250 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



ology in the surface-psnetration of some of the secrets of thought-pro- 

 duction led to its condemnation ? Should those secrets, in obedience 

 to theological casuistry, be allowed to linger on in primitive obscurity, 

 as though the earnest use of our divinest gift, intellect, were not the 

 most fitting and the most grateful form of homage to the all-bounteous 

 Giver ? If our science toils on in humble but trusting hope to fathom 

 on material lines the mechanism of our mental operations, is its pur- 

 suit antagonistic to belief in an Almighty First Cause?* Is there 

 really any fair ground for the inference, that because physiology 

 strives to trace out and interpret the conditions of the connection be- 

 tween brain-substance and mind — ergo, those who labor in its field are 

 of necessity atheists ? The inquiries seem to deserve an answer. Let 

 us, then, see to what the teachings of physiology in this direction really 

 amount. Let us try to determine whether (conflicting though they 

 may prove with the postulates of various narrow and sectarian systems 

 of theology) those teachings really antagonize any formal or essential 

 principle of deistic faith, whether, though confessedly open to the 

 charge of " heresy " (that charge so dear to sacerdotalism),! they do 

 not escape even the suspicion of that treason against nature, atheism ? J 



We must prelude the inquiry into the direct work of physiology 

 by a very rapid glance at the notions advanced by metaphysicians and 

 theologians on the nature of mind and generation of thought. Our 

 task throughout will be merely one of historical and very occasionally 

 critical review. We lay no claim to originality of doctrine, but shall 

 merely attempt in simple fashion to popularize knowledge, which, 

 alike from its nature and from the manner of its handling, has been 

 essentially limited to the few. 



1. Now, metaphysicians (they who profess their ability to formu- 

 late an a priori theory of the ultimate elements of knowledge and 

 nature of things) have held, as a class, that the act of thinking is in 



* Blaise Pascal (1623-62), philosopher of no mean grasp and honesty though he was, 

 strove to dissuade his generation from following out the Copernican system to its issues 

 because it maintained the heretical doctrine of the movement of the earth. Pascal would 

 not have merited censure for hesitating to accept the Copernican system had he argued 

 on supposed philosophic grounds (Milton died uncertain which to accept, the doctrine of 

 Ptolemy or Copernicus) ; his grave error consists in having preferred theological dograa 

 to that which he felt to be truth. 



\ " Heresy," aptly styled by Lanfrey, " Cette 6ternelle protestation de la liberty de 

 I'esprit humain contre les doctrines infaillibles " (That eternal protest of liberty of the 

 human mind against infallible doctrines). " Histoire Politique des Papes," p. 70 : Ed. 

 Charpentier. 



\ Atheist and atheism are words constantly used in total ignorance of their real mean- 

 ing. An angry religionist, being asked for his definition of the term atheist, unhesitat- 

 ingly replied, " I call any man an atheist who does not go to my church, or some one 

 like it." Strong in sectarian conviction, but weak in classical attainment, my friend evi- 

 dently had, like one greater than he, '* small Latin and less Greek," and knew as little of 

 etymology as he felt of toleration for any creed but his own. But was he not (setting 

 aside the question of verbal roots) a fair specimen of a large class ? 



