New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-21

| Of Faith" was written Re that as 1t may the
! book vas a success. second edition beins calIea
for In the yeor following its first appearance us
attack on Bbliolatry reads mildly enough in these
DAYS when doctors Of divinity in one OF the STRICT
! est organizations of Chrstendom. speaking theo-
| logically have been on trial as heretcs' not
| for sentimental phrases about Hebrew maS'acieS
| recorded in the Old Testament. nor Tor tentative
! questions about the authorship Of TINS or that
I hook included in the canon. but for straightout
condemnation of the doctrine that any book or any
tradition be infallible 1t was day OF posi-,
| tivsm and rationssm when the inward ish'
| satirized in "Hudibras had been turner 10 an
! unexpected use by the doubters against the ld''"
instead Of by the faithful in the way OF HIuosPe'
tive confirmation for the truth OF historic religion
| The chasm is almost wide between 'he eNpeii
mental methods OF the present time ana inc ifhas'
native rationalism Of Froudes youth as between
/ that rationalism and the bitter nonconiormi'y oi
the Puritans. Not a line that Fronde wrote III
| later years shows that he ever brdged the chasm'
/ He remained nationalist. not scientific ques-
TONER Yet there are sentences In his writings
which read If he had come to me very ,i, SOL
of scientific method, even in the yomthiuI ye
which has been quoted. h men inner system of this
earth that each one OF us should repeat oVHi as ~
aoh NJ is anfecedent eras he is the verge OF
applying a we-inown law OF the orgaiIlc h hVi +;
! 10 world of the soul. But he stopped SNORT. IL
} WAS with him only an eloquent figure OF speech,
not a fact not even credible hypothesis III inc
Positvism. whether directly studied or indirectly
taken up from the for 81 the ton
everything particularly OF religion ros afIroctei
by it, as he showed in single parastap1,i tb
ne solved apparently to ms own in few
dozen words. People canvass up aIn , Tow and
None Of them seems to that it was the conlmp.
channel toward which All the 6dfnp and that in
some form or other when they e cana 10 round
must have been. That 1t crYstalII@eu 49,. hu,
ca as soon az the widening intercourse
of the nations forced the JewiSn NM ma ,be Crnran
snch religion was positively inevitaol ,G NoM vi
adays. archaeology and the n.y. nr 70 when tho
,epc6urse Of those races began. and the 9ny
'or s that christianity 50 long in coHns.
Wo,ue' INSTRUMENTATION Of the Oriental peoples
was the only thing required to bring IL apo"'
OPPOSED TO BUCKLES THEORIES.
| y, tho other hand It must be said that when
postivism was presented to Froude III It's po'r
and most scientific aspect, he tu!h'" """' i
With vigorous dislike. Ii interfered with Sen'
-, ,,,oroli.v which he cherished The lecture
| On ,ha science OF history which has been ALREADY
| rrded n was devoted largely TO an examination
| If Buckles theory OF civilization ana fro""e wac
partcularly emphatic against the doctr'"e ., -
| ages the one thing which. whether iea'"o" 80
DnckIe or from the ordinary life OF nations loi'''
mar, OF the common-sense philosophy vi n'o',
nou,icians Substantially the theory was 'hd' inc
| motives of individual men balanced each o'i''
when mankind was considered in the ihasS anu |
| future actions of mutitudes could ne 'o"p"'1'
with approximate accuracy. There Is sens. ~
which the speculatons OF Buckle are true. bu' NJ
| as m, familiar with say universal suffrage. ana
/, d,d M, occur 10 him that the fractional Varla-
tion which he admitted to be possible might wv Va
| on the line between parties ana might pro"u''' IL
| the long run or on given OCCASION most oN""''
| binary results From his point OF view 'her' vas
| really No need of admitting or denying free VIII
1 beco
only calculations on general results. r'o"'
whom tho individual especially the heroic h''l-
viduaL was as important as to ms master
! and who looked upon the mass OF inlhA"' VIZ"
sort of charitable contempt-when ne came ia'e "
| face with Buckles proposition evaded rather than
| disproved it by denying that there couiu W any
such thing as a science Of history. ~" men na'u' a
causes are liable to be set aside and neuraiized ny
what Is called volition the word science Is GUY
place If II is free to choose what ne W ~
or not do there is adequate science lor mn -
,here ia a science for him there is free choice
and the praise or blame with which we REGARD On
another is impertinent or out OF place. lo, II.1
RnckIe If he had been alive. would have ansWerel
that it not TO the point But ne won "
action Froude defined t. there can be no or
in it, and he might add tie use New Vas substan
TALLY that of Froude, was more snocesssnl ~ in
uumerabe hjoeraphies Individuality has pract-
cally disappeared from the historic problem as thus
formulated and room is left for the curious para
that what is true of a part is true OF the whole
| not the whole But from Froude's point OF yiS"'
history always seem IKE chias x xeT ni Si
ters with which We can spell any wofd we l,eH ,o
ana Macaulays criticism on history IN MS ui11f
nrsbed successors in the study OF English annals
"a little exaggeration. little suppression. Juu
ttcism with respect to Me evidence on one side, a
convenient credulity with respect TO every repDI
or tradition on the other. may easily make 4 SAINT
of iaud or a tyrant Of Henry ~" .,. go. &,
Froude's theory OF re ig on as wtousn' our ~
demnation of the University authorltles ana tne
oss Of his fellowship, but hes th,ngs were ,s
n1a5anne ia tba elaborat@ History OF England
from the Fall OF CARDINAL Wolsey to the Defeat OF
the Spanish Armada, was greeted WIN snap Gnu,
sides that while his EFFORT TO make. not Sa I
something better than saint out OF Henry W.
the creed of the case which justified partial re-
versa Of the verdict that had GeGoms pn e' IN
| not OF e. kind TO supsrsede other great WORKS thdt
treated OF Tudor tines. but supp emen'ei Ia EN-,
and henceforth no man could claim a ~, ronsh a
| know edge Of those lines unless fsouic ma, ma
p snd f Fr6 Ss are oseh
reference list under the article On Henry VI IN
tn 'Dir nary of Na,inal b one ne CAT a
ancng them against each otnSr we!gnns Inc sv
opposed to each other, he may rehch r'sp.c ans
| judgment.
| FROUDE'S METHOD IN HISTORY.
| The most complete exemplihcat!on. in brie, of
| Froude's method a historian was rs essay OF
| Thomas Beckett. which is included In the series
| entitled Short Stud s Great Subjects From
| the point of view of modern rat onalis 10 whom
| everything in the nature Of re gion W ears gu 8
tlcnablc aspect, the character OF Beckett WAS on,
| u b. condemned. The point is, what can be SAID
about him from the point of view OF the feudallsm
| I'm which III was born and furured? Suppos nS n
| man 10 be satisfied with vassaage. does the trans
FIR of allegiance from one overlo;d t. another
| make a corresponding change IN the responsib Il
| ties of the vassal? Put in tn sinp'e form there
was plainly a Justifcat on for Beckets oppoS on
as a clergyman and Primite % wha, he Ind APP
proved as layman and Chancellor. Tn, vital cues
tioa was involved in the demand Of II nry II that
tn bishops and clergy OF Eng and should ok To