The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1878-01-10

eN6n W lutiOaaSo y esS'sJ
clearly enuncisted premises. In his
celebrated Belfast address 9TH ed. p.
s9) he ssid: "By an intellectual
necessity l cross the boundary
of the experimental evidence, and
discern in that matter which
we in our Ignorance of its latent powers,
and Notwithstanding our professed rever-
once for tsJcrestor. hsve hitherto cover.
ed with opprobrium, the promise and
potency OF all terrestrial life" There is
another passage which though lengthy,
l cannot refrain from quoting. "For
Aeons,' the immensely OF which over.
whelms mans conceptions, the earth was
unfit to maintain what we call lite. 1t is
now covered with visible living things.
They are not formed of matter different
from that of the earth around them.
They arc on the contrary, bone OF It's
bone and flesh of its flesh. How were
they introduced Was lie implicated
in the nebulse-as part, it may be, of
vaster and wholly lncomprehensible
Lite; or is it the work of Being stand
ing outside the Debulse, who fashioned it
as potter does his clay, but whose own
origin and ways are equally past finding
out2 AS far as the eye OF Science has
hitherto ranged through nature, no iD-
trusion of purely creative power into
any series of phenomena has ever been
observed. The assumption OF such q
power to account for spe.
cisl phenomena has always proved
failure 1t is opposed to
the very spirit of Science, and there
fore assumed the responsibility of hold
Ing up in contrast with it that method of
nature which it has bean the vocation
and triumph OF science to disclose, and
in the application Of which we can alone
hope for further light. Holding. then,
that the nebulse and all subsequent life
stand to each other in the relation of the
germ to the finished organism, l re-
affirm here, not arrogsntly or defantly.
but without shade of indistiuctness
the position laid down in Belfast" l
might, had time, call your attention TO
the paIpsbie mls-conceptlon and conse-
quent Misrepresentation in this passage
OF the mode of working of the Christians
God, as though He stood outside OF physi-
cal nature; misconception ard misrepre-
sentstion which you doubtless know are
not infrequenty made by certain writers
of seml-scientiic school. What we
have to do with here, however, is the
question of Tyndsils msterislism. And
could any language be uttered that
would more clearly and emphslicslly set
forth that msterislism which you have
attacked with weapon from the scienti-
fc srmory, and which you claim science
may easily demolish" The facts are that
after the delivery of the Belfast address,
Tyndall was charged from various quar-
ters-not always, admit, In becoming
spirit and language, yet charged-wth
materlalism. Did he not comprehend
the meaning of the charge? That it was
not that matter has no substantive ex-
istence, as maintained by Berkeley and
many others, but that "the human mind
ltselt-emotion, intellect will, and all
their phenomens"-a the result of
the molecular motions of the physical
orgsnism2 Certainly this was the mean
ing OF the charge, and equally certainly
did Prof Tyndall so understand it, and
equally certainly has he, in this quotation
| have made, "reatirmed" the grounds
upon which the charge was founded.
Now, l really cannot see, in the face of
all this, and OF much more that might be
quoted, how you can interpret the doc
trines of Huxley, Tyndall, &c, rs anti
materiallstic, or say, seeing these men
are welding so extensive an influence
over modern thought, that "the present
DRIFT OF scientific thought is really not
setting toward msterislism." l sm not
one OF those who sntagonize or dispar-
age true science. Already has she done
much in deepening and enlarging the
vision OF the fields In and through which
my universally immsnent and permsn-
ent God dwells and energies. And |
can say "God speed to all the men, in
whatever fields their intellects are dig
ging and iurrowing, who are laying open
natures secrets and laws and workings,
tor these secrets are to me the very secrets
of the Divine mind, and these laws are
the very Divine thoughts, and these
workings are the very Divine vohlions.
But when scientific men step outside Of
their spheres of observing, experimenting
and classifying, and in the name OF
science deduCe differences of philosophy
which science does not warrant, and
which she "msy easily demoIlsh," then |
must raise my protest, nor will science
be less friendly 10 me because OF it. You
have shown how antl-sclentltc material
ism is. | believe that it has been shown
to be snti.philOsophic as well; believe
tina; there can be no true philosophy OF
the universe, either in its whole or its
parts, that does not antedatc matter
with mind-thst does not postu-
late intellect, will and love as the organ
izer and orderer, or that makes mind the
result OF organism. And believe, fur.
Their, that the doctrine Is evil by reason of
its consequences-it is not good on the
principle OF "the greatest happiness 10
the greatest number"-it tends to loose
ness ard wrong in morals Now, be-
lieving all this, and believing At the same
time, what l think l have shown-thst
many Of the men who are most exten
sively shaping thought are materislists
i feel 1t 10 be the duty of sll true
men, be they scientists philos-
ophers CT theologisns, TO hold up the tact
that these men are msterlslists. Men of
40 less than the others, should be
concerned on it, and shoald have it
clearly known that If msterislism Is
taught in the name OF Science, she
neither endorses it nor is accountable for
il. This you have done well in this ar
article, and AS an snti.msterlslist l again
thank you Tor it. But, then, where is
the real gist Of the article? How, at
least, can it appear appropriate at the
present day, if many of the men who are
in the high places of the learned world
are not msterislists IN their teachings,
and If their msterislistic doctrines are
not percolsting the lowest strata OF in
tellects2 l have no vituperstive sept
thets" to heap on these men. / bsve 10
to lay the feeblest interdict
on scientific Investigations | do not
believe that between true science and
theology there can be any real confict;"
believe that science has done vast SER
vice to religion, and that she will vet do
vastly more. Nevertheless, l believe
that IN the name of science msterialistic
\