country, except Spain, the Irish intellect is beginning to show signs
of independence; demanding a diet more suited to its years than the
pabulum of the Middle Ages. As for the recent manifesto in which
Pope, Cardinal, Archbishops, and Bishops are united in one grand
anathema, its character and fate are shadowed forth by the Vision of
Nebuchadnezzar recorded in the Book of Daniel. It resembles the
image, whose form was terrible, but the gold, and silver, and brass,
and iron of which rested upon feet of clay. And a stone smote the
feet of clay; and the iron, and the brass, and the silver, and the
gold, were broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the
summer threshing-floors, and the wind carried them away.
Monsignor Capel has recently been good enough to proclaim at once the
friendliness of his Church towards true science, and her right to
determine what true science is. Let us dwell for a moment on the
proofs of her scientific competence. When Halley's comet appeared in
1456 it was regarded as the harbinger of God's vengeance, the
dispenser of war, pestilence, and famine, and by order of the Pope the
church bells of Europe were rung to scare the monster away. An
additional daily prayer was added to the supplications of the
faithful. The comet in due time disappeared, and the faithful were
comforted by the assurance that, as in previous instances relating to
eclipses, droughts, and rains, so also as regards this 'nefarious'
comet, victory had been vouchsafed to the Church.
Both Pythagoras and Copernicus had taught the heliocentric
doctrine--that the earth revolves round the sun. In the exercise of
her right to determine what true science is, the Church, in the
Pontificate of Paul V, stepped in, and by the mouth of the holy
Congregation of the Index, delivered, on March 5, 1616, the following
decree:
And whereas it hath also come to the knowledge of the said holy
congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine of the mobility of
the earth and the immobility of the sun, entirely opposed to Holy
writ, which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus, is now published abroad
and received by many. In order that this opinion may not further
spread, to the damage of Catholic truth, it is ordered that this and
all other books teaching the like doctrine be suspended, and by this
decree they are all respectively suspended, forbidden, and condemned.
But why go back to 1456 and 1616? Far be it from me to charge bygone
sins upon Monsignor Capel, were it not for the practices he upholds
to-day. The most applauded dogmatist and champion of the Jesuits is,
I am informed, Perrone. No less than thirty editions of a work of his
have been scattered abroad for the healing of the nations. His
notions of physical astronomy are virtually those of 1456. He teaches
boldly that 'God does not rule by universal law... that when God
orders a given planet to stand still He does not detract from any law
passed by Himself, but orders that planet to move round the sun for
such and such a time, then to stand still, and then again to move, as
His pleasure may be.' Jesuitism proscribed Frohschammer for
questioning its favourite dogma, that every human soul was created by
a direct supernatural act of God, and for asserting that man, body and
soul, came from his parents. This is the system that now strives for
universal power; it is from it, as Monsignor Capel graciously informs
us, that we are to learn what is allowable in science, and what is
not!
In the face of such facts, which might be multiplied at will, it
requires extraordinary bravery of mind, or a reliance upon public
ignorance almost as extraordinary, to make the claims made by
Monsignor Capel for his Church.
Before me is a very remarkable letter addressed in 1875 by the
Bishop of Montpellier to the Deans and Professors of Faculties of
Montpellier, in which the writer very clearly lays down the claims of
his Church. He had been startled by an incident occurring in a course
of lectures on Physiology given by a professor, of whose scientific
capacity there was no doubt, but who, it was alleged, rightly or
wrongly, had made his course the vehicle of materialism. 'Je ne me
suis point donne,' says the Bishop, 'la mission que je remplis au
milieu de vous. "Personne, au temoignage de saint Paul, ne s'attribue
à soi-même un pareil honneur; il y faut être appelé de Dieu, comme
Aaron." Et pourquoi en est-il ainsi? C'est parse que, selon le même
Apôtre, noun devons titre les ambassadeurs de Dieu; et it n'est pas
dans les usages, pas plus qu'il n'est dans la raison et le droit,
qu'un envoyé s'accrédite lui-même. Mais, si j'ai recu d'En-Haut une
mission; si l'Eglise, au nom de Dieu lui-même, a souscrit me lettres
de créance, me siéraitil de manquer aux instructions qu'elle m'a
données et d'entendre, en un sens différent du sien, le rôle qu'elle
m'a confié?
'Or, Messieurs, la sainte Eglise se croit investie du droit absolu
d'enseigner les hommes; elle se croit dépositaire de la vérité, non
pas de la vérité fragmentaire, incomplète, mêlée de certitude et
d'hésitation, mais de la vérité totale, complète, au point de vue
religieux. Bien plus, elle est si sûre de l'infaillibilité que son
Fondateur divin lui a communiquée, comme la dot magnifique de leur
indissoluble alliance, que, même dans l'ordre naturel, scientifique ou
philosophique, moral ou politique, elle n'admet pas qu'un système
puisse être soutenu et adopté par des chrétiens, s'il contredit à des
dogmes définis. Elle considère que la négation volontaire et
opiniâtre d'un seul point de sa doctrine rend coupable du péché
d'hérésie; et elle pense que toute hérésie formelle, si on ne la
rejette pas courageusement avant de paraitre devant Dieu, entraine
avec soi la perte certaine de la grâce et de l'éternité.'
The Bishop recalls those whom he addresses from the false philosophy
of the present to the philosophy of the past, and foresees the triumph
of the latter. 'Avant que le dix-neuvième siècle s'achève, la vieille
philosophie scolastique aura repris sa place dans la juste admiration
du monde. Il lui faudra pourtant bien du temps pour guérir les maux
de tout genre, causés par son indigne rivale; et pendant de longues
années encore, ce nom de philosophie, le plus grand de la langue
humaine après celui de religion, sera suspect aux âmes qui se
souviendront de la science impie et materialiste de Locke, de
Condillac ou d'Helvétius. L'heure actuelle est aux sciences
naturelles: c'est maintenant l'instrument de combat contre l'Eglise et
contre toute foi religieuse. Nous ne les redoutons pas.' Further on
the Bishop warns his readers that everything can be abused. Poetry is
good, but in excess it may injure practical conduct. 'Les
mathématiques sont excellentes: et Bossuet les a louées "comme étant
ce qui sert le plus à la justesse du raisonnement;" mais si on
s'accoutume exclusivement à leur méthode, rien de ce qui appartient à
l'ordre moral ne parait plus pouvoir être démontré; et Fénelon a pu
parler de l'ensorcellement et des attraits diaboliqes de la
geometrie.'
The learned Bishop thus finally accentuates the claims of the Church:
'Comme le définissait le Pape Léon X, au cinquième concile oecuménique
de Latran, "Le vrai ne peut pas être contraire à lui-même: par
conséquent, toute assertion contraire à une vérité de foi révélée est
nécessairement et absolument fausse." Il suit de là que, sans entrer
dans l'examen scientifique de telle ou telle question de physiologie,
mais par la seule certitude de nos dogmes, nous pouvons juger du sort
de telle ou telle hypothèse, qui est une machine de guerre
anti-chrétienne plutôt qu'une conquête sérieuse sur les secrets et les
mystères de la nature... C'est un dogme que l'homme a été formé et
faconné des mains de Dieu. Donc il est faux, hérétique, contraire à
la dignité du Créateur et offensant pour son chef-d'oeuvre, de dire
que l'homme constitue la septième espèce des singes... Hérésie encore
de dire que le genre humain n'est pas sorti d'un seul couple, et qu'on
y peut compter jusqu'à douze races distinctes!'
*****
The course of life upon earth, as far as Science can see, has been one
of amelioration--a steady advance on the whole from the lower to the
higher. The continued effort of animated nature is to improve its
condition and raise itself to a loftier level. In man improvement and
amelioration depend largely upon the growth of conscious knowledge, by
which the errors of ignorance are continually moulted, and truth is
organised. It is the advance of knowledge that has given a
materialistic colour to the philosophy of this age. Materialism is
therefore not a thing to be mourned over, but to be honestly
considered--accepted if it be wholly true, rejected if it be wholly
false, wisely sifted and turned to account if it embrace a mixture of
truth and error. Of late years the study of the nervous system, and
its relation to thought and feeling, have profoundly occupied
enquiring minds. It is our duty not to shirk--it ought rather to be
our privilege to accept--the established results of such enquiries,
for here assuredly our ultimate weal depends upon our loyalty to the
truth. Instructed as to the control which the nervous system
exercises over man's moral and intellectual nature, we shall be better
prepared, not only to mend their manifold defects, but also to
strengthen and purify both. Is mind degraded by this recognition of
its dependence? Assuredly not. Matter, on the contrary, is raised to
the level it ought to occupy, and from which timid ignorance would
remove it.
But the light is dawning, and it will become stronger as time goes on.
Even the Brighton "Church Congress" affords evidence of this. From
the manifold confusions of that assemblage my memory has rescued two
items, which it would fain preserve: the recognition of a relation
between Health and Religion, and the address of the Rev. Harry Jones.
Out of the conflict of vanities his words emerge wholesome and strong,
because undrugged by dogma, coming directly from the warm brain of one
who knows what practical truth means, and who has faith in its
vitality and inherent power of propagation.
I wonder whether he is less effectual in his ministry than his more
embroidered colleagues? It surely behoves our teachers to come to
some definite understanding as to this question of health; to see how,
by inattention to it, we are defrauded, negatively and positively:
negatively, by the privation of that 'sweetness and light' which is
the natural concomitant of good health; positively, by the insertion
into life of cynicism, ill-temper, and a thousand corroding anxieties
which good health would dissipate. We fear and scorn 'materialism.'
But he who knew all about it, and could apply his knowledge, might
become the preacher of a new gospel. Not, however, through the
ecstatic moments of the individual does such knowledge come, but
through the revelations of science, in connection with the history of
mankind.
Why should the Roman Catholic Church call gluttony a mortal sin? Why
should fasting occupy a place in the disciplines of religion? What is
the meaning of Luther's advice to the young clergyman who came to him,
perplexed with the difficulties of predestination and election, if it
be not that, in virtue of its action upon the brain, when wisely
applied, there is moral and religious virtue even in a hydro-carbon?
To use the old language, food and drink are creatures of God, and have
therefore a spiritual value. Through our neglect of the monitions of
a reasonable materialism we sin and suffer daily. I might here point
to the train of deadly disorders over which science has given modern
society such control--disclosing the lair of the material enemy,
ensuring his destruction, and thus preventing that moral squalor and
hopelessness which habitually tread on the heels of epidemics in the
case of the poor.
Rising to higher spheres, the visions of Swedenborg, and the ecstasy
of Plotinus and Porphyry, are phases of that psychical condition,
obviously connected with the nervous system and state of health, on
which is based the Vedic doctrine of the absorption of the individual
into the universal soul. Plotinus taught the devout how to pass into
a condition of ecstasy. Porphyry complains of having been only once
united to God in eighty-six years, while his master Plotinus had been
so united six times in sixty years. [Footnote: I recommend to the
reader's particular attention Dr. Draper's important work entitled,
'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science' (Messrs. H. S.
King and Co.)] A friend who knew Wordsworth informs me that the poet,
in some of his moods, was accustomed to seize hold of an external
object to assure himself of his own bodily existence. As states of
consciousness such phenomena have an undisputed reality, and a
substantial identity; but they are connected with the most
heterogeneous objective conceptions. The subjective experiences are
similar, because of the similarity of the underlying organisations.
But for those who wish to look beyond the practical facts, there will
always remain ample room for speculation. Take the argument of the
Lucretian introduced in the Belfast Address. As far as I am aware,
not one of my assailants has attempted to answer it. Some of them,
indeed, rejoice over the ability displayed by Bishop Butler in rolling
back the difficulty on his opponent; and they even imagine that it is
the Bishop's own argument that is there employed. But the raising of
a new difficulty does not abolish--does not even lessen--the old one,
and the argument of the Lucretian remains untouched by anything the
Bishop has said or can say.
*****
And here it may be permitted me to add a word to an important
controversy now going on: and which turns on the question: Do states
of consciousness enter as links into the chain of antecedence and
sequence, which give rise to bodily actions, and to other states of
consciousness; or are they merely by-products, which are not essential
to the physical processes going on in the brain? Speaking for myself,
it is certain that I have no power of imagining states of
consciousness, interposed between the molecules of the brain, and
influencing the transference of motion among the molecules. The
thought 'eludes all mental presentation;' and hence the logic seems
of iron strength which claims for the brain an automatic action,
uninfluenced by states of consciousness. But it is, I believe,
admitted by those who hold the automaton-theory, that states of
consciousness are produced by the marshalling of the molecules of the
brain: and this production of consciousness by molecular motion is to
me quite as inconceivable on mechanical principles as the production
of molecular motion by consciousness. If, therefore, I reject one
result, I must reject both. I, however, reject neither, and thus
stand in the presence of two Incomprehensibles, instead of one
Incomprehensible. While accepting fearlessly the facts of materialism
dwelt upon in these pages, I bow my head in the dust before that
mystery of mind, which has hitherto defied its own penetrative power,
and which may ultimately resolve itself into a demonstrable
impossibility of self-penetration.
But the secret is an open one--the practical monitions are plain
enough, which declare that on our dealings with matter depend our weal
and woe, physical and moral. The state of mind which rebels against
the recognition of the claims of 'materialism' is not unknown to me.
I can remember a time when I regarded my body as a weed, so much more
highly did I prize the conscious strength and pleasure derived from
moral and religious feeling--which, I may add, was mine without the
intervention of dogma. The error was not an ignoble one, but this did
not save it from the penalty attached to error. Saner knowledge
taught me that the body is no weed, and that treated as such it would
infallibly avenge itself. Am I personally lowered by this change of
front? Not so. Give me their health, and there is no spiritual
experience of those earlier years--no resolve of duty, or work of
mercy, no work of self-renouncement, no solemnity of thought, no joy
in the life and aspects of nature--that would not still be mine; and
this without the least reference or regard to any purely personal
reward or punishment looming in the future.
And now I have to utter a 'farewell' free from bitterness to all my
readers; thanking my friends for a sympathy more steadfast, I would
fain believe, if less noisy, than the antipathy of my foes; and
commending to these a passage from Bishop Butler, which they have
either not read or failed to lay to heart. 'It seems,' saith the
Bishop, 'that men would be strangely headstrong and self-willed, and
disposed to exert themselves with an impetuosity which would render
society insupportable, and the living in it impracticable, were it not
for some acquired moderation and self-government, some aptitude and
readiness in restraining themselves, and concealing their sense of
things.'
********************
XI. THE REV. JAMES MARTINEAU AND THE BELFAST ADDRESS.
[Footnote: Fortnightly Review.]
PRIOR to the publication of the Fifth Edition of these 'Fragments' my
attention had been directed by several estimable, and indeed eminent,
persons, to an essay by the Rev. James Martineau, as demanding
serious consideration at my hands. I tried to give the essay the
attention claimed for it, and published my views of it as an
Introduction to Part 11. of the 'Fragments.' I there referred, and
here again refer with pleasure, to the accord subsisting between Mr.
Martineau and myself on certain points of biblical Cosmogony. 'In so
far,' says he, 'as Church belief is still committed to a given
Cosmogony and natural history of man, it lies open to scientific
refutation.' And again: 'It turns out that with the sun and moon and
stars, and in and on the earth, before and after the appearance of our
race, quite other things have happened than those which the sacred
Cosmogony recites.' Once more: 'The whole history of the genesis of
things Religion must surrender to the Sciences.' Finally, still more
emphatically: 'In the investigation of the genetic order of things,
Theology is an intruder, and must stand aside.' This expresses, only
in words of fuller pith, the views which I ventured to enunciate in
Belfast. 'The impregnable position of Science,' I there say, 'may be
stated in a few words. We claim, and we shall wrest from Theology,
the entire domain of Cosmological theory.' Thus Theology, so far as it
is represented by Mr. Martineau, and Science, so far as I understand
it, are in absolute harmony here.
But Mr. Martineau would have just reason to complain of me, if, by
partial citation, I left my readers under the impression that the
agreement between us is complete. At the opening of the eighty-ninth
Session of the Manchester New College, London, on October 6, '1874,
he, its principal, delivered an Address bearing the title 'Religion as
affected by Modern Materialism;' the references and general tone of
which make evident the depth of its author's discontent with my
previous deliverance at Belfast. I find it difficult to grapple with
the exact grounds of this discontent. Indeed, logically considered,
the impression left upon my mind by an essay of great aesthetic merit,
containing many passages of exceeding beauty, and many sentiments
which none but the pure in heart could utter as they are uttered here,
is vague and unsatisfactory. The author appears at times so brave and
liberal, at times so timid and captious, and at times, if I dare say
it, so imperfectly informed, regarding the position he assails.
At the outset of his Address Mr. Martineau states with some
distinctness his 'sources of religious faith.' They are two--'the
scrutiny of Nature' and 'the interpretation of Sacred Books.' It
would have been a theme worthy of his intelligence to have deduced
from these two sources his religion as it stands. But not another
word is said about the 'Sacred Books.' Having swept with the besom of
Science various 'books' contemptuously away, he does not define the
Sacred residue; much less give us the reasons why he deems them
sacred. [Footnote: Mr. Martineau's use of the term 'sacred' is
unintentionally misleading. In his later essays we are taught that he
does not mean to restrict it to the Bible. He does not, however,
mention the 'books' beyond those of the Bible to which he would apply
the term. 1879.] His references to 'Nature,' on the other hand, are
magnificent tirades against Nature, intended, apparently, to show the
wholly abominable character of man's antecedents if the theory of
evolution be true. Here also his mood lacks steadiness. While
joyfully accepting, at one place, 'the widening space, the deepening
vistas of time, the detected marvels of physiological structure, and
the rapid filling-in of the missing links in the chain of organic
life,' he falls, at another, into lamentation and mourning over the
very theory which renders 'organic life' 'a chain.' He claims the
largest liberality for his sect, and avows its contempt for the
dangers of possible discovery. But immediately afterwards he damages
the claim, and ruins all confidence in the avowal. He professes
sympathy with modern Science, and almost in the same breath he treats,
or certainly will be understood to treat, the Atomic Theory, and the
doctrine of the Conservation of Energy, as if they were a kind of
scientific thimble-riggery.
His ardour, moreover, renders him inaccurate causing him to see
discord between scientific men where nothing but harmony reigns. In
his celebrated Address to the Congress of German Naturforscher,
delivered at Leipzig, three years ago, Du Bois-Reymond speaks thus:
'What conceivable connection subsists between definite movements of
definite atoms in my brain, on the one hand, and on the other hand
such primordial, indefinable, undeniable, facts as these: I feel pain
or pleasure; I experience a sweet taste, or smell a rose, or hear an
organ, or see something red ... It is absolutely and for ever
inconceivable that a number of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen
atoms should be otherwise than indifferent as to their own position
and motion, past, present, or future. It is utterly inconceivable how
consciousness should result from their joint action.'