiful with Schelling’s tendency to
individuation, and presupposes the intimate relation of the beautiful
to the biological, the plastic, the creative ; but, in no respect, invalidates
the reference of the idea of beauty to the wave-motion, which consti
tutes the law of force.
Hogarth, who located the principle in the curve, did, it seems, ap
proximate to the solution of the problem; the principle being really
the undulative or indeterminate curve, resultant from the wave-motion
of force as it enters into morphization. Prof. Tilman, in a recent
paper, has so lucidly developed the relations of the mathematical and
geometrical, upon which the symmetrical is grounded, to the musical
and rhythmical sound-wave, that argument is really superfluous. The
subject may, in fact, be pursued to any extent of illustration by reference
to instruments for the study of wave-motion, and to the subtler inves
tigation of the wave-forces that condition the forms of plants. The
beautiful must not be confounded with its geometry. The latter is the
skeleton, of which the former is the vivifaction and soul.
This analysis is supported essentially by the psychology of imagina
tive creation. Longfellow expresses himself as one—
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
209
“ Who, through long days of labor
And nights devoid of ease.
Still hears in his soul the music
Of wonderful melodies.”
Poe interprets the instinct when in “ Israfel ” he moans out—
“ If I could dwell where Israfel
Hath dwelt, and he where I,
He might not sing so wildly well
A mortal melody.
While a bolder note than his might swell
From my lyre within the sky.”
Again, depicting the poet under the similitude of a beautiful palace, he
sings—
“ And travelers in that happy valley,
Through two luminous windows, saw
Spirits moving musically
To a lute’s well-tuned law.”
Shelley, more profoundly a poet than either mentioned, typifies the
poet in his “ Skylark ” thus—
“ Higher still, and higher.
Heavenward thou springest;
Like a cloud of fire,
The blue deep thou wingest,
And singing still dost soar, and soaring ever singest.”
_
But why multiply instances, when, from the bulbul-hearted Hafiz to
ethereally musical Tennyson, no poet has left the instinct for rhythm
unexpressed—when, in fact, the undulative is grounded in the very
nature of the art-instinct ? The wave-motion is the essential element
of the beautiful in imaginative poiesis, whether it be considered as the
rhythm-wave of poetry or as the sound-wave of music, or as the line
wave of art proper. Connect the gamut of musical sound with the
spectrum of color, and it will be seen, adopting the undulatory hypo
thesis of light, that the two have a direct relation. Red, produced by
the least number of light undulations, represents the tonic; yellow, the
mediant; and blue, the dominant. The darkest color, indigo, falls on
the relative minor tonic; the brightest yellow, on the brilliant medi
ant. It would, in fact, be perfectly easy to set the Ut-Re-Mi-Fa-SolLa-Si of the sound-septave to the septave of the spectrum; the color
translating the sound to the eye harmoniously, and the mathematical
correspondence of undulation to undulation being preserved with per
fect accuracy. The deduction is that light, heat, and actinism result
from undulations of the same attenuated medium; the perception of
light and color resulting from the ratio of undulations embraced in a
single octave. The deduction, incident to this ratiocination, is, how
ever, a broader one, to wit, that the wave-motion, the rhythmical im
pulse, is inherent in the objectively beautiful, whether it be represented
�210
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
in sound dolor, or form, which latter constitutes simply the perma
nence of ttave-motion—is its mummifaction, so to speak, in connec
tion with matter; and in this rhythmical impulsion is, no doubt,
grounded the aesthetic (dement of the objective, its existence consti
tuting the basis of the aesthetic perception.
The universality of the rhythmical in the operation of force has
been assumed by so acute a Positivist as Herbert Spencer, and proved;
and what has been once demonstrated under the scientific method
need not be re-argued, further than to point out the parallelism be
tween natural and psychological operations, that is, to identify the
objective principle with the subjective idea—further than to admit the
conclusion that the art-method of human consciousness is identical
with the art-method of the phenomenal.
There is nothing in Mr. Spencer’s law of rhythm, except its incor
poration as a part of the scientific method. Dreamers were aware of it
before thinkers were. Plato expressed it in his music of the spheres;
and an old English author propounded it quaintly in the apothegm:
“The verie source and, so to speak, springheade of all Musicke is the
verie pleasant sound that the trees make when they grow.” It has, too,
been one of the ever-recurring imaginings of poetry. Mrs. Browning
expresses it:
“ The divine impulsion cleaves
In dim music to the leaves,
Dropt and lifted, dropt and lifted,
In the sunlight greenly sifted—
In the.sunlight and the moonlight
Greenly sifted through the trees.
Ever wave the Eden trees
In the sunlight and the moonlight,
In the nightlight and the noonlight,
Never stirred by rain or breeze.”
Or, again, here is a poetic personification of the rhythmical impulse in
nature, from “ Al Araaf
“ Ligeia, Ligeia,
My beautiful one,
Whose harshest idea
Will to melody run,
Say is it thy will
On the breezes to toss,
Or, capriciously still.
Like the lone albatross,
Incumbent on night
As she on the air,
To direct with delight
All the harmony there ?
Indeed, it is not the uucommonness of the fancy, but the common
ness of it, which gives it dignity; and its admission into the scientific
method is valueless except as demonstrative proof of the hypothesis
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASTS OF ORTHODOXY.
211
that the æsthetic evolution of nature is identifiable with the æsthetic
evolution of art.
As philosophy, historically speaking, is a response to the rational
ideal, so art, music, poetry is a response—vague it may be as the music
of Memnon’s statue, unsatisfactory as the fatuous fire of the Will-o’the-Wisp, but a response nevertheless to the psychal ideal, to the
toiling to embody the ultimate in form. For this the musician
trickles music from his finger-tips, and the poet sets his vision to melody
of numbers; for this, the insensate blossoms into forms of supernal
loveliness ; for this, the quarried marble is fashioned into shapes of
beauty by the hand of the artist; for this, in short, the imagination
creates unto itself an ideal Eden, reflecting in form, in color, in mel
ody, its own vague prophecies of the absolute in beauty. In the
rustle of leaves, in the soughing of winds, in the muffled music of rain
upon grass, in the rhythmical laughter of rills, in the tremulous swing
ing of reeds—in all things, in a word, in which the wave-motion is ex
pressed, it seeks expression for its own sublimated conceptions of the
ideal—that ideal which is forever restless, and which, probably, no col
location of present physical forms could fully embody.
Men deficient in the art-instinct may sneer at the æsthetic inspira
tion as fare il santo, but it has its historical significance, nevertheless.
Truth, in essence, is sublime ; but its loftiest sublimity is lifeless—is
pulseless—is utterly ineffective when brought into comparison with the
inspiration of the beautiful. Dismiss rhapsody, and make a last deduc
tion—a deduction that logically ensues and offers a solution of the
riddle. It is that, the absolute in consciousness attained, man, still
ceasing not to be man, shall find in the full evolution of beauty the
historical answer to the struggle to create firms of physical loveliness.
It is that matter, mastered by consciousness and answering imme
diately, as it now answers mediately, to the art-instinct, shall yield
itself to the expression of the psychal ideal with perfect fluidity and
subjection. Whence, from beauty ephemeral is deduced beauty eternal.
The imaginative poiesis having been identified in principle with
the natural evolution of the beautiful, as the philosophical poiesis is
identifiable with the rationale of that phenomenal evolution, a more
minute analysis of the processes of the philosophical and imaginative
may be attempted. Both begin with perception, and proceed from per
ception to poiesis. The gradations from perception to philosophy in
the rational intellect are :
1. Perception of the object as object.
2. Perception of the object as subject, that is, rational cognition—
understanding.
3. Rational discursion, or pure reason—eventuating in philosophy.
The rational cognition or understanding is inclusive alike of the
cognition of the mathematical and of the logical relations of the
object.
�212
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
The gradations of the imaginative or sensitive intellect are:—
1. Perception of the object as object.
2. Sensitive cognition, or cognition of the object as subject, that is,
in its relation to the idea of beauty—taste.
3. Sensitive discursion, or imagination—eventuating in artistic,
musical, or poetic creation.
Taking up the third poiesis, that is, the inspirational, springing his
torically from the theanthropic instinct, a third formulation is neces
sary to complete the formulations of the historical manifestation of the
human consciousness in what may be termed the literary form. This
third poiesis begins with the intuitional, and may be formulated
thus:
1. Intuitional perception, that is, perception of the absolute as the
ground (Urgrunde) of the relative.
2. Intuitional cognition, that is, cognition of the absolute as sub
jective—faith.
3. Intuitional discursion—eventuating in prophecy, in revelation,
or, more comprehensively stated, in theanthropomorphization.
This formulation agrees substantially with that adopted in the
phrenological scheme—which, however, can have no scientific psychol
ogy—though I may suggest that, in phrenology, that which is termed
the semi-intellectual would be more accurately described by the word
psychal, while for intellectual I should substitute rational, and for
religious, intuitional. In relation to the phenomenal, the rational
identifies itself with causation; the imaginative or psychal with
morphization; the intuitional with theanthropomorphization as the
historical deduction of consciousness and the historical destiny of
man.
Any who may wish to study the data upon which the preceding
generalizations are based, may, without subjecting themselves to the
trouble of looking further, consult Mr. Lewes’ history of philosophy,
the admirable work of M. Henry Taine, on art-criticism, and the pro
foundly philosophical treatise on sacred history, in the publication of
which Prof. Kurtz has done more to turn back the current of rational
ism than the whole body of his orthodox confreres taken together;
referring them to which, I may be permitted to take leave of historical
induction, and devote the remainder of the argument to the evolution
of a biological definition, sufficiently broad to cover not only the struc
tural, physiological, and psychological per se, but also the ultimate the
anthropomorphization which historical induction indicates as the final
historical sublimate of humanity.
I cannot, however, pass to the evolution of the biological definition
without noticing a curious and very superficial error, into which, mis
led by eminent English thinkers and savans, Mr. Fiske has fallen in
his summary lecture on Positivism. “ Since,” says that gentleman—
“ since the process of generalization has successively metamorphosed
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
213
fetishism into polytheism,, and polytheism into monotheism, the in
ference is that it must eventually complete the metamorphosis of mono
theism into Positivism; and thus Positivism regards itself as the le
gitimate successor of theology.” So partial is this generalization, and
so inconsequent and unpsychological is its conclusion, that it seems
strange that Mr. Fiske should have gravely enunciated it. So far as
the historical fact is concerned, monotheism began with the beginning
of history. Historically speaking, the relapse was from monotheism
into polytheism, that is, monotheism preceded. Fetishism cannot be
postulated as the starting-point of theism: Accepting the book of
Genesis as the initial attempt at history, which is demonstrably true,
it is obvious that theology began with monotheism in the Semitic
stem. The history of this stem presents the only completed cycle of
theanthropomorphization grounded in the persistence of the mono
theistic conception. The Indo-European stem presents at the begin
ning of history a series of mythological cosmogonies essentially simi
lar, but evidently deduced from the Semitic, which, though polytheistic
in terminology, are pantheistic in ultimate analysis. The Hindoo,
Persian, Gothic, Grecian, and Roman systems constitute a group, in
which monotheism original seems, by gradual process of theanthropo
morphization, imaginative rather than historical, to have been meta
morphosed into mythologies, superficially polytheistic, but essentially
pantheistic. In their cosmological systems they are evidently deriva
tive from the Semitic, which is historically older. The Egyptian and
Assyrian systems are still more obviously derivative from the Semitic.
All these derivative mythologies begin with the postulation of a mono
theistic original, answering to the Elohim, as in the Jupiter of the
Greeks, for example, and proceed to polytheism upon the principle of
multiplication; effecting a partial return to monotheism in the pan
theism that succeeds. The Mongolian stem differs from the IndoEuropean in details of mythology and cosmology, but not so essentially
as to stand aloof from the generalization; and, again, historically con
sidered, fetishism is rather representative of a degraded monotheism
than original. In all the so-called pagan systems, there are prismatic
reflections of the original element of the theanthropomorphization
more historically developed in the Semitic system. They appear in the
Vedas, in the Zendavesta. They are written in hieroglyphics amid the
relics of Egypt. They reappear in the Gothic, Greek, and Roman
mythologies, though more feebly; and, generally, the remoter the an
tiquity of the system, the more distinctly derivative from the Semitic
are these prismatic reflections. The pagan cycle, therefore, begins with
monotheism, descends to polytheism by theistic multiplication, and
ends in pantheism by generalization of the polytheistic. The return
to monotheism is effected through the historical triumph of the Semitic
system, which, having completed its first cycle in the synthesis (theo
retical at least) of the divine consciousness with the human, assumes
�214
THE SCIENTIFIC BASTS OF ORTHODOXY.
universality by general diffusion and propagation, and becomes the
great developing element of an historical civilization, grounded upon
monotheism and the ultimate historical theanthropomorphization of
man. The utmost deduction of the rational intellect postulates ulti
mate cause, which the realistic instinct of the imagination transforms
into a world-soul, which is pantheism; and, as a generalization, it may
be observed that, in the ancient pagan civilizations, in the old IndoEuropean civilization generally—in which the rational and imaginative
have had the ascendency—the theistic idea has lapsed from monotheism
into polytheism, and from polytheism, by synthesis of polytheistic gen
eralizations, has ascended into pantheism, and there has been arrested.
The historical generalization is, it is seen, in substantial concord with
the psychological deduction that the dominance of the aesthetic in
stinct universally results in pantheism. Poets are inevitably pan
theistic in proportion to the dominance of the imagination—that is, in
proportion to the dominance of the psychal over the intuitional—
as artists are in ratio to the intensity of the art-insight. The phil
osophical insight, on the other hand, is neutral—neither theistic nor
atheistic—and concerns itself with the absolute in causation without
regard to the realization of the absolute in causation in some absolute
ego supposed to stand at the head of the cosmology in the attitude
of the cosmical soul. The element of theanthropomorphization, in as
far as it colors the Greek system, must be referred, partially, to the em
bers of monotheism perdu and transmuted from the Semitic, and, par
tially, to the struggle of the intuitional to assert itself in „the Greek
civilization.
The elements of polytheism and pantheism have, historically con
sidered, always been ephemeral and fluctuating. The element of mono
theism, having as its historical end the theanthropomorphization of the
human, has, on the other hand, been permanent, and constitutes the
basis of most that is valuable in the present European system of civili
zation. The historical induction, therefore, denies the validity of Mr.
Fiske’s conclusion, and leads to the hypothesis that monotheism and
theanthropomorphization will complete the cycle of history in the
realization of the latter. Thus, the present cycle of history is found to
embrace the interval of biological evolution included between the reali
zation of the ego as conditioned consciousness and the realization of
the ego as unconditioned consciousness; and thus egotism, in its better
sense, appears as the definition of history. Thus, too, biology must be
considered as divisible into two cycles, to wit, the cycle of pre-historic
evolution, and that of evolution historical; and thus, again, the histor
ical permanence of theology, as at present constituted, may be as
sumed ; the post-historical being of course represented by perfected
theanthropomorphization.
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
215 x
II.—THE NECESSARY BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION.
The imperfect condition of biology prevented the contemporary
appreciation of the value and significance of Hartley’s interpretation of
Lockian philosophy ; and, until the end of the eighteenth century the
glittering sensationalism of Condillac divided the philosophical laurels
with crude materialism. The first reaction was constituted by the le
cœur system advocated by Laromiguiere and Victor Cousin—a spiritu
alistic reaction of the most superficial kind, consisting in equal quan
tities of tawdry rhetoric and rhapsodical appeal to the testimony of the
heart. Having deluged France with a diarrhoea of words that meant
nothing, the system died of its own want of vitality. In England, at the
same time, the scepticism of Hume had produced a philosophical crisis.
Then came Kant, in Germany, and Comte, in France—the formel'
laying tlie foundation for Hegelism, and the latter appearing as the
founder of the Positive system, which may be conditioned as the syn
thesis of the methods and doctrines of science. The distinctively Posi
tive attitude of Galileo, Descartes, and Bacon, to the last of whom is
due the authoritative enunciation of the second canon of Positivism,
prepared the way for that system as elaborated by Comte. The first
canon of Positivism resulted from the reconsideration of the meta
physics of Spinoza, in England, and was the direct consequence of the
movement begun by Hobbes and continued by Locke, Berkeley, and
Hume. The first two canons of Positivism are, therefore, pre-Comteian. The last three propositions are peculiar to Comte and Spencer,
the two great apostles of the Positive system, the ground-theorem of
which is that the sciences can be made to furnish the materials neces
sary to the evolution of a complete, synthetic, and unified conception
of the world. Fundamentally, the practical realization of this unified
conception depends upon the biological definition which must be equal
to the covering of the metaphysical as well as the physical, and equal
to the explanation, not only of the pre-historic and historical, but also
of the post-historic. For the latest and most lucidly-arranged collec
tion and collation of the data of biology, the student is referred to
Herbert Spencer’s “ First Principles ” and his two volumes on biologi
cal science, issued by the Appletons.
The direction of foreign scientific investigation tends to lessen the
number of primary assumptions ; and it is now substantially conceded
that hardness, solidity, rigidity, impenetrability, elasticity, and the like,
are not properties of matter, but manifestations of attendant force.
“ The monstrous assumption of philosophers that the infinitely peren
nial specific quality of matter-atoms is due to infinite strength and
infinite rigidity, has for its only pretext,” says Sir William Thomson,
4f that adopted by Newton and eminent modern physicists, namely :
that it seems to account for the unalterable distinguishing qualities of
�216
Tin: SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
different kinds of matter. The movement toward the rejection of the
hypothesis that atoms are infinitely strong and infinitely rigid was t
started by Helmholtz, three years since, in his investigation of the
dynamical properties of vortex rings, from which he eliminates an
important conclusion. Describing their motion as wirbel-bewegung
(whirling motion), he concludes, from his experiments, that, if once
set up a perfect fluid, that is, a fluid with no viscosity or friction of
particles, it would be absolutely perpetual. Inertia would then be
overcome. Vortex rings may be produced by smokers by arranging
the lips so as to pronounce the letter 0, and expelling smoke from the
mouth gently, with the lips in that position. The smoke answers the
function to render the rings visible—they being just as readily pro
ducible in transparent air, as has been experimentally demonstrated.
These cylindrical rings move upward, when expelled from the mouth,
perpendicularly to their planes, revolving rapidly, as they move, around
a circular axis. This rotation corresponds in direction on the inner
side with the general motion of the ring; the outer side moving in
a contrary direction. They are not broken by impelling them one
against another, but rebound with singular elasticity, the integrity of
the ring being preserved.
It was this investigation upon which Sir Wm. Thomson grounded
his new theory of the molecular constitution of matter; its ground
theorem being that a closed vortex core is literally indivisible by any
action resultant from vortex motion. All bodies being composed of
vortex atoms, therefore, the infinitely perennial specific quality of
atoms is explicable without the Newtonian assumption.
Helmholtz, having proved that this quality exists in a perfect fluid
when the motion he terms wirbel-bewegung has been created, and
actual experiments having proved that when smoke rings in air are so
impelled as to come in collision they cannot be made to penetrate each
other, but rebound resiliently, Sir William deduces the conclusion
that, by packing them more closely than gases are packed under the
dynamical theory, the properties of liquids and solids might be ex
plained without assuming the atoms themselves to be either liquid or
solid, and the further conclusion that the number of primary as
sumptions may be lessened by one on the hypothesis that all bodies are
composed of vortex atoms in a perfectly homogeneous fluid. The
dynamic theory of gases, now received by Thomson, Tait, Joule, Helm
holtz, and others—European physicists of eminence all of them—is in
concord with Prof. Thomson’s hypothesis also, which as generalization
is of eminent value to physicists. Prof. Huxley, more recent in his
conclusions, seems to assume the matter-atom as per se dynamic, if
his biological definition is indicial of any opinion on the subject; and,
generally, it will be noted, the tendency of physical science is to lessen
the number of primary assumptions by rejecting the Newtonian enum
eration of the primary properties.
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
217
The same general tendency may be observed in relation to the
physical forces. Prof. Grove has proved that light and heat are moods
of the same force. Faraday long since demonstrated that magnetism
would produce electricity, with the important condition, how
ever, that the electricity so produced is static, not dynamic;
directive, not active; while Helmholtz has developed many curious
analogies in his work on the interaction of forces. Mayer has done
considerable in the same direction ; while Carpenter has brought out the
essential relation of the physical to the vital forces. These data have
been all collected by Prof. Youmans, and brought together into a single
ably edited volume.
This vortex-atomic theory involves, however, an unverifiable hy
pothesis in the determination of the specific form of the atom, which
is an assumption to be avoided if possible, and can be by postulating
that matter is dynamo-atomic. The qualities or properties of matter
are thus reducible to a single postulate, which is self-evident, to wit,
capacity for motion. Carrying the deduction a step further, from the
correlation and interaction of all forces so-called, and from the demon
strated identity of light and heat; from the proved convertibility of
forces and the demonstrated conservation of them, the generalization
is valid that force is essentially the same, and that what are termed
forces are only moods of one universal force, which may be either dy
namic or static, either directive or motive, and the law of the motion
of which is undulation, or rhythm, or, more properly, the wave or
progressive motion.
The physicist may begin, therefore, with three simple postulates,
two of which are self-evident:
I. Force, that which causes to move—affording a very simple ex
planation of gravitation, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and con
sciousness, by reference of either to mood.
II. Matter, that which is moved—rigidly excluding all assumption
of so-called primary qualities from the definition.
III. The explanation of physical, psychal, and intellectual phenom
ena in strict accordance with the dynamical hypothesis, that is, upon
principles strictly mathematical.
The presupposition of the undulatory theory of light is that of an
ethereal and exceedingly attenuated medium, which may, perhaps,
answer the definition of the perfect homogeneous fluid necessary to
the permanence of the wirbel-bewegung in Helmholtz’s deduction or
Thomson’s vortex-atomic hypothesis. The dynamo-atomic hypothesis
presupposes the same attenuated medium or ethereal matter pervading
all cosmical interval. The cosmological evolution begins, therefore,
with a dynamic element or. causative of motion, that is, force, and a
static element or vehicle of motion, that is, matter—which, strangely
enough, answer very minutely to the ancient cosmological postulates
of the male and female principles in the genesis of cosmogonies. This
28
�218
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
force is either motive or directive, either transitive or modal. Magne
tism may be made to produce static electricity, as has been dem
onstrated by Prof. Faraday. Both electricity and magnetism may
be developed into activity by motion or revolution—the difference be
tween them being that electricity seems to be eccentric and diffusive,
while magnetism is concentric and attractive. Assuming. that polar
magnetism is magnetic force set free by revolution, and that the
magnetic force is concentric—the needle, when magnetized at only one
end, should point to the centre of the earth, which is in correspond
ence with the fact. Both ends being magnetized and the needle bal
anced, it points in the direction of the magnetic pole, parallel with the
magnetic current. Again, place a compass near the magnetic
pole and compel the needle to keep its horizontal position, and it
points any way at random ; but, if left to itself, it points downward
toward the centre of the earth, and this constitutes what is termed
the dip of the -needle, as you move it from the equator in the direction
of either pole. The conclusion is, therefore, that magnetism is concen
tric, which accounts for the facts, without supposing the interior of
the earth to be a fixed natural magnet, which is disproved by the vari
ation of the needle from year to year in the same locality, an exhaustive
investigation of the laws of which was instituted by John A. Parker
in 1866, and printed in the volume of American Institute reports for
1867, under the general head of Polar Magnetism. The conclusion is
that electricity and magnetism represent the eccentric and concentric
moods of the same force—the latter constituting the ground of what
Newton terms gravitation. The former is diffusive; the latter, attract
ive. Heat and light resulting from undulations of the same attenua
ted medium, differ materially in this: that the former varies inversely
as the length of the undulation, while the perception of the latter re
sults from the ratio of undulations embraced in a single octave; and,
again, heat appears to be attractive, while light is diffusive. Assuming
these four to represent the concentric and eccentric moods, affinity
may be postulated as their synthesis; and this completes the cosmo
logical generalization. Again, assume the vitality which is allied to
electricity as eccentric, and nervosity allied to magnetism as concen
tric, and consciousness represents the synthesis of all the moods in
biology. The cosmological analysis is formulated thus:—
Eccentric moods ------ Light-------- Electricity \
Concentric moods-------Heat-------- Magnetism
The biological formulary of the forces proceeds further, and stands
thus:—
Eccentric moods ------ Light------- Electricity
Concentric moods------ Heat------- Magnetism
Afflnity /Vitality > Consciousness.
\ Nervosity '
The classification of vitality with the eccentric, and of nervosity
with the concentric, is in concord with the fact that temperaments in
which vitality predominates are the more electric; while temperaments
�T H fí S C TEN TIFIO B J S r S O F O U T HOB O X Y.
219
having a predominance of nervosity are the more magnetic. Or. again,
the temperament of vitality develops more color; while the tempera
ment of nervosity develops more intensity. The formulation pro
pounded need not, however, be further verified, since the argument
from comparative anatomy is conclusive as to its validity—the data
being matters of every-day observation. Two points of the ground
assumption remain to be stated, to wit, the persistence of force and the
persistence of matter; the mutable element appearing in form. Of the
two former the absolute may be predicated ; the latter constitutes the
basis of phenomenal evolution and dissolution, or, in other words, the
element of non-persistence and limitation. It is, therefore, neither in
force nor in matter per se that the relative element appears, but in
morphization. The formulation of the two primary assumptions as
cosmological or biological includes, therefore, motion and form, and is
represented as : Force, that which causes motion, the law of the evolution
of which (motion) is rhythm; Matter, that in which motion appears,
either as simple and continuous, the law of which is rhythm; or as
arrested and limitedly persistent, that is, form or morphization, the law
of which is beauty. As morphization, form pertains to cosmology; as
individuation, to biology.
It is not proposed to attempt here the framing of a mécanique celeste
adopted to the dynamo-atomic theory, though, given the wirbel-bewegwig,
the elements upon which to ground a cosmological system are com
plete. Neither is it purposed to enter upon an analysis and enumera
tion of the data of biology, in which little could be added to the ad
mirable induction and collation already developed by Herbert Spencer.
The aim of this critique is, on the other hand, to develop an adequate
biological definition. The definitions thus far propounded are referable
to three generalizations, to wit:
1. Life is the tendency to individuation, which is German and con
notes the essential physical condition of the evolution of organism,
that is, individuality.
2. Life is the twofold internal movement of composition and de
composition, at once general and continuous—which is essentially
physiological and merely the assertion of a fact, rather than a general
ization from a collection of facts.
3. Life is the co-ordination of actions—which, again, is simply the
assertion of a fact, and the same fact as before, looked at from the
stand-point of the physicist rather than from that of the physiologist.
The first represents life merely as a tendency impressed upon the
constitution of matter; the second apprehends physiologically the
necessary condition of a living organism ; while the third apprehends
the same condition scientifically. The post-Kantian or Hegelian
period of German philosophy, if valuable for no other reason, is to be
credited with the only proximately satisfactory definition of life, as
well as a great many valuable contributions to' literary criticism. The
�220
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
sin of German speculators has been—owingto a certain realistic ten
dency or disposition to mistake words for things, expunged from the
Latin stock by dialectics, but still inherent in German—the seemingly
profound at the expense of the really and intelligibly profound—as all
philosophy postulated upon so-called intellectual intuition necessarily
must be. Still, it is by no means a sequitur that the postulate is to be
denied, for there can exist no doubt as to the validity of the conclusion
that, as there is a poetic intuition or imaginative insight as to the ideal
in beauty, so the highest sublimation of the rational intellect is intui
tional in its processes. Of course, it is possible to explain the seem
ingly intuitional by assuming insensible processes of deduction going
on in the mind, but not perceived as going on, and, therefore, occult ;
but the fact remains : both the imaginative vision and the rational
vision are, in their most sublimated phases, rather immediate than
mediate. The evidence of fact is ample as to this point and this mood
of intellect, the paroxysms of which are rare—are, in their illumi
nation, as if a star had burst inside of one’s head—often astonish, as
if a sun had shot athwart the heavens at midnight. Having no
method of proof, however, the rational intuition is valueless to philo
sophical speculation ; and this fact Bacon, himself most profoundly
intuitional, was sensible enough to apprehend and announce in the
promulgation of the objective method. Logically, therefore, upon
Bacon, as the father of the objective method in philosophy, and New
ton, almost the father of physical discovery, the Positive system de
pends ; and yet the evolution of the only profound biological definition
is due to one of the dreamiest disciples of the subjective.
If the wave-motion be taken as the basis of the law of rhythm in
the action of motive force, it is to be considered in itself as both pro
gressive and analogous to Helmholtz’s irirbel-bewegHng, since it has
been proved by Gerstner and Scott Russell that, in the typical wave
motion of a liquid, in the ocean-wave, for example, all the particles
revolve at the same time, in the same direction, and in vertical col
umns. This pulsating motion appears at least in a couple of species
of plants—the Hedysarum gyrans and the Colocasia esculenta, as to
the rhythmical tremor, of which latter M. Lecoq reported to the
Academy of Sciences, France, in 1867, some very curious and interest
ing observations—and upon it and its dynamical laws is, no doubt, to
be grounded the permanent hypothesis of mécanique celeste, all cos
mical creation being analogous to a limitless and palpitating heart. At
the basis of all motion lies this rhythmical impulse.
It is not scientific to assume special creations in biology. For its
purposes, evolution is the fundamental conception of organism ; and,
as Mr. Spencer has been lucid in his definition of evolution and of its
processes, quotation is admissible :
“1. An object is said to be homogeneous when one of its parts is like
every other part. An illustration is not easy to find, as perfect homo
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
221
geneity has probably never existed in the universe. But one may say
that a piece of gold is homogeneous as compared with a piece of wood ;
or that a wooden ball is homogeneous as compared with an orange.
“ 2. An object is said to be heterogeneous where its parts have no
resemblance to one another. All objects whatever are more or less
heterogeneous. But a tree is said to be heterogeneous as compared
with the seed from which it has sprung; and• an orange is heteroge
neous as compared to a wooden ball.
“ 3. Differentiation is the arising of an unlikeness between any two
of the units which make up an aggregate. A piece of iron, before it is
exposed to the air, is, to all intents and purposes, homogeneous. But
when, by exposure to the air, it has acquired a coating of oxide, it is
heterogeneous. The units composing its outside are unlike the units
composing its inside; or, in other words, its outside is differentiated
from its inside.
“ 4. Integration is the grouping together of those units of a hetero
geneous aggregate which resemble one another. A good example is
afforded by crystallization. The particles of the crystallizing substance,
which resemble each other, and which have no resemblance to the par
ticles of the solvent fluid, gradually unite to form the crystal; which is
that said to be integrated from the solution. Another case of integra
tion is seen in the rising of cream upon the surface of a dish of milk,
and in the frothy collection of carbonic acid bubbles covering a lately
filled glass of ale. When small pebbles, mixed with sand, are thrown
into a tumbler and gently agitated, the result is an integration of the
pebbles at the bottom of the vessel and of the sand above them.”
From these definitions, which are definitions of processes, he
deduces his definition of evolution :
“ Whether it be in the development of the earth, in the develop
ment of life upon its surface, in the development of society, of govern
ment, manufactures, of commerce, of language, literature, science, art,
this same advance from the simple to the complex, through successive
differentiations, holds uniformly. From the earliest traceable cosmical
phenomena down to the latest results of civilization, it will be found
that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous is
that in which evolution essentially consists.”
There may be doubts as to the precision of the definition of evolu
tion as applied to biology. The tendency of matter to organization
would, perhaps, express Mr. Spencer’s meaning more definitively; the
tendency to individuation expressing with more precision that which
Mr. Spencer terms integration. In fact, the definitions of the English
philosopher pertain rather to non-biological evolution than to the evo
lution of living organism.
Pre-historically considered, the tendency of matter to organization
expresses the biological definition with sufficient precision; but, with
the advent of humanity, the necessitv for a broader and deeper gene-
�222
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF O li T H O D 0 X F.
ralization appears. The phenomenon of self-consciousness must, be
accounted for and admitted into the generalization, if it is to cover
more than the mere physical conditions of being, which are expressed
definitely enough in the first definition quoted, which is attributable
to Schelling, or in the second, proposed by De Blainville, or in the
third, which belongs to Mr. Spencer. For philosophical purposes, as
inclusive of the phenofnenon of self-consciousness, it is necessary to
attempt a deeper generalization—to begin with the beginning, that is,
with matter, and end with the result, that is, with self-consciousness.
Individuation must appear simply as a law of biological evolution ; and
the co-ordination of actions as a condition of its persistence. The
word tendency expresses the dynamic idea sufficiently lucidly, and is,
perhaps, preferable to motion or impulse for purposes of definition.
The three words, matter, as expressive of the ground of organism,
tendency, as expressive of its dynamical direction, and consciousness, as
expressive of its logical end, may, therefore, be adopted as the basis of
definition. The collateral of consciousness, to wit, self-hood, must be
included in the generalization, as also must that of realization ; and
the fabric is logically complete. Put in the form of a proposition, it
stands thus:
Life is the tendency of matter to self-consciousness.
The propositions of Schelling, De Blainville and Spencer are expres
sive simply of certain laws of evolution incident to the tendency of
matter toward the realization of self-consciousness, and may be formu
lated thus:
1. Law of evolution : progressive individuation.
2. Law of persistence : co-ordination of actions.
3. Law of physiology: twofold internal movement of composition
and decomposition, at once general and continuous.
The first might, perhaps, be better designated as the law of mor
phization, though evolution is more comprehensive, and, for philo
sophical purposes,- is the most important of the three—the two latter
pertaining merely to physics. There remains yet a fourth law, grounded
upon the ratiocination which has preceded: it is the law of beauty.
For investigation of the question, What is to be the ultimate sublimate
of humanity ? the two latter may be rejected, and the law of beauty
added. The formulary will then be expressed:
Life is the tendency of matter to self-consciousness.
1. First law of morphization : progressive individuation.
2. Second law of'morphization : progressive beauty, that is, progress
from beauty as relative to beauty as absolute, from beauty as ephemeral
to beauty as persistent and eternal.
The persistence of the dynamic and static elements in organism,
that is, force and matter, has never been denied. The morphization
has constituted the element of mutation ; and that its mutation or
want of absolute persistence is due to the imperfect realization of the
�THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOX T.
223
individual and the beautiful in organism, ensues as a logical conse
quence. Again, as the struggle of matter is to apprehend itself in con
sciousness, and as the struggle of the limited in consciousness is to
attain the absolute in consciousness, it ensues, as a logical consequence,
that the realization of the theological ideal of the historical destiny of
man is by no means undemonstrable from the data and inductions of
science. There is one law worth noting here, as to the persistence of
the dynamic element, not only per se, but in any special mood that it
may develop. The modal persistence of forcé has given occasion to
assume plurality of forces; and there is as little reason to suppose that
the mood of self-consciousness—its most sublimated mood, certainly—
is not persistent as there is to suppose that the mood of magnetism is
not persistent. Admitting, therefore, the persistence of conservation
of force, as Prof. Carpenter terms it, and the further persistence of
mood, which is demonstrable from Prof. Grove’s investigations as to
the correlation of forces—the scientific induction proves the persistence
of self-consciousness, which may be termed the individuation of force ;
demonstrating thereby the theological dogma of the immortality of
the soul.
It is obvious, therefore, that theology may be brought within the
circle of scientific induction, provided the biological definition be deep
ened in its generalization, as heretofore suggested, sa as to include the
phenomenon of consciousness. This conclusion is, of course, fatal to
the pretensions of Positivism as the successor of theology, and indi
cates, with the precision that a weather-vane indicates the direction of
an air-current, that the historical persistence of the two fundamental
propositions in which the theological system is grounded, to wit, mono
theism and the historical theanthropomorphization of humanity, is
both a valid deduction from the phenomenon of consciousness and a
valid induction of science. Moreover, this induction, valid upon the
hypothesis of the unity of force, is of equal validity, whether what are
termed forces be simply moods, or original dynamic principles. The
ego, therefore, is a persistent and indestructible individuality, the self
expression of which constitutes history, the evolution of which consti
tutes the pre-historic biology, the finality of which, historical progress
being interpreted as the struggle of the limited in consciousness to com
pass the absolute in consciousness, is theanthropy or that realization of
the absolute, which the inspirational poiesis historically foreshadows.
At first glance, the biological definition herein proposed resembles a
truism, and, if I mistake not, a truism it is. The fact, however, that it
has been overlooked in the dreary annals of physical and metaphysical
speculation,, answers sufficiently well as an apology for having inflicted
upon the reader a rather obvious train of ratiocination looking to its
elimination. So many have been the fantastic pagodas of logic upreared
with the view of topping them with the solution of the mystery of
being, that it must be refreshing to peruse something obvious—at least
�224
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ORTHODOXY.
semi-occasionally; and this is my apology for having discussed at
length and rather discursively—for having endeavored to demonstrate,
step by step, a theorem which is, in all respects, almost too self-evident
to need elaborate demonstration.
The key is simple; but, with it may be unraveled the riddle. It
unlocks the door, at least, of a reconciliation of theology with the
scientific method; and, as both must be ranked as persistent, the recon
ciliation is desirable. Simple as is its generalization, it opens the way,
too, for bringing metaphysics within the circle of scientific demonstra
tion, and founds a durable scientific basis upon which to build the
structure of theological metaphysics: for, theologically stated, the
biological definition is equally explicit in its adherence to scientific
induction. Let me state it theologically:
Life is the tendency of the material toward the spiritual, eventuating
in the consciousness of self.
Supplement this definition with a second definition, that is, a defi
nition of history from the theological point of view, and the basis of
the theological fabric is complete and grounded on inexorable scientific
induction as well. This second definition may be thus formulated :
History is the struggle of the human in the direction of theanthropy,
eventuating in incarnation, and having for its enji the ultimate his
torical synthesis of the human with the God-consciousness.
This is the goal of the toilers after knowledge, and the goal that
forever eludes their pursuit.. It is the basis of the dreams of Kepler;
of the scientific reveries of Comte; of the inexorable inductions of
Bucan, of the splendid cosmogony of La Place; of the goblin philo
sophical structures of Hegel and Schelling. It constitutes the secret
of the vain pursuit of man after the phantom of truth, of beauty, of
novelty—in short, after the distant and vaguely apprehended ideals he
seeks to attain, but to attain which were yet madness. Budderless and
compassless, he presses on, in thought, in dream, in reverie, in art, in
poetry, in philosophy, through fens of speculation and morasses of
ontology, until at last his fate overtakes him, and an epitaph is all that
is left to tell the story of his vain struggle after the Egeria of his
dreams^—the absolute.
If materialism is to be the coming philosophy, therefore, the subjec
tive tendency (or element) of matter must be admitted in order to ren
der philosophy possible. The definition of evolution as the progressive
struggle of matter in the direction of subjectivity, will then constitute
the true meaning of Mr. Spencer’s generalization; while life (in defini
tion) will be represented by matter as apprehending itself in subjec
tivity, and philosophy will return to a profounder era of metaphysics
in the explanation of the phenomenal upon psychological principles
The problem will be: Given the objective and subjective poles in mat
ter to find the x of the grand unity; and this is a problem in the study
of which theologians can join with scientists.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The scientific basis of orthodoxy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Fairfield, Francis Gerry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [202]-224 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in brown ink on cream paper. From Modern Thinker, no. 1,1870
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5424
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The scientific basis of orthodoxy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Orthodoxy
Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf981093f0ff863d371ada2ec5acb527.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vTE8k-IvAcBgFsg9%7EdvPw0CWMVEiG0M%7EaTbLvWBZ-WhVa0egz%7Eozi%7EfBdS6OohUwp5gZMdRSFMQxABK8NnOueeNVLjiu1HJwE4daeyRYRyuBPwTr-fsUzbJGayrGrVS03NSiauwQoo--OHjmYnWdWlYNaQ8XrRBWH-A1RP0ME16a%7E5B6yY9kSTROBFw8WC6oOkg8n5iVPLM5puXNAh-W%7E-rroSGVNIyAJKZr0zK1WgCIL-uLZWklzeag6J6r9OcpihRjYX5p-0rDNjLNedJTNfMBKr2R3aRgrFnrBJAd8zJYevhypSQ3ol5YY70kc6x-na79ZbEMKWb4vNizOswogA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
27483b8a5b27ea5989f15a0903fe2396
PDF Text
Text
3
- A UHKMFIONjOF ORTHODOXY THUS REPLIES
RELIGION.
Sir,
A Correspondent on the above subject in your paper of last
week, styling himself “ Layman,” should have been
and styled
himself a “ Socinian” (a nickname foi’ an Atheist).
He has acted like all cowards act,—first misrepresent the opinions of
their opponents and then abuse them. Being a Layman (so called), I
venture to answer your Correspondent “ according to his folly,” and
challenge him to a public discussion, at any time and place, and defy him
to disprove the following propositions :—
That the Bible, fairly interpreted, teaches the following to be the
revealed will of God, and experience proves its truth :
1. That there are three persons, yet but one God.
2. That there is a future state of happiness, and misery, eternal in its
nature, and increasing as to its effects, let that happiness or misery arise
from what cause it may.
3. That Satan (or the Devil) first deceived our first parents, and from
that time to the present reigns in the hearts of all who have not repented
and believed on Christ.
4. That all mankind are born in sin, possessed of a fallen nature,
which leads them to love sin and hate God. This hatred is manifested
by all without distinction, high and low—your Correspondent not excepted.
5. That infants are not admitted into Paradise because of their
innocence by nature but by grace—“Christ died for them,” therefore,
baptized or unbaptized, if they die in infancy, in whatever clime, “ they
sleep in Jesus.”
6. That an atonement for sin was necessary. That Christ was, by
his Divine nature joined to the human, a fit sacrifice ; and His death and
resurrection confirms His power—and having atoned for the sins of the
whole world, He ascended upon high, and ever liveth to intercede for us.
The instruments God used to accomplish His purposes have nothing to do
with the atonement made. The Jews were as much the murderers of our
Saviour as though God’s design had been overturned, “ but our God turned
it into a blessing’' Christ could have died for us in some other way had
the Jews received Him, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.”
7. That repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
from Adam to now, have ever been followed with a consciousness of sins
forgiven, a heart renewed in righteousness and true holiness, and a hope
of eternal rest and power, through the in-dwelling Spirit of God, to live
unspotted from the world, doing good in their day and generation—proving
by their life and conversation that they “ seek a city which hath
foundations whose builder and maker is Godand when death comes
triumph over it, and die in hopes of a blissful immortality.
That there are many who teach otherwise we admit, but who are
they ? Papists, who deny the Scriptures to be the rule of our lives;
Puseyites, who are “ bastards of the Pope of Romeand Protestants
�4
(shame on the laws which compel us) are compelled to keep them—they
are spiritual thieves and murderers of the souls of men—common; high-'
waymen and murderers are angels when compared to them; Unitarians or
Socinians, who misquote and mistranslate Scripture, devil like, in order to
establish their unholy creed, viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint;” Anti,
nomians, who hope to be saved through a process they call “ election,” a
scheme concocted in the infernal regions, and sent into the world to
deceive mankind.
But all true Protestants of whatever name, and their name is Legion
—Methodists over 2,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 12,000,000;
Independents, 1,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 4,000,000; not to
mention Baptists, Evangelical Churchmen, and others, who, with the
immortal Chillingworth, cry out, “ The Bible and the Bible alone is the
religion of Protestants.”
Yours, &c.,
Oct. 9, 1865.
B. STICKLAND.
C.’s
REJOINDER.
Sir,
Your Correspondent, Mr. B. Stickland, fearfully denounces
all those who do not happen to entertain the same religious opinions as
himself.
My letter which you were kind enough to insert in your
impression of the 7th, has sorely grieved him. It is well he has not the
power of the inquisitors of old, or I might have suffered for my “heresy”
some fine morning at Smithfield or on Tower Hill. He evidently questions
my sincerity, for, says he, had I “ been honest ” I should have styled my
self a “ Socinian, a nickname for Atheist,” but I am “ like all cowards,”
I “ misrepresent and then abuse;” yet he “ will answer me according to
my folly,” and “ challenge me to public discussion,” when he will “ defy
me to disprove” his views. Bravo, Mr. Stickland! He evidently does
not want your readers to think him “ a coward,” yet how mightily
Pharasaical. He produces some half dozen of what he calls “propositions,’’
and adds, that those who “ teach otherwise ” are “ Papists who deny the
Scriptures, Puseyites who are bastards of the Pope, spiritual thieves, and
murderers of the souls of men !” “ Common highwaymen and murderers
are angels compared to them ; Unitarians and Sociniaus, who misquote
and mistranslate Scripture, devil-like, in order to establish their unholy
creed,” viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint.” “ Antinomians, who hope
to be saved by election, a scheme concocted in the infernal regions,” &c..
&c., &c. I
One would certainly conclude by this that Mr. S. is on terms of great
intimacy with his satanic majesty, as he appears to be quite au fait with
him, and his “ infernal regions.” I decidedly admit his superior knowledge
in this respect.
“But,” adds Mr. S. “all true Protestants,” such as he is, of course,
“ think otherwise,” &c., &c.
Now, in the name of common sense, what reason is there in all his
denunciations. Has our great teacher, Christ, who Mr. S. professes to
serve, ever given him the shadow of such a creed as is contained in his
seven propositions? Compare Mr. Stickland’s letter and creed with
Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and mark the contrast ! Oh, Mr. S.,
“ first cast the beam out of thine own eye,” &c.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. Religion.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stickland, B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.n.]
Collation: 3-4 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: A letter to the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette in response to a letter by W.E. Conner. Conner's rejoinder is also printed. Reprinted from the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette, October 9 or 10, 1865. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1865]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5258
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. Religion.), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Orthodoxy
Religion