« AnteriorContinuar »
done when “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;" in fine, that it is a personality-spiritual in its nature and Divine in its origin.
In opposition to this sublime doctrine of soul there is a theory of ancient materialistic philosophers, revived by some modern speculatists, that the essence of matter is force, and also that homogeneous with this is the essence of spirit. According to this, in the final result, the substratum of the universe is FORCE.
Leibnitz objected to the theory of Descartes, who made matter consist essentially in extension, that it would produce a world of unalterable existence, but instead of this the world exhibits an innumerable number of ever-varying
ments and developments. Hence he attributes to all substances an inherent power by which their phenomena are generated. Masses being infinitely divisible, the process at length eliminates every material property, strictly so called, and all that remains is “the simple and immaterial idea of power, as the essential basis of all existence." This power or force Leibnitz terms a monad. The atomic theory in physical science regarded the material universe as composed of an aggregate of material atoms—each possessing the essential properties of matter; but outside of this, and differing from it, spirit was regarded as a distinct substance. But the monadic theory, in the last analysis, entirely eliminates materiality from the universe, and leaves nothing but a self-working, self-developing force. This is the fundamental axiom of the vaunted dynamics of the present day. Now let us see how Morell, following in the lead of Leibnitz, attempts to establish this fundamental principle. "The monad," says he, “being indivisible, unextended, immaterial, can not be exposed to any influences from without; being insoluble, it can never perish. The cause of the perpetual changing of monads, then, not being
external, must be internal; that is, all monads must contain an inward energy, by which they develop themselves spontaneously."* To what result this brings us will be noted by and by
Mr. Morell, who, with much philosophic acumen, attempts to galvanize this old doctrine into a new life, after granting that material phenomena indicate a substratum, claims that the real philosophic analysis of this substratum will bring us to no other result than that of the “action and reaction of force." This mysterious “force” he makes the substratum of soul as well as body. Having thus merged both matter and spirit into "FORCE," he becomes enraptured at the result. “The universe in this light!" he exclaims, "appears far more simple, more ha monious, more beautiful. Instead of a dualism we have a homogeneous creation, together with the activities of which it is composed, rising in perfect gradation from the lowest forms of matter through all the regions of organic life to the highest development of mind itself. On these principles, power, acting unconsciously and blindly, is matterpower, raised to intelligence and volition, is spirit. The substratum of both is identical."† What, then, is this wonderful FORCE? Is it in its nature material or immaterial? Did it exist antecedent to matter antecedent to spirit? How? What was its origin? Does it exist independently alike of matter and of spirit? Then what is its substratum? What is the fulcrum upon which it plants its lever? But is it eternal ? and did it give being to all the phenomena observed in both the material and the spiritual worlds? Then how does it differ from God? Is it not God himself? Till these questions are solved, the pretender of a new instauration has not begun to fathom the depths, nor to comprehend the difficulties of his own system. *Morell's Hist. Mod. Phil., p. 149.
† Ibid., p. 333.
Darwin's theory differs from that of Morell in this: He has something tangible, something real for a starting-point; namely, “the primeval monads." It is by the action of these upon each other—"the working of matter upon matter”—that not only the vast machinery of the universe, together with physical bodies and animal life, have been produced, but also the moral and spiritual faculties of the human race.
He has an advantage in this, that his “force” is not a mere abstraction; but in nothing more.
Professor Huxley does not hesitate to follow this theory of "force” out to its legitimate result. He says: “The whole analogy of natural operations furnishes so complete and crushing an argument against the intervention of any but what are termed secondary causes, in the production of all the phenomena of the universe, that, in view of the intimate relations between man and the rest of the living world, and between the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can see no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of Nature's great progression, from the formless to the formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from the blind force to conscious intellect and will.”* And again: “Man is, in substance and in structure, one with the brutes."† Thus, according to these modern skeptics, the highest achievements of science are those which exclude a personal God from the universe and unspiritualize man, making him one with the brutes.
“O, star-eyed science, hast thou wandered there,
To bring us back the message of despair ?” No wonder that the author of such sentiments is compelled to confess that the triumph of man's intellect is a defeat. "It is as if Nature herself had foreseen the arrogance of man, and with Roman severity had provided that his intellect, by its very triumphs, should call into prominence the slaves—the lower animal creatures--admonishing the conqueror
Hje " Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," p. 128.
t Ibid., p. 135.
that he is dust."* As our modern speculatist has presumed to push in his "force” between us and the good old Scripture doctrine that "there is a spirit in man,” and especially as he carps at us as an “old-fashioned theologian,” at our theology as being “traditional," and most contemptuously at our doctrine, as “the old theory," it may not be amiss to inquire into the origin of his “force.” Where does he find it? How far has he comprehended its nature, measured its scope? Is his new philosophy positive" or merely speculative? Rejecting the “traditional theology," does he confine himself to that which is real, or does he launch out upon a broad sea of endless speculation? Let us uncover his process. His first postulate is, that the ultimate atoms of matter are either absolutely, essentially, and necessarily inert, or they are absolutely, essentially, and necessarily active. Then he proceeds to discover that “a force of resistance," or, to use a familiar term, impenetrability, is one of the elementary attributes of matter. His next step is the discovery of "gravitating force," an attraction in matter. Expanding the former a little he draws from it a “repellant force." And hence he claims that all ultimate atoms of matter are endued with this triple force, and hence with life! With one gigantic bound he has distanced all the absurdities of the schoolmen and converted the globe itself into a mass of life, each atom of which possesses a distinct individuality! His postulate we might question, and demand from him how he knows that these ultimate atoms do not possess the essential properties of matter; how he knows that the Almighty Artificer has not endowed them with diverse nature and function. The diversity of manifestation in nature strongly intimates this, and no analysis thus far has afforded even a presumption to the contrary. Indeed, these very speculatists differ among themselves, some claiming that the ponderables only are endowed with the "attractive force," while the imponderables possess the “repellant force;” others claim that all ultimate atoms are endowed with both forces.
*“Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," p. 125.
If we question the postulate of this materialistic philosophy, as we do with good reason, still more do we question the legitimacy of the process by which its conclusion is reached. Admit a thing which nobody doubts, namely, that God has endowed matter with the attribute of impenetrability or “repellant force," and also with a "gravitative force”—might not the process of endowment be stopped at any stage of progress pleasing to the Divine Mind? It does not follow that, because matter is endowed with “attractive force,” it must therefore kindle with the social affinities of life, nor yet because it is endowed with the "repellant force” that it must declare war and fight. It does not follow because God has created innumerable atoms of matter and endowed them with certain attributes, that he must have made each the abode of life. Nature is very prolific in the development of life; but this modern materialistic philosophy is perfectly prodigal, and as reckless as prodigal, for it converts “the whole material cosmos into a stupendous interacting organism." And then how it exults in rapture over its "homogeneous creation," which, rising from the lowest forms of matter, comprehends even “the highest development of mind itself," all looking back to one common origin; namely, "FORCE !”
But in the midst of this pæan of triumph over the demolished “dualism” of “the old theology,” we are arrested by the fact that our materialistic philosopher instead of FORCE has got FORCES into his unifying system. One of these forces is attractive, the other resistive; therefore they are not only