136 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



has ceased, and the pause of reflection has set in, the scientific inves- 

 tigator finds himself overshadowed by the same awe. Breaking con- 

 tact with the hampering details of earth, it associates him wuth a 

 power which gives fullness and tone to his existence, but which he 

 can neither analyze nor comprehend." 



Though " knowledge " is here disavowed, the " feelings " of Mr. 

 Martineau and myself are, I think, very much alike. But, notwith- 

 standing this mutual independence of religious feeling and objective 

 knowledge thus demonstrated, he censures me almost denounces me 

 for referring religion to the region of emotion. Surely he is incon- 

 sistent here. The foregoing words refer to an inward hue or tempera- 

 ture, rather than to an external object of thought. "When I attempt 

 to give the power which I see manifested in the universe an objective 

 form, personal or otherwise, it slips away from me, declining all intel- 

 lectual manipulation, I dare not, save poetically, use the pronoun 

 " he " regarding it ; I dare not call it a " mind ; " I refuse to call it 

 even " a cause." Its mystery overshadows me ; but it remains a mys- 

 tery, while the objective frames which my neighbors try to make it 

 fit, simply distort and desecrate it. 



It is otherwise with Mr. Martineau, and hence his discontent. He 

 professes to know where I only claim to feel. He could make his 

 contention good against me if he would ti'ansform, by a process of 

 verification, the foregoing three assumptions into " objective knowl- 

 edge." But he makes no attempt to do so. They remain assump- 

 tions from the beginning of his address to its end. And yet he fre- 

 quently uses the word " unverified," as if it were fatal to the position 

 on which its incidence falls. " The scrutiny of Nature " is one of his 

 sources of " religious faith : " what logical foothold does that scrutiny 

 furnish on which any one of the foregoing three assumptions could 

 be planted ? Nature, according to his picturing, is base and cruel : 

 what is the inference to be drawn regarding its aiithor ? If Nature 

 be " red in tooth and claw," who is responsible ? On a mindless Na- 

 ture, Mr. Martineau pours the full torrent of his gorgeous invective ; 

 but could the " assumption " of " an Eternal Mind " even of a benefi- 

 cent Eternal Mind render the world objectively a whit less mean 

 and ugly than it is? Not an iota. It is man's feelings, and not ex- 

 ternal plienomena, that are influenced by the assumption. It adds not 

 a ray of light nor a strain of music to the objective sum of things. 

 It docs not touch the phenomena of physical Nature storm, flood, or 

 fire nor diminish by a pang the bloody combats of the animal 

 world. But it does add the glow of religious emotion to the human 



sanity ; " and brought down upon myself, in consequence, a considerable amount of ridi- 

 cule. Why I know not. For I am still bound in honesty to confess that it is not when 

 sleepy after a gluttonous meal, or suffering from dyspepsia, or even possessed by a 

 physical problem demanding concentrated thought, that I care most for the "starry 

 heavens, or the sense of responsibility in man." 



