APPENDIX.] A REJOINDER TO PROF. HUXLEY. 261 * 66 " upon the relativity of knowledge and the persistence of force. What is its outcome but the doctrine of self-existent matter? Take his own statement: "Clearly, therefore, the proposition that an originating mind' is the cause of Evolution is a proposition that can be entertained so long only as no attempt is made to unite in thought its two terms in the alleged relation." But of course Mr. Spencer does not "post up' Materialism in the absolute sense of the old and artless Realists. My point is, however, that the multitudes of men are and must be artless Realists, and that they are taking the Materialism of Mr. Spencer, Professor Huxley, and Mr. Clifford au pied de la lettre, with the consequences which I have endeavoured to depict in my article Materialism and Morality. It is not, therefore, on the score of language merely, nor by singling out isolated passages, not, assuredly, for the sake of controversy, for which I have neither aptitude nor taste, but because, on taking all the evidence into account, I deemed it so, that I spoke of Professor Huxley's writings as tending to elevate Materialism into the reigning creed of the day. It might be feasible to show that various authors, to whom no one would attribute Materialism, have used unguarded or equivocal expressions; but it is not by reason of such that, when all is said and done, I feel obliged to maintain my former position, adding of course that, neither then nor now, have I dreamt of penetrating into the depths of Professor Huxley's consciousness. He appears to think the combination of Phenomenist and Materialist impossible. It seems to me that between these two forms of negation there is a natural affinity. The Materialist denies mind altogether, or makes it a function of matter; the Phenomenist denies that faculty of intuition which is the essential characteristic of mind, and calling mind a phenomenon breaks down the See the whole passage in his Essays, vol. iii. pp. 246-249. distinction that severs it from those material entities which really are phenomena. I do not think Professor Huxley escapes from the Materialism which has been called, most unwarrantably, "The Creed of Science," by adopting the doctrine of the relativity of knowledge. Shall I appear to him no better than a medieval disputant if I say that this seems to me to be merely adding a second error to the first? "The Creed of Science." "The relation of science to morals." Employing the term physics, as less open to ambiguity, I am here brought back to what I said at the beginning, that physics, as such, is not conversant with morals, neither affirms nor denies religion, and can therefore have no creed in regard to either. We do not talk of the religion of the sense of hearing, nor of its irreligion; such an expression would be absurd. In like manner physics, which is wholly the science of the senses, abstracts from religion, from morality, and from every kind of knowledge so far as the latter is independent of sense. I say "abstracts from," I do not say "rejects," or "repudiates," or "denies.” Physical science merely attends to its own business, and it is no part of its business to deal with what the late Mr. Lewes denominated the "metempirical." It is not Agnostic, for Agnosticism implies a knowledge of one's own ignorance; and physical science does not know that it is ignorant, any more than a mollusc knows that it is not moral. It is wonderful how much has been made out to the prejudice of religion as of morality, from the obvious canon of logic that, every science having its proper object, the proper object of physics does not include God or the moral order. Science, all science, has on the strength of this been described as hostile to metaphysical principles, to belief in a Personal Deity, and to an à priori standard of ethics. Hostile, physical science is not; indifferent, it is and ought to be. APPENDIX.] A REJOINDER TO PROF. HUXLEY. 263 Professor Huxley asks, In what laboratory questions of æsthetics and historical truth can be tested? In none, as we both agree. But it is curious that he should think of safeguarding morality by means of that science which cannot even attain to the laws of historical criticism. He will, perhaps, assure me that I mistake him again. Well, I do not mistake in asserting that he considers physical science" a better guardian of morality" than "the pair of shrews," philosophy and theology. I will say what strikes me on that point, and so conclude this paper, which has extended far beyond what I proposed to myself when I began to write it. But whether one agrees with Professor Huxley or disagrees, his pages are so fascinating that it is difficult to tear oneself away from them. The morality of an act, we must all surely admit, is not a physical quality; it resides in the motive, and again in the nature of the act; whether, namely, the latter is conformable to a standard of perfection which the mind alone apprehends. The outward effects of two actions may be precisely similar, as when an assassin slays his victim and an executioner hangs a convicted criminal. But one of these acts will be foul murder; the other a righteous ministration of retributive justice. Will Professor Huxley point out any science which is not a part of philosophy or theology, and is yet competent to discriminate between these two acts? What can "science" affirm about them unless it becomes philosophy or theology? Nothing whatever. Physical science perceives only that which the senses grasp; and the senses know nothing of justice or injustice. Is it by physics that we know when social disorganisation is the consequence of immorality? I trow not. To physics the deeds of a Wellington and of a Genghiz Khan are "molecular changes," and no more. Physical science may predict that if certain physical actions take place, certain physical structures will be injured or broken up. But it can never tell what is the moral quality of those physical actions. The taint of leprosy may be contracted by vicious habits, or in the exercise of sublimest self-sacrifice. But can "science" inform us whether Père Damien, in his fearful prison at Molokai, contracted it because he was good or because he was evil? Therefore, I must affirm, that while physical science may be, and ought to be, the servant of morality, it can never, in any proper sense, be its guardian. The only effective guardian of morality is religion, which affords it a sanction and a reward, which incarnates it in august symbolism and utters it in divine command for all those -they are, and ever must be, the overwhelming majoritywho cannot lay hold of an abstruse philosophy, but need to be taught as children. Physical science may indeed mark the difference, which in time becomes outward and visible, between those who cultivate morality and those who trample it under foot. But there its competency stops; its powers of interpretation are exhausted. What lies at the root of the difference it can never tell. It has no means of discerning virtue or vice, and to intrust the age to its guidance would be like asking one's way of a blind giant. That he was a giant would be no compensation for his want of sight; and, if he thought himself all the more at liberty because he perceived no hindrance to his action, so much the worse would it be for those whom he dragged along with him. I have applied the parable in the paper which Professor Huxley has criticised. Physical science, apart from philosophy and religion, is indeed a giant, but it is blind. And when it proceeds unscientifically to formulate its ignorance into a creed, it is doing its best not to subserve morality, but to ruin it. Adultery, in materialistic ethics Amiel, on contemporary materialism. is the True, the Good, the Beautiful. all our intellectual operations have relation to . and Christian marriage. Ambrose, St., on divorce and re-marriage Aquinas, St. Thomas, his teaching as to matter 226 228 49, 50 205 205 24 63 on the lawfulness of property on the conception of a thing as doable on human freedom and divine foreknowledge Architecture, the, of the age Aristotle, on the difference between man and the 194 238 238 223 rest of animate existence 101 on the common element of all virtues Arnold, Dr. on the worship of force. Arnold, Mr. Matthew, on the source of rights. Art, has passed under the materialistic yoke its value in historical researches 152 153 172 231 151 44 22 221 222, 227 |