MR. POLLOCK ' S " SPINOZA. " pro THE EDITOR OF THE "
SPBOTATOR.1 Ont,—In the review of my book on Spinoza contained in your last two numbers, there are misconceptions, or statements tend- ing to produce misconception, the more material of which I shall be glad to have the opportunity of correcting, in the fewest words possible.
1. According to the reviewer, I represent the human mind as able to explain the origin of the universe, and some philosophical 'doctrine as "equal to the construction of a universe." It was not my intention to represent, and I do not think I have repre- sented, anything of the kind.
2. The reviewer says I have frequently presumed to pass judgment on theology. I have not frequently or at all presumed 'Or pretended to enter on the ground of special theological criti- cism. I have incidentally touched, more or less, on philosophi- cal questions more or less affecting the claim of theology to be a real and distinct science. If the reviewer's meaning is that no one who is not a professed student of theology can under- stand Spinoza's opinions, or is entitled to have any of his own, ,on any question of this kind, it should have been unambigu- ously expressed.
3. The reviewer imputes to me the opinion that no theologian tan appreciate Spinoza. Such an opinion is too absurd to be formally disclaimed. Enough to say that Coleridge and Maurice (to speak of England alone) are not unknown or un- mentioned by me, and that no one can rejoice more than I do in the prospect of Dr. Martinean's appreciation being put on record beside theirs.
4. The reviewer assumes that T hold the conservation of energy and other " ascertained results of science," to be logically incompatible with every scheme of transcendental philosophy andeevery form of theological belief, I have not said so, and I ‹lo not think so.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
