Professor Draper's Book [pp. 155-174]

-Professor Draper's Books.
from the limited to the universal,
from the changeable to the invaria ble, from the transitory to the eter nal; from the expedients and voli tions so largely amusivg in the life of
man, to the predestined and resistless
issuing of law from the fiat of God."
(ibid. p. I6, I7.) Very respectable
rhetoric, but what does it mean? If
it means anything, it means that the
visible universe is unreal, an illusion,
a phantasmagoria; that nothing is
real, stable, permanent, but law,
which lies in silence and strength behind the phantasmagoria, and that
this law producing the illusion, dazzling us with mere sense-shows, is
identically God, from whose fiat the
phantasmagorial world issues. Is
not this grand? is it not sublime?
The scientific professor forgets that
he may find readers, who can perceive through his rhetoric that he
makes law or God the reality of
things, instead of their creator or maker, simply their causa essentialis, the
causa imnmanens of Spinoza, and therefore asserts nothing but a very vulgar form of pantheism, material pantheism, indistinguishable from naked
atheism; for his doctrine recognizes
only the material, the sensible, and
by law he can mean only a physiological law like that by which the liver
secretes bile, the blood circulates
through the heart, seeds germinate,
or plants bear fruit-a law which has
and can have no indivisible unity.
If the professor means simply that
in the universe all proceeds according
to the law of cause and effect, he
should bear in mind that there are
moral causes and effects as well as
physical, and supernatural as well
as natural; but then he might find
himself in accord with theologians,
some of whom, perhaps, in his own
favorite sciences are able to be his
masters. It is not always safe to
measure the ignorance of others by
our own. No theologian denies, but
every one asserts the law of cause
and effect, precisely what no atheist,
pantheist, or naturalist does do, for
none of them ever rise above what
the schools call causa essentialis, the
thing itself, that which, as we say,
makes the thing, makes it itself and
not another, or constitutes its identi ty. Every theologian believes that
God is logical, logic in itself, and
that all his works are dialetical and
realize a divine plan, which as a whole
and in all its parts is strictly and rigid ly logical. If the professor means
simply to assert not only that all creatures and all events are under the
control of the law of cause and effect,
but also under the law of dialectics,
there need be no quarrel between
him and us; but in such case, if he
had known a little theology, he might
have spared himself and us a great
deal of trouble, for we believe as firmly in the universal reign of law as
he or his Grace of Argyle. But he
would have gained little credit for original genius, depth of thought, profound science, or rare learning, and
most likely would not have lived to
see any one of his volumes reach a
fifth edition.
But we must not be understood to
deny in the development of nations
or individuals all dependence on
physical conditions, or even of climate and geographical position.
Man is neither pure spirit, nor pure
matter; he is the union of soul and
body, and can no more live without
communion with nature, than he can
without communion with his like
and with God. Hence he requires
the three great institutions of religion, society, and property, which, in
some form, are found in all tribes,
nations, or civil communities, and
without which no people ever does or
can subsist. Climate and geographical influences, no doubt, count for
I72