A little reflection will explain this. There can be no doubt that there

is at present a strong and to many an overwhelming tendency toward

materialism. The amazing achievements of modern science; the absorption

of intellectual energy in the investigation of external nature and

the laws of matter have created a current in that direction so strong

that of those who feel its influence--of those who do not stay at

home, shut up in their creeds, but walk abroad in the light of modern

thought--it sweeps away and bears on its bosom all but the strongest

and most reflective minds. Materialism has thus become a fashion of

thought; and, like all fashions, must be guarded against. This tendency

has been created and is now guided by science. Just at this time it is

strongest in the department of biology, and especially is evolution its

stronghold. This theory is supposed by many to be simply demonstrative

of materialism. Once it was the theory of gravitation which seemed

demonstrative of materialism. The sustentation of the universe by law

seemed to imply that Nature operates itself and needs no God. That time

is passed. Now it is evolution and creation by law. This will also

pass. The theory seems to many the most materialistic of all scientific

doctrine only because it is the _last_ which is claimed by materialism,

and the absurdity of the claim is not yet made clear to many.

The truth is, there is no such necessary connection between evolution

and materialism as is imagined by some. There is no difference in this

respect between evolution and any other law of Nature. In evolution,

it is true, the last barrier is broken down, and the whole domain of

nature is now subject to law; but it is only _the last_; the march

of science has been in the same direction all the time. In a word,

evolution is not only not identical with materialism, but, to the deep

thinker, it has not added a feather’s weight to its probability or

reasonableness. Evolution is one thing and materialism quite another.

The one is an established law of nature, the other an unwarranted and

hasty inference from that law. Let no one imagine, as he is conducted

by the materialistic scientist in the paths of evolution from the

inorganic to the organic, from the organic to the animate, from the

animate to the rational and moral, until he lands, as it seems to him,

logically and inevitably, in universal materialism--let no such one

imagine that he has walked all the way in the domain of science. He

has stepped across the boundary into the domain of philosophy. But,

on account of the strong tendency to materialism and the skillful

guidance of his leaders, there seems to be no such boundary; he does

not distinguish between the inductions of science and the inferences

of a shallow philosophy; the whole is accredited to science, and the

final conclusion seems to carry with it all the certainty which belongs

to scientific results. The fact that these materialistic conclusions

are reached by some of the foremost scientists of the present day adds

nothing to their probability. In a question of science, viz., the law

of evolution, their authority is deservedly high, but in a question

of philosophy, viz., materialism, it is far otherwise. If the pure

scientists smile when theological philosophers, unacquainted with the

methods of science, undertake to dogmatize on the subject of evolution,

they must pardon the philosophers if they also smile when the pure

scientists imagine that they can at once solve questions in philosophy

which have agitated the human mind from the earliest times. I am

anxious to show the absurdity of this materialistic conclusion, but I

shall try to do so, not by any labored argument, but by a few simple

illustrations.

1. It is curious to observe how, when the question is concerning a

work of Nature, we no sooner find out how a thing is made than we

immediately exclaim: “It is not made at all, it became so of itself!”

So long as we knew not how worlds were made, we of course concluded

they must have been created, but so soon as science showed _how_ it

was probably done, immediately we say we were mistaken--they were not

made at all. So also, so long as we could not imagine how new organic

forms originated, we were willing to believe they were created, but,

so soon as we find that they originated by evolution, many at once say,

“We were mistaken; no creator is necessary at all.” Is this so when the

question is concerning a work of man? Yes, of one kind--viz., the work

of the magician. Here, indeed, we believe in him, and are delighted

with his work, until we know how it is done, and then all our faith

and wonder cease. But in any honest work it is not so; but, on the

contrary, when we understand how it is done, stupid wonder is changed

into intellectual delight. Does it not seem, then, that to most people

God is a mere wonder-worker, a chief magician. But the mission of

science is to show us how things are done. Is it any wonder, then, that

to such persons science is constantly destroying their superstitious

illusions? But if God is an honest worker, according to reason--i. e.,

according to law--ought not science rather to change gaping wonder into

intelligent delight--superstition into rational worship?

2. Again, it is curious to observe how an _old truth_, if it come only

in a _new form_, often strikes us as something unheard of, and even

as paradoxical and almost impossible. A little over thirty years ago

a little philosophical toy, the gyroscope, was introduced and became

very common. At first sight, it seems to violate all mechanical laws,

and set at naught the law of gravitation itself. A heavy-brass wheel,

four to five inches in diameter, at the end of a horizontal axle, six

or eight inches long, is set rotating rapidly, and then the free end

of the axis is supported by a string or otherwise. The wheel remains

suspended in the air while slowly gyrating. What mysterious force

sustains the wheel when its only point of support is at the end of

the axle, six or eight inches away? Scientific and popular literature

were flooded with explanations of this seeming paradox. And yet it was

nothing new. The boy’s top, that spins and leans and will not fall,

although solicited by gravity, so long as it spins, which we have seen

all our lives without special wonder, is precisely the same thing.

Now, evolution is no new thing, but an old familiar truth; but,

coming now in a new and questionable shape, lo, how it startles

us out of our propriety! Origin of forms by evolution is going on

everywhere about us, both in the inorganic and the organic world. In

its more familiar forms, it had never occurred to most of us that it

was a scientific refutation of the existence of God, that it was a

demonstration of materialism. But now it is pushed one step farther

in the direction it has always been going--it is made to include also

the origin of species--only a little change in its form, and lo, how

we start! To the deep thinker, now and always, there is and has been

the alternative--materialism or theism. God operates Nature or Nature

operates itself; but evolution puts no new phase on this old question.

For example, the origin of the individual by evolution. Everybody knows

that every one of us individually became what we now are by a slow

process of evolution from a microscopic spherule of protoplasm, and yet

this did not interfere with the idea of God as our individual maker.

Why, then, should the discovery that the species (or first individuals

of each kind) originated by evolution destroy our belief in God as the

creator of species?

3. It is curious and very interesting to observe the manner in which

vexed questions are always finally settled, if settled at all. All

vexed questions--i. e., questions which have tasked the powers of

the greatest minds age after age--are such only because there is

a real truth on both sides. Pure, unmixed error does not live to

plague us long. Error, when it continues to live, does so by virtue

of a germ of truth contained. Great questions, therefore, continue

to be argued _pro_ and _con_ from age to age, because each side

is in a sense--i. e., from its own point of view--true, but wrong

in excluding the other point of view; and a true solution, a true

rational philosophy, will always be found in a view which combines and

reconciles the two partial, mutually excluding views, showing in what

they are true and in what they are false--explaining their differences

by transcending them. This is so universal and far-reaching a principle

that I am sure I will be pardoned for illustrating it in the homeliest

and tritest fashion. I will do so by means of the shield with the

diverse sides, giving the story and construing it, however, in my own

way. There is, apparently, no limit to the amount of rich marrow of

truth that may be extracted from these dry bones of popular proverbs

and fables by patient turning and gnawing.

We all remember, then, the famous dispute concerning the shield,

with its sides of different colors, which we shall here call white

and black. We all remember how, after vain attempts to discover the

truth by dispute, it was agreed to try the scientific method of

investigation. We all remember the surprising result. Both parties to

the dispute were right and both were wrong. Each was right from his

point of view, but wrong in excluding the other point of view. Each

was right in what he asserted, and each wrong in what he denied. And

the complete truth was the combination of the partial truths and the

elimination of the partial errors. But we must not make the mistake of

supposing that truth consists in _compromise_. There is an old adage

that truth lies in the middle between antagonistic extremes. But it

seems to us that this is the place of _safety_, not of truth. This is

the favorite adage, therefore, of the timid man, the time-server, the

fence-man, not the truth-seeker. Suppose there had been on the occasion

mentioned above one of these fence-philosophers. He would have said:

“These disputants are equally intelligent and equally valiant. One side

says the shield is white, the other that it is black, now truth lies

in the middle; therefore, I conclude the shield is gray or neutral

tint, or a sort of pepper-and-salt.” Do we not see that he is the only

man who has no truth in him? No; truth is no heterogeneous mixture of

opposite extremes, but a stereoscopic combination of two surface views

into one solid reality.

Now, the same is true of all vexed questions, and I have given this

trite fable again only to apply it to the case in hand.

There are three possible views concerning the origin of organic forms

whether individual or specific. Two of these are opposite and mutually

excluding; the third combining and reconciling. For example, take the

individual. There are three theories concerning the origin of the

individual. The first is that of the pious child who thinks that he was

made very much as he himself makes his dirt-pies; the second is that

of the street-gamin, or of Topsy, who says: “I was not made at all,

I growed”; the third is that of most intelligent Christians--i. e.,

that we were made by a process of evolution. Observe that this latter

combines and reconciles the other two, and is thus the more rational

and philosophical. Now, there are also three exactly corresponding

theories concerning the origin of species. The first is that of many

pious persons and many intelligent clergymen, who say that species were

made at once by the Divine hand _without natural process_. The second

is that of the materialists, who say that species were not made at all,

they were derived, “they growed.” The third is that of the theistic

evolutionists, who think that they were _created_ by a process of

evolution--who believe that making is not inconsistent with growing.

The one asserts the divine agency, but denies natural process; the

second asserts the natural process, but denies divine agency; the third

asserts _divine agency by natural process_. Of the first two, observe,

both are right and both wrong; each view is right in what it asserts,

and wrong in what it denies--each is right from its own point of view,

but wrong in excluding the other point of view. The third is the only

true rational solution, for it includes, combines, and reconciles the

other two; showing wherein each is right and wherein wrong. It is the

combination of the two partial truths, and the elimination of the

partial errors. But let us not fail to do perfect justice. The first

two views of origin, whether of the individual or of the species, are

indeed both partly wrong as well as partly right; but the view of the

pious child and of the Christian contains by far the more essential

truth. Of the two sides of the shield, theirs is at least the whiter

and more beautiful.

But, alas! the great bar to a speedy settlement of this question and

the adoption of a rational philosophy is not in the head but in the

heart--is not in the reason but in pride of opinion, self-conceit,

dogmatism. The rarest of all gifts is a truly tolerant, rational

spirit. In all our gettings let us strive to get this, for _it_

alone is true wisdom. But we must not imagine that all the dogmatism

is on one side, and that the theological. Many seem to think that

theology has a “_pre-emptive right_” to dogmatism. If so, then modern

materialistic science has “_jumped the claim_.” Dogmatism has its roots

deep-bedded in the human heart. It showed itself first in the domain

of theology, because there was the seat of power. In modern times it

has gone over to the side of science, because here now is the place of

power and fashion. There are _two dogmatisms_, both equally opposed

to the true rational spirit, viz., the old theological and the new

scientific. The old clings fondly to old things, only because they

are old; the new grasps eagerly after new things, only because they

are new. True wisdom and true philosophy, on the contrary, tries all

things both old and new, and holds fast only to that which is good and

true. The new dogmatism taunts the old for credulity and superstition;

the old reproaches the new for levity and skepticism. But true wisdom

perceives that they are both equally credulous and equally skeptical.

The old is credulous of old ideas and skeptical of new; the new is

skeptical of old ideas and credulous of new. Both deserve the unsparing

rebuke of all right-minded men. The appropriate rebuke for the old

dogmatism has been already put in the mouth of Job in the form of a

bitter sneer: “No doubt ye are the people, and wisdom shall _die_ with

you.” The appropriate rebuke for the new dogmatism, though not put into

the mouth of any ancient prophet, ought to be uttered--I will undertake

to utter it here. I would say to these modern materialists, “No doubt

ye are the men, and wisdom and true philosophy were _born_ with you.”

Let it be observed that we are not here touching the general question

of the personal agency of God in operating Nature. This we shall take

up hereafter. All that we wish to insist on now is that the process and

the law of evolution does not differ in its relation to materialism

from all other processes and laws of Nature. If the sustentation of

the universe by the law of gravitation does not disturb our belief in

God as the sustainer of the universe, there is no reason why the origin

of the universe by the law of evolution should disturb our faith in God

as the creator of the universe. If the law of gravitation be regarded

as the Divine mode of sustentation, there is no reason why we should

not regard the law of evolution as the Divine process of creation. It

is evident that if evolution be materialism, then is gravitation also

materialism; then is every law of Nature and all science materialism.

If there be any difference at all, it consists only in this: that, as

already said, here is the _last_ line of defense of the supporters of

supernaturalism in the realm of Nature. But being the last line of

defense--the last ditch--it is evident that a yielding here implies

not a mere shifting of line, but a change of base; not a readjustment

of details only, but a _reconstruction of Christian theology_. This, I

believe, is indeed necessary. There can be little doubt in the mind of

the thoughtful observer that we are even now on the eve of the greatest

change in traditional views that has taken place since the birth of

Christianity. But let no one be greatly disturbed thereby. For as then,

so now, change comes not to destroy but to fulfill all our dearest

hopes and aspirations; as then, so now, the germ of living truth has,

in the course of ages, become so encrusted with meaningless traditions

which stifle its growth, that it is necessary to break the shell to set

it free; as then, so now, it has become necessary to purge religious

belief of dross in the form of trivialities and superstitions. This

has ever been and ever will be the function of science. The essentials

of religious faith it does not, it can not, touch, but it purifies and

ennobles our conceptions of Deity, and thus elevates the whole plane of

religious thought.

It will not, of course, be expected of me to give, even in briefest

outline, a system of reconstructed Christian thought. Such an attempt

would be wholly unbecoming. Time, very much time, and the co-operation

of many minds, bringing contributions from many departments of thought,

is necessary for this. In a word, it can only itself come by a gradual

process of evolution. But from the point of view of science some very

fundamental changes in traditional views are already plain. Of these

the most fundamental and important are our ideas concerning God,

Nature, and man in their relations to one another. These will form the

subject of the next three chapters.

CHAPTER III.

THE RELATION OF GOD TO NATURE.

We have already said that evolution does not differ essentially from

other laws of Nature in its bearing on religious belief. It only

reiterates and enforces with additional emphasis what Science, in all

its departments, has been saying all along. The difficulties in the

way of certain traditional views have pressed with ever increasing

force upon the thoughtful mind ever since the birth of modern science.

All along, an issue has been gathering, but put off from time to time

by compromise, until now, at last, the issue is forced upon us and

compromise is exhausted. The issue (let us look it squarely in the

face) is: Either God is far more closely related with Nature, and

operates it in a more direct way than we have recently been accustomed

to think, or else (mark the alternative) Nature operates itself and

needs no God at all. There is no middle ground tenable.

Let us trace rapidly the growth of this issue. The old idea and the

most natural to the religious mind was the direct agency of God in

every event and phenomenon of Nature. This view is nobly expressed

in the noblest literature in the world--in the Hebrew and Christian

Scriptures: “He looketh on the earth and it trembleth. He toucheth

the hills and they smoke.” “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and

on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust.” But

now comes Science and explains all these phenomena by natural laws and

resident forces, and we all accept her explanation. Thus, one by one

the phenomena of Nature are explained by the operation of resident

forces according to natural laws, until the whole course of Nature,

as we now know it, has been, or will be, or conceivably may be, thus

explained.

Thus has gradually grown up, without our confessing it, a kind of

scientific polytheism--one great Jehovah, perhaps, but with many agents

or sub-gods, each independent, efficient, and doing all the real work

in his own domain. The names of these, our gods, are gravity, light,

heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, etc., and we are

practically saying: “These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you

out of the land of Egyptian darkness and ignorance. These be the only

gods ye need fear, and serve, and study the ways of.”

What, then, is practically the notion which most people seem to have of

the relation of Deity to Nature? It is that of a great master-mechanic

far away above us and beyond our reach, who once upon a time, long

ago, and once for all, worked, created matter, endowed it with

necessary properties and powers, constructed at once out of hand this

wonderful cosmos with its numberless wheels within wheels, endowed

it with forces, put springs in it, wound it up, set it a-going, and

then--_rested_. The thing has continued to go of itself ever since.

He might have not only rested but _slept_, and the thing would have

gone of itself. He might not only have slept but _died_, and still

the thing would have continued to go of itself. But, no, I forget.

He must not sleep or die, for the work is not absolutely perfect.

There are some things too hard even for Him to do in this masterful,

god-like way. There are some things which even He can not do except in

a ’prentice-like, man-like way. The hand must be introduced from time

to time to repair, to rectify, to improve, especially to introduce new

parts, such as new organic forms.

Such was the state of the compromise until twenty-five years ago.

Nature is sufficient of itself for its _course_ and continuance, but

not for _origins_ of at least _some_ new parts. Such was the state of

the compromise until Darwin and the theory of evolution. But, now,

even this poor privilege of occasional interference is taken away.

Now, origins, as well as courses, are reduced to resident forces

and natural law. Now, Nature is sufficient of itself, not only for

sustentation, but also for creation. Thus, Science has seemed to push

Him farther and farther away from us, until now, at last, if this view

be true, evolution finishes the matter by pushing Him entirely out of

the universe and dispensing with Him altogether. This, of course, is

materialism. But this is no new view now brought forward for the first

time by evolution. On the contrary, evolution only finishes what

science has been doing all along.

See, then, how the issue is forced. Either Nature is sufficient of

itself and wants no God at all, or else this whole idea, the history

of which we have been tracing, is radically false. We have here given

by science either a demonstration of materialism or else a _reductio

ad absurdum_. Which is it? I do not hesitate a moment to say it is a

reductio ad absurdum. And I believe that evolution has conferred an

inestimable benefit on philosophy and on religion by forcing this issue

and compelling us to take a more rational view.

What, then, is the alternative view? It is the utter rejection with

Berkeley and with Swedenborg of the independent existence of matter

and the real efficient agency of natural forces. It is the frank

return to the old idea of direct divine agency, but in a new, more

rational, less anthropomorphic form. It is the bringing together

and complete reconciliation of the two apparently antagonistic and

mutually excluding views of _direct agency_ and _natural law_. Such

reconciliation we have already seen is the true test of a rational

philosophy. It is the belief in a God not far away beyond our reach,

who once long ago enacted laws and created forces which continue of

themselves to run the machine we call Nature, but a God _immanent_,

a God resident _in_ Nature, at all times and in all places directing

every event and determining every phenomena--a God in whom in the most

literal sense not only we but all things have their being, in whom all

things consist, through whom all things exist, and without whom there

would be and could be nothing. According to this view the phenomena of

Nature are naught else than objectified modes of divine thought, the

forces of Nature naught else than different forms of one omnipresent

divine energy or will, the laws of Nature naught else than the regular

modes of operation of that divine will, invariable because He is

unchangeable. According to this view the law of gravitation is naught

else than the mode of operation of the divine energy in sustaining

the cosmos--the divine method of sustentation; the law of evolution

naught else than the mode of operation of the same divine energy in

originating and developing the cosmos--the divine method of creation;

and Science is the systematic knowledge of these divine thoughts and

ways--a rational system of natural theology. In a word, according to

this view, there is no real efficient force but spirit, and no real

_independent_ existence but God.

But some will object that this is pure _Idealism_. Yes, but far

different from what usually goes under that name. The ideal philosophy

as usually understood regards the external world as having no real

objective existence outside of _ourselves_--as objectified mental

states of the _observer_--as literally such stuff as dreams are made

of--as a mere phantasmagoria of trooping shadows having no real

existence but in the mind of the dreamer, and each dreamer makes his

own world. Not so in the idealism above presented. According to _this_

the external world is the objectified modes, not of the mind of the

observer, but of the mind of God. According to this, the external world

is not a mere unsubstantial figment or dream, but for _us_ a very

substantial objective reality surrounding us and conditioning us on

every side.

Again, it will be objected that this is pure _Pantheism_. Again, we

answer “yes.” Call it so if you like, but far different from what goes

under that name, far different from the pantheism which sublimates

the personality of the Deity into all-pervading unconscious force,

and thereby dissipates all our hopes of personal relation with him.

Properly understood, we believe this view completely reconciles the

two antagonistic and mutually excluding views of impersonal pantheism

and anthropomorphic personalism, and is therefore more rational than

either. The discussion of this most important point can only come up

after the next chapter, because the argument for the personality of

Deity is derived, not from without by the study of Nature, but from

within in our own consciousness. We therefore put off its discussion

for the present.

But, finally, some will object, “We can not live and work effectively

under such a theory unless, indeed, we escape through pantheism.” It

may, alas! be true that this view brings us too near Him in our sense

of spiritual nakedness and shortcoming. It may, indeed, be that we can

not live and work in the continual realized presence of the Infinite.

It may, indeed, be that we must still wear the veil of a practical

materialism on our hearts and minds. It may, indeed, be that in our

practical life and scientific work we must still continue to think

of natural forces as efficient agents. But, if so, let us at least

remember that this attitude of mind must be regarded only as our

ordinary work-clothes--necessary work-clothes it may be of our outer

lower life--to be put aside when we return _home_ to our inner higher

life, religious and philosophical.

CHAPTER IV.

THE RELATION OF MAN TO NATURE.

There are two widely distinct views concerning the relation of man

to Nature; the one as old as the history of human thought, the other

only now urged upon us by modern science. According to the one, man

is the counterpart and equivalent of Nature. He alone has--in fact

is--an immortal spirit, and therefore he belongs to a world of his

own. According to the other, man is but a part, a very insignificant

part of Nature, and connected in the closest way with all other parts,

especially with the animal kingdom. He has no world of his own, nor

even kingdom of his own: he belongs to the animal kingdom. In that

kingdom he has no department of his own: he is a vertebrate. In the

department of vertebrates he has no privileged class of his own: he is

a mammal. In the class of mammals he has no titled order of his own:

he is a primate, and shares his primacy with apes. It is doubtful if

he may enjoy the privacy of a family of his own--the Hominidæ--for the

structural differences between man and the anthropoid apes are probably

not so great as between the sheep family and the deer family.

Now it is evident that these two are only views from different points,

psychical and structural. From the psychical point of view it is simply

impossible to exaggerate the wideness of the gap that separates man

from even the highest animals. From this point of view man must be

set over as an equivalent, not only to the whole animal kingdom, but

to the whole of Nature besides. From the structural point of view,

on the contrary, it is impossible to exaggerate the closeness of the

connection. Man’s body is identified with all Nature in its chemical

constituents, with the body of all animals in its functions, with all

vertebrates, especially mammals, in its structure. Bone for bone,

muscle for muscle, ganglion for ganglion, almost nerve-fiber for

nerve-fiber, his body corresponds with that of the higher animals.

Whether he was derived from lower animals or not, certain it is that

his structure even in the minutest details is precisely such as it

would be if he were thus derived by successive slight modifications.

Now, of these two views, the latter has been in recent times enormously

productive in increasing our knowledge. Anatomy has become truly

scientific only through comparative anatomy; physiology through

comparative physiology; embryology through comparative embryology.

Sociology is fast following in the same line, and becoming scientific

through comparative sociology. Is not the same true also of psychology?

Will not psychology become truly scientific only through comparative

psychology, i. e., by the study of the spirit of man in relation to

what corresponds to it in lower animals? But this view and this method,

when pushed to what seems to many their logical conclusion, end in

identification of man with mere animals, of spirit with mere physical

and chemical forces, immortality with mere conservation of energy,

and thus leads to blank and universal materialism. Thus, while it

increases our knowledge, it destroys our hopes. Is there any escape?

There is. The two extreme views given above are not irreconcilable. As

already said, they are only views from different points, and therefore,

although both true, are equally one-sided and partial, and a true and

rational philosophy, in this as in all other cases of vexed questions,

is found only in a higher view, which combines and reconciles these

mutually excluding extremes. Can we find such a view? I think we can.

Let us first, however, trace some of the stages of this scientific

materialism. There are two main branches of the argument for

materialism: one derived from _brain-physiology_, the other from

_evolution_. As we wish to be perfectly fair, we will present and even

press the argument in both these directions, although the latter alone

bears directly on the subject in hand.

In recent times, physiology has made great and, to many, startling

advances in the direction of connecting mental phenomena with

brain-changes. Physiologists have established the correlation of

vital with chemical and physical forces,[40] and probably in some

sense, at least, of mental with vital forces. They have proved, in

every act of perception, first a physical change in a nerve-terminal,

then a propagated thrill along a nerve-fiber, and then a resulting

change, physical or chemical, in the brain; and in every act of

volition, a change first in a brain-cell, then, a return thrill along

a nerve-fiber, and a resulting contraction of a muscle. Even the

velocity of the transmission to and fro has been measured, and the

time necessary to produce brain-changes estimated. They have also

established the existence of physical and chemical changes in the

brain corresponding to every change of mental state, and with great

probability an exact quantitative relation between these changes of

brain and the corresponding changes of mind. In the near future they

may do more: they may localize all the different faculties and powers

of the mind, each in its several place in the brain, and thus lay the

foundations of a truly scientific phrenology. In the far-distant future

we may possibly do much more. We may connect each kind of mental state

with a different and distinctive kind of brain-change. We may find, for

example, a right-handed rotation of atoms associated with _love_, and

a left-handed rotation associated with _hate_, or a gentle sideways

oscillation associated with _consciousness_, and a vertical pounding

associated with _will_. Now, suppose all this, and even much more, be

done in the way of associating, both in degree and in kind, mental

changes with brain-changes. What then? “Why,” say the materialists,

“we thereby identify _mind_ with _matter_, mental forces with material

forces. Thought, emotion, consciousness and will become products of the

brain, in the same sense as bile is a product of the liver, or urea a

product of the kidneys.”

Such is, in brief, the argument. Now, the answer: We may do all

we have supposed and much more. We may push our knowledge in this

direction as far as the boldest imagination can reach, and even

then we are no nearer the solution of this mystery of the relation

of brain-changes and mental changes than we are now. Even then it

would be impossible for us to conceive _how_ brain-changes produce

mental changes or _vice versa_. Physical changes in sense-organs,

transmitted along nerve-fibers, determine changes in brain-substance.

So much is intelligible. But now there appear--how it is impossible

to imagine--consciousness, thought, emotion, etc.--phenomena of an

entirely different order, belonging to an entirely different world. So

different, that it is impossible to imagine the nature of the nexus

between, or to construe the one in terms of the other. Brain-cells are

agitated and thought appears: Aladdin’s lamp is rubbed, and the genie

appears. There is just as much intelligible causal relation between the

two sets of phenomena in the one case as in the other.

Now, this mystery is not of the nature of those which disappear under

the light of knowledge. On the contrary, science only brings it out in

sharper relief, and emphasizes its absolute unsolvableness. Suppose

an absolutely perfect knowledge, perfect in degree, but human in kind.

Suppose an ideally perfect science--a science which has so completely

subdued its domain, and reduced it to such perfect simplicity, that

the whole cosmos may be expressed in a single mathematical formula--a

formula which, worked out with plus signs, would give every phenomenon

and event which shall ever occur in the future, and with minus signs

every phenomenon and event which has ever occurred in the past. Surely,

this is an ideally perfect science. Yet, even to such a science, the

relation of brain-changes to mental states would be as great a mystery

as now. It would even come out in stronger relief, because so many

other apparent mysteries would disappear. Like the essential nature of

matter or the ultimate cause of force, this relation lies evidently

beyond the domain of science. It requires some other _kind_ of

knowledge than human to understand it.

But materialists insist so much on the identity of brain-physiology

with psychology, that even at the risk of tediousness we will multiply

illustrations in order, if possible, to make this point still clearer.

Suppose, then, we exposed the brain of a living man in a state of

intense activity. Suppose, further, that our senses were absolutely

perfect, so that we could see every change, of whatever sort, taking

place in the brain-substance. What would we see? Obviously nothing but

molecular changes, physical and chemical; for to the outside observer

there is absolutely nothing else there to see. But the subject of

this experiment sees nothing of all this. His experiences are of a

different order, viz., consciousness, thought, emotions, etc. Viewed

from the _outside_, there is--there can be--nothing but motions; viewed

from the _inside_, nothing but thought, etc.--from the one side, only

_physical_ phenomena; from the other side, only _psychical_ phenomena.

Is it not plain that, from the very nature of the case, it must ever

be so? Certain vibrations of brain molecules, certain oxidations with

the formation of carbonic acid, water, and urea on the one side,

and there appear on the other sensations, consciousness, thoughts,

desires, volitions. There are, as it were, two sheets of blotting-paper

pasted together. The one is the brain, the other the mind. Certain

ink-scratches or blotches, _utterly meaningless_ on the one, soak

through and appear on the other as _intelligible writing_, but how we

know not, and can never hope to guess. But when the paste dissolves,

_shall the writing remain_? We shall see.

But some will object. There is nothing specially strange and unique

in all this, for the same mystery underlies the essential nature of

all kinds of force and matter, and therefore all phenomena. True

enough, but with this difference. Physical and chemical forces and

phenomena are indeed incomprehensible in their essential nature; but

once accept their existence, and all their different forms are mutually

convertible, construable in terms of each other and all in terms of

motion. But it is impossible by any stretch of the imagination to

thus construe mental forces and mental phenomena. It may, indeed, be

impossible to conceive _how came_ the plane of material existence, but,

standing on that plane, all phenomena fall into intelligible order. But

there is another plane above this one, having no intelligible relation

with it. We must climb up and stand on this before its phenomena fall

into intelligible order. In a word, material forces and phenomena are,

indeed, a mystery, but only of the _first order_. But mental and moral

forces and phenomena are a mystery even from the standpoint of the

other, and are therefore a mystery of the _second order_--a mystery

within a mystery.

We repeat, then, with additional emphasis after this examination, that

we can not imagine between physical and psychical phenomena a relation

of cause and effect _in the same sense_ in which we use these terms

in physical science, although in some sense there is doubtless such a

relation. If man were the only animal we had to deal with, there would

be no standing ground left for materialism. But there is still another

difficulty which sticks deeper. It is that suggested by the _law of

evolution_ and enforced by the _comparative method_.

=Relation of Man to Animals.=--Man, we say, is endowed with, _is_, in

fact, an immortal spirit. What is spirit? We know things only by their

phenomena; what are the phenomena of spirit? Consciousness, will,

intelligence, memory, love, hate, fear, desire--surely these are some

of them. But has not a dog or a monkey all these? Pressed with this

difficulty, some have indeed felt compelled to accord immortal spirit

to higher animals. But we can not stop here. If to these, then also to

all animals; for we have here only a sliding scale without break. Can

we stop now and make it coextensive with sentiency? No; for the lowest

animals and lowest plants merge into each other so completely that no

one can draw the line between them with certainty. We must extend it to

plants also. Shall we stop here and make immortal spirit coextensive

with life? We can not; for life-force is certainly correlated with,

transmutable into, and derivable from, physical and chemical forces. We

must extend it into dead nature also. Therefore, everything is immortal

or none. Our boasted immortality by continued extension becomes

thinner and thinner until it evaporates into thin air. It becomes

naught else than _conservation of energy_, and not, as we had hoped,

conservation of _self-conscious personality_. This may be interesting

as a scientific fact; but of what value to us personally is a continued

existence of our spiritual forces as heat, light, electricity, or

any other form of unconscious force? Thus, then, if once we pass the

gap between man and the higher animals, there is no possibility of a

stopping-place anywhere.

Such is the difficulty presented by comparison in the _taxonomic_

series. Take now the _embryonic_ series. Each one of us, individually,

was formed gradually by a process of evolution, from a microscopic

spherule of protoplasm undistinguishable in structure from the lowest

forms of protozoal life. Now, in this gradual process of evolution,

where did immortal spirit come in? Was it in the germ-cell? Then why

deny it to the protozoan? Was it at the quickening, or at the birth,

or at the moment of first self-consciousness, or at some later period

of capacity of abstract thought? Again, when it did come in, was it

something superadded or did it grow out of something already existing

in the embryo or the infant?

Or take the _evolution series_ from protozoan to man. This we have

already seen is similar in outline to the other two. Now, in the

gradual evolution of the animal kingdom throughout all geological time,

terminating in man, when did immortal spirit come in? Did it enter with

life, or with sentient life, or somewhere in the ascending scale of

animals, or with the advent of man? If with man, was it some new thing

added at once out of hand, or did it grow out of something already

existing in animals?

This last, we are persuaded, is the only tenable view--the only view

that can effect that reconciliation between the two extreme, mutually

excluding views now usually held, which, as already seen, is the true

test of a rational philosophy. I believe that the spirit of man _was_

developed out of the _anima_ or conscious principle of animals, and

that this, again, was developed out of the lower forms of life-force,

and this in its turn out of the chemical and physical forces of Nature;

and that at a certain stage in this gradual development, viz., with

man, it _acquired_ the property of immortality precisely as it now,

in the individual history of each man at a certain stage, acquires

the capacity of abstract thought. This is, in brief, the view which I

wish to enforce. The reader must understand, however, that this is _my

own view_ only, a view for which I have earnestly contended for twenty

years. It appeals, therefore, not to authority, but only to reason. I

wish now to present it as briefly as possible.

First, then, I would draw attention to the fact that there is nothing

wholly exceptional in such transformation with the sudden appearance of

new powers and properties; but, on the contrary, it is in accordance

with many analogies in the lower forces, and therefore _a priori_

not only credible but probable. For example, force and matter may

be said to exist _now_ on several distinct planes raised one above

another. There is a sort of taxonomic scale of force and matter. These

are, 1, the plane of elements; 2, the plane of chemical compounds;

3, the plane of vegetal life; 4, the plane of animal life; and 5,

the plane of rational and, as we hope, immortal life. Each plane has

its own appropriate force and distinctive phenomena. On the first

operates physical forces, producing physical phenomena only--for the

operation of chemical affinity immediately raises matter to the next

plane. On the second plane operates, in addition to physical, also

chemical forces, producing all those changes by action and reaction,

the study of which constitutes the science of chemistry. On the

third plane, in addition to the two preceding forces, with their

characteristic phenomena, operates also life-force, producing the

distinctive phenomena characteristic of living things. On the fourth

plane, in addition to all lower forces and their phenomena, operates

also a higher form of life-force characteristic of animals, producing

the phenomena characteristic of sentient life, such as sensation,

consciousness, and will. On the fifth plane, in addition to all the

preceding forces and phenomena, we have also the forces and phenomena

characteristic of rational and moral life.

Now, although there are doubtless great differences of level on each

of these planes, yet there is a very distinct break between each.

Although there are various degrees of the force characteristic of each,

yet the difference between the characteristic forces is one of kind

as well as of degree. Although energy by transmutation may take all

these different forms, and thus does now circulate up and down through

all these planes, yet the passage from one plane upward to another is

not a gradual passage by sliding scale, but _at one bound_. When the

necessary conditions are present, a new and higher form of force at

once appears, _like a birth_ into a higher sphere. For example, when

hydrogen and oxygen are brought together under proper conditions, water

is born--a new thing with new and wholly unexpected properties and

powers, entirely different from those of its components. When CO2, H2O,

and NH3 are brought together under suitable conditions, viz., in the

green leaves of plants, in the presence of sunlight, living protoplasm

is then and there born, a something having entirely new and unexpected

powers and properties. It is no gradual process but sudden, like birth

into a higher sphere.

Now, there is not the least doubt that the same is true of the order

and manner of the _first appearance_ of the natural forces in the

phylogenic series. In the history of the evolution of the cosmos,

the forces of Nature have appeared successively and suddenly when

conditions became favorable. There was a time in the history of the

earth when only physical forces existed, chemical affinity being held

in abeyance by the intensity of the heat.[41] By gradual cooling,

chemical affinity at a certain stage came into being--was born, a

new form of force, with new and peculiar phenomena, though doubtless

derived from the preceding. Ages upon ages passed away until the

time was ripe and conditions were favorable, and life appeared--a

new and higher form of force, producing a still more peculiar group

of phenomena, but still, as I believe, derived from the preceding.

Ages upon ages again passed away, during which this life-force

took on higher and higher forms--in the highest foreshadowing and

simulating reason itself--until finally, when the time was fully ripe

and conditions were exceptionally favorable, spirit, self-conscious,

self-determining, rational, and moral, appeared--a new and still higher

form of force, but still, as I am persuaded, derived from the preceding.

Now, that these forces are really of derivative origin is proved by the

fact that we see every step of this process taking place daily under

our very eyes. I pass over the conversion of physical into chemical

force because this is admitted on all hands. I begin, therefore, with

vital force. Sunlight falling on green leaves disappears as light

and reappears as life--is consumed in doing the work of decomposing

CO2, H2O, and NH3, and the C, H, O, and N thus set free from

previous combination unite to form living protoplasm.[42] Again, in

the embryonic history of every animal we see the next change take

place--i. e., the emergence of the psychic out of the vital. In the

germ-cell, in the egg, and even in the early stages of the embryo,

there is no distinctive animal life--i. e., no consciousness, nor

volition, nor response of any kind to stimulus. At a certain stage

distinctive animal or psychic life appears. We call it quickening.

Materials for psychology are now present for the first time. In man

alone, and that only some time after physical birth, we see the last

change. The new-born child has animal life only. The emergence of

self-consciousness--a change so wonderful that it may well be called

the birth of spirit--takes place only at the age of two to three years.

Now for the first time we have phenomena distinctive of humanity.

But some will ask, “How is this consistent with immortality?” In

answer, let me again remind the reader that with every new form of

force, with every new birth of the universal energy into a higher

plane, there appear new, unexpected, and, previous to experience,

wholly unimaginable properties and powers. This last birth is of course

no exception. Why may not immortality be one of these new properties?

But this point is so important that we must treat it more fully.

Remember, then, the view of the relation of God to Nature, already

explained. Remember that the forces of Nature are naught else than

different forms of the one omnipresent Divine energy. Remember that, as

just shown, this Divine omnipresent energy has taken on successively

higher and higher forms in the course of cosmic time. Now this upward

movement has been wholly by _increasing individuation_, not only

of matter, but also _of force_. This universal Divine energy, in a

generalized condition, _unindividuated_, diffused, pervading all

Nature, is what we call physical and chemical force. The same energy in

higher form, individuating matter, and itself individuated, but only

yet very imperfectly, is what we call the life-force[43] of plants. The

same energy, more fully individuating matter and itself more fully

individuated, but not completely, we call the _anima_ of animals. This

anima, or animal soul, as time went on, was individuated more and more

until it resembled and foreshadowed the spirit of man. Finally, still

the same energy, completely individuated as a separate entity and

therefore self-conscious, capable of separate existence and therefore

immortal, we call the spirit of man.

According to this view, the vital principle of plants and the anima

of animals are but different stages of the development of spirit in

the womb of Nature: _in man at last it came to birth_. In plants and

animals it was in deep embryo sleep--in the latter, quickened, indeed,

but not viable--still unconscious of self, incapable of independent

life, with physical, umbilical connection with Nature; but now at last

in man, separated from Nature, capable of independent life, born into

a new and higher plane of existence. Separated, but not wholly: Nature

is no longer _gestative_ mother, but still _nursing_ mother of spirit.

As the _organic embryo_ at birth reaches independent _material_ or

_temporal_ life, even so _spirit embryo_ by birth attains independent

_spiritual_ or _eternal_ life.

Although birth is its truest correspondence and best illustration, yet

we may vary the illustration in many ways:

1. Nature may be likened to a level water-surface. This represents

unindividuated physical and chemical force. On this surface some

individuating force pulls up a portion of the water into a _commencing_

drop. This represents the condition of spirit in plants. Or by greater

force the surface may be lifted higher into a nipple-like eminence

_simulating a drop_, or even into an almost complete drop with only

a neck-like connection with the general surface. This represents the

condition of spirits in the higher animals. In all these cases, even

though the drop be nearly completed, if we remove the individuating

or lifting force, the commencing drop is immediately drawn back by

cohesion and refunded into the general watery surface. But, once

complete the drop, and there is no longer any tendency to revert, even

though the lifting force is removed. This represents the condition of

spirit in man.

2. Or Nature may, again, be likened to a water-surface beneath which

the anima of animals is deeply and tranquilly submerged, wholly

unknowing of any higher, freer world above. In man spirit emerges above

the surface into a higher world, looks down on Nature beneath him,

around on other emerged spirits about him, and upward to the Father of

all spirits above him. Emerged, but not wholly free--head above, but

not yet foot-loose.

3. Or, again: As a planet must break away from physical, cohesive

connection with the central sun (planet-birth) in order to enter into

higher gravitative relations, which thenceforward determine all its

movements in beautiful harmony; as the embryo must break away from

physical umbilical connection with the mother in order to enter into

higher spiritual bonds of love, which thenceforward determine all

their mutual relations--even so spirit must break away from physical

and material connection with the forces of Nature, which are but the

omnipresent Divine energy, in order thereby to enter into higher

relations of filial love to God and brotherly love to man.

4. As the new-born child differs little in grade of physical

organization from the mature but unborn embryo, but at the moment

of birth there is a sudden and complete change, not so much in the

grade of organization but in the whole plane of existence--a change

absolutely necessary for further advance, for another cycle of life;

even so at the moment of the origin of man, howsoever this may have

been accomplished, there may have been no great change in the _grade_

of _psychical_ structure, but yet a complete change in the _plane_ of

psychical life--a change absolutely necessary for further advance, for

another cycle of evolution. In both cases there is a sudden entrance

into a new world, the sudden appearance of a new creature with entirely

different capacities--a passing out of an old world, a waking up in

a new and higher. According to this view, man alone is a _child_ of

God, capable of separate spirit-life--separate but not yet wholly

independent of Nature. As already said, Nature is no longer gestative

mother, but still nursing mother of spirit--we are weaned only by

death.

5. Or, again: As in passing up the _organic_ scale, we find all grades

of completeness of organic individuality, an increasing individuation

of bodily form which completes itself as a perfect organic individual

only in the higher animals, so, also, in passing up the _dynamic_

scale, force or energy is individuated more and more until the process

reaches completeness as a spirit-individual or dynamic individual--a

person only in man. _Organic_ individuality completes itself in

animals. _Psychic_ individuality only in man.

6. One more illustration and the last. The animal body may be likened

to an exquisitely adjusted instrument of communication between two

worlds--the material world without and the spiritual world within. The

key-boards of this marvelous instrument are the nerve-terminals of the

sense-organs in contact with the material world, and the brain-cells

in touch with the spirit-world. External Nature plays on the one by

sensation and determines changes in spirit. Spirit plays on the other

by will and muscular contraction, and determines changes in external

Nature. Now, in animals spirit is fast asleep or at most dreaming, or

even perhaps somnambulistic, but at least unconscious of _self_, and

acts only by stimulus--only responds in some sense automatically as

sleepers do. In man spirit is wide awake and may respond automatically

like animals, or may choose not to respond at all. Moreover, it acts

freely in its own domain--the world of ideas--_without external

stimulus_; or of its own free-will may _initiate_ changes in the

external world. With God all phenomena commence at the _spirit-end_.

In animals all commence at the _matter-end_, and by automatic response

terminate in the same. Man alone lives in both worlds, partakes of both

natures, and acts according to either method.

The more we reflect on this subject, the more we shall be convinced

that completed spirit individuality explains, as nothing else can, all

that is characteristic of man. It is this which constitutes person, or

the self-acting ego. It is this which constitutes self-consciousness,

free-will, and moral responsibility. And out of these, again, grows,

the recognition of relations to other moral beings and to God, and

therefore ethics and religion. Out of these, also, grows the capacity

of indefinite voluntary progress. This also means separate life,

spirit-viability, or immortality. Self-consciousness especially seems

to me the simplest sign of separate entity or spirit-individuality,

and its appearance among psychical phenomena _the very act of

spirit-birth_. We may imagine man to have emerged ever so gradually

from animals: in this gradual development the moment he became

conscious of self, the moment he turned his thoughts inward in wonder

upon himself and on the mystery of his existence as separate from

Nature, that moment marks the birth of humanity out of animality.

All else characteristic of man followed as a necessary consequence.

I am quite sure that, if any animal, say a dog or a monkey, could be

educated up to the point of self-consciousness (which, however, I am

sure is impossible), that moment _he_ (no longer _it_) would become a

moral responsible being, and all else characteristic of moral beings

would follow. At that moment would come personality, immortality,

capacity of voluntary progress; and science, philosophy, religion,

would quickly follow.

We have emphasized self-consciousness as the most fundamental sign of

spirit-individuality; but a difference of exactly the same kind is

found running through the whole gamut of human faculties as compared

with corresponding faculties in animals. As animal consciousness is

related to human self-consciousness, so exactly is animal will to human

free-will, animal intelligence to human reason, animal sign-language to

rational grammatical speech of man, constructive art of animals to true

rational progressive art of man. In every one of these the resemblance

is great, but the difference is immense, and not only in degree but

also in kind. In every case it is like shadow and substance, promise

and fulfillment, or, still better, it is like embryo and child. The

change from one to the other is like to a birth into a higher sphere,

the beginning of another cycle of evolution. We would like to follow

this idea out in detail, but it would lead us beyond the scope of this

work. Those who desire to do so we would refer to an article by the

author on the “Psychical Relation of Man to Animals.”[44]

But it will be objected that there are other births of energy from

lower to higher condition; but such births do not insure continued

existence in the higher condition. In the gradual evolution of energy

described on page 316, when a portion rises from physical to chemical,

from chemical to vital, or from vital to sentient, it does not remain

ever after in the higher condition--there is no immortality on the

higher plane. On the contrary, all these lower forms of energy are

continually ascending and descending; transformation is downward as

well as upward. Why should there be an exception in this last birth?

In these successive upward metamorphoses of energy why should the last

only be permanent? I answer: Because it reaches at last its final goal,

viz., complete individuation, as free, self-acting spirit; it reaches

again the spiritual plane from which it sprang, and becomes thereby

a partaker of the Divine nature; because it comes at last into moral

relations with the absolute--the Divine--and therefore above the plane

of shifting changes. If the scale of energy be likened to a ladder with

many rounds, reaching from the plane of matter to the plane of spirit,

then so long as energy is on the ladder it ascends and descends; but,

once it reaches the plane of free spirit, it is in a wholly new world

in which eternal ascent is the law.

Perhaps I can best bring out the reasonableness of my view by comparing

it with other possible alternative views.

There are three possible views as to the nature, the origin,

and the destiny of the human spirit: (1.) That it pre-existed

always--uncreated, underived, eternal, both ways--backward as well

as forward. Therefore, as it never began, so it will never end. It

is _immortal of its own right_. This is substantially the view of

Plato, of Leibnitz, and perhaps some other philosophers. (2.) That

it is derived from God _directly_--created at once _without natural

process_; that at the moment of creation of the first man Adam, and

at some unknown time and in some inscrutable way in the history of

each individual, it was _injected into the body from the outside_,

and at the same time _endowed_ with immortality. This, I take it, is

the orthodox view. (3.) That it was indeed derived from God, but not

directly; created indeed, but only by natural process of evolution;

that it indeed pre-existed, but only as embryo in the womb of Nature,

slowly developing through all geological times, and finally coming

to birth as _living_ soul in man. Thus it _attains_ immortality at a

certain stage of development, viz., at spirit-birth. This is the view I

have striven to enforce.

I hold up these three views: Which is the more rational? The view of

Plato--that of self-existent, uncreated, eternal spirit--I think few

will entertain at this time of the world’s day. The usual orthodox

view I have shown is surrounded with insuperable difficulties; is

wholly unscientific and irrational. What is there left but the view

presented above? Plato is right in asserting pre-existence, but wrong

in denying creation. The usual view is right in asserting creation, but

wrong in denying natural process. The view I have presented asserts

pre-existence in embryo and creation by natural process. It therefore

combines and reconciles the two extreme views, and is more rational

than either.

=Some General Conclusions.=--There are still two or three thoughts so

closely connected with what we have already said that we can not pass

them over:

1. We have seen that every mental state corresponds with a particular

brain state, and every mental change with a brain change. We have,

therefore, here, two series, physical and psychical, corresponding

with each other, term for term. For every change in the one there is

a corresponding change in the other, both in kind and amount. Now, is

not this the test of the relation of cause and effect? It certainly is.

Yes, there must be a causal relation here, even though we are not able

to understand the nature of the causal nexus. But which is cause and

which effect? If the view above presented be correct, then in animals

_brain changes_ are in all cases the _cause_ of psychical phenomena.

In man alone, and only in his higher activities, _psychic_ changes

precede and determines brain changes. In man alone brain changes

are determined not only by external but by _internal_ impressions.

Man alone perceives not only objects--_material things_--but also

relations and properties _abstracted_ from the objects, i. e., _ideal

things_; and, moreover, not only relations between objects, but also

relations between relations or ideas. In man alone there is an inner

world--microcosm--the _things_ of which are _thoughts_, ideas, etc.

This _self-acting power_ of spirit on _the things of itself_, instead

of merely reacting as played upon by external nature, is characteristic

of man, and is a necessary result and a sign of severance, partial at

least, of physical bond with Nature.

2. Again, I have used the term vital _principle_. I must justify it.

I know full well that it is the fashion to ridicule the term as a

remnant of an old superstition which regards vital force as a sort of

supernatural entity unrelated to other forces of Nature. No one has

striven more earnestly than myself to establish the correlation of

vital with physical and chemical forces;[45] and yet, if the view above

presented be true, there is a _kind_ of justification even for the

term vital _principle_--much more, vital _force_. There is a kind of

reason and true insight in the personification of the forces of Nature,

and especially of vital force. All forces, by progressive dynamic

individuation, are on the way toward entity or personality, but fully

attain that condition only in man.

3. Again, to perceive relations and properties abstracted from material

things, to form abstract or general ideas, to form not only _per_cepts

but also _con_cepts, is admitted to be a characteristic of man--a

characteristic on which all our science and philosophy rest. From time

immemorial the vexed question has been debated, “Have such abstract

or general ideas any _real_ existence, or are they mere _names_ of

figments of the mind?” This is the famous question of _realism_ and

_nominalism_. Now, if our view be correct, then there is one most

fundamental abstraction, viz., _self_, which is indeed a _reality_.

Self-consciousness is the direct recognition of the one reality,

spirit, of which all others are the sign and shadow--the true reality

which underlies and gives potency to all abstractions or ideas. Do

we not find in this view, then, the foundation of a true realism, or

rather a complete reconciliation of realism and nominalism?

4. Thus, then, Nature, through the whole geological history of the

earth, was gestative mother of spirit, which, after its long embryonic

development, came to birth and independent life and immortality in man.

Is there any conceivable meaning in Nature without this consummation?

All evolution has its beginning, its course, its end. Without

spirit-immortality this beautiful cosmos, which has been developing

into increasing beauty for so many millions of years, when its

evolution has run its course and all is over, would be precisely as if

it had never been--an idle dream, an idiot tale signifying nothing. I

repeat: Without spirit-immortality the cosmos has no meaning. Now mark:

It is equally evident that, _without this gestative method of creation

of spirit_, the whole geological history of the earth previous to man

would have no meaning. If man’s spirit were made at once out of hand,

why all this elaborate preparation by evolution of the organic kingdom?

The whole evolution of the cosmos through infinite time is a gestative

process for the birth of spirit--a divine method of the creation of

spirits.

Thus, again, man is born of Nature into a higher nature. He therefore

alone is possessed of two natures--a lower, in common with animals,

and a higher, peculiar to himself. The whole mission and life-work of

man is the progressive and finally the complete dominance, both in the

individual and in the race, of the higher over the lower. The whole

meaning of sin is the humiliating bondage of the higher to the lower.

As the _material_ evolution of Nature found its goal, its completion,

and its significance in man, so must man enter immediately upon a

higher _spiritual_ evolution to find its goal and completion and its

significance in the ideal man--the Divine man. As spirit, unconscious

in the womb of Nature, continued to develop by _necessary_ law until

it came to birth and independent life in man, so the new-born spirit

of man, both in the individual and in the race, must ever strive by

_freer_ law to attain, through a newer birth, unto a higher life.

CHAPTER V.

THE RELATION OF GOD TO MAN.

In the two preceding chapters we have discussed the relation of God

to Nature and of man to Nature. There is still another relation, if

possible, of still more vital importance to us, viz., the _relation of

God to man_. This, of course, introduces the question of revelation--a

subject which I approach with some reluctance. I feel I am treading

on holy ground, and must do so with shoes removed. If it be asked,

How is evolution concerned with the subject of revelation? I answer

Evolution emphasizes and enforces the reign of law taught by all

science, and makes it at last _universal_. Many conclude, therefore,

that, if evolution be true, a belief in the possibility of any form

of revelation is irrational. I do not think this follows, and I will

give my reasons. I do so, however, very briefly, because we are not yet

ready to formulate our views except in the most general way.

If man be indeed something more than a higher species of animal; if

man’s spirit be indeed a spark of Divine energy individuated to the

point of self-consciousness and recognition of his relation to God; if

spirit embryo, developing in the womb of Nature through all geological

time, came to birth and independent spirit-life in man, and thus man

alone is a _child of God_ as well as a product of Nature--if all this

be true, then it is evident that this wholly _new_ relation requires

also a wholly different mode of Divine operation. If God operates on

Nature only by regular processes, which we call _natural laws_, then he

_must_ operate on spirit in a different and a more direct way, and this

we call _revelation_. If to the student of Nature it is inconceivable

that He should operate on Nature except by natural laws (for this is

the name we give to His chosen mode of operation there), then to the

student of theology it is equally inconceivable, if our view of man

be true, that He should not operate on spirit in some more direct and

higher way, i. e., by revelation.

But some will ask, Is not this a palpable violation of law? I think

not. All divine operations are, must be, according to reason, i. e.,

according to law. The operation of the divine on the human spirit,

i. e., revelation, must therefore be according to law, but a higher

law than that which governs Nature, and, therefore, from _the point

of view of Nature_, supernatural. There is nothing wholly unique in

this. Life is a higher form of force than the physical and chemical.

Life-phenomena are therefore super-physical, and if we confined the

term Nature to dead Nature they would be supernatural. So the free,

self-determined acts of spirit on spirit, even of the spirit of man

on the spirit of man, much more of the Spirit of God on the spirit

of man, may be according to law, and yet from the natural point of

view be supernatural. It is true that, in the complex of phenomena,

material and spiritual inextricably woven together, which go to make

up human life, Science must ever strive to reduce as much as possible

to material laws, for this is her domain, and she is bound to extend

it; but, if our view of man be true, there will always remain a

large residuum of phenomena--a whole world of phenomena--which will

never yield, because clearly beyond her domain. Standing on the

lower material plane, these phenomena are wholly super-material, and

therefore incomprehensible from the material point of view. We must

rise and stand on the higher plane before these also are reduced to

law, but a higher law than that operating on the lower plane. If,

therefore, science insists on banishing the supernatural from the realm

of Nature, theology may reasonably insist on its necessity, _in this

sense_, in the realm of morals and religion.

If, then, the direct influence of the Spirit of God on the spirit of

man be what we call revelation, then there is evidently no other kind

of revelation possible; and, furthermore, such revelation is given to

all men in different degrees. It is given to all men as conscience;

in greater measure to all great and good men as clearer perception of

righteousness; in pre-eminent measure to Hebrew prophets and Christian

apostles; but supremely and perfectly to Jesus alone. But there is, and

in the nature of things there can be, _no test of truth but reason_.

We _must_ fearlessly, but honestly and reverently, try all things,

even revelations, by this test. We must not regard, as so many do,

the spirit of man as the passive amanuensis of the Spirit of God.

Revelations to man must of necessity partake of the imperfections of

the medium through which it comes. As pure water from heaven, falling

upon and filtering through earth, must gather impurities in its course

differing in amount and kind according to the earth, even so the pure

divine truth, filtering through man’s mind, must take imperfections

characteristic of the man and of the age. Such filtrate must be

redistilled in the alembic of reason to separate the divine truth from

the earthy impurities.

CHAPTER VI.

THE OBJECTION, THAT THE ABOVE VIEW IMPLIES PANTHEISM, ANSWERED.

It will be observed that the views presented in the last three

chapters are closely connected with one another, and all conditioned

on the “Relation of God to Nature,” urged in Chapter III. Now it will

doubtless be objected to this view, especially as applied in Chapter IV

on the “Relation of Man to Nature,” that it is naught else than pure

pantheism; that it destroys completely the personality of Deity, and

with it all our hopes of communion with him, and all our aspirations of

love and worship toward him; that, according to this view, God becomes

only the soul or animating principle of Nature, operating everywhere

but unconsciously like the vital principle of an organism; that the

whole cosmos becomes in fact a great organism, developing under the

operation of _resident_ force according to _necessary_ law, only that

_we_ apotheosize this omnipresent force and call it God; and finally,

that God is naught else than an abstraction, created like other

abstractions or general ideas wholly by the human mind, and having no

objective existence. Furthermore, it will be said, that according to

this view, this omnipresent unconscious energy individuates itself by

necessary law of evolution more and more until it reaches, _for the

first time in man_, self-consciousness and immortality, and thus that

man himself is the only self-conscious immortal being in existence, and

therefore the only being worthy of reverence and worship. Thus, this

view leads to humanity-worship or rather to _self-worship_.

I feel the full force of this objection. I answer it as follows: I

freely admit that, following up this scientific line of thought alone,

we are carried strongly in the direction of pantheism. But there is

nothing strange or exceptional in this. In all the deepest questions,

single lines of thought inevitably carry us to extreme one-sided views.

This seems to be the necessary result of the essentially two-fold

nature of man, self-conscious spirit in a material body, the relation

between which is, and must ever be, inscrutable. On this account

there is and must be a fundamental antithesis in human philosophy,

i. e., two lines of thought, the material and spiritual, which lead

to two apparently irreconcilable views.[46] We have already seen

that a rational philosophy, whenever we are able to reach such, is

always found in a higher and more comprehensive view, which includes,

combines, and reconciles two one-sided, partial, and mutually excluding

views. But spirit and matter, or mind and brain, or God and Nature,

is _the_ fundamental antithesis which underlies and is the cause of

all other lesser antitheses. This antithesis, therefore, is absolutely

fundamental, and therefore forever irreconcilable. We must accept

both sides, even though we can not clearly perceive the nature of

their relation. We must be content with compromise where we can not

effect complete reconciliation. We must frankly acknowledge that the

antagonism is apparent only, and the result of the limitation of our

faculties, and believe that, if we could only rise to a high enough

point of view, like all other antitheses, this also would disappear in

a rational philosophy.

Now, to apply these principles. No one, we admit, can form a clear

conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality,

and yet we must accept both, because we are irresistibly led to each

of these by different lines of thought. Science, following one line of

thought, uncorrected by a wider philosophy, is naturally led toward the

one extreme of pantheistic immanence; the devout worshiper, following

the wants of his religious nature, is naturally led toward the other

extreme of anthropomorphic personality. The only rational view is to

accept both immanence and personality, even though we can not clearly

reconcile them, i. e., immanence without pantheism, and personality

without anthropomorphism. We have already seen in the third chapter,

how following the scientific line of thought, we are logically driven

to immanence. We wish now to show how, following another line of

thought, we are as logically driven to personality. On this most

difficult subject, however, all we are prepared to do is to throw out

some brief suggestions, in the hope that they may be carried out more

perfectly by some thoughtful reader; scatter some seed-thoughts, in the

hope that, falling haply on good soil, they may spring up and bear more

fruit than I have been able to produce.

1. In the gradual individuation of the universal Divine energy

described in Chapter IV, there must of course be a corresponding growth

of a kind of independent self-activity which reaches completeness

in man, and in fact constitutes what we call self-consciousness

and free will. The exact nature of the relation of Deity or of the

general forces of Nature to this gradually individuated portion, I do

not undertake to define. And how this idea of partial self-activity

comports with the absoluteness of Deity we can not clearly understand.

But this fact need not specially disturb us here; for this is only one

branch of the wider question of the moral agency of man in relation to

the absolute sovereignty of God, or the freedom of man in relation to

necessary law in Nature.

2. =Personality behind Nature.=--We have already shown that, if the

brain of a living, thinking man were exposed to the scrutiny of an

outside observer with absolutely perfect senses, all that he would

or could possibly see would be molecular motions, physical and

chemical. But the subject himself, the thinking, self-conscious spirit,

would experience and observe by introspection only consciousness,

thought, emotion, etc. On the _outside_, only physical phenomena;

on the _inside_ only psychical phenomena. Now, _must not the same

be necessarily true of Nature also?_ Viewed from the outside by the

scientific observer, nothing is seen, nothing can be seen, there is

nothing else to be seen, but motions, material phenomena; but behind

these, on the other side, on the _inside_, must not there be in this

case also psychical phenomena, consciousness, thought, will; in a word,

_personality_?[47] In the only place where we do get behind physical

phenomena, viz., in the brain, we find psychical phenomena. Are we not

justified, then, in concluding that in all cases the psychical lies

behind the physical? The human brain is a wonderful instrument, by

means of which, in some inscrutable way, viz., in our own experience,

we do get behind, on the other side, on the inside of some material

phenomena, and in so far become partakers of the Divine nature. But

behind other phenomena of Nature we may never hope to penetrate either

by observation or experience, but only in dim way by highest reason.

Science, even in the case of the brain, can not pass from the one kind

of phenomena to the other. If she would study the _inside_ she must

abandon the _outside_--she must abandon the microscope and take to

introspection. If she would study the phenomena of the higher platform,

she must leave the lower and climb up and stand on the higher. If this

be true of the brain where the two kinds of phenomena are brought

so close together, how much more is it true of the phenomena of the

cosmos. We can never hope, either by observation or by experience,

to pass beyond the veil. We must abandon the methods of science and

reach it, if at all, in some other way. Not the clear-sighted but the

pure-hearted shall see God in Nature.

Thus, then, we see that our own self-conscious personality behind

brain phenomena compels us to accept consciousness, will, thought,

personality behind Nature. Now I assert that, once get this abstract

idea in the mind, and by a necessary law of thought it gradually

expands without limit, and eventually reaches the form of infinite

consciousness, will, thought, etc., and therefore of an infinite

person. This law of indefinite expansion may be illustrated by

the ideas of space and time. The animal, and, indeed, the infant,

understands space and time only in their relation to itself, but has

not yet abstracted these from their contents. This comes only with

the birth of self-conscious personality. But, so soon as the abstract

idea of space is acquired, by a necessary law of mental activity

it expands without limit, and finally becomes the idea of infinite

space. Similarly, so soon as the idea of time as abstracted from its

contents is conceived, it inevitably expands without limit and grows

into the idea of infinite time. So is it precisely with the idea of

self-conscious personality. The animal or the very young child is

indeed conscious of its body and of external objects in their mutual

relations, but not of self, as abstracted from its contents. The

animal never attains it, the child does. Now, so soon as this idea of

self-conscious personality--of a spiritual entity underlying material

phenomena--appears, by a necessary law of mental activity it expands

without limit, and inevitably reaches the idea of an infinite self, an

infinite person, God, behind the phenomena of Nature.

But some will object that this idea of infinite personality

is inconceivable. True enough; but _the opposite is far more

inconceivable_. The ideas of infinite space and infinite time are

also inconceivable, yet we must accept them, because the idea of all

space or all time being limited is still more inconceivable; for

if we think of space or time as limited, immediately there comes

the question, “What is there beyond the limit?” There is therefore

this wide difference between these two inconceivables: the one is

so only in the sense of transcending the power of our mind, but the

other is unthinkable, self-contradictory, absurd. So also is it with

self-conscious personality. The idea of an infinite self, i. e., God,

is indeed inconceivable, but only in the sense of transcending our

power of comprehension; but the idea of the consciousness behind the

cosmos as being limited or finite is more than inconceivable, it is

unthinkable, self-contradictory, absurd; for immediately comes the

question, “What is there beyond which limits it?” To the Greek mind

Zeus was limited; therefore of necessity came also the idea of Fate,

superior to and limiting Zeus himself. To them, therefore, Fate was the

real God--the absolute.

3. _Divine Personality._--I have used the word personality as

expressing the nature of God. But let me not be misunderstood. I

well know we can not conceive clearly of an infinite, unconditioned

personality. Deeply considered, it seems nothing short of a

contradiction in terms. All I insist on is this: In our view of the

nature of God, the choice is not between personality and something

_lower_ than personality, viz., an _unconscious force_ operating

Nature by _necessity_, as the materialists and pantheists would have

us believe; but between personality as we know it in ourselves and

something inconceivably _higher_ than personality. Language is so

poor that we are obliged to represent even _our_ mental phenomena by

physical images. How much more, then, the Divine nature by its human

image! Self-conscious personality is the highest thing we know or can

conceive. We offer him the very best and truest we have when we call

him a Person; even though we know that this, our best, falls far short

of the infinite reality.

4. =Cause in Nature.=--We have thus far spoken only or principally

of self-consciousness, but the same precisely is true of another

essential attribute of personality, viz., _free-will_. Every one

admits causative force or forces operating in Nature. Science has shown

that all the different kinds of force are but different forms of one

omnipresent energy. Now, looking abroad on Nature from the outside,

this omnipresent energy seems to modern science as simply resident,

inherent in matter itself, and therefore as operating unconsciously

and by necessity. But the question occurs, “Whence did we get the idea

of force, energy, _causation_?” I answer unhesitatingly: We get it

not from without by observation of Nature, but from within through

consciousness; not from the outside view, but from, the inside view of

phenomena. We can not conceive of phenomena without force, of effects

without cause, because we are intensely conscious of being ourselves

through our wills an active cause of external phenomena. If we were

merely passive observers, not active causers of changes in the external

world, then these external phenomena would seem to us merely to shift

and change and succeed each in a certain order. We might note the

order and determine the laws of sequence, and thus form a science;

but it would never enter into our minds to imagine any causal or

dynamical nexus between them. In the mind of such passive observer,

but not doer--thinker, but not worker--would be completely realized

the only thorough-going and consistent materialistic philosophy,

i. e., a philosophy in which, like Comte’s, cause and force have no

place--are in fact banished as a superstition from science. But the

clear consciousness of essential energy, of causative force within, the

certainty that we ourselves, through our wills and by the conscious

exertion of force do determine changes in the external world, compels

us to attribute all changes to causative force of some kind, and

naturally enough, until the interference of science, to a personal will

like our own. Thus by a necessary law we project our internal states

into external Nature.

But see now the steps of evolution of this idea. At first, i. e.,

in the uncultured races, and also in childhood, external forces

take the form of a personal will like our own residing in _each

object_, and controlling its phenomena as our wills control our bodily

movements (fetichism). Then, as culture advances, it takes next

the form of several personal wills controlling each the phenomena

of a different department of Nature (polytheism). Finally, in the

highest stage of culture, it takes the form of one personal will

controlling the phenomena of the whole cosmos (monotheism). To the

religious but unscientific mind in all these stages the personal

will is anthropomorphic. But we have already seen (Chapter III) how

anthropomorphism has been driven by science from one department after

another, until now at last by evolution it is driven out of Nature

entirely, and to those following this line of thought alone, the

phenomena of Nature are relegated to forces inherent in matter, and

operating by laws necessary and fatal; and not only so, but material

forces are made to invade even the realm of consciousness, and reduce

this also to material laws. Thus the savage _e_jects his own conscious

personal will into every separate object of Nature; the modern

materialist _in_jects material forces into the realm of consciousness.

But, as already seen, a rational philosophy admits these two antithetic

views, and strives to combine and reconcile them. This reconciliation,

as far as it is possible for us, is found in a personal will immanent

in Nature, and determining directly all its phenomena.

Thus it is evident that the idea of a causal nexus between successive

phenomena is a primary conception, and therefore ineradicable and

certain. Even from the purest evolution point of view it must be true,

for, if man’s mind grew out of the forces of Nature, this idea must

represent a fact in Nature. Also, analysis shows that all causative

force originates in _will_. Lastly, culture and reason, by a necessary

law of expansion, carry us upward to the conception of one infinite

sustaining and creative will. Science may sometimes obscure but can

not destroy this idea. Evolution, which was supposed by some to have

destroyed it for ever, has only temporarily obscured it in the minds

of the unreflecting, by the supposed identity of evolution with

materialism. From this temporary eclipse it now emerges with still

greater clearness and far greater nobleness. For, observe: All the

effects known to us in Nature are finite; therefore a personal will,

which determines these _separately_ by successive acts, as we do, must

also be finite like ourselves. But a will, which by _one eternal_ act

ever-doing, never done, determines the evolution and the sustentation

of an infinite cosmos, must itself be infinite. Thus only in the

doctrine of universal evolution do we rise to a just conception of God

as an infinite cause.

5. =Design in Nature.=--As the idea of _cause_ and force is related

to _will_, so precisely is the idea of _design_ related to _thought_.

We get this also, not from without, but from within. Adaptation of

means to ends is in our experience the result of thought, and we can

not conceive it to result otherwise. The effect of science can not be

to destroy this primary conception--which, indeed, like all primary

conceptions, is ineradicable, and already more certain than anything

can be made by proof--but only to exalt and purify our conceptions

of the designer. For, observe: In any case of _adaptive_ structure,

whether in the animal body or in planetary relations, the evidence of

design is not in the materials, but in the _use_ of the materials; not

in the _parts_, but in the _adjustment_ of the parts for a purpose.

Design, purpose, adjustment, _adaptation_, are not material things,

but relations or intellectual things, and therefore perceivable only

by thought, and conceivable only as the result of thought. It is

simply impossible to talk about such adaptive structures without using

language which implies design. The very word “_adaptive_” implies it.

It is impossible even to think of such structures without implicitly

assuming intelligence as the cause. It makes no particle of difference

_how_ the material originated, or whether it ever originated at all;

it matters not whether the adaptation was done at once out of hand,

or whether by slow process of modification; it matters not whether

the adaptive modification was brought about by a process of natural

selection, or by pressure of a physical environment; whether without

law or according to law. The removal of the result from man-like

directness of separate action can not destroy the idea of design,

but only modify our conception of the Designer. What science, and

especially evolution, destroys, therefore, is not the idea of design,

but only our low anthropomorphic notions of the mode of working of the

Designer.

Precisely the same change takes place here under the influence of

science as has taken place in all our notions concerning God. The

uncultured savage sees a _separate_ god in every object. As culture

advances, his gods become fewer and nobler, until, in the most advanced

states, man recognizes but one infinite God, the creator and sustainer

of all. God is still in every phenomenon, but no longer as a separate

God, but only as the separate manifestation of the One. Thus culture

takes away our gods, but only to compel us to seek him in nobler forms

until we reach the only true God. But, even after the conception of the

one God is reached, how many seem to regard him as altogether such a

one as ourselves; but science shows us that his ways are not like our

ways, nor his ends as our ends. Thus science, more than all other kinds

of culture, simplifies while it infinitely ennobles and purifies our

conceptions of Deity.