The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-07-14
EVERY FACULTY IN ITS ORDER.
BY JAMES MARTINEAU.

Suppose that the postulates of one
faculty should turn out contradictory
to those of another, what becomes of
the reliance due to both? If, g. g., ex-
ternal observation should imply or ex-
hibit succession without causality; and
if the inner exercise of will should en-
force belief in causality with or with
out succession; or, if the one should
teach universal niece ssity, and the
other human freedom, which has claim
to our assent? I reply, each is to be
dictator in it's own sphere, and no
further; perception, among the objects
of conscience, as to the condi-
lions of duty; and for this plain ress on,
that neither has any jurisdiction or in
sight with regard to the realm of the
other. Moral objects cannot bs tasted,
seen, or heard; nor are rapid, visible,
audible objects appreciated by moral
sense. Aud hence it will turn out that
the contradictions alleged between two
separate faculties are only apparent;
the possulates will really be distinct,
and never meet; the opposition will be
merely negative, amounting not to a
combination but to simple absence of
evidence. Thus, the causality which
volition compels US to believe, outward
observation merely fails to detect;
which is by no means wonderful, since
it is not an object Of sense at all. If
we insist on framing our doctrine of
causation out of the resources of ex-
ternal perceptions, and forcing the re-
suit on our internal experience;--if
that is, we derive it from the negation
of evidence, instead of from its only
positive store, we shall naturally OBJ.
tain mere empty and skeptical pro-
duct, which our personal consciousness
will really contradict But the denial
in such case is not put on any postu-
late of nature; 1t is put upon the priva.
tive doctrine, the vacancy which we
have invented out of the mere silence
of nature. The positive attestation of
any faculty is to be held valid against
doubts springing from the mere limita-
ton and incompetency of another; as
the ear is not qualified to contradict
the eye, on the ground that the light is
inaudible, neither is the perceptive
power entitled to question the deposit
lions of the moral, on the ground that
the distinctions of right and wrong,
and the essence of binding authority,
cannot be conceived and expressed in
terms of the senses. If this rule which
surely recommends itself to the COM
mon reason be carefully observed, it
will be found that our nature condemns
us to no real contradiction; but only
leaves US to struggle against that
sluggish and skeptical repugnance with
which each lower faculty is apt with
out the smallest right to regard the
witness Of the higher. Against that
tendency, to invert the order of psy-
Geological juri sdiction, and carry our
doctrinal appeal from an upper court
to an interiors; other words, to frame
philosophy, not from our insight but
from our incapacity-it is impossible
to be too much on our guard. 1t is
humiliating to think how large pro-
portion of the speculative systems of
the world have arisen from no worthier
propension than that which tempts
dizziness to disbelieve the inspirations
of art, cease to see no misery, and the
material faculties to treat as romance
the thirst for ideal perfection.