s 
 
 AiwaliMMilM 
 
 ilMiaai !■>■• HmmimmiiI 
 
 t1«MwwAMNiiMu|M 1100 
 
 t 
 
 .a*? 
 
 
 4 ' 
 
 ^it^^ 
 
 B?». 
 
 114 
 
 ■125 lu 
 
 ■mi Miii 
 
 ^ft^ 
 
 L6 
 
 ;t' 
 
 V 
 
 ,il^-^i. 
 
 ^ 
 
 • V 
 
 ^*-^ 
 
 "V^ 
 
■'ATE it ■• ' 
 
 '.Tf^f. 
 
 ,4^ 
 
 *v 
 
 r 
 
 CIHM 
 Microflcho 
 Series 
 (Monographs) 
 
 ;v . •- 
 
 'w. 
 
 :0- 
 
 ;■ ■^•^■.^■ 
 :i■*^f.:•":>!' 
 
 
 ?■%.■ 
 
 
 ..*,'*>, 
 
 Y'^n **T- 
 
 l^^ 
 
 
 ,.,,#^-^''*'^''/ 
 
 'f^s-.^^-^ , 
 
 ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches 
 
 .^_:_^i 1 
 
 Idliisiiyisimilsm 
 
 ■A.-'.' 
 
 'W.'_ ■■■, 
 
 /Mvr, 
 
 .;■ ■ ;.*■ ■ , /' .-■■■ 
 
 ;■•(• ■. ■ 
 
 lis mumipiHiiimhiiw 
 
 1$' 
 
 
 
 ,, . .*; 
 
 V-,-.-: '"?»;• 
 
 yr- vm 
 
 '^'m 
 
 
 ,-;;*'>. 
 
 
 H. 
 
 ■rgi ^ i J. > 
 
 K 
 
 r-^^.;*te3,' 
 

 0ftfW 
 
 hi 
 
 oTMt 
 
 ..!>''■ 
 
 [3 
 
 Co««t 
 
 M/OM 
 
 CTj COVif HIM MlNM|f 
 Juitlradi< 
 
 I — "I C oIom M wwiw/ 
 
 vOlOllfHi IMC IIjA 
 
 thMbliMdrbliek)/ 
 
 I I f NCI* 4$ poMhMr <i^ MiM^it Mm* mi noira) 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 ColoMMtf plMM Md/br iHMMrMiem/ 
 MmakM tttaii Muitratiom mi < 
 
 ■OMWd «»Ml ttttor HMMfW/ 
 
 TH^t 
 
 Li nMww wfiMpwiifl 
 
 ^tfafombivoudtla 
 
 I i vvHMntfM 
 
 MM. 
 
 II M 
 
 km d'lNNi iMMiwalkNi 
 
 MMMV. 
 N'ont 
 
 ■ut 
 
 
 [H 
 
 / Pmhm 
 
 ^J 
 
 f 
 
 / >>,liiia«a 
 
 «l1l 
 
 '*»"■• 
 
 •ll«fi 
 
 □ CoIm 
 
 m 
 
 [3,5: 
 Q 
 
 Coloimd pmm/ 
 
 fMtOfMl HMl/Of MMMMMw 
 
 •iAmi paHiOMMM 
 
 tMilMCOV fOMiflf 
 
 r-ltlie«rtlirauil|| 
 
 ID 
 □ 
 
 dualHy of print mwiM/ 
 OualM in i pli 4i rimpranion 
 
 ContinuoHi pi(iMti«n/ 
 tafination eontiiNM 
 
 IhcitMin indM(ii)/ 
 Compfww Ml Mm) iiMnx 
 
 TMt on l i i rif r Mkan from: / 
 L« tittv d* l'«i-tlM proviMit: 
 
 pagi of bMM/ 
 dititra^lalivratMn 
 
 ■^ ^- 
 
 DC 
 
 □ CiHMion of MMa/ 
 Tina da dtpart da la livr^son 
 
 1 
 
 TiM 
 
 •ftl 
 
 P?N 
 
 •rl 
 
 TIN 
 
 rtQli 
 
 ,/ 
 
 Addltionai commantstf 
 
 luppliwiMiiitli' 
 
 ^^ t I GtiUriqua (pMoiqum) da ia liwaiMn 
 
 Pagination is as follows: p. [382]-39S. 
 
 . TMs iMm it fHiNad at tlM l a diiaiion ratio ( 
 Ca docMmint ait filmi an tami da rAdaetian iwlw^ f i ilanniii 
 
 10X MX ^-ItX 
 
 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 XX 
 
 12X 
 
 ItX 
 
 y 
 
 aox 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
•J^^^"' 
 
 
 J\!i/''-- 
 
 Itetjropol-ltaii Toronto ltf«t«nc« llliraty 
 ButlnMS and Social Scianeia Da|»artB8iit 
 
 Tha 
 
 9f ttia afipMai aapy 
 
 ana Ni aaaBiafl «^aR «aa - 
 
 %:.,:--:v;r 
 
 Hi 
 wMia 
 
 
 L'l 
 
 Natropoli^iaa Toronto lofaraioa Uhtmty 
 : jtaaiaaaa and Social Sclancaa Daparopaat 
 
 ■ ' "■ • i M ' ^ t '"'''''■ 
 
 V piua fwiriiaiii. aampia ttnii 4a la atnililafi^i t 
 
 4a li 
 
 at an 
 
 ..-■-* 
 
 .^ 
 
 com M 
 
 i^^ f^ '^W^^^^^V ^^^K IW: vll 
 
 
 .aait pav M' 
 pwH 
 
 ^lAhflftJI ^k^M^A^kl^ A^MA 4iA«flAAkaaA ^^^i^^ f^i 
 
 TINMlOa ar tha aymfeal ▼ I 
 
 "COM- 
 INOa 
 
 -■-X" 
 
 MA 
 
 
 laurla 
 I. aal 
 *AtUIVIIt' 
 
 at 
 
 
 faQuiiaa« ina faNawHii 
 
 <^ flin«ai4aataiMi4a 
 
 8 
 
 ■vpfVHim OTi Hv* aaiii aa«nv< n asi; mniv wpsfiw 
 
 ac fla Rpvi ^A aaa* aii 
 
 % 
 
 * 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 2 
 
 ■9 
 
 _> 
 
 ' -^i- 
 
 31% 
 
 
 tr*.^ 
 
 ,A^' 
 
IM« 
 
 ^H^^^^^^^w 
 
 
 Hh 
 
 
 ^8 
 
 nd^^^^^H 
 
 mm 
 
 rTtT^^^^^^I 
 
 I^^I^^AMi'^' 
 
 f '• rnV^^^^I 
 
 ^^^EfGnl 
 
 
 
 EU' JMH 
 
 ■mE 'wv ' '1 'V 
 
 METROPOLITAN 
 
 TORONTO 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 TORONTO PUBUC UBRAIUES 
 
 BEFDIENCE LIBRARY 
 
 -* 
 
METROPOLITAN 
 
 TORONTO 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 ST'u.'S-v • 
 
 -m. 
 

 "%'■ 
 
 
 .i>' 
 
 
 J ■' 
 
 
 y •■■ 
 
 ■*.v 
 
 v«.-' 
 
 
 
 •i'-.- 
 

 J » 
 
 1% 
 
 I'W'S '-r:^.-^-: 
 
 C 
 
 ■:>-'\ ^f 
 
 i.r.'i. 
 
 '.»V. 
 
 ..;4JN 'V'T' 
 
 ..H^?:^ 
 
 >iiS». 
 
 % 
 
 1') 
 
 ti »r'-»! 
 
 {,>bsi. 
 
 r- 
 
 ;«■! -1',,^ 
 
 
 jf*;''' 
 
 K.^''?"' 
 -"'< 
 
 f^f 
 
 ...*■ 
 
 fi''!^ 
 
 THE DUALISTIC eONCEPTION OF NATURE 
 
 •:j<v- ;,:;.■,,.:,. :.,-■. v- '■:■■;..: .■ ■■■ '^' ^^ i..; -■>,•„,;,... ■ -^^ 
 
 ][ N punfotm or aaodier, momtm n « naoMMiiy concept (^.tcMoce. 
 k jiFof idiBtiio n^ncch is ewMiitiftUy tho offort of humin iatolU' 
 f e«|oi» tti IMring all ficU into inteUif tbk amncixioii with ono snolhMr ; 
 •ad| that objoot can be attaiaid oply when all facta are compre- 
 hai^d^ an parte of «ar iat^Uifibie ayatem.. The unity of nuxm 
 thefefore ia impfllitly aaaumed at the Tery da«im of adentifie ioUd^ 
 tifl4acei and it becomeaan expUdt concept aa the work of acienjoe 
 8aipaia|»erapicHity. Accordingly, oofimt tefleaion it nmat appwr 
 aomewhat atartling^that thia moniaticaasumption of acience ajbmiid^ " 
 fiom a very anily period, have been timTeraed by an iUttaion olidwriU 
 iangj i$ awl in die inlereata <rf adoice itaelf, not .to iqpeak «l tiM ifai^ ' 
 emHttteinila «f hiunanityi it becomea important to trace thia ill|H|i^^ 
 to i|ti|«owoe» and to point ont tfew injanona influencn it haft tggllii 
 , i^K^s hnoMua Ufb in practical aa^ well aa in apnonlative actinty. I . 
 ,ii blhe oonoeptionitielf of natnre involtea the conoqitioa ofita 
 uni^r 1%« term mt^ eipreaaaa adtainJily, becanee litflrnUy, 
 Aat^ elea^ procaaa (rf. birth, |» wliich it ha* ooni» to be a^ppUed^ 
 By :ita>gi«nttiiilical atiacture in fact it oonveya.the idea aaoie point- 
 edly dum fwtis, which it waa uaed by the Romnna to trana^e' 
 Oil iiepieri word dotm tiiere appoar to be a philological hialory of 
 al^ilR^nniot ^ hiatoty of adentific tdeaai Xlie uae of ^xitiigoca 
 aalw;bndKaB)tiui Homerio poema. In <V. x. 903^ the word ianaed., 
 mdpiolaithe'f native" of die mythical herb mm^^, which Hermea. 
 jii^ito^Qdyattua ^ e eottnter-diarm againtt the; apeUa of Khcki. 
 XtelMCAioi the word here ia indicated by the fact» that a few lin#a 
 Wiora^i»fc 388) theitord «^iKfQffia uaed af an eqiu^e9l.49 dmote 
 
 A 
 
 po«»''of dieluM^< 
 
 ,*s 
 
 / 
 
 •^iti 
 
 d 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 r 
 
 l?0 
 
 1^' 
 
 
S«J 
 
 THE DUALISTIG COMCtmOK Of MATUR*. 
 
 .■&■ 
 
 / 
 
 In this use o! ^vats there is already implied the idea of some 
 quality in a thing that makes it what it is, and cannot therefore be 
 altered without the thing ceasing to be- In other words, the maimre 
 of things is conceived to be determined by the very power which 
 makes them what they are, and thus to be independent of human 
 will. Accordingly those phenomena, which are products of nature, 
 come to-be contrasted as unalterable with those which, being pro- 
 ducM ol ma^ «•» l»o »)t«<!9<l or itboli^b^ M %9y tiqie by hi» eflprts. 
 This contrast had already become a familiar commonplace to the 
 AthMians in the second half of the fifth centusy B. C, as a leMilt 
 of tiM priinitiv* philosophical movements o< the praoading century. 
 In Ae BpeoulatiMia of Sophist and Socratic alike tba aatidhena ia 
 quita marked between ^^ts on the one hand, and yo^ioff ot Simf 
 oi> wixrif on the other. In fact the geaat probleea o« that period 
 was to ftad out whether the principles of man'a movai life ate baaed 
 npdn distinctions in nature, or are aserely regulations of human em- 
 picmmit, ihstitutkms of hifman society, artificen of hum»n iageo- 
 
 But along with this idf* of nature being nnaiterable these rans 
 the idea of its «pity. Tht one feet indeed ia made the covettary o< 
 the other. ! The essential nature of things ia conceived to be «n- 
 changeable juat becauae all their pheaomenal changes are auppoeed 
 to be temporary modifications of some principle which remaiaa lor 
 ever the same.' To find this prineiple was, frmn the outsit, the 
 ptobten of all scientifie inquiry. In the laaguag* of early looic 
 thought this principle came to be spoken of aa aftxnt at least knm 
 the time of Anaximandef who ia said to have finat used Ae? term in 
 it* philoaophical aigoificMion. * ^ He r 
 
 Among the lonicft monism was thus implicitly assumed. But 
 It became an explicit feature of speculative thought among the 
 Pytiiagoteans, wlio may thus be regarded: as the first true mostists. 
 The monad indeed became with them tAe t^iqf^ of all thilH(B^ and 
 that in a far mor% rigid sense than with Leibmte. Per the Pytfaa- 
 monad is really nothing but the abstract idea of unity,— <lhe 
 aMtraot unity nAiose repetition constitutes all numtiwr^ and eoaati^ 
 tutM^us also the very essence oi all things. V^ ; 
 
 r 
 
 2-fe^- ltfji^3££>^s^-;r-".-r-i-r.- e-^ .-Wt.'I 
 

 r 
 
 TUB MOItltT. 
 
 ^ 
 
 le 
 >e 
 
 ''* 
 
 :h 
 in 
 e, 
 o- 
 
 cs. 
 
 he 
 
 at 
 
 it 
 
 Ml 
 
 r 
 
 LOS 
 
 o< 
 in- 
 i«d 
 lor 
 the 
 Die 
 
 D01 
 
 tin 
 
 hit 
 the 
 lis. 
 ind 
 lia- 
 Ihe 
 
 But the Pythagoreena evidently lelt the perplexity of the prob- 
 lem which this ric&i nofusm impoeed upon hiynea thought. " How 
 cen the whole of thioffs be foe iis a unity, and yet eaeh separate?'* 
 I7«lc ii fMU Ir ri «i mmn'ittm^ uah x^»P^ AuHnor ; la a <|tte8- 
 tioii wUch the Orphic peems^ though spurteus, yet with a certaia 
 historic truth, rept ua ent aa being farced upon human intelligence at 
 the very dawn of reflective thought. In the eflort to aolve this 
 proMe* the moniem of the Pythagoreans collapsed into a fateful 
 phaae of dualism. Among numbSrs they detected two forms, even- 
 and odd ; and recogniaing number aa the essential constituent of 
 all things, they wen forcod to find the aaase duality throughout the 
 universe. With a curioos, at times even pathetic, illustration of 
 the limitaltooa of human inlelligeaoe, they followed this dualisttc 
 idea into fantastic analogies of odd and even with male and female, 
 right and left, good and evil, etc, mire conceita which have long 
 ago tool all ooeaning and imersst Bu^; is only fair ta thia old 
 school oi thanhets to bear in mind tmH|aalculable service which 
 they rendered to primitive science by theireesentiaUy monistk con- 
 ception of nature. It was tbsy vriio laid the first fouadaiieM of 
 exact science by thek efforts^ fanciful though they pnt at times, to 
 trace throughout the universe proportions calculable in definite 
 numfaera. They alao, floae amcmg ancient thinkers, rose above the 
 sensible appearance of steUar movements, and conceived this earth 
 as merely one of the planets revolving round a central point. It 
 was in fact a fragment of die Pythagorean PhHolaes, that suggested 
 to CopenacuB the heltoceitfric explanation of celestial phenomena. 
 It remain^ in fine, a significant facti that the word Moff#i6»->the 
 gencrai Greek (lerip for any ocderty^ arrangeaMnfc— waa first applied 
 by tibe Pythagoreans in the uae whidb almost duplaced its primitive 
 meanings to dehole the universe of things 6ui tH^iv attht^ ti$»9»s,* 
 . Dualiam the re lur e i% at worst, merely an tmeaaential fwture of 
 the P]rthagoraan j^oaophy, and its influence is practically neu- 
 tralised by the intsinsic moniJMtt of the sjrstem. But this is not the 
 case, or at least by no means so completely, in the Eleatic philoso- 
 
 & 
 
 •JJ 
 
 t 
 
 
 I Plntarcb/ />//%>«. PW„ II.. i. 
 
 V- 
 
 / 
 
9ftS 
 
 TUB Ot/ALWTIC COWCirflfOII Of MATUKl. 
 
 . « t ' 
 
 phy. Heri appMra, lor th« flrat tioM. in ruff td prominence, the 
 moM obtrusive diuJinn of popular tdought and ol icienoe. The 
 firat diworery of common reflexion, u weU m ol ecientiftc inquiry, 
 it the fact, that «« things «r/ not what they *<«•••, 1« *■ therefore 
 one of the eariieat reaulta of reflective thought, to diattnguiah things 
 •s they really are from thingaaathey appear to the aenses. As the 
 real natuw of thinga is revealed by reason forcing us to go beyond 
 their sensible appearance, the fonner cornea to be diatinguiahed as 
 . tAat wkith U tk^gM ^ r*as0m {rflodfuvor) from i*si wkitk mfpemrs 
 ^^iv<J>iwor). This antitheaia ta the moat prominent feature of 
 Eleatic thought. But the explanation of the antitheaia remaina a 
 problem unsolved by the Eleatica. It ia a knot which they cut rather 
 than untie. They fancied the problem aolved by the aimple expla- 
 nation, that that which ia demonatrpted by reaaon-^the noumenoo— 
 is'' the sol^ reality (ro or), while the aenalble phenomenon ia » 'm- 
 entity Xt^ fo^ 5k). But thia ia no aolution of the problem. Senaible 
 appearances mrt sensible appearancea. They mM aa auch. Reason 
 is therefore called to explain their existence, even if it be merely as 
 sensible illusions. But Mason cannot be satisfied with any explana- 
 tion that is not based on a reaaonable principle, that ia, a principle 
 in harmony with itaelf. Phenomena, therefore, and noumena, are 
 to be explained on the aame principle, and the Bleatic dualiam raur 
 iihes in an inevitable monism. 
 
 Perhaps the first to see thia clearly was Anaxagoraa, and it is 
 this fact that makea Ariatotle apeak of him aa if he bad uttered the 
 first sensible word of a aober mind Von the problem of philosophy. 
 Anaxagoraa saw that every principle offered by earUer thinkera as 
 explaining the' easence of all thinga,— water, air, fire, earth, num- 
 ber. Of whatever else it might be,-4awaya impUea aomething more 
 primordial. For every such theory always appeala to raaaon in 
 vindication of^ itself. The true principle, therefore, Anaxtgoras 
 held, must be reaaon. Thia is the ultimate explanation of aU things. 
 Accordingly, fr«>m this time forward it became impoeaibleto leave 
 
 iOiot' v#wv iiivi) it bit itrikini phrue {Mit^pk. !.• )). 
 
 '>^3 
 
 ^ 
 
 /, 
 
 f?W!jari<W««aB'i 
 

 TUB MOMIST. 
 
 S86 
 
 ^>_:3 
 
 ^ 
 
 raaaon out in any attempt to give a reaaonable account of the coe* 
 
 mOSa • '-■:'.■. "•'* ^ 
 
 But naturally for man it ta of prime intereat to vindicate a ra* 
 tional unity in hie own life rather than merely in the eatemal world. 
 In indirection no aervice haa been render»4 greater than that of 
 the Stoica. No, achool h#a ever graaped more clearly the concep* 
 tion of all nature and all life aa created and controlled by Perfect 
 Reaaon. In fact the conception of nature (^(MTis) waa itaelf ele- 
 vated and expanded. Prior to the Stoica the term had been mainly 
 uaed, aa it ia perhape mainly uaed atill, in reference to the external 
 materialr world. It waa the Stoica who aeem to have firat applied 
 the term to the phenomena of man'a internal liia ; ao that hia moral 
 nature and the nature of the extem«l world came to be repreaented 
 aa governed by the aame lawa, and theae the lawa of Perfect Rea- 
 aon. Natural law, therefore,— the law of nature,— waa no longer 
 conceived aa merely the mode of operation in the phyaical world. 
 Henceforth it came to be thought of rather aa that unalterable prin- 
 ciple of atf^poinute reaaon which finda ita higheat expretaion in 
 the lawa winan'a pioral life, and ita lower expreaiioni in the lawa 
 of the phyMcal world. ^ .>> ., 
 
 But in apite of thia f pparently all-abaorbing rational moniam 
 an unfortunate dualiam cropa out' in the Stoical ayatem. It ia the 
 old dualiim of aenae and reaaon, which had been the pcouinent 
 feature of Eleilic philoaophy. No longer, however, doea it aignaliae 
 aq antitheaia in our viewa of nature in general ; it ia apecially cen- ' 
 tred upon an antagoniam in man'a moral life, which ia declared to 
 be irreomcilable. Following Plato and Ariatotle, the Stoica divided 
 ofi the aienaibtlity with ita paaaioiha aa a function of the aoul'a life 
 totally diatinct from, and even oppoaed to, reaaon. Paauon, for 
 the Stoic, became explicitly what it waa implicitly for Plato and 
 Ariatotle, an embodiment of the abatract eaaence of irrationality— l 
 
 I Perlui» the moit intereating developinent of the Stoical doctrine of theUw of 
 Bktare «»n in RoeMui Jwriepnideiice. Tb^^ later inriata of ReoMt who were fen- 
 eraUy Stdka ia qtecalation. fancied thai the law of aatnre waa to be looad ia their 
 own JTm HtHtimm. The oonjectnm waa qoite nahiatorical ; hot the Stoical theory 
 of as-ldeil law of natore, which all hnman le^alation boght to follow, exerted a 
 beneficent iafloenoe on the Jariaprndence of the empire. ' 
 
 •tr4 
 
 '*?► 
 
 ^^ 
 
 S4 
 
 507 ■,. ■ ■-« -vTAiri«sf&* 
 
S»f 
 
 TMI DVALISTIC COMCintON Or NATVKI. 
 
 I' 
 
 to JUo^or. It is thua lh« moral cnony o( tbooo «ctiTiti«t ol raaaon 
 which form tho esMnco of rationality— ro XoyiatiMor i and ralioo* 
 tikf, wiVilutirw Mm, ia, for the Stoic, tha ymy aaacnoa of Mture. 
 the covanlng prittoipla of all thiaga. In ita practical applicmtiona, 
 tiierolbre, the Stoical ethka would make no tarma with paaaioa ; ail 
 kinda of aaaaibiUty aBuat airnply h« aupprattad. For the eac^leoce 
 *.th« Tifftae (wyB»#i^>— of man ia to ha found only in a life that ia in 
 aoeofdaace with nature ; and aa reaaon ia the aaaonca otf nature, a 
 life ia accordance with nature muat be a life in accordance with rea- 
 aon. Bat a Ufa that ia to any axtent controlled by aenaibility. how- 
 •▼or genHe aAd amiable the aaaaibiUty may be, ia to that extant ir- 
 rational ; and, therefore^ the ideal of human axcellenoa ia a rtsteof 
 apathy In which life ia completely controlled by pasaiooleaa raaaon. 
 At a tMult of thia, Stoiciam drew a painfuUy dualiatic diviaioa be- 
 tween men, in ita eatimate of their actual- charactera. All men, in 
 thia eatimate, muat be either ratk}nal or irratiooal. That obvious 
 iatermiBKltng of vittuaa and vicea in actual Ufa, which maat ba rec- 
 ogttiaed in all joat estimate of human character, w«a atubboraly 
 ignored by the Stoic. For him that man ia completely aunk la vice 
 who indulgea hia paaaions to the sUghtest degree, juat aa~-4o uae a 
 common iUuatration— tha man whole head ia one foot andar water 
 is drowned aa comfrietely aa the man who ia coveted by a thouaand 
 f athoma. No doctrine of tha narroweat aectarianism in the Chris- 
 tian Church ever draw a haraher divinon between coavartvd and 
 unoonvtrted. 
 
 Tha dualism of Stoical othics haa thua auggaoted the duaUsm 
 which baa^corruptad Chriatianity. The hidabledneaa of Chriat(an 
 theology and ethioa fo the thaolof/y and ethica of Stoiciam ia a com- 
 monplace of intoUectual history. The whole conception of the uni- 
 varaa, aadtfvelopad in th« Chriatian doctrinaa of creation and provi- 
 denoe, drsw largely ftom the writings of the Stoica. This concepflSoii, 
 which repreaenta the universe as being in every nook and cranny 
 under tha ceaseleaa opantion ol Supreme InlaUigence, might be 
 •nppotod to exdnde the veiy possibility of. an|^ irremovable dnal- 
 lam. Yet a painfuUy prominent duaUsm distorts the characteristic 
 features of the Chriatian cond^io^ o^^ die univerae. It ia in aome 
 
\ 
 
 TasiraiiitT. 
 
 irwpMti bMed oo «1m old nonl ■ntacoalMi oi smm aad tmmn, tn 
 NfW T«atuMat iMCium*. oi tkm §mh aod tkf tfMt TIm v«nr 
 «lo«UMe« of Chmtian •thica mdW to AocentMto this — ^■f nii it t nt' ' 
 For by kobliaff forth t paculkrly noMo klool of Uis m Um Irvit of 
 liw ■pirit. Clmatiaoity (WgradMl into a aotovioUttt ooatraot iIm 
 ■horteonuifs of mmn'B actual con<uct, to which thij ^ i h draf • ki*> 
 down.! Tiiis daapar oonacio^•n•pa of tin, arokMl by a hiflMff ooq. 
 ception of rightoovanaaa, hat oadoubtodly $\rmn a ahatpar aatf. 
 tfiaaia to the idaaa of God and Davil, of angtfl and damoo. ol haaran 
 and haU, which maka up « largo portion of dtatinctiToty Christian 
 thonght Tha gvotaaqua inagary ol honor which haa baan avohrod 
 out ol thia dread doaliam, ia iado^ one ^ the oioat repulaWa r«* 
 giona in tha popalar aaytbology of Chriatandoai, yaC it ia not with* 
 oat a certain terrible iaacinathm which haa attracted tha poeto of 
 Chriatendon to it aa offering a fit natarial for tha higheat tragic 
 art. ■ ..' • u!-, I .: . ■ ..... •■ , . -• 
 
 The aonraa ol a greal dhal of thia hnacwy it itIU a prablMft lor 
 
 histaricel leaearch. In the hiatocy of the snbieot promineikce has 
 
 •i 
 
 not unaaturally been given to ManiohMaai. But the conoexiett of 
 this aystetn with Christianity haa often been misaaderato^d. Mani- 
 chanam ia not properly a Chiiatiaa hereayt Ihat ia to say, it did n«l 
 sprh^ out of the circle of Christiaa thonght. It is ntil even to be 
 regarded aa a phaae of Paneaism; for t^ Pataee #raed ia not, any 
 more than the Chriatian, dualialic in ita true interpretotion. Ifaai- 
 chnam indeed drawa certain id«aa from the Paraee eraed as well m 
 from Ap Chtklian } but in ita eaaential drift It ia independant of 
 both; ftacent reeearchea aeem to prove that If anich«ian grew out 
 of an old Babylonian religion modifiMl by some elementa of P«rMe 
 and of Chriatian thought, possibly of Buddhist as w«U.* 
 
 ■X;' 
 
 >It k wortli noUag alap, that tha Mtnna chOiMm of apocalyptic Uteratort 
 ottoa pfetawa riw juasiat eooaMaa of tWworid aa trra dw aa li ly htarioaai. taibear 
 in aMM* kHlUnl NlkC *• iplaadar of Iha aapaelad aUlkaalaak 
 
 r'a Vmt0'tmtkmMgm utr G«mtt$t dn m mt lt kM itt h m R«Hg lm$ir »»tm » 
 
 iil7«) aad hia articla in tba Xtmt'Emykla^idU fr fr9U»tmmHulu TkMhgtt mmd 
 ^jhri/U (lAjad). ' Tha oldar work of ^. C. fiaor Dmt mMOtkiiicU Rittjftm^tm 
 <i*3i) |ivM promiaaaoa to Um iaiiaaaa of BoddUaai. -. 
 
 7^ 
 
 ^tJS-i- _-• jt^ 
 
7' "'^' 
 
 
 %99 
 
 THE DUALISTIC COMCEPTIOM OF MATURE. 
 
 Tlioagh Manichainn it thus to b« considered u a religion out< . 
 tide of Chriatendom, it protMbly contributed, with ^Mgeneral Se., 
 , mitic taflucncee which it represented, to accentuate 'taie dnalistic 
 ideas of Christian demonology. The Devil of Christendoni, though 
 created by God, is still eonceived a» His successful enemy, marring 
 the perfection of Hil work by a factor of evil which is maintained 
 in existence, not only throughout the whole history of earth, but for 
 ever afterwards in hejl^irremovable by all the power of divine wis- 
 dom and -love.. . 
 
 This influence of Manichirism upon Christianity seems to be 
 implied in the prominence which it receives in the writings of Angus* 
 tine, the man who did more than all the early thinkers of Christen- 
 dom to shape the theok>gical system of the Christian Church. 1% ^ 
 was in fact rather in Latin than in Greek theok>gy that Christian 
 thought tended to the dualistic conception of the antagonism be- 
 tween good and evil. Under die influence of the juridical ideas 
 predOmimmtin the Latin mind, the universe came to be conceived* 
 often after the analogy of the Roman Empire, and the Supreme 
 Being mainly, if not exdunvely, as an infinite monarch, «diose laws 
 must be vindicated at any cost. To minds dominated by such a 
 conception of God it seems a sufficient vindication of divine law to 
 inflict tia infinite penalty on ite viotation,->a sufficient triumph of 
 goodness if the will to evil is balked by banishment into some dim 
 chaos of eternal suffering, beyond the confines of the divine cosmos. 
 Such representetions were extremely natural for minds to whom the 
 problem ol human life was mainly such jural organisation of society 
 as it was the mission of the Roman people to wmrk out These 
 lepiesentations are also, oi course, useful in their place for popular 
 illustration. But the concept of God, which they imply» is a very 
 inadequate category on which to construct a philosophical theology, 
 the finer speculative genius of the Greek Fathers was unttam- 
 nwUed by the peculiar concepte of Roman jurisprudence ; and there^- 
 fore it is not surprising that Chrigen, Uie most brilliant of them all, 
 shra^ from an eschatolbgy vdiich did not ultimately eliminate hell, 
 finding the true triumph of good only when all will to evil is finally 
 subdued^. ■•■■■ :-'-.s\^f:/-. ■. 'v-..-^-- ..■-;..:•.■■..:•;''"■■'.-•'■•• 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ' t^ 
 
 *-^^ 
 
 ■•i: 
 
 .r^r 
 
 ; . A^ 
 
 j^_j-„ 
 

 TUB MOMIST. 
 
 MO 
 
 I 
 
 tS*" . 
 
 -*!.■. 
 
 vJr 
 
 But the theology of ° AugnttiMr ^th all its dualiem, becune. 
 thM of Weatern Christeadoni* and h«a oontiiiued to infloenco Wcet* 
 em thought, both in aad out of the Chnroh, even to our day. Hie 
 dualiatic infloenoe, like that ot the Stotca, haa been veiy marked ia 
 theaeparation of man'a moral life into two mutnally exduaiva coadi* 
 tiona or apherea. The state of nature and the atata of grace are 
 two eoncepta, tha aatithaaia of which has been pecuUarly diatinct in 
 all tbeohigical ail^|idation moulded by Auguatinian influeneea. The 
 early history even of ihodem philoaophy can scarcely be understood 
 if we fail to note the iact that the Auguatinian definition «f these 
 antithetical concepta formed a prominent aubject of controversy 
 about the dawn, of modem apeculatton. In the Catholic Church 
 Janataiam waa aubstantially a revival of Angnatimaniam ; and 
 though dm Janaeniat doctrines were condemned 1^ a papal bnll en* 
 forced for political purpoaea by Louia XIV.» yet tfi^ fohoedthe 
 creed of the fineat minds in the Church «f Pranc^ They werrspe^ 
 cially associated with the eminent men who lent Uie lustre of their 
 learning and literary power^ aa irell aa of their piety^ to the Oratoiy 
 and Port Royal during/the aaventeenth century* and it ia a fact of 
 some import in the history of philosophy^ that it waa among these 
 men that Descartes found his moat enthuaiaal^ disciples and hia 
 moat brilliant expositors^ In the Protestant section of Western 
 Christendom, too, tha essential drift of Auguatinian teaching waa 
 revived in Calvmiam; and Calvinism became Ae predominant 
 phaae d religioua thought among the most distinctive representa* 
 tivea of 1Mm PrOteatant movement It drew out all tlw pasaion- of 
 intellectual aa well as of religions life among the Huguonots of 
 Franoe, among^ the Anti-Remonatranta pi Holland, among the Purt- 
 tana of Englaoid, Old ami New. 
 
 But here, aa often elaewhare in the history of human thought, 
 extremea meet For, while Jansenism and Calvinism reprissented 
 the most mtenaely religioaa movementa of human diought in the 
 aeventeentfa century, on the other hand, in ^lat century at least 
 probably speculation never took a mpre biuikly anti-religious direc- 
 tipn than ii< the philosophy of Hobbes. That philosophy ia an at- 
 . tempt to construe all the phenomena of the universe, including the 
 
 'a 
 
 * 
 
 . — , ••■^ , : 
 
 
 ''^fl 
 
 } 
 
 • • '; :-■ ■ '■ ' ■-.-■■ ^ ■ 
 
 '•-■'■ ■■•'■ ■ ■^.., ■■•■■■:■; -•■•■'.;.■. ■■ 
 
 '"^[ 
 
 J » 
 
 t-AiiA^v ■.-■■:;--■ 
 
 
 . .1^ 
 
•■ ■ . ■" ;■; T 
 
 t; 
 
 99> 
 
 THk DUALISTIC COIfCIPnOM Or NATURE. 
 
 rlMDoaiMM Of maa't life, b]reUmiMting^«a tktt emMial tdMt, not 
 of nligiM only, but ev«ii ml morality, md ndocilig natim %o * t*»f 
 ol"purpooolo«riion>aionl ogMicies. HoMiot't ednoepHon, Aon* 
 folo, of tko stoto of Mture m Iramui Hfo io fim d o m o nlw i iy fhot of 
 Cahrteiat muI Auffuatiaian. Hit ooolii eallons oxpcMMon of Hm con- 
 eopt-4di doMriptioa of ftua'a natutml state aa> itUrnm 4 i — *b w itm- 
 l^tf Milwt^ cavMd by aU dmb baiilg aatunlly actoated by ogaialic 
 taBpuliaa alone—all Ihn ia aot only paralielod^ fa«t even cxoeeded, 
 ia i«i rapulsiveness by tbe langaa«e of emimnt Cahrinittic divtaa*. 
 A ■imilar meeting ef ealvemea it fouad in Hut compariBoa of 
 Calviniim with another ayatem of philoaophy, libich wat ahnaet aa 
 great a bonmr to oithodox tinMlght at dw aytteta of Hobbet. The 
 tyaten oi Spinoaa teema iadyed in many trayt a complete coattaiit 
 to that df the Bngliib philDeopher. Yet beneath the appateat antl^ 
 theaia of the two tyateam there it a profoaad affinity. Hwngh 
 Spinosa ttartt with the idea of God, which it an adreatStiout ad- 
 junct to tfae'tyttem of H«ibbet, yet hit definitidn ef the idea^ ledac- 
 ing it to that of mere tabttiace olr being,^ eceftely earritt «t beyond 
 the agneetk concept el the Suptemc Being» wUoh it all that Hobbet 
 aihmt^ Moreovert Spinoaa't identifidatioa ol WsU and iaiteligcnce 
 in Oed thnply aietaa that all we aoderttand by intelligent activity 
 dita|Atels ia mtra wilL The Volition of God it therefore explicitly 
 . denied dt be an act of purpoaiive intelligence. Cnalien ia a pur^ 
 puwlata aivolution of die eternal atdittanae, a neccatary modi&catnm 
 of ita attribntet in accordance with itt Oww tneaistaile lawa. Under 
 aaoh a concept of eceatidii there it no room^left fot independent 
 activity or petsonafretpontibility oo libe part of the finite individnal. 
 CottteqileDtly all the ideat of moral life are tefegated by Spmoza 
 among the illusiont of "imaginatio," that ia, Uie iateUectttal actay^ 
 ity from which all emnr aiiaei, and which it therefore oarefaliy dit- 
 tmgttiriaad from the genuine knowledge to be attained only by 
 ratia and by stumim AttmOwa. Am a letnlt, Spiaosta eaplacitly coin^ 
 ckftft with Hobbet iA hia conocptioa of ntaa't natoral ttlite. lA^ut| 
 
 i •• 2^ ftbbolate iaJbiilinil hoc est, snhsttmiiami ttte.*' $(>iiioza'a Mikies, Pari 
 
 -fa***^ 
 
 ''^ 
 
h;: 
 
 
 , ■ < -■■ ■ ■ t«K MONIVr.' ■ •' I :■ 
 
 ft 
 
 State Mfto it dedared to btt Toid ol tkoM tdMcal iwrn g it ml i^ m i which 
 9io» only o«t of the soil bf oiril hie. ' ' ^'?«' ? ;• > 
 
 TIm oMocptkmof nmtun by Hobbet ud SpinoM watnift way 
 tfaofonghly nMoittic ; b«t it attained this efaaittdter only by conftn* 
 iag the term to the lowest class of tiheiioincna and isaoring die 
 phenomeaa of intelUf ent aaocal activity as artificial «oa!^rentloiis of 
 society, it Mqaiiee no veiy subtle argwkietat to show diat, Mer 
 this analysis the oUigatioos of social unioii thoMsslves disappear. 
 For if there is no obligation « priori— no obligatioo im thtv^ryma- 
 /erf 4^ /Aiiiiv«^to observe a contract, then the so-called social eon- 
 tract itself is left without the support of any such obligation, attd it 
 siaiply remains a. question Whether the individual cannot ontwit by 
 superior astuteness, or resist by superior powes^ any governnctttal 
 machinery that may be devised to enforob die contract. . A eimilar 
 issue is inevitable under Hobbes's analysis of religion. If dw v«ry 
 natttfo of things, as unfolded by seionc^ does not involve the es- 
 sential ideas of religious life, then it is impos4ibli» to create a reli- 
 gion by aftiflmal enactments of any civil authority, llus faa is 
 overioaleed by Hobbes and by Comte a« cmitpletcly as by die ag- 
 nostic ehampiOBS of ultranMntanism in the Church of RAhne. It is 
 nottherefore sorprisittg that Hohbes'k phUosopby of religion and 
 morals should have met with strong oppoaitiott from men who were 
 in earnest abput the obligations of moral 4nd religious life. Their 
 opporition commonly tooh the form of a iMum to the larger and 
 nobler conception of nature whidi had distrngnished the ancient 
 Stoics. Along line of writers, especially among tiib moialiste of 
 Englandy sought to trace, ddMtr in die nature of asaii of in extenial 
 naturo, If not in both, the f oundatiotts of his moral and itligiotts life. 
 Again the old Stoical conospdon ol the bnr of nature boeamc im- 
 miUar'in ethics and jurisprudence, %nd all poeidve enactmenta of 
 human societieB were viewed as merely imperfect eaabodiwents of 
 thotawof nature. Accordingly men became aocttstened to cun- 
 ceivu d>» problems of^^^^j;notal and social activity ab assplying att en- 
 deftvnr to break through the ardfidal trammels by which civH so- 
 ciety was cramping the life of men, and to got back to the simple 
 requiiiemfents of ifktu<^ o* natural'lwwJ 
 
 
 
■» -mfp^^^fg^rv^^ ' 
 
 ^-t^-!^ 
 
 
 393 THk PUALISTIC CONCBPnOM OP MATURS. 
 
 /it it not difi^It, mild it it profoundly interasting, ^Tiee how 
 this conception oMife's problems represented the drift of the great 
 historical movemeiitB by which last century was characterised. The 
 claim of individual freedom against unreasonable restrictions of so- 
 cial law had become inevitable, partly under the trend of specvda- 
 tive thought, partly under the impulse of social conditiontf, them- 
 selves. For never perhaps in the history of civilisation had huaiwn 
 life entangled itself in such a complicated net-work of ezaeting reg- 
 ulations. Every sphere of man's activity from the highMt to the 
 lowest—religion and literature, morality and etiquette; military 
 and political and industrial life,— <all were subjected to minute and 
 often petty and even vexatious testrictions that prevented the nat- 
 urnl and reaionable expansion of the human spirit which it was 
 their proper function to develop. Never had the clothing of cus- 
 tom^ in wfaic^ of course human life must always invest itself, be- 
 come so worn-out, so iU-adapted.to the wftnts of growing humanity. 
 The great tevolution, which shattered the old life of Europe as the 
 century closed, was an outburst of passionate impatience on the 
 part ol European society to get rid of its worn-out clothing before' 
 it had well consider^ in wiiat fashioii it^was to be clothed anew. 
 
 Thb memorable movenkent is commonly regarded by historians 
 as having found its most charact^stic literary expositor in the 
 writings of Rqusseau. There we find the reactions against the so- 
 cial philosophy of Hobbes aii^ Spinoza carried to its extreme. The 
 contrast, whitfh these philosophers had d^wn between man's nat- 
 ural state and his civil state, is by Rouss^u completely reversed. 
 The stete ol nature he conceives to be one ol innocent social equal- 
 ity, whidi has simply be^ corrupted by the artifices and restric- 
 tions and divisions K^iich political institutions have introduced. 
 
 But the extravagance of this theory/as inwU as of its opposite 
 arises from the fact, that the stete of naiture, as defined by both; is 
 a pure fii:tioit of abstract thought. It lis an attempt to conceive 
 what man would be if we were to elimiijiate all those factors of his 
 life which aft derived from aocial orgairisadon. It does not matter 
 that In on0 case these factors are su|pp08ed to be the virtues by 
 which hun^an life is adorned, in |be odtier the vices by whtdi it is 
 
 \ 
 
1^ ' ^'^•^^^WfwifftfffVr "«T^;^ft 
 
 T'^Sfy»-»T?f"('i«r 7r •.f r'Tfigf^sr^r^'T ,'■( < 
 
 THB MOMIST. 
 
 \ 
 
 comiptMl. In •!*« CM© th« effor » the Mine. It oonusu in t«)i* 
 ing a fictitious abstraction for a reality in natura. It igttocas tha I 
 only human reality that nature knows, that is, man Uving in theso- 
 cial state. The absolute soUtary is not a natural man. As Aris- 
 totle said long ago, he is either a god or a brute. 
 
 It is evident then that all dualistic separations of num'r life, 
 into spheres tliat a« mutually exclusive originate in an imperfect ^ 
 conception of nature in general, but of man's nature in particular. 
 This imperfection continues to mislead scientific inquiry. Huasan 
 nature is stijl at times defined by concepts which imply a merely 
 animal existence ; and an attempt is made to interpcd hiunan •^ . 
 tions simply as effects naturaUy reaulting from impulses of pleasure 
 or repulsions of pain. On such an intcrpreUtion of human life i^- 
 cnce must of course pronounce all morality of a spiritual' or disin- 
 terested nature to be not only impossible as a matter of fact, but 
 even incapable of any rational vindication. In like manner if nature 
 in general is defined by similar narrow concepts, if nature is under-* 
 stood to mean the universe with.aU the rational purposes of human 
 life eliminated, then it maybe perfectly consistent to assert that 
 there is no morality in nature, or even that nature is profoundly 
 immoral. But the evolution of the universe with the history of man 
 eliminated is the dramii of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. 
 It is the life of man that at once forms the most essential part of 
 the problem of all science, and furnishes the most essential daUfor 
 its solution. The truth is, therefore, that scarcely one eminent 
 thinker has fallen into this narrow conception of nature without at 
 the same time protesting more or less explicitly against its inade- 
 quacy to satisfy the demands of scientific thought. More than one 
 noble passage mifht be cited from recent literature, in whidi the 
 scientific thinker rises to the part of a modem Prometheus, defying 
 the non-moral omnipotence that he seems to see ruling in external 
 nature, and aaserting the power of man's internal nature to act upon 
 a moral law of love in spite of any suffering which the non-mor|l 
 laws of external nature may bring about as the result of his action. 
 Nor is such Promethean assertion an abandonment of tl^ scientific 
 attitqde of thought for an idle bravado of fancy. It is rather a rec- 
 
 V -n 
 
 '■•■»;■ 
 
 I 
 
 j.^. 
 
i 
 
 )■' 
 
 -"I/:-- 
 
 'fSt 1 ' TV''*. ■ 
 
 ■;• " 
 
 S9S 
 
 THK PUALItnC GOMCIPnON OF NATUKB. 
 
 ognilioa of Hh foci that there turn alw»y» b««o in tke univcvw • 
 IMwer ftdoquate to tiMlmia Che nuui . . 
 
 "Who tnatod Qod «u low* iBdMd, 
 
 Tboafik mMn. n4 is tooth and o*w 
 Withrmviw. thrMwd •(•ioM hja cfMd." 
 
 Sdeao» timtdknm ■umH f;iv« to the nolify af Ihio power i promt* 
 nettce oqiwl to Ihe lealily cfoimadl (or the fiorae of non-mond cniM- 
 tim^ tMd it ca» cecapo bom mn iacoinpcalkinnUo <hi«UHn o^V ^Y 
 ■ifanociag loaomcoptivft ol natunvirincli embiacca bodi iftin* 
 tiUifiblo- h«m«ll]^ 
 
 ':.' v.; J. Clark. Uvinttr.; 
 
 If COILL UirtVBRSIlrY, MONTKKAL, CANADA,, 
 
 ^. 
 
 'W^ 
 
 f 
 
 ^■^ ' ■" '' 
 
't'w 1 " ■»r'* ■ 
 
 Ir 
 
 W ■ ' w'-*' 
 
 '?." 
 
 .»**, 
 
 fv'^.V 
 
 i%'-'t 
 
 Ht 
 
 if^ 
 
 '? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■:. ■■;■■. -' . ■■ 
 
 V 
 
 ft' 
 
 -' 
 
 - 
 
 
 ''-■./ 
 
 
 " 
 
 'i! 
 
 , 
 
 
 /"■; ," '..■ ■"■,'v ::_.•_;. ;■■ 
 
 ,»)f / 
 
m | wii ■ 111. '^•^ 
 
 V* • !■*"»■' 
 
 uy 
 
 ft'^*' 
 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 
 
 _■ ^. ■■ . ■ 
 
 
 ■ V ' 
 
 ' 
 
 ' \ 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 ♦ ■ ■ 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 -^ . 
 
 ■ ■■".• ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ki 
 
 ■ 'f: . 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 ■'■■■■ 
 
 
 
 ■ V 
 
 * " 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 . : . ■• ■■■ .'- ■ 
 
 '■■:■'■ ■ ' 
 
 
 
 
 ' ■ 'll 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ' ■ ■■ 
 
 
 .r 
 
 
 
 
 . , ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 t 
 
 t V 
 
 -i. 
 
 
 
 r 1 ^ 
 
 --'*=— 
 
 ■J.*£.— .^.j-i* 
 
 
 

 '^^¥k 
 
 ''I'' ^':'