1884.] Hylo-Idealism ? 315 
this intellectual image ? It is apprehended that we must go 
beneath phenomena to find this intelligence. 
Perhaps a word of advice from the learned, gentle, and 
devout philosopher Schleiermacher may be opportune. He 
says — “ Beware of the writings of authors who reveal the 
petty, selfish, intolerant spirit ... in their endeavours to 
spread their own fame and force their systems on others 
under the pretence of enlightenment.” “ The truly wise, 
the further they penetrate in their investigations of truth, 
the more modest they become and the more distrustful of 
themselves, — ever alive to inward deceit and prejudice, which 
blinds the understanding, regardless of that noble freedom of 
thought which submits to no law but that of truth.” — 
(“ Life,” vol. i., p. 76.) 
No man has a greater respeCt for ratiocination and free- 
dom of opinion than I have, but at the same time I do not 
think that undigested comments should be obtruded in such 
a manner as to be an insult to the opinions of others. The 
most harsh and disagreeable conclusions can be forcibly 
presented without that obtrusive impertinence so generally 
adopted by would-be philosophers. We have a specimen of 
this mode in the pamphlet in question, together with its very 
stale appendices. C. A.’s letter in the April number of this 
Journal is also an apt specimen of the style adopted. She 
were better employed in woman’s vocation — as Iago sug- 
gests, “ suckle fools, &c.” — than so to write. C. A., how- 
ever flimsy the mask, has torn it from the Hylo-Idealism 
theorems, and says that the protoplastic substance paraded 
as a cause is pure Monism. The religious feeling, and 
happy are they who have it, however illogical may be their 
conclusions, their opinions are at least entitled to respedt, 
and should not be subjected to the ribald rubbish with which 
C. A.’s letter concludes. An argument advanced or a dis- 
cussion is quite permissible, but it should be an argument, 
not a sneer. It is more than probable the Athanasian Creed 
is more capable of defence than this Hylo-Idealism; an 
analogous proposition can be found in the triune, idea — • 
Matter, Life, and Intelligence— as constituting unity, the 
Ego ; each incomprehensible, for no finite apprehension has 
hitherto solved their origin. So equally incomprehensible is 
the philosophical theses, to be and not to be, — i.e., being 
and not being, at one and the same instant. We could go 
through philosophies and find propositions equally extrava- 
gant. If C. A. were endowed with the wonderful lore that 
she and her fellows ascribe to themselves, it is surprising 
that she advances arguments so feeble, and at the same 
Y2 
