"A blind man said, As to the Sun,I'll take my Bible oath there's none;For if there had been one to showThey would have shown it long ago.How came he such a goose to be?Did he not know he couldn't see?Not he!"
"A blind man said, As to the Sun,I'll take my Bible oath there's none;For if there had been one to showThey would have shown it long ago.How came he such a goose to be?Did he not know he couldn't see?Not he!"
"A blind man said, As to the Sun,
I'll take my Bible oath there's none;
For if there had been one to show
They would have shown it long ago.
How came he such a goose to be?
Did he not know he couldn't see?
Not he!"
The absurdity of the verses is in the argument. The writer was not so ignorant or so dishonest as to affirm that nothing had been offered by the other side as proof; accordingly, his syllogism amounts to this: If your proposition were true, you could have given proof satisfactory tome; but this you have not done, therefore, your proposition is not true.
The echoes of the moon-controversy reached Benares in 1857, in which year was there published a pamphlet "Does the Moon Rotate?" in Sanskrit and English. Thearguments are much the same as those of the discussion at home.
ON THE NAMES OF RELIGIOUS BODIES.
We see that there are paradoxers in argument as well as in assertion of fact: my plan does not bring me much into contact with these; but another instance may be useful. Sects, whether religious or political, give themselves names which, in meaning, are claimed also by their opponents; loyal, liberal, conservative (of good), etc. have been severally appropriated by parties.WhigandToryare unobjectionable names: the first—which occurs in English ballad as well as in Scotland—is sour milk;[45]the second is a robber. In theology, the Greek Church isOrthodox, the Roman isCatholic, the modern Puritan isEvangelical, etc.
The wordChristian(Vol. I, p. 248[46]) is an instance. When words begin, they carry their meanings. The Jews, who had their Messiah to come, and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who tookHimfor their Messiah, were bothChristians(which meansMessianites): the Jews would never have invented the term to signifyJesuans, nor would the disciples have invented such an ambiguous term for themselves; had they done so, the Jews would have disputed it, as they would have done in later times if they had had fair play. The Jews of our day, I see by their newspapers, speak of Jesus Christ as theRabbi Joshua. But theheathens, who knew little or nothing about the Jewish hope, would naturally apply the termChristiansto the only followers of aMessiahof whom they had heard. For theJesuansinvaded them in a missionary way; while the Jews did not attempt, at least openly, to make proselytes.
All such words as Catholic, etc., are well enough as mere nomenclature; and the world falls for the most part, into any names which parties choose to give themselves. Silly people found inferences on this concession; and, as usually happens, they can cite some of their betters. St. Augustine,[47]a freakish arguer, or, to put it in the way of an old writer,lectorem ne multiloquii tædio fastidiat, Punicis quibusdam argutiis recreare solet,[48]asks, with triumph, to what chapel a stranger would be directed, if he inquired the way to theCatholic assembly. But the best exhibition of this kind in our own century is that made by the excellent Dr. John Milner,[49]in a work (first published in 1801 or 1802) which I suppose still circulates, "The End of Religious Controversy": a startling title which, so far as its truth is concerned, might as well have been "The floor of the bottomless pit." This writer, whom every one of his readers will swear to have been a worthy soul, though many, even of his own sect, will not admire some of his logic, speaks as follows:
"Letter xxv.On the true Church being Catholic.In treating of this third mark of the true Church, as expressed in our common creed, I feel my spirits sink within me, and I am almost tempted to throw away my pen in despair. For what chance is there of opening the eyes of candid Protestants to the other marks of the Church, if they are capable of keeping them shut to this? Every time they address theGod of Truth, either in solemn worship or in private devotion [stretch of rhetoric], they are forced, each of them, to repeat:I believe inthe CatholicChurch, and yet if I ask any of them the question:Are you aCatholic? he is sure to answer me,No, I am aProtestant! Was there ever a more glaring instance of inconsistency and self-condemnation among rational beings!"
"John Milner, honest and true,Did what honest people still may do,If they write for the many and not for the few,But what by and bye they must eschew."
"John Milner, honest and true,Did what honest people still may do,If they write for the many and not for the few,But what by and bye they must eschew."
"John Milner, honest and true,
Did what honest people still may do,
If they write for the many and not for the few,
But what by and bye they must eschew."
Heshortened his clause; and for a reason. If he had used the whole epithet which he knew so well, any one might have given his argument a half-turn. Had he written, as he ought, "theHolyCatholic Church" and then argued as above, some sly Protestant would have parodied him with "and yet if I ask any of them the question:Are youHOLY? he is sure to answer meNo, I am aSINNER." To take the adjective from the Church, and apply it to the individual partisan, is recognized slipslop, but not ground of argument. If Dr. M. had asked his Protestant whether he belonged to the CatholicChurch, the answer would have been Yes, but not to the Roman branch. When he put his question as he did, he was rightly answered and in his own division. This leaving out words is a common practice, especially when the omitter is in authority, and cannot be exposed. A year or two ago a bishop wrote a snubbing letter to a poor parson, who had complained that he was obliged, in burial, to send the worst of sinners to everlasting happiness. The bishop sternly said, "hope[50]is notassurance."Could the clergyman have dared to answer, he would have said, "No, my Lord! but 'sure and certainhope' is as like assurance as aminikinman is like a dwarf." Sad to say, a theologian must be illogical: I feel sure that if you took the clearest headed writer on logic that ever lived, and made a bishop of him, he would be shamed by his own books in a twelvemonth.
Milner's sophism is glaring: but why should Dr. Milner be wiser than St. Augustine, one of his teachers? I am tempted to let out the true derivation of the wordCatholic, as exclusively applied to the Church of Rome. All can find it who have access to theRitualeof Bonaventura Piscator[51](lib. i. c. 12,de nomine Sacræ Ecclesiæ, p. 87 of the Venicefolio of 1537). I am told that there is aRitualein the Index Expurgatorius, but I have not thought it worth while to examine whether this be the one: I am rather inclined to think, as I have heard elsewhere, that the book was held too dangerous for the faithful to know of it, even by a prohibition: it would not surprise me at all if Roman Christians should deny its existence.[52]
It amuses me to give, at a great distance of time, a small Rowland for a small Oliver,[53]which I received,de par l'Eglise,[54]so far as lay in the Oliver-carrier more than twenty years ago. The following contribution of mine toNotes and Queries(3d Ser. vi. p. 175, Aug. 27, 1864) will explain what I say. There had been a complaint that a contributor had used the termPapist, which a very excellent dignitary of the Papal system pronounced an offensive term:
PAPIST.
The termpapistshould be stripped of all except its etymological meaning, and applied to those who give the higher and final authority to the declarationex cathedrâ[55]of the Pope. See Dr. Wiseman's[56]article,Catholic Church, in thePenny Cyclopædia.
What is one to do about these names? First, it is clear that offence should, when possible, be avoided: secondly, no one must be required to give a name which favorsanyassumption made by those to whom it is given, and notgranted by those who give it. Thus the subdivision which calls itself distinctlyEvangelicalhas no right to expect others to concede the title. Now the wordCatholic, of course, falls under this rule; and evenRoman Catholicmay be refused to those who would restrict the wordCatholicto themselves.Roman Christianis unobjectionable, since the Roman Church does not deny the name of Christian to those whom she calls heretics. No one is bound in this matter by Acts of Parliament. In many cases, no doubt, names which have offensive association are used merely by habit, sometimes by hereditary transmission. Boswell records of Johnson that he always used the words "dissenting teacher," refusingministerandclergymanto all but the recipients of episcopal ordination.
This distinctive phrase has been widely adopted: it occurs in the Index of 3d S. iv. [Notes and Queries]. Here we find "Platts (Rev. John), Unitarian teacher, 412;" the article indexed has "Unitarian minister."
This, of course is habit: an intentional refusal of the wordministerwould never occur in an index. I remember that, when I first read about Sam Johnson's little bit of exclusiveness, I said to myself: "Teacher? Teacher? surely I remember One who is often calledteacher, but neverministerorclergyman: have not the dissenters got the best of it?"
When I said that the Roman Church concedes the epithet Christians to Protestants, I did not mean that all its adherents do the same. There is, or was, a Roman newspaper, theTablet, which, seven or eight years ago, was one of the most virulent of the party journals. In it I read, referring to some complaint of grievance about mixed marriages, that ifChristianswould marryProtestantsthey must take the consequences. My memory notes this well; because I recollected, when I saw it, that there was in the stable a horse fit to run in the curricle with this one. About seventeen years ago an Oxford M. A., who hatedmathematics like a genuine Oxonian of the last century, was writing on education, and was compelled to give some countenance to the nasty subject. He got out cleverly; for he gave as his reason for the permission, that man is an arithmetical, geometrical, and mechanicalanimal, as well as a rationalsoul.
TheTabletwas founded by an old pupil of mine, Mr. Frederic Lucas,[57]who availed himself of his knowledge of me to write some severe articles—even abusive, I was told, but I never saw them—against me, for contributing to theDublin Review, and poking my heretic nose into orthodox places. Dr. Wiseman, the editor, came in for his share, and ought to have got all. Who ever blamed the pig for intruding himself into the cabin when the door was left open? When Mr. Lucas was my pupil, he was of the Society of Friends—in any article but this I should sayQuaker—and was quiet and gentlemanly, as members of that Church—in any article but this I should, from mere habit, saysect—usually are. This is due to his memory; for, by all I heard, when he changed his religion he ceased to be Lucas couchant, and became Lucas rampant, fanged and langued gules. (I looked into Guillim[58]to see if my terms were right: I could not find them; but to prove I have been there, I notice that he calls a violin aviolent. How comes the word to take this form?) I met with several Roman Christians, born and bred, who were very much annoyed at Mr. Lucas and his doings; and said some severe things about new converts needing kicking-straps.
The mention of Dr. Wiseman reminds me of another word, appropriated by Christians to themselves:fides;[59]the Roman faith isfides, and nothing else; and the adherents arefideles.[60]Hereby hangs a retort. When Dr. Wiseman was first in England, he gave a course of lectures in defence of his creed, which were thought very convincing by those who were already convinced. They determined to give him a medal, and there was a very serious discussion about the legend. Dr. Wiseman told me himself that he had answered to his subscribers that he would not have the medal at all unless—(naming some Italian authority, whom I forget) approved of the legend. At lastpro fide vindicata[61]was chosen: this may be read either in a Popish or heretical sense. The feminine substantivefidesmeans confidence, trust, (it is made to meanbelief), butfidis, with the same ablative,fide, and also feminine, is afiddle-string.[62]If a Latin writer had had to make a legend signifying "For the defence of the fiddle-string," he could not have done it otherwise, in the terseness of a legend, than by writingpro fide vindicata. Accordingly, when a Roman Christian talks to you of thefaith, as a thing which is his and not yours, you may sayfiddle. I have searched Bonaventura Piscator in vain for notice of this ambiguity. But the Greeks said fiddle; according to Suidas,[63]σκινδαψος[64]—a word meaning a four stringed instrument played with a quill—was an exclamation of contemptuous dissent. How the wits of different races jump!
I am reminded of a case offides vindicata, which, being in a public letter, responding to a public invitation, was not meant to be confidential. Some of the pupils of University College, in which all subdivisions of religion are (1866;were, 1867) on a level, have of course changed their views in after life, and become adherents of various high churches. On the occasion of a dinner of old students of the College, convened by circular, one of these students, whether then Roman or Tractarian Christian I do not remember, not content with simply giving negative answer, or none at all, concocted a jorum of theological rebuke, and sent it to the Dinner Committee. Heyday! said one of them, this man got out of bed backwards! How is that? said the rest. Why, read his name backwards, and you will see. As thus read it was—No grub![65]
THE WORD CHURCH.
To return toNotes and Queries. The substitution in the (editorial) index of "Unitarian teacher," for the contributor's "Unitarian minister," struck me very much. I have seldom found such things unmeaning. But as the journal had always been free from editorial sectarianisms,—and very apt to check the contributorial,—I could not be sure in this case. True it was, that the editor and publisher had been changed more than a year before; but this was not of much force. Though one swallow does not make a summer, I have generally found it show that summer is coming. However, thought I to myself, if this be Little Shibboleth, we shall have Big Shibboleth by-and-bye. At last it came. About a twelvemonth afterwards, (3d S. vii. p. 36) the following was theeditorialanswer to the question when the establishment was first called the "Church of England and Ireland":
"That unmeaning clause, 'The United Church of England and Ireland,' which occurs on the title-page ofThe Book of Common Prayer, was first used at the commencement of the present century. The authority for this phrase is the fifth article of the Union of 1800: 'That the Churches of England and Ireland be united into oneProtestant(!) episcopal Church, to be called "The United Church of England and Ireland."' Of course, churchmen are not responsible for the theology of Acts of Parliament, especially those passed during the dark ages of the Georgian era."
That is to say, the journal gives its adhesion to the party which—under the assumed title oftheChurch of England—claims for the endowed corporation for the support of religion rights which Parliament cannot control, and makes it, in fact, a power above the State. The State has given an inch: it calls this corporation by the name of the "UnitedChurchof England and Ireland," as if neither England nor Ireland had any other Church. The corporation, accordingly aspires to an ell. But this the nation will only give with the aspiration prefixed. To illustrate my allusion in a delicate way to polite ears, I will relate what happened in a Johnian lecture-room at Cambridge, some fifty years ago, my informant being present. A youth of undue aspirations was giving a proposition, and at last said, "Let E F be produced to 'L':" "Not quite so far, Mr. ——," said the lecturer, quietly, to the great amusement of the class, and the utter astonishment of the aspirant, who knew no more than a Tractarian the tendency of his construction.
This wordChurchis made to have a very mystical meaning. The following dialogue between Ecclesiastes and Hæreticus, which I cannot vouch for, has often taken place in spirit, if not in letter: E. The wordChurch(ἐκκλησια)[66]is never used in the New Testament except generally or locally for that holy and mystical body to which the sacraments and the ordinances of Christianity are entrusted.H. Indeed! E. It is beyond a doubt (here he quoted half a dozen texts in support). H. Do you mean that any doctrine or ordinance which was solemnly practised by theἐκκλησιαis binding upon you and me? E. Certainly, unless we should be cut off from the congregation of the faithful. H. Have you a couple of hours to spare? E. What for? H. If you have, I propose we spend them in crying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians! E. What do you mean? H. You ought to know the solemn service of theἐκκλησια(Acts xix. 32, 41), at Ephesus; which any one might take to be true Church, by the more part not knowing wherefore they were come together, and which was dismissed, after one of the most sensible sermons ever preached, by the Recorder. E. I see your meaning: it is true, there is that one exception! H. Why, the Recorder's sermon itself contains another, theἐννομος ἐκκλησια,[67]legislative assembly. E. Ah! the New Testament can only be interpreted by the Church! H. I see! the Church interprets itself into existence out of the New Testament, and then interprets the New Testament out of existence into itself!
I look upon all the Churches as fair game which declare of me thatabsque dubio in æternum peribo;[68]not for their presumption towards God, but for their personal insolence towards myself. I find that their sectaries stare when I say this. Why! they do not speak of you inparticular! These poor reasoners seem to think that there could be no meaning, as against me, unless it should be propounded that "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly, especially A. De Morgan." But I hold, with the schoolmen, that "Omnishomo est animal" in conjunction with "Sortes est homo" amounts to "Sortesest animal."[69]But they do not mean itpersonally! Every universal proposition ispersonal to every instance of the subject. If this be not conceded, then I retort, in their own sense and manner, "Whosoever would serve God, before all things he must not pronounce God's decision upon his neighbor. Which decision, except every one leave to God himself, without doubt he is a bigoted noodle."
The reasoning habit of the educated community, in four cases out of five, permits universal propositions to be stated at one time, and denied,pro re nata,[70]at another. "Before we proceed to consider any question involving physical principles, we should set out withclear ideasof the naturally possible and impossible." The eminent man who said this, when wanting it for his views of mental education (!) never meant it for more than what was in hand, never assumed it in the researches which will give him to posterity! I have heard half-a-dozen defences of his having said this, not one of which affirmed the truth of what was said. A worthy clergyman wrote that if A. B. had said a certain thing the point in question would have been established. It was shown to him that A. B.hadsaid it, to which the reply was a refusal to admit the point because A. B. said it in a second pamphlet and in answer to objections. And I might give fifty such instances with very little search. Always assume more than you want; because you cannot tell how much you may want: put what is over into the didn't-mean-that basket, or the extreme case what-not.
PROTESTANT AND PAPAL CHRISTENDOM.
Something near forty years of examination of the theologies on and off—more years very much on than quite off—have given me a good title—to myself, I ask no one else for leave—to make the following remarks: A conclusion haspremises, facts or doctrines from proof or authority, andmode of inference. There may be invention orfalsehood of premise, with good logic; and there may be tenable premise, followed by bad logic; and there may be both false premiseandbad logic. The Roman system has such a powerful manufactory of premises, that bad logic is little wanted; there is comparatively little of it. The doctrine-forge of the Roman Church is one glorious compound of everything that could make Heraclitus[71]sob and Democritus[72]snigger. But not the only one. The Protestants, in tearing away from the Church of Rome, took with them a fair quantity of the results of the Roman forge, which they could not bring themselves to give up. They had more in them of Martin than of Jack. But they would have no premises, except from the New Testament; though some eked out with a few general Councils. The consequence is that they have been obliged to find such a logic as would bring the conclusions they require out of the canonical books. And a queer logic it is; nothing but the Roman forge can be compared with the Protestant loom. The picking, the patching, the piecing, which goes to the Protestanttermini ad quem,[73]would be as remarkable to the general eye, as the Roman manufacture oftermini a quo,[74]if it were not that the world at large seizes the character of an asserted fact better than that of a mode of inference. A grand step towards the deification of a lady, made by alleged revelation 1800 years after her death, is of glaring evidence: two or three additional shiffle-shuffles towards defence of saying the Athanasian curse in church and unsaying it out of church, are hardly noticed. Swift has bungled his satire where he makes Peter a party to finding out what he wants,totidem syllabisandtotidem literis,when he cannot find ittotidem verbis[75]This is Protestant method: the Roman plan isviam faciam; the Protestant plan isviam inveniam.[76]The public at large begins to be conversant with the ways ofwriggling out, as shown in the interpretations of the damnatory parts of the Athanasian Creed, the phrases of the Burial Service, etc. The time will come when the same public will begin to see the ways ofwriggling in. But one thing at a time: neither Papal Rome nor Protestant Rome was built—nor will be pulled down—in a day.
The distinction above drawn between the two great antitheses of Christendom may be illustrated as follows. Two sets of little general dealers lived opposite to one another: all sold milk. Each vaunted its own produce: one set said that the stuff on the other side the way was only chalk and water; the other said that the opposites sold all sorts of filth, of which calves' brain was the least nasty. Now the fact was that both sets sold milk, and from the same dairy: but adulterated with different sorts of dirty water: and both honestly believed that the mixture was what they were meant to sell and ought to sell. The great difference between them, about which the apprentices fought each other like Trojans, was that the calves' brain men poured milk into the water, and the chalk men poured water into the milk. The Greek and Roman sects on one side, the Protestant sects on the other, must all havechurches: the Greek and Roman sects pour the New Testament into their churches; the Protestant sects pour their churches into the New Testament. The Greek and Roman insist upon the New Testament being no more than part and parcel of their churches: the Protestant insist upon their churches being as much part and parcel of the New Testament. All dwell vehemently upon the doctrine that there must be milksomewhere; and each says—I have it. The doctrine is true: and can be verified by any one who can and will go to the dairy for himself. Him will the several traders declare to have no milk at all. They will bring their own wares, and challenge a trial: they want nothing but to name the judges. To vary the metaphor, those who have looked at Christianity in open day, know that all who see it through painted windows shut out much of the light of heaven and color the rest; it matters nothing that the stains are shaped into what are meant for saints and angels.
But there is another side to the question. To decompose any substance, it must be placed between the poles of the battery. Now theology is but one pole; philosophy is the other. No one can make out the combinations of our day unless he read the writings both of the priest and the philosopher: and if any one should hold the first word offensive, I tell him that I meanbothwords to besignificant. In reading these writings, he will need to bring both wires together to find out what it is all about. Time was when most priests were very explicit about the fate of philosophers, and most philosophers were very candid about their opinion of priests. But though some extremes of the old sorts still remain, there is now, in the middle, such a fusion of the two pursuits that a plain man is wofully puzzled. The theologian writes a philosophy which seems to tell us that the New Testament is a system of psychology; and the philosopher writes a Christianity which is utterly unintelligible as to the question whether the Resurrection be a fact or a transcendental allegory. What between the theologian who assents to the Athanasian denunciation in what seems the sense of no denunciation, and the philosopher who parades a Christianity which looks like no revelation, there is a maze which threatens to have the only possible clue in the theory that everything is something else, and nothing is anything at all. But this is a paradox far beyond my handling: it is a Budget of itself.
RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY.
Religion and Philosophy, the two best gifts of Heaven, set up in opposition to each other at the revival of letters; and never did competing tradesmen more grossly misbehave. Bad wishes and bad names flew about like swarms of wasps. The Athanasian curses were intended against philosophers; who, had they been a corporation, with state powers to protect them, would have formulized aper contra. But the tradesmen are beginning to combine: they are civil to each other; too civil by half. I speak especially of Great Britain. Old theology has run off to ritualism, much lamenting, with no comfort except the discovery that the cloak Paul left at Troas was a chasuble. Philosophy, which always had a little sense sewed up in its garments—to pay for its funeral?—has expended a trifle in accommodating itself to the new system. But the two are poles of a battery; and a question arises.
If Peter Piper picked a peck of pepper,Where is the peck of pepper Peter Piper picked?
If Peter Piper picked a peck of pepper,Where is the peck of pepper Peter Piper picked?
If Peter Piper picked a peck of pepper,
Where is the peck of pepper Peter Piper picked?
If Religion and Philosophy be the two poles of a battery, whose is the battery Religion and Philosophy have been made the poles of? Is the change in the relation of the wires any presumption of a removal of the managers? We know pretty well who handled the instrument: has he resigned or been[77]turned out? Has he been put underrestriction? A fool may ask more questions than twenty sages can answer: but there is hope; for twenty sages cannot ask more questions than one reviewer can answer. I should like to see the opposite sides employed upon the question, What are thecommoda, and what thepericula,[78]of the current approximation of Religion and Philosophy?
All this is very profane and irreverent! It has always been so held by those whose position demands such holding. To describe the Church as it is passes for assailing the Church as it ought to be with all who cannot do without it. In Bedlam[79]a poor creature who fancied he was St. Paul, was told by another patient that he was an impostor; the first maniac lodged a complaint against the second for calling St. Paul an impostor, which, he argued, with much appearance of sanity, ought not to be permitted in a well regulated madhouse. Nothing could persuade him that he had missed the question, which was whetherhewas St. Paul. The same thing takes place in the worldat large. And especially must be noted the refusal to permit to theprofanethe millionth part of the licence assumed by thesacred. I give a sound churchman the epitaph of St. John Long; the usual pronunciation of whose name must be noted—
"Behold! ye quacks, the vengeance strongOn deeds like yours impinging:For here below lies St. John Long[80]Who now must belong singeing."
"Behold! ye quacks, the vengeance strongOn deeds like yours impinging:For here below lies St. John Long[80]Who now must belong singeing."
"Behold! ye quacks, the vengeance strong
On deeds like yours impinging:
For here below lies St. John Long[80]
Who now must belong singeing."
How shameful to pronounce this of the poor man! What, Mr. Orthodox! may I not do in joke to one pretender whatyou do in earnest—unless you quibble—to all the millions of the Greek Church, and a great many others. Enough of you and your reasoning! Go and square the circle!
The few years which end with 1867 have shown, not merely the intermediate fusion of Theology and Philosophy of which I have spoken, but much concentration of the two extremes, which looks like a gathering of forces for some very hard fought Armageddon. Extreme theology has been aiming at a high Church in England, which is to show a new front to all heresy: and extreme philosophy is contriving a physical organization which is tothink, and to show that mind is a consequence of matter, or thought a recreation of brain. The physical speculators begin with a possible hypothesis, in which they aim at explanation: and so the bold aspirations of the author of theVestigesfind standing-ground in the variation of species by "natural selection." Some relics—so supposed—of extremely ancient men are brought to help the general cause. Only distant hints are given that by possibility it may end in the formation of all living organisms from a very few, if not from one. The better heads above mentioned know that their theory, if true, does not bear upon morals. The formation of solar systems from a nebular hypothesis, followed by organizations gradually emerging from some curious play of particles, nay, the very evolution of mind and thought from such an apparatus, are all as consistent with a Personal creative power to whom homage and obedience are due, and who has declared himself, as with a blind Nature of Things. A pure materialist, as to all things visible, may be even a bigotted Christian: this is not frequent, but it is possible. There is a proverb which says, A pig may fly, but it isn't a likely bird. But when the psychological speculator comes in, he often undertakes to draw inferences from the physical conclusions, by joining on his tremendous apparatus ofa prioriknowledge. He deduces that he cando withouta God: he can deduce all thingswithout any such necessity. With Occam[81]and Newton he will have no more causes than are necessary to explain phenomenato him: and if by pure head-work combined with results of physical observation he can construct his universe, he must be a veryunphilosophicalman who would encumber himself with a useless Creator! There is something tangible about my method, says he; yours is vague. He requires it to be granted that his system ispositiveand that yours isimpositive. So reasoned the stage coachman when the railroads began to depose him—"If you're upset in a stage-coach, why, there you are! but if you're upset on the railroad, where are you?" The answer lies in another question, Which is most positive knowledge, God deduced from man and his history, or the postulates of the few who think they can reasona priorion the tacit assumption of unlimited command of data?
We are not yet come to the existence of a school of philosophers who explicitly deny a Creator: but we are on the way, though common sense may interpose. There are always straws which show the direction of the wind. I have before me the printed letter of a medical man—to whose professional ability I have good testimony—who finds the vital principle in highly rarefied oxygen. With the usual logic of such thinkers, he dismisses the "eternal personal identity" because "If soul, spirit, mind, which are merely modes of sensation, be the attribute or function of nerve-tissue, it cannot possibly have any existence apart from its material organism!" How does he know thisimpossibility? If all the mindweknow be from nerve-tissue, how does it appear that mind in other planets may not be another thing? Nay, when we come topossibilities, does not his own system give a queer one? If highly rarefied oxygen be vital power, more highly rarefied oxygenmay be more vital and more powerful. Where is this to stop? Is itimpossiblethat a finite quantity, rarefiedad infinitum, may be an Omnipotent? Perhaps the true Genesis, when written, will open with "In the beginning was an imperial quart of oxygen at 60° of Fahrenheit, and the pressure of the atmosphere; and this oxygen was infinitely rarefied; and this oxygen became God." For myself, my aspirations as to this system are Manichæan. The quart of oxygen is the Ormuzd, or good principle: another quart, of hydrogen, is the Ahriman, or evil principle! My author says that his system explains Freewill and Immortality so obviously that it is difficult to read previous speculations with becoming gravity. My deduction explains the conflict of good and evil with such clearness that no one can henceforward read the New Testament with becoming reverence. The surgeon whom I have described is an early bud which will probably be nipped by the frost and wither on the ground: but there is a good crop coming. Material pneuma is destined to high functions; and man is to read by gas-light.
THE SUN AN ELECTRIC SPACE.
The solar system truly solved; demonstrating by the perfect harmony of the planets, founded on the four universal laws, the Sun to be an electric space; and a source of every natural production displayed throughout the solar system. By James Hopkins.[82]London, 1849, 8vo.
The solar system truly solved; demonstrating by the perfect harmony of the planets, founded on the four universal laws, the Sun to be an electric space; and a source of every natural production displayed throughout the solar system. By James Hopkins.[82]London, 1849, 8vo.
The author says:
"I am satisfied that I have given the truelawsconstituting theSunto bespace; and I call upon those disposed to maintain the contrary, to give truelawsshowing him to be a body: until such can be satisfactorily established, I have an undoubted claim to the credit of my theory,—That the Sun is anElectric Space, fed and governed by theplanets, which have the property of attracting heat from it; and the means of supplying the necessarypabulumby their degenerated air driven off towards the central space—the wonderful alembic in which it becomes transmuted to the revivifying necessities of continuous action; and the central space or Sun being perfectly electric, has the counter property of repulsing the bodies that attract it. How wonderful a conception! How beautiful, how magnificent an arrangement!
"O Centre! O Space! O Electric Space!"
JOSEPH ADY.
1849.Joseph Ady[83]is entitled to a place in this list of discoverers: his great fault, like that of some others, lay in pushing his method too far. He began by detecting unclaimed dividends, and disclosing them to their right owners, exacting his fee before he made his communication. He then generalized into trying to get fees from all of thenamebelonging to a dividend; and he gave mysterious hints of danger impending. For instance, he would write to a clergyman that a legal penalty was hanging over him; and when the alarmed divine forwarded the sum required for disclosure, he was favored with an extract from some old statute or canon, never repealed, forbidding a clergyman to be a member of a corporation, and was reminded that he had insured his life in the —— Office, which had a royal charter. He was facetious, was Joseph: he described himself in his circulars as "personally known to Sir Peter Laurie[84]and all other aldermen"; which was nearly true,as he had been before most of them on charges of false pretence; but I believe he was nearly always within the law. Sir James Duke, when Lord Mayor, having particularly displeased him by a decision, his circulars of 1849 contain the following:
"Should you have cause to complain of any party, Sir J. Duke has contrived a new law of evidence, viz., write to him, he will consider your letter sufficient proof, and make the parties complained of pay without judge or jury, and will frank you from every expense."
I strongly suspect that Joseph Ady believed in himself.
He sometimes issued a second warning, of a Sibylline character:
"Should you find cause to complain of anybody, my voluntary referee, the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Laurie, Kt., perpetual Deputy Lord Mayor, will see justice done you without any charge whatever: he and his toady, — —— ——. The accursed of Moses can hang any man: thus, by catching him alone and swearing Naboth spake evil against God and the King. Therefore (!) I admit no strangers to a personal conference without a prepayment of 20s.each. Had you attended to my former notice you would have received twice as much: neglect this and you will lose all."
ON MODERN ASTROLOGY.
Zadkiel's Almanac for 1849. Nineteenth number.Raphael's Prophetic Almanac for 1849. Twenty-ninth number.Reasons for belief in judicial astrology, and remarks on the dangerous character of popish priestcraft. London, 1849, 12mo.Astronomy in a nutshell: or the leading problems of the solar system solved by simple proportion only, on the theory of magnetic attraction. By Lieut. Morrison,[85]N. N. London (s. a.) 12mo.
Zadkiel's Almanac for 1849. Nineteenth number.
Raphael's Prophetic Almanac for 1849. Twenty-ninth number.
Reasons for belief in judicial astrology, and remarks on the dangerous character of popish priestcraft. London, 1849, 12mo.
Astronomy in a nutshell: or the leading problems of the solar system solved by simple proportion only, on the theory of magnetic attraction. By Lieut. Morrison,[85]N. N. London (s. a.) 12mo.
Lieut. Morrison is Zadkiel Tao Sze, and declares himself in real earnest an astrologer. There are a great many books on astrology, but I have not felt interest enough to preserve many of them which have come in my way. If anything ever had a fair trial, it was astrology. The idea itself is natural enough. A human being, set down on this earth, without any tradition, would probably suspect that the heavenly bodies had something to do with the guidance of affairs. I think that any one who tries will ascertain that the planets do not prophesy: but if he should find to the contrary, he will of course go on asking. A great many persons class together belief in astrology and belief in apparitions: the two things differ in precisely the way in which a science of observation differs from a science of experiment. Many make the mistake which M. le Marquis made when he came too late, and hoped M. Cassini[86]would do the eclipse over again for his ladies. The apparition chooses its own time, and comes as seldom or as often as it pleases, be it departed spirit, nervous derangement, or imposition. Consequently it can only be observed, and not experimented upon. But the heavens, if astrology be true, are prophesying away day and night all the year round, and about every body. Experiments can be made, then, except only on rare phenomena, such as eclipses: anybody may choose his time and his question. This is the great difference: and experiments were made, century after century. If astrology had been true, it must have lasted in an ever-improving state. If it be true, it is a truth, and a useful truth, which had experience and prejudice both in its favor, and yet lost ground as soon as astronomy, its working tool, began to improve.
1850. A letter in the handwriting of an educated man, dated from a street in which it must be taken that educated persons live, is addressed to the Secretary of theAstronomical Society about a matter on which the writer says "his professional pursuit will enable him to give a satisfactory reply." In a question before a court of law it is sworn on one side that the moon was shining at a certain hour of a certain night on a certain spot in London; on the other side it is affirmed that she was clouded. The Secretary is requested to decide. This is curious, as the question is not astrological. Persons still send to Greenwich, now and then, to have their fortunes told. In one case, not very many years ago, a young gentleman begged to know who his wife was to be, and what fee he was to remit.
Sometimes the astronomer turns conjurer for fun, and his prophesies are fulfilled. It is related of Flamsteed[87]that an old woman came to know the whereabouts of a bundle of linen which had strayed. Flamsteed drew a circle, put a square into it, and gravely pointed out a ditch, near her cottage, in which he said it would be found. He meant to have given the woman a little good advice when she came back: but she came back in great delight, with the bundle in her hand, found in the very place. The late Baron Zach[88]received a letter from Pons,[89]a successful finder of comets, complaining that for a certain period he had found no comets, though he had searched diligently. Zach, a man of much sly humor, told him that no spots had been seen on the sun for about the same time—which was true,—and assured him that when the spots came back, the comets would come with them. Some time after he got a letterfrom Pons, who informed him with great satisfaction that he was quite right, that very large spots had appeared on the sun, and that he had found a fine comet shortly after. I do not vouch for the first story, but I have the second in Zach's handwriting. It would mend the joke exceedingly if some day a real relation should be established between comets and solar spots: of late years good reason has been shown for advancing a connection between these spots and the earth's magnetism.[90]If the two things had been put to Zach, he would probably have chosen the comets. Here is a hint for a paradox: the solar spots are the dead comets, which have parted with their light and heat to feed the sun, as was once suggested. I should not wonder if I were too late, and the thing had been actually maintained. My list does not contain the twentieth part of the possible whole.
The mention of coincidences suggests an everlasting source of explanations, applicable to all that is extraordinary. The great paradox of coincidence is that of Leibnitz, known as thepre-established harmony, orlaw of coincidences, by which, separately and independently, the body receives impressions, and the mind proceeds as if it had perceived them from without. Every sensation, and the consequent state of the soul, are independent things coincident in time by the pre-established law. The philosopher could not otherwiseaccount forthe connection of mind and matter; and he never goes by so vulgar a rule asWhatever is, is; to him that which is not clear as to how, is not at all. Philosophers in general, who tolerate each other's theories much better than Christians do each other's failings, seldom revive Leibnitz's fantasy: they seem to act upon the maxim quoted by Father Eustace[91]from theDecretals,Facinora ostendi dum puniuntur, flagitia autem abscondi debent.[92]
The greatghost-paradox, and its theory ofcoincidences, will rise to the surface in the mind of every one. But the use of the wordcoincidenceis here at variance with its common meaning. When A is constantly happening, and also B, the occurrence of A and B at the same moment is the mere coincidence which may be casualty. But the case before us is that A is constantly happening, while B, when it does happen, almost always happens with A, and very rarely without it. That is to say, such is the phenomenon asserted: and all who rationally refer it to casualty, affirm that B is happening very often as well as A, but that it is not thought worthy of being recorded except when A is simultaneous. Of course A is here a death, and B the spectral appearance of the person who dies. In talking of this subject it is necessary to put out of the question all who play fast and loose with their secret convictions: these had better give us a reason, when they feel internal pressure for explanation, that there is no weathercock at Kilve; this would do for all cases. But persons of real inquiry will see that first, experience does not bear out the asserted frequency of the spectre, without the alleged coincidence of death: and secondly, that if the crowd of purely casual spectres were so great that it is no wonder that, now and then the person should have died at or near the moment, we ought to expect a much larger proportion of cases in which the spectre should come at the moment of the death of one or another of all the cluster who are closely connected with the original of the spectre. But this, we know, is almost without example. It remains then, for all, who speculate at all, to look upon the asserted phenomenon, think what they may of it, the thing which is to be explained, as aconnectionin time of the death, and thesimultaneous appearance of the dead. Any person the least used to the theory of probabilities will see that purely casual coincidence, thewrong spectrebeing comparatively so rare that it may be said never to occur, is not within the rational field of possibility.
The purely casual coincidence, from which there is no escape except the actual doctrine of special providences, carried down to a very low point of special intention, requires a junction of the things the like of each of which is always happening. I will give three instances which have occurred to myself within the last few years: I solemnly vouch for the literal truth of every part of all three:
In August 1861, M. Senarmont,[93]of the French Institute, wrote to me to the effect that Fresnel[94]had sent to England, in or shortly after 1824, a paper for translation and insertion in theEuropean Review, which shortly afterwards expired. The question was what had become of that paper. I examined theReviewat the Museum, found no trace of the paper, and wrote back to that effect at the Museum, adding that everything now depended on ascertaining the name of the editor, and tracing his papers: of this I thought there was no chance. I posted this letter on my way home, at a Post Office in the Hampstead Road at the junction with Edward Street, on the opposite side of which is a bookstall. Lounging for a moment over the exposed books,sicut meus est mos,[95]I saw, within a few minutes of the posting of the letter, a little catch-penny book of anecdotes of Macaulay, which I bought, and ran over for a minute. My eye was soon caught by this sentence: "One of the young fellows immediately wrote to the editor (Mr. Walker)of theEuropean Review." I thus got the clue by which I ascertained that there was no chance of recovering Fresnel's paper. Of the mention of current reviews, not one in a thousand names the editor.
In the summer of 1865 I made my first acquaintance with the tales of Nathaniel Hawthorne, and the first I read was about the siege of Boston in the War of Independence. I could not make it out: everybody seemed to have got into somebody else's place. I was beginning the second tale, when a parcel arrived: it was a lot of old pamphlets and other rubbish, as he called it, sent by a friend who had lately sold his books, had not thought it worth while to send these things for sale, but thought I might like to look at them and possibly keep some. The first thing I looked at was a sheet which, being opened, displayed "A plan of Boston and its environs, shewing the true situation of his Majesty's army and also that of the rebels, drawn by an engineer, at Boston Oct. 1775." Such detailed plans of current sieges being then uncommon, it is explained that "The principal part of this plan was surveyed by Richard Williams, Lieutenant at Boston; and sent over by the son of a nobleman to his father in town, by whose permission it was published." I immediately saw that my confusion arose from my supposing that the king's troops were besieging the rebels, when it was just the other way.
April 1, 1853, while engaged in making some notes on a logical point, an idea occurred which was perfectly new to me, on the mode of conciliating the notionsomnipresenceandindivisibility into parts. What it was is no matter here: suffice it that, since it was published elsewhere (in a paper onInfinity,Camb. Phil. Trans.vol. xi. p. 1) I have not had it produced to me. I had just finished a paragraph on the subject, when a parcel came in from a bookseller containing Heywood's[96]Analysis of Kant's Critick, 1844.
On turning over the leaves I found (p. 109) the identical thought which up to this day, I only know as in my own paper, or in Kant. I feel sure I had not seen it before, for it is in Kant's first edition, which was never translated to my knowledge; and it does not appear in the later editions. Mr. Heywood gives some account of the first edition.
In the broadsheet which gave account of the dying scene of Charles II, it is said that the Roman Catholic priest was introduced by P. M. A. C. F. The chain was this: the Duchess of Portsmouth[97]applied to the Duke of York, who may have consulted his Cordelier confessor, Mansuete, about procuring a priest, and the priest was smuggled into the king's room by the Duchess and Chiffinch.[98]Now the letters are a verbal acrostic ofPère Mansuete a Cordelier Friar, and a syllabic acrostic ofPortsMouth and ChifFinch. This is a singular coincidence. Macaulay adopted the first interpretation, preferring it to the second, which I brought before him as the conjecture of a near relative of my own. But Mansuete is not mentioned in his narrative: it may well be doubted whether the writer of a broadside for English readers would usePèreinstead ofFather. And the person who really "reminded" the Duke of "the duty he owed to his brother," was the Duchess and not Mansuete. But my affair is only with the coincidence.
But there are coincidences which are really connected without the connection being known to those who find in them matter of astonishment. Presentiments furnish marked cases: sometimes there is no mystery to those who have the clue. In theGentleman's Magazine(vol. 80, part 2, p. 33) we read, the subject being presentiment of death, as follows: "In 1778, to come nearer the recollection ofsurvivors, at the taking of Pondicherry, Captain John Fletcher, Captain De Morgan, and Lieutenant Bosanquet, each distinctly foretold his own death on the morning of his fate." I have no doubt of all three; and I knew it of my grandfather long before I read the above passage. He saw that the battery he commanded was unduly exposed: I think by the sap running through the fort when produced. He represented this to the engineer officers, and to the commander-in-chief; the engineers denied the truth of the statement, the commander believed them, my grandfather quietly observed that he must make his will, and the French fulfilled his prediction. His will bore date the day of his death; and I always thought it more remarkable than the fulfilment of the prophecy that a soldier should not consider any danger short of one like the above, sufficient reason to make his will. I suppose the other officers were similarly posted. I am told that military men very often defer making their wills until just before an action: but to face the ordinary risks intestate, and to wait until speedy death must be the all but certain consequence of a stupid mistake, is carrying the principle very far. In the matter of coincidences there are, as in other cases, two wonderful extremes with every intermediate degree. At one end we have the confident people who can attribute anything to casual coincidence; who allow Zadok Imposture and Nathan Coincidence to anoint Solomon Selfconceit king. At the other end we have those who see somethingvery curiousin any coincidence you please, and whose minds yearn for a deep reason. A speculator of this class happened to find that Matthew viii. 28-33 and Luke viii. 26-33 contain the same account, that of the demons entering into the swine. Very odd! chapters tallying, and verses so nearly: is the versification rightly managed? Examination is sure to show that there are monstrous inconsistencies in the mode of division, which being corrected, the verses tally as well as the chapters. And then how comes it? I cannot go on,for I have no gift at torturing a coincidence, but I would lay twopence, if I could make a bet—which I never did in all my life—that some one or more of my readers will try it. Some people say that the study of chances tends to awaken a spirit of gambling: I suspect the contrary. At any rate, I myself, the writer of a mathematical book and a comparatively popular book, have never laid a bet nor played for a stake, however small: not one single time.
It is useful to record such instances as I have given, with precision and on the solemn word of the recorder. When such a story as that of Flamsteed is told,a prioriassures us that it could not have been: the story may have been aben trovato,[99]but not the bundle. It is also useful to establish some of the good jokes which all take for inventions. My friend Mr. J. Bellingham Inglis,[100]before 1800, saw the tobacconist's carriage with a sample of tobacco in a shield, and the mottoQuid rides[101](N.&Q., 3d S. i. 245). His father was able to tell him all about it. The tobacconist was Jacob Brandon, well known to the elder Mr. Inglis, and the person who started the motto, the instant he was asked for such a thing, was Harry Calender of Lloyd's, a scholar and a wit. My friend Mr. H. Crabb Robinson[102]remembers the King's Counsel (Samuel Marryat) who took the mottoCauses produce effects, when his success enabled him to start a carriage.
The coincidences of errata are sometimes very remarkable: it may be that the misprint has a sting. The death of Sir W. Hamilton[103]of Edinburgh was known in London on a Thursday, and the editor of theAthenæumwrote tome in the afternoon for a short obituary notice to appear on Saturday. I dashed off the few lines which appeared without a moment to think: and those of my readers who might perhaps think me capable of contriving errata with meaning will, I am sure, allow the hurry, the occasion, and my own peculiar relation to the departed, as sufficient reasons for believing in my entire innocence. Of course I could not see a proof: and two errata occurred. The words "addition to Stewart"[104]require "foraddition toreadedition of." This represents what had been insisted on by the Edinburgh publisher, who, frightened by the edition of Reid,[105]had stipulated for a simple reprint without notes. Again "principles of logic and mathematics" required "formathematicsreadmetaphysics." No four words could be put together which would have so good a title to be Hamilton's motto.
April 1850, found in the letter-box, three loose leaves, well printed and over punctuated, being
Chapter VI. Brethren, lo I come, holding forth the word of life, for so I am commanded.... Chapter VII. Hear my prayer, O generations! and walk by the way, to drink the waters of the river.... Chapter VIII. Hearken o earth, earth, earth, and the kings of the earth, and their armies....
Chapter VI. Brethren, lo I come, holding forth the word of life, for so I am commanded.... Chapter VII. Hear my prayer, O generations! and walk by the way, to drink the waters of the river.... Chapter VIII. Hearken o earth, earth, earth, and the kings of the earth, and their armies....
A very large collection might be made of such apostolic writings. They go on well enough in a misty—meant for mystical—imitation of St. Paul or the prophets, until at last some prodigious want of keeping shows the education of the writer. For example, after half a page which mightpass for Irving's[106]preaching—though a person to whom it was presented as such would say that most likely the head and tail would make something more like head and tail of it—we are astounded by a declaration from theHoly Spirit, speaking of himself, that he is "not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ." It would be long before we should find ineducatedrhapsody—of which there are specimens enough—such a thing as a person of the Trinity taking merit for moral courage enough to stand where St. Peter fell. The following declaration comes next—"I will judge between cattle and cattle, that use their tongues."
THE FIGURE OF THE EARTH.
The figure of the earth. By J. L. Murphy,[107]of Birmingham. (London and Birmingham, 4 pages, 12mo.) (1850?)
The figure of the earth. By J. L. Murphy,[107]of Birmingham. (London and Birmingham, 4 pages, 12mo.) (1850?)
Mr. Murphy invites attention and objection to some assertions, as that the earth is prolate, not oblate. "If the philosopher's conclusion be right, then the pole is the center of a valley (!) thirteen miles deep." Hence it would be very warm. It is answer enough to ask—Who knows that it is not?
*** A paragraph in the MS. appears to have been inserted in this place by mistake. It will be found in the Appendix at the end of this volume.—S. E. De M.
*** A paragraph in the MS. appears to have been inserted in this place by mistake. It will be found in the Appendix at the end of this volume.—S. E. De M.
PERPETUAL MOTION.
1851. The following letter was written by one of a class of persons whom, after much experience of them, Idonotpronounce insane. But in this case the second sentence gives a suspicion of actual delusion of the senses; the third looks like that eye for the main chance which passes for sanity on the Stock Exchange and elsewhere:
15th Sept. 1851.
"Gentlemen,—I pray you take steps to make known that yesterday I completed my invention which will give motion to every country on the Earth;—to move Machinery!—the long sought in vain 'Perpetual Motion'!!—I was supported at the time by the Queen and H.R.H. Prince Albert. If, Gentlemen, you can advise me how to proceed to claim the reward, if any is offered by the Government, or how to secure thePatentfor the machine, or in any way assist me by advice in this great work, I shall most graciously acknowledge your consideration.
These are my convictions that mySEVERALdiscoveries will be realized: and this great one can be at once acted upon: although at this moment it only exists in my mind, from my knowledge of certain fixed principles in nature:—the Machine I have not made, as I only completed the discoveryYESTERDAY, Sunday!