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

VI Lnotion pfONuSo uuy tniHbt 80 $50
lyze it and resolve 1t into mere phenom.
ena--m fact into mere sensation.
Where, y then, is the reeiduum
that contained the force2 let there
is force somewhere. But where?
Is not the inference-only, l admit, an
interence-pressed upon US Irresistioiy
that II must be in an unseen mind ana
will in Him, indeed, who is above sii,
and through all, and in sllP" Would
we not find in this high confederation
and new beauty in that grand old pni-
lesophic dictum-"the things which are
seen are temporsl'-phenomensi "but
the things which are not seen are eteI-
na."-real and abiding? This, though,
by the way.
l am thankful here, however, not only
for the actual work which this scientific
weapon has thus been made to accom-
plish in your hand, but also Tor the CON-
for.ing corollary that can see flowing
from this kind OF argument. The coroi.
lsry u this. scieCce herself will be the
great power in correcting the errors and
vagarIes which men who have not un-
derstood her province or teachings have
put forth in her name. Much has been
taught as science tina. was not science,
and many differences have been deduced
from her teachings, the premises for
which she never LAID down. And tins
has questionsbly been one of the causes
OF the alleged conflict" between SCI
ence and Religion. But she has gone on
correcting the errors and vindlcatlng her
own teachings. And so will 1t be In the
future. And so, a. n theologlan and be-
lever in universally imenanent and con-
stsntiy active Goo, l look to her with
hope and confidence 10 clear away from
this and many other essential faiths OF
mine the whole rubbish that intidel men
in her sacred name would heap upon
them, and with her own hands 10 spike
the very guns which such men would
say she herself had loaded and aimed
against them "Similia stmittbus earan-
t1Ir."
And vet. with all this, l cannot an.
swer in the negative the question to
which l have already referred; nor can
1 accept your Interpretation OF the the
cries OF Huxley, Tyndsll, &c, when you
claim that they are sntl-msteriallstlc. A
few years ago DR.. McCosh-s no mean
witness 10 such q court said: "Fhere is
an active school of philosophy exercising
power over the young men, soon TO be-
| come the Influential men OF the country,
and this is strongly set in current towards
sensaLionalisn and pOsitiylsm, which
are certain TO end In materlallsm." And
| am strongly persuaded that the predlc-
tion has been rapidly fulfilling. There
is a. clear causal connection between
the expeTientjal philosophy OF j. ). Mill
and materialism, with hi its bad politl-
cal and moral fruits, rs there WAS be-
tween the ideas which the celebrated
mar bic statue of CondiIlsc embodied and
the horrors of the French Revolution.
| believe that the tide OF materlsIism has
been setting in strong and high these
after DAYS, and | do so believe not only
because we have been living under the
domInsu cy OF this philosophy, but also
because Huxley, Tyndall, ana the men OF
That school, VINO are extensively shaping
the thought OF this day, are materallsts.
am aware that at least one of these,
Huxley Lay Sermons, p. 1897 dissvows
the charge OF materialism. But do you
not really believe that there is something
in the disavowal savorlng OF equivuca-
tiou2 Does he not mean that "iudivIdu-
ally, he is no materlslist" in the sense oi
the term rs sntithelic to ldesllsm,
while he surely could not but
know that the charge OF material
Ism WAS OF thst as sntitnetic
to lmmsterislism, and against which you
have in this article under review so sue
cesstully from scientific standing
ground written. l know that this is a
grave charge, yet l surely must regard
Mr.. Huxley rs among the tarthest re-
moves IRON tool, and rs behind no one
in bis knowledge OF the correct meaning
oil the terms which he employs. On page
l35 of his "Lsy Sermons" he says: "rhe
matter of lite, so far rs we know it land
we have no right to speculate On any
otherl, breaks up, in consequence of that
continual death which is the condition Of
its msnitesting vitality, into csrbonic
acid water and ammonia, which certain
" possesses no properties but those of
ordinary matter" DR.. Elan, who is not
unworthy TO pc placed side by side with
Huxley Ms Psychologist or general
scientist, regards this utlersnce as that of
the most thorough-going materislism,
and At the same time meets the assertion
with the most emphatic denial. IL know
no form OF negatlUn, says he, sufficient.
~ explicit, comprehensive and emphstlc
IN which TO reply to the question"
Are these doctrines true2 See Contemp.
Rev. V. ZS, p. 552. Again Huxley says,
Il rs l have endesVored 10 prove 10
you, the protopasm OF fungus or u tor
amI nI'er Is esseI italy identical with and
most readily converted into that OF an
animal, can discover no logical hating
place between the admission that such Is
tae case, and the further concession thai
all UltGi action may, with equal PROPHECY,
be said 10 be the result OF the molecular
forces of the proLoplasm which displays
1t. And If SO, it must be true IN the same
sense and to the same extent, that the
thoughts 10 which | am now giving ~
teraDce, and your thoughts regarding
them, are the oppression OF molecular
changes in that matter of lie which Is
the source of our other vital phenomens."
The itsliClslng is nine. Now II these are
not the utterauces ot msterislism such AS
you in your article have asSsiled, | should
IKE 10 know WHIST they mean. And how
can Huxley decisre in the very next
breath ,nat "in.ivltUsl Y ae is no msterl-
y st. u he does no. use the term IN a
sense different from TINS, and different
rom that in when lie must know every
person uses il when msterialism is charged
upon MIN? Nor Is Prof. Tyn-
dali any more ambiguous in his utter
snces Indeed it is one OF the very best
characteristics OF both men, snd thst
among other things has served 10 give
them SO wide hold upon the thou ut of
the age, thst they are so perspicuous in
sill their writings and speeches. This Is
why II is so difficult TO prove or believe
that Mr.. Huxley is mo msterlallsL' in
the sense in which you snd are using
the term. And TINS characteristic be-
longs no less signslly 10 Prot. Tyndsll.
On p l59 OF Fragments Of Science, in
speaking OF the hypothesis of evolution,
10 ,.Sfrip aEgt md pp, st.pH