ON PUSHING PEOPLE OVER PRECIPICES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 5 (Supplement)

ON PUSHING PEOPLE OVER PRECIPICES.

[BY J. GILES.]

No. 111.

I cannot help thinking that Huxley would have shown more of a spirit of " sweet rca sonableness" if, instead of thus following up his opponents with stroke upon stroke, he had left the new ideas imparted by science and criticism to sink into their minds, and there accomplish quietly and gradually the work of disintegrating the old- views and constructing new ones.' 'His excuse is doubtless to be found in the exasperation caused to a scientific intellect by the imbecile reasonings and contemptible shufflings to which apologists have too often resorted. Be this as it may, I do not think that controversialists will ever as a general rule allow themselves to be pushed over precipices, for however many outposts they are forced to abandon they will always have seme main position which mere argument can never touch. And this final position is always in the realm of metaphysics and not of physics. As long as it is true that every human being is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian, a spiritualist or a_ materialist, a mystic or a common-sense man, so long will controversy continue, and so long will it be futile. To one who believes with Huxley that no opinion, belief, or conviction can have any validity, unless it can be shown to be at least probably true by those scientific methods which have for the last two hundred and fifty years so abundantly proved their efficacy, no proof can ever be given of any power other than that displayed in the changes and movements of material things, and any finer forms of matter that science may yet discover. But there is another type of mind to which it appears axiomatic that all material phenomena are but manifestations to our senses of an unseen eternal power, without whose constant presence the whole phenomenal universe must straightway disappear as figures on the screen disappear when the light is withdrawn. And between these two types are all shades and all mixtures of both to be found. JNow the point is that persons of these two different intellectual dispositions cannot possibly adopt the same- attitude towards a complex whole of the nature of Christianity. They may be in perfect accord as to the data furnished by physical science, and by historical criticism and scholarship ; they may entirely agree what books of Scripture are authentic or otherwise; to what extent manifest' legend exists in the narratives, and what sayings of the Master may be regarded as more or less authentic ; upon all these points they may be quite agreed ; but at the point where one of them thinks there is nothing left the other will think he sees a great deal. To the one the combined schemes of Judaism and Christianity will appear as an interesting series of movements iii the development and growth of the human mind; but the other will not believe that the spiritual power which he postulates behind all phenomena had nothing to say to a movement by which faith in its ownagency was so enormously stimulated. The mystic must say with the late Professor Drummond that the controversy between Professor Huxley and Mr. Gladstone, however interesting in itself, had no bearing on religion. He could not share in the apprehensions of those good people who, as the author of " John Inglesant' said, feared lest Professors Huxley and Tyndall would "disestablish the Holy Ghost;'' nor would he readily sympathise with the two bishops whom the late Matthew Arnold represented as resolving after consultation that it was quite time to do something for the Divine Sonship." Between minds so differently constituted all that that seems possible to arrive at is a "modus viyendi," and this may easily be attained if each party is reasonable and moderate. The mystic—(l use the term to avoid.the connotation of the word " spiritualist," and surely Christianity is a mystical system if it is anything)—the mystic' must remember that he cannot prove his fundamental principle, or any doctrine based on it, to anyone to whom they do not appeal by their own force ; and the scientist ought to have no quarrel with the mystic so long as he refrains from demanding that others should walk by his inner light. But the intermediate points, the positions in the field of concrete facts, must be dealt with by the ordinary methods of free inquiry and candid discussion. : I only wish to emphasise the view that it is better that the defenders should retire only inch by inch, and should defend each position as loug as they can. The light increases and spreads as fast as it is perhaps desirable that it should ; and if anyone doubts the reality of the progress let him study 'the evolution of Christian thought from. Swedenborg to the present day; let him read the views on such leading doctrines as the Atonement as discussed in the writings of Coleridge, Maurice. McLeod, Campbell, Robertson, of Brighton, and Archdeacon Wilson ; and let him observe how little disposition there is nowadays '• to deal damnation round the land" in the free way which used to be considered the right thing. But though time may be liberally conceded to conservative theologians for the work of harmonising conflicting tendencies, and re-considering questionable formulas of faith, yet it is futile to imagine that there is no necessity to move, and'no danger, without movement, of finding themselves stranded on barren sandbanks. It is simply fatuous to trust to names like Dawson or Agassiz as representing the present mind of science, or to Rawlinson, Kinns, or Gladstone to furnish an " impregnable rock" for orthodox feet. " The recent letter of my friend, Mr. H. Glasson, ought to dissipate much' illusion on this subject, and if more is wanted the inquirer will not go very fatwithout satisfying himself that a solid, compact, and increasing body of scientific criticism is hourly advancing, and that nothing that fairly comes within its legitimate province can "dispute its credentials'or withstand its progress. But if there is anything immortal, invulnerable, that can serenely expect its approach, regarding it as a friend and' not as an enemy, it may be not unimportant to find out if possible what that thing isSelwood Cottage, Patumahoe, 25th May, 1902.