Page images
PDF
EPUB

redeemed on earth. To this elevation we feel that God in his providence is calling his people. Let them listen to that call, and go up to that position; and there, raised above the low earth on which they have been so long content to dwell, let them look out over a miserable world, and determine, each organization or division in its appropriWilliamsburgh.

ate place, to bend all their energies to that one point-the rescue of man from the destroyer. In this glorious work they will mount up with wings as eagles; feeling will blend with feeling; and the whole brotherhood of believers will echo over all the earth the anthem, "Glory to God in the highest-on earth peacegood will to men!" J. W. M.

AN APOLOGY FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

THAT nothing really valuable is acquired without labor, is, in general, true; and it is equally true, that nothing really valuable is received without opposition.

No new truth, no new combination of machinery, whether a powerloom, or a steam-engine; no means of contributing to the comfort or convenience of men, whether a canal or a railroad; no plan for ameliorating the condition of men, however rational or desirable; not even the beneficent system of Christianity, is received without strong objection and determined opposition. Nay, the reception which Christianity has met with, leads us rather to think, that the more excellent the system, the more violent and unyielding will be the opposition.

These remarks are suggested by a consideration of the objections that have been urged against the study of physical science. Diverse and contradictory have been these objections. Science has been, if we may say it reverently, to one "a stumbling block, and to another foolishness." One class of men have turned away from it, as too abstruse and hard to be understood; another have despised it as too plain and obvious. One large class, perhaps the majority of men, have complained that it had no practical bearing, that it was, in fact, not

a marketable commodity; another class have condemned all physical science as entirely utilitarian. Men of this latter class would have us understand that they object to the study of physical science, on the ground that it tends to feed the body instead of the soul. They profess to disregard the enjoyments which are received through the senses, and to place their utility, the true good, in pursuits which they consider more purely intellectual. Nor are we disposed to object to this theory of utility, so long as sufficient regard is paid to the body to enable the soul to stay in it, and enjoy the true good. We must, moreover, do this class of men the justice to admit, that, however they may theoretically disregard the vulgar utility, they still take care to keep the body so provided with its appropri ate consolations, that the soul shall never suffer from the privations of the body, nor be called upon to sympathize very deeply in the griefs of her attendant.

Thus, while one class of men set at nought the study of nature, because they see in it nothing, which can minister to their wants; another class despise it, because they see no other object of it than to minister to the gratification of our bodily appetites and passions. One finds, in the truths of physical science, no

nutriment for the body; another finds none for the soul.

While, to the former, we are endeavoring to explain the various ways, in which scientific knowledge may contribute to the comfort, and to the wealth of man, we are met, by him of the opposite pole, with a reproof for devoting time and attention to a subject so entirely subservient to the physical wants of man.

The one regards science as dreamy speculation, which, as King James profanely said of Lord Bacon's philosophy, "like the peace of God, passeth all understanding;" while the other contemns all such learning, as unworthy of an immortal being.

The one, like the sapient King James, sees no meaning or pertinence in the avowed object of that father of modern science, "humanis commodis servire;" the other, gathers from it, that it was the sole object of Lord Bacon, and of the philosophy which he cultivated, "to provide certain conveniences for feeding, clothing and transporting these bodies of ours;" and thus to degrade man from an intellectual, a spiritual being, to the lowest sensualism, and the grossest infidelity. Such a mind can trace all the infidelity and atheism of France to the Baconian philosophy; and, simply, because some of those infidels and atheists were men of science, and employed, with great effect, some of the methods of investigation proposed by Lord Bacon.

Now we charge with illiberality and narrowness, the man that can see no practical advantage in scientific pursuits. We affirm that, if he understood that to which he objects, he would see that its practical advantages are great beyond all his comprehension; and that, if these results are sometimes remote, they more than compensate for their remoteness, by their vast, their infinite variety and importance. Shall we acquit, of the charge of illiberality

and narrowness of view, him who sees nothing else than this very practical tendency, of which the other finds no indication? There is, undoubtedly, this practical tendency, and every one, who has any moderately extended knowledge of science, knows it. But he, who dis. covers nothing farther, has indeed a very moderately extended view, both of its excellence, and of its utility and beauty.

Thus science is assailed on all hands. The practical man, as he styles himself, regards it as too lofty, the metaphysician, as too lowly; the theologian objects to it, as tending to infidelity; the literary man rejects it, as having no beauty or elegance, that can commend itself to a refined and cultivated taste; and the classical scholar is too often disposed to undervalue the science of nature, in comparison with the glo ries, both intellectual and physical, of Greece and Rome.

We do not mean, of course, that all the persons, who compose these several classes, thus set themselves against the study of nature; but that science has to contend against arguments urged by individuals of all these classes, who, so far as they can, press the same views upon others.

We wish to consider some of these objections, and to inquire, what is the real tendency, and the legitimate result of the study of natural science. And we shall do this, not for the purpose of showing that it has a practical bearing,-a value which can be estimated in dollars and cents; but, that it has a higher tendency. We wish to weigh now, not the objections of the utilitarian, but of the anti-utilitarian; of the metaphysician, of the theologian, the literary, and the classical scholar. We think that it can be shown, that the study of physical science does not tend to sordid sensualism, and infidelity; but that it does tend to intellectual enjoyment, to the bet

ter knowledge of God, to the cultivation of a purer taste, and to the refining and elevating of the whole man. It is not necessary, in this view, to show its applicability to any source of physical enjoyment; for that is admitted, nay charged upon it. Nor, on the other hand, would we deny the practical, utilitarian nature, of science. It is a peculiar excellency of the gifts of the Creator, that they answer, at the same time, various purposes; and that they often accomplish, without confusion or clashing, several distinct, and even dissimilar results.

The limits within which an article of this kind ought to be confined, will permit us only to touch upon some of the points to which we have alluded.

One of the objections urged against the pursuit of physical science, is, that it contributes so largely, so exclusively, as those who urge this objection think, to the comfort of the body; or, taking the utmost that they would admit, to the development of the intellect. Now, if we should admit, as we do not, the truth of this assertion, still, we think that the study of physical science might be defended.

And in the first place, we think it can be shown, that the utilitarian tendencies of science are not, in themselves, a sufficient ground of objection; that they do not tend to infidelity, or, in any way, necessarily to the injury of man, as a moral and religious being. Nay, more; we think it can be shown that manthe whole man, is exalted by knowledge and by enjoyment. In other words, that his spiritual, is promoted by his physical welfare; or, still more generally, that the exaltation of any part of the nature of man tends to the exaltation of every other part. This, we suppose will hardly be doubted, as regards the taste and intellect. But, in respect to the moral nature, it has been not only doubted, but denied ;

and it has been held, and with great confidence, that the increase of civilization, and of the means of physical comfort, tends to degrade man, as a moral being.

We do not deny, that an amelioration of the outward, and of the intellectual condition of man is sometimes, and even frequently found in connection with moral debasement, and dereliction of principle. But is it not also sometimes, and frequently too, associated with moral elevation, and true nobleness of character? "Mens sana in corpore sano." The intellect is best cultivated in a sound and vigorous body: a body not pampered by luxury, but on the other hand, not enfeebled by oppression, toil or starvation. Will not the moral energies be equally aided by a sound body, and vigorous intellect? And as the body should neither be pampered nor starved, so the intellect, while it should not be pampered and elated with self-confidence, should, on the other hand, not be starved and impoverished; but should be liberally fed with its appropriate food,-truth.

Can it believed, that a benevolent Creator has made the development of any of our native faculties injurious to us, and inconsistent with our true welfare? Is it not rather our duty to cultivate all the faculties which God has given us, and to make them all subservient to the glory of God and the good of man? And is not he who neglects the cultivation of any of his legitimate powers of body or mind, guilty of an error of the same nature, though perhaps different in degree, as he who neglects to cultivate his moral or reli gious nature? He certainly neg lects to improve and employ the talents that God has given him, and must be held accountable for that neglect, as well as for the actual abuse of his talent, and its employment in the production of positive evil.

But we are told that, unless they are sanctified by the grace of God,

Is not the conclusion hastily drawn, and rather accommodated to a previously existing prejudice, than founded on facts, and deduced from the actual history of the world and the church?

knowledge, civilization and wealth, though given to man for his good, will be perverted by his depravity to his worst injury, to his destruction. Admit that it may be so; that it will be so, if you please; but ignorance, and barbarism and extreme poverty, naturally and without any perversion, as the true children of depravity, tend to the very destruction which we dread-to sensu ality, vice, and all ungodliness-that it prolongs life. The value of nay, they involve these results, as the natural, almost the inevitable, consequence.

But while we admit that unsanctified knowledge will be perverted, are we not bound to expect the sanctifying blessing of divine grace to render every increase of knowledge subservient to the glory of God and the good of man ? Is not the Spirit of God sufficiently powerful to reach the hearts of the most learned? Are their minds necessarily, or actually, less open to conviction than the minds of the ignorant? Are not the ignorant, proverbially, more bigoted and obstinate in their opinions, less candid and open to conviction, than the instructed and intelligent?

And is Christianity a system, which will commend itself more ef fectually to the ignorant than to the intelligent? Superstition undoubt edly does. She seeks ignorance as her native soil. But religion, true religion, Christianity seeks a nobler dominion; over reason instead of instinct, over an intellectual instead of an animal nature. She addresses herself to reason, and shrinks from no scrutiny; but commends herself the most strongly, to those who reason most profoundly.

But an appeal is confidently made to facts. It is affirmed, that increase of knowledge and civilization has been generally, perhaps it will be said, always, followed by moral degradation and religious apostasy. But is it so? Has not the induction, on which this opinion rests, been too narrow, partial and one-sided? VOL. IV.

69

This is not the only subject on which the effect of civilization has been misapprehended. Civilization has been supposed to shorten human life. But it is now well understood,

human life has very materially increased with the improvement of the state of society, both in England and in other countries of Europe. This fact is established, beyond the possibility of doubt, by the bills of mortality. And in consequence of this increase of longevity, the annuity and insurance offices, in order to make their business as secure and profitable as it was formerly, are obliged to charge more for an annuity on a life of a given age, while they insure that same life at a lower premium, than they would have done a

In

hundred years ago; thus demonstrating, that the annuity must, on an average, be paid, and that the premium will be received, for a longer period now than would have been the case, on a life of the same age during the last century. other words, it is demonstrated, that any number of men now living at a given age, may be expected to live longer, on an average, than the same number of men lived, who were living at that age, a hundred years ago.

Yet this is contrary to the opinion of probably a majority of men-an opinion too, founded, as they suppose, on their own observation of actual facts. But what is the nature of the facts, which they have observed? Why, truly, they see, or think they see, fewer old persons within the circle of their acquaintance now, than they remember to have seen within a similar circle in the days of their childhood. But in this observation there is a double fallacy. The observation is made,

not by comparing numbers and definite statements of facts, but by the comparison of their recollection of a past impression, with an impression which they now experience. Now these impressions are made upon the mind at periods so distant, and when the view which the mind takes of subjects is so changed, that they are equivalent to impressions made upon different minds, and, of course, must be referred to entirely different standards. The child regards every one beyond the middle age as an old man. But, as he advances in life, those whom he once would have thought old, seem to be but just in the vigor of life; so that his estimate of old age is modified and corrected, its limits are much restricted, and the numbers of the old greatly diminished.

Again, in estimating the number of the old, we naturally take into the account those, and those only, who are older than ourselves. This number is, of course, and of necessity, very rapidly diminishing.

A similar opinion has very generally prevailed, that wealth is hostile to long life. This opinion, like that which we have mentioned, has been received without question, and supposed to rest on a wide, and abundantly sufficient induction. And yet it is now well ascertained, that wealth, with all its luxury, is more favorable to long life, and to vigor of mind and body, than poverty.

We have adduced these facts, and the errors to which they are related, not to show, that the so commonly received dogma, of the injurious moral and religious effects of increased civilization and knowl. edge is necessarily false; but to show, that, notwithstanding its very general reception, it still may be erroneous. The effect of civilization and wealth upon long life is known to have been entirely mis taken;-may not their effect upon the moral and religious condition of man, be equally misapprehended?

That it is so, we shall endeavor to show.

We think we have found no proof, either from reason, or from facts, of the injurious moral influence, either of scientific knowledge, or of the increased conveniences of life, and facilities of intercourse, which result from the advancement of science. We hope to show good reason for believing, not merely that such knowledge is not injurious, but, that it is positively favorable to the most complete development of the higher civilization,-that of the soul, and to the extension of Christianity.

We believe, moreover, that this opinion is sustained by facts, and by the whole history of civilization.

We will still admit, what we would not admit except for the sake of argument, that science contributes mainly to the multiplication of the means of physical enjoyment;

in other words, to the increase of wealth. In this view, we believe the effect to be decidedly beneficial.

It is remarked by Lieber, a careful and discriminating observer of the condition of society, that "private property is the most powerful agent in the promotion of civilization; an agent, which has this striking peculiarity, that, while it originates with man's individuality, it is, at the same time, the surest and firmest bond of society." Pol. Eth., B. I, ch. 1, § 9, p. 120–1.

Again, he says, "Man strives, and laudably so, to see his individual industry, skill and perseverance, palpably, visibly, bodily, represented in gathered property, this nourisher of mankind, incentive of industry, and cement of human society,' as Sir James Mackintosh calls wealth. (p. 124-5. He quotes Mackintosh's speech in the Commons on the reform bill.)

[ocr errors]

And, when man does see his energy thus represented, he becomes more conscious of his powers, and learns to respect himself more high

« PreviousContinue »