558 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



why, then the universe is a sham and man an 

 impertinence. All comes to nothing in the 

 end, consciousness ceases when the phosplio- 

 rus in the brain ceases to burn, and with the 

 end of consciousness the material world 

 might as well shrivel and die and come to 

 nothing also. 



This is a significant enunciation, and 

 will bear pondering. We have seen 

 no clearer statement of the respective 

 attitudes of the theological mind and of 

 the scientific mind toward the things of 

 this world. What is the value of the 

 great scheme we call nature taken at 

 what we know of it ? Margaret Fuller, 

 neither theologian nor scientist, but 

 fond of the mystical, offered, on the 

 whole, to " accept " this universe. 

 Bishop Clark, not to be taken in by 

 shams, will accept it conditionally, that 

 is, if he has assurance that its end is 

 such as to justify the process by which 

 it is reached. The universe has no 

 worth in itself, and can only acquire it 

 as it is found to conform to the theo- 

 logical standard a standard, moreover, 

 which was set up in ages of ignorance 

 before anything had been found out 

 concerning the nature, character, meth- 

 od, or magnitude of the object valued. 

 Here the universe is, a mighty, bound- 

 less, unfathomed fact; if it squares 

 with the theological ideal of what 

 ought to be its design an ideal framed 

 without any knowledge of its constitu- 

 tion it may be approved; otherwise, 

 it is a humbug, and, the sooner it 

 shrivels into nothingness, the better. 



It is to be here noted that on either 

 theological alternative science is suffo- 

 cated. Theologians claim to have long 

 known the grand why and wherefore 

 of this universe, but that never inspired 

 them to inquire into its how never led 

 to science. For, having the greater ex- 

 planation already, why should they con- 

 cern themselves about lesser explana- 

 tions? The greater explanation not 

 only superseded the lesser, but con- 

 demned them. Familiar with the futuri- 

 ties, and having in hand the lever that 



controls the beatitudes and the torments 

 of an immortal destiny, it would have 

 been recreancy for the theologians to 

 favor trivial inquiries into what was 

 doomed soon to " pass away as a 

 scroll." They were logically bound to 

 resist all tendencies to such trifling in 

 this probationary world. So, the men 

 who knew the why proscribed, impris- 

 oned, strangled, and roasted the men of 

 vain curiosity who strove to understand 

 the frivolous how. There was, there- 

 fore, plenty of consistency in the ortho- 

 dox antagonism to the spread of the 

 spirit of science. 



But if, on the other hand, the why 

 can not be known as the theologians 

 claim to know it, independent of all 

 knowledge of the how, then on the au- 

 thority of Bishop Clark the universe is 

 a sham, and who is going to get up 

 much interest in the study of shams? 

 A man will not seriously inquire into 

 that for which he has no respect ; and, 

 just to the degree in which people are 

 imbued with this spirit of contemptu- 

 ous indifference for the present woild, 

 will be their carelessness in relation to 

 that scientific truth which raises the 

 value of life in proportion as it is known 

 and applied. 



And which is the most reverent and 

 the most truly religious attitude not to 

 raise any question of humility that 

 which assumes to pronounce on the 

 aims and purposes of the universe, 

 while contentedly ignorant of all truth 

 regarding its order, or that which 

 searches out its wonderful constitution, 

 that it may rise to its plans and pur- 

 poses, as gathered from its beautiful 

 structures, its exquisite harmonies, its 

 beneficent adaptations, and the solemn 

 grandeur of its mighty movements? 

 We protest against the doctrines which 

 the Bishop offers us in the name of 

 religion, as well as much else that ema- 

 nates from the platform where he 

 spoke. And we would respectfully sug- 

 gest to the devotees of the Monday 

 lectureship, if it would not have been 



