the old - Heathenism, the new Platonism, and Christianity,—or in any of , the
Italian -republics at _the time Of the revival of learning, there -was a more striking and in -its way a more instructive phenomenon than that which almost every number of 'the Con- temporary Review now presents us. It bs, in fact, a sort of whirl- pool of the deepest thought Of the day in relation to the deepest problems, in which the most refined intellects of all the Churches and no-Churches, from the Royal Society to the Society of St. Philip Neri, of all grades of society,.frow the duke to the republi- can working-man, and of all phases of opinion, from the highest idealism to the most outspoken materialism, from the Romanist Archbishop to the extremest heretic, may be -seen eddying round and, round in the most curiously constant vortex. There you may see howall schools alike have discerned that the questions they are discussing hinge on the same central and _critical facts, and are at least approaching agreement as regards the descriptive. history of those facts, though still of course differing as widely,as possible as to the interpretation of them. Thus, in the ,present number of the Contemporary Review there are no less than four articles touch- ing the very centre of the , philosophy of rah,gion. The vary first paper is a brilliant and profound essay by Father -Dal- gairns—slightly disfigured, it must be admitted, by some wonderful, but for the most part easily-corrected misprints, ascribable, we suppose, to the literary anarchy Of the Long Vacation,—on the greatest of all questions, God Unknow- able?' Then there is a most pellucid and most consistent—we do not ,say most convincing,—defence of pure idealism against all materialistic or semi-materialistic conceptions by Mr. W. T. Thorn- ton. There is an essay by .Dr. 'Carpenter, the eminent physi- ologist, on the manifestation of "Mind and Will in Nature ;" -and lastly, there are three essays on the controversy about Prayer, two from the purely scientific and one from the -moral and philo- sophical point of view, respectively written by Professor Tyndall, his anonymous friend of the Athenmum, and by Professor "M'Cosh, of Princeton College, United States. Every one of these essays-is-the production of a thoughtful and able man, and shows signs-of the most genuine -and earnest effort to get at the core of the question he discusses; and every one, of them is more or less devoted to the great problem of the true relation of man to that mysterious and awful system Of universal Order which always seems to be "in danger of crushing him by its stupendous weight and its oppressive air of indifference to . human interests, and which, nevertheless, is ever stimulating him to assert this spiritual pre-eminence in a structure of which it is he himself who has discovered the key, a key all contained within his own nature, —together with the key to many other and higher problems which are to be found, problems and keys alike, in himself alone. In the present number there are no specimens of the _freedom of discussion on social problems of which we have had in the pages of the Con- temporary such valuable specimens, from writers of the highest rank to the humblest ; but in such essays, equally, when they do appear, there is the same evidence that our time is one of perfect intel- lectual freedom and equality and, on the whole, of mutual respect between the thinkers at either .end of the socialscale, and.of,equal candour of admission as to:the central facts to be studied, though, of course, with equally wide differences as toAhe true interpreta- tion of them and the true inferences to be drawn. ,0a both kinds of question alike, any discoverer of a future age, -writing-with a few numbers of the Contemporary-before him, mould infer that the period in which this _review iappeared must -have been one of curious intellectual frankness, earnestness, and -chaos, in -which the-representatives of all extremes of opinion compared notes quite honestly, and not unfrequently in deep bewilderment at -their wonderful concurrences as to the facts to be interpreted and their vast differences as-to the proper interpretation-to be assigned. He would observe that Romanists and Rationalists, Archbishops and Religious " Know-nothings," Idealists and Materialists, Dukes-and Workmen, all discussed the great questions of the time with-mar- vellous temperance and anxiety to reach the centre of the opposite position, and all with a certain success, and yet not so much success that approximation of convictions appeared at all near at hand. And this would be, as we all of us know, the true appreciation of our existing state of mind. We are at last almost all of -us attaining the power to throw ourselves into the real minds of our opponents without denouncing them as evil for differing from us. But we have as yet apparently got very little further. The eddy about the central points of belief still spins on ; the great inaelstrom of beliefs and doubts whirls round before our eyes till we grow giddy as we gaze. Perpetual rotation and not rest seems to be the final upshot of all this interchange of thought on all the ,cardinal problems of the universe. And yet is there no sign of real approximation of convictions, not very near perhaps, but so far as it goes, hopeful? One thing we may certainly observe in relation to the great, fundamental spiritual problems under discussions not only that the theologians and, metaphysicians are learning to talk a language which men of science can understand, and the men of science to talk a language which theologians and metaphysicians' can understand, but that the higher scientific mind, in spite of its many apparent substan- tial victories, is becoming conscious of a- certain weakness and narrowness and unrest in its position, and is attempting to grope its way towards a sort of concordat with spiritual faith. The theologians, so long entrenched in narrow and bigoted posi- tions, have at leat, through a long course of wholesome adversity and persecution, become aware of their characteristic danger of narrowness; and are doing all in their power to master and use the most successful of the methods of the physicists.; 'and the conse- quence-is thab Science, though still naturally enough a little tete exaltde, is beginning to listen to reason, even where reason says that true-self-knowledge takes you beyond the tracks of physical law. Thurnot only does Dr. Carpenter, who has always been as much of a psychologist as of a physiologist, openly declare his belief that' " Mind and Will" are the true sources of the physical order and-force in nature ; not only does- Father Dalgairns rest a( part., and not the least subtle and ingenious part, of his religious thesis on the candid assertions and admissions of Mr. Herbert Spencer ; but Professor Tyndall- and his anonymous ally make admissions which seem to us to show that at all events, if they could borrow one assumption, and only one, from their brother physiologist's creed, they would. not be proof at all against the powerful argument of such thinkers as Mr. Martineau and Father Dalgairns. Dr. Carpenter, while maintaining with great earnest- ness the real equivalence in many respects of chemical with vital, vital with nervous, and nervous with mental force, while asserting, for instance, that semi-intoxication, though we know that it enfeebles the will frightfully, nevertheless, often sets up an activity of the nervous tissues, which stimulates the mechanical side of the mind to very brilliant work, yet asserts the real- existence and freedom of- the will as a central,fact of con- sciousness, which he thinks there is nothing whatever in physiologi- cal studies to call in question, still less to disprove. He declares that, as far as he can see, the profoundest physiological study will but lend iteelf to the spiritual theory of the universe, provided that, the investigator in plunging into his subject "trusts to the inherent buoyancy of the one fact of consciousness that we have within us a self -determining power which we call Will" ; and though he seems to us to take back a good deal of the force of this asser- tion when. he somewhat inconsistently accepts or seems to accept the strong and utterly hypothetical language of Mr. Herbert Spencer' and Dr. Chalmers as to the certainty we should have of- absolute uniformity in the whole order of the universe, external and internal, if we could but unravel the complexities which hide it from us,—yet we do not seriously doubt that Dr. Carpenter believes in the real existence of a free human volition rising above what he calls the mechanism of the mind, and believes this to be quite consistent with all that is known of physiology and of the• physical foundations of our mental life. Now when a ‘physiologist so eminent as Dr. Carpenter comes to such a conclusion, we think it a good omen for the future, a good sign that the students of the physical sciences are beginning to see the limits of their favourite studies, and to establish at least a modus vivendi with. the students of theology and metaphysics. Of course the two physiciatsavho write upon ' prayer ' have not got so far as this. Indeed; the anonymous- author who was responsible for proposing the celebrated hospital prayer-gauge, and who writes a little irritably on the subject of the criticisms to which he has been sub- jected,—though he has virtually to admit that what he proposed, he did propose with the view of showing the friends of petitions addressed to God their folly, and not with the view of testing the matter for any genuine student of science,—appears to think that prayer- in which you ask ,no blessing, spiritual or mental—asking being all folly,—but simply try meditatively to mould your own mind to the height and universality of an unchangeable Order fixed from everlasting, is a far nobler and higher thing( than what the Christian means by real communion with God. But once intro- duce.into -this physiologist's conception of the Universe, the fact of free-will as one which stands above and modifies the whole structure of the physiological order beneath it, and there would be nothing at all in his paper inconsistent with the theological view. He seems to admit, in the strongest way, Mind as the basis of the great iron system of necessity he so much admires,—Mind as the root of force,—and only falls short
therefore of Dr. Carpenter's view by his rigid exclusion of free- will. Professor Tyndall is far nearer Dr. Carpenter, nay, far nearer ourselves, though he does launch a mild and not ill-natured sarcasm at this journal for its " mysticism " and " temporary flightiness," for reasoning on the suggestion, of particular facts, for ignoring the safe-guards of generalisation, and forget- ting that without " verification," " a theoretic conception," how- ever tenable in the abstract, "is a mere figment of the intoned." As far as we can see, he does not dispute, though he does not assert, Dr. Carpenter's admission of a free-will in man that dia. poses more or less of that mental force which is conditioned by the destruction of nervous -tissue. Professor Tyndall sees nothing in the abstract either "impossible" or " inconsistent " in the notion of a- personal Power disposing as He will of the forces of the universe, partly in answer to the prayers of men. His only quarrel with the spiritualist theory of the Universe is its neglect of "verifica- tion," the process without which "a theoretic conception is a mere figment of the intellect." Nay, he goes further, he says of prayer, —rather inconsistently, as we think, with his own theory :-
'It is not my habit of mind to think otherwise than solemnly of the feeling which prompts prayer. It is a potency which I should like to see guided, not extinguished, devoted to practicable objects, instead of wasted upon air. In some form or other, not yet evident, it may, as alleged, be necessary to man's highest culture. Certain it is that, while I rank many persons who employ it low in the soak) of being, natural foolishness, bigotry, and intolerance being in their case intensified by the notion that they have access to the ear of God, I regard others who em- ploy it as forming part of the very cream of the earth. The faith that simply adds to the folly and ferocity of the one, is turned to enduring sweetness, holiness, abounding charity, and self-sacrifice by the other. Christianity in fact varies with the nature upon.whieh it fails. Often unreasonable, if not contemptible, in its purer forms, prayer hints at disciplines which few of us can neglect without moral loss. But no good can come of giving it a delusive value by claiming for it a power in physical nature. It may strengthen the heart to moot life's losses and thus indirectly promote physical well-being, as the digging of 2Esop's orchard brought a treasure of fertility greater than the treasure sought. Such indirect issues we all admit ; but it would be simply dis honest to affirm that it is such issues that are always in view."
Now here we seem to find Professor Tyndall himself approving of a practice based upon a "mere figment of the intellect," and not sustained by verification. For surely he means to approve of something more than a mere inward wrestling with yourself,— which is not prayer at all. He means to approve of prayer,—real prayer to God,—as a spiritual remedy for spiritual weakness or evil. Yet what can be less verified by such methods as he seems to think are the only methods which justify a moral practice? He himself probably questions the freedom of the will, and has never admitted the personality of God,—both conditions of any real prayer, however purely spiritual. There is scarcely a link in the chain of assumptions involved in such prayer that can boast the sort of verification which physical science requires. How, then, could we have a more impressive though unconscious admis- sion by Professor Tyndall that as applied to the higher relations of man with the spiritual world around him, the physical methods of demonstration are really quite inapplicable ? For, no man, remember, really prays in the Christian sense for any physi- cal blessing, except as it is more or less clearly involved in the moral and spiritual life of himself or some other being. Still in Professor Tyndall's praiseworthy candour as to the theoretic tenability of prayer even for physical bless- ings, and in his still more praiseworthy inconsistency in actually recommending prayer as regards spiritual blessings, and declaring that "it hints at disciplines which few of us can neglect without moral loss," we see happy symptoms of a real disposition on the part of physical science to repent of its narrow creed, and become more catholic and human. To men in such a condition of mind as this, we can hardly doubt that thinkers like Mr. Martineau and Father Dalgairns will not appeal in vain. Surely the time of approximation between the theologians and the nature-philosophers is not so far off as it seems? Surely there are some even now of the latter who can appreciate the convincing power and beauty of the following profound, touching, and eloquent words in the essay of Father Dalgairns
"I mast confess that I have never felt the difficulties which others feel about the antagonism between Physical Science and Religion. Mind and Matter play into each other's hands. I grant indeed what I think is perfectly obvious, that there is an ultimate, irreducible difference between the autocratic free-will and the unvarying phenomena of nature ; but the difference only makes their working together the more remarkable. In many ways I find intellect and matter most wonderfully pointing to a unity of origin. Look, for instance, at mathematics, the most- purely mental of all our intellectual creations. Solely out of the depths of our consciousness we spin theories about lines, angles, and circles. With- out the slightest admixture of experience we think out their truths; but when we come to look. at the external universe, we find that it is constructed' precisely on those a priori principles of our own minds,
There are no lines or circles in the sky, yet we can reconstruct the universe and find out its laws by their help. We might be tempted to turn Pantheist, and look upon Mind and Matter as two aspects of the same identical substance, if the chasm between them did not force us to find the reason of this marvellous correspondence combined with diversity, in the notion of the oneness of their Creator. The mental figures drawn by the human mind turn out to be, not identical with but shadows of the thoughts of Him who made the outward world. I find the same reconciliation of the antagonism between Nature and Free- will in the moral nature of the Creator. The immensity and unvarying laws of the external world render human morals possible. The phe- nomena and the ascertainable properties of physical substances subserve other and higher purposes than the admiration of the scientific observer and the utility of man. If we could not predict infallibly the conse- quences of our actions, they would cease to be moral. If poison did not destroy, nor steel pierce, it would be superfluous to enact 'Thou shalt not kill.' What would become of the Decalogne, if the laws of physics were capricious ? The cold neutrality and the indifference to ethics of nature when brought into contact with free-will become at once trans-
figured and minister matter to right and wrong It is such con- siderations as these which explain and justify the ineradicable belief of mankind in the love of God. There are more terrible difficulties in the way than any doctrines of evolution or metaphysical inconceivabilities. The more a man realises the agony of moral suffering and the power of evil, the more difficulty he will feel in reconciling it with the goodness of the God who permits it. Let it be observed, however, that this is a difficulty which comes, not from our ignorance, but our knowledge. There is so much provision for innocent joyousness in the universe, such facilities for cheap happiness in its beauty and in human feelings, that we see everywhere marks of benevolence, and we feel tempted to have recourse to the hypothesis of a good Being limited in power. This is to misread the phenomena of the universe ; it does not bear the aspect of weak benevolence ; it wears the sad look of yearning, unrequited love."
Previous page
