Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/791

 NAUSEA

719

NAUSEA

man mind to attain a unity amid the multiplicity of external things. In the Stoic conception of God as the soul of the world is set forth a Naturism which satisfies the intellectual craving for unity and gives scope to the exercise of the religious emotions. Hence it was that these philosophers could look with indul- gent tolerance upon the religious practices of the com- mon people. The basic principle with both was the same, e. g., the worship of animated nature. To the cultured Roman this principle was conceived as a phil- osophic unity; to the ordinary mind it was viewed in manifold forms and activities which were the source and explanation of their countless nature-deities. Pantheism in its various forms exhibits the same thought. This is especially true of modern Pantheis- tic theories. The substance of Spinoza, the synthesis of Fichte, the identity of Schelling, the absolute idea of Hegel is at basis the same conception. Its religious significance is twofold: (a) the more spiritual and metaphysical form appears in Neo-Hegelianism which teaches the unity of human and Di\'ine consciousness. This reflects the nature-philosophy of Hegel which ex- hibits the idea, i. e., God in its finitude. (b) The ideal- istic Naturism is shown in the writings of the Ro- mantic school, e. g., Goethe, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and attains its full expression in Transcen- dentalism. To Emerson as to Goethe, God was the soul of the world. Emerson seems to consider religion as the dehght which springs from a harmony of man and nature. Emerson taught that the universe is com- posed of nature and the soul, and by nature means all the noi me, i. e., physical nature; art, other man, and his own body. Hence in germ the worship of human- ity is contained in Emerson's teaching, just as it is latent in Neo-Hegelianism, and appears in the Hege- lian evolution of the idea, i. e., the Absolute or God, when viewed from its human side, i. e., as a human process.

III. Science-Naturism. — This is the religion of the science-philosophy and appears under two forms: (a) The religion of humanity was first presented in syste- matic form by Comte, and contains the principles of the humanitarian theories so prevalent a generation ago. God does not exist or at least cannot be known, therefore mankind calls forth the sole and supreme ex- pression of our veneration and service, (b) Cosmic religion, a title invented by Fiske, and designated the homage of reason to forces of nature or the awe of phenomena which suggest mysterious and destructive power. Spencer speaks of the emotion resulting from the contemplation of the unknowable into which as into a mystery all eosmical questions resolve. Fiske develops this thought and makes the essence of reli- gious emotion very largely consist in the sense of mys- tery. To Fiske the unknowable manifests itself in a world of law and is yet conceived to be in itself some- thing beyond these manifestations. Hence worship is ever the dark side of the shield of which knowledge is the bright side. Thus Matthew Arnold's definition of religion as morality touched by emotion becomes with Tyndall poetry and emotion in face of matter in- stinct with mind. Cosmism, according to Fiske, is, however, more than a mere sentiment. He says the fundamental principle of religion is obedience to the entire requirements of nature. This is righteousness, just as sin is a wilful violation of nature's laws.

Science-Naturism finds its most complete deline- ation in Seeley's "Natural Religion". He uses the term "Natural Religion" in contra-st with the .super- natural. In rejecting supernaturalism and submit- ting to science is presented a theology to which, he says, all men do actually agree, viz., nature in (iod, and God a mere synonym for nature. Hence there is no power beyond or superior to nature nor anything like a cause of nature. Whether we say God or prefer to say nature, the important thing is that our minds are filled with the sense of a power, to all appearance

infinite and eternal, a power to which our own being is inseparably connected, in the knowledge of whose ways alone is safety and well-being, in the contempla- tion of which we find a beatific vision. Rehgion be- gins with nature-worship which in its essence is ad- miration of natural objects and forces. But natural mythology has given place to science, which sees mechanism where will, purpose, and love had been suspected before and drops the name of God, to take up instead the less awful name of Nature. Nature is a name comprehending all the uniform laws of the uni- verse as known in our experience. It is the residuum that is left after the elimination of everything super- natural, and comprehends man with all his thoughts and aspirations not less than the forms of the material world.

Here, according to Seeley, we have the kernel of Christianity and the purified worship of natural forms, i. e., the higher paganism. He holds that this is not Pantheism, for not the individual forms of nature are the objects of worship, but nature considered as a unity. Art and science as well as morality, form the sub- stance of religion, hence culture is the essence of re- ligion and its fruit is the higher life. Thus religion, in his view, in the individual is identified with culture, in its public aspect is identified with civilization. For Seeley the Church is the atmosphere of thought, feel- ing, and belief that surrounds the State; it is in fact its civilization made more or less tangible and visible. His universal Church is universal civilization. And as culture is a threefold devotion to beauty, goodness, and truth, so the term civilization expresses the same threefold religion, shown on a larger scale in the char- acters, institutions, and customs of nations. (Cf. Animism; Deity; Fetishism; Totemism; Tran- scendentalism.)

Pfleidner, Philosophy and Development of Religion (Edin- burgh, 1894): Shaw, Precinct of Religion (New York. 1908); Da LA Gbassiebe, Des religions comparees (Paris, 1899) ; Gctan, The Non-Religion of the Future (New York. 1907); Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion (New Y'ork, 1897) ; Jastrow, The Study of Religion (London, 1902) ; Deniker. The Races of Men (New Y'ork, 1900); Keane. Ethnology (Cambridge, 1896); Thomas, Social Origin (Chicago. 1909) ; De la Saussaye, Manual of the Science of Religion (New Y'ork, i891); Dri3COll, Christian Philosophy, God (New Y'ork, 1905) ; Muller, Origin and Growth of Religion (Lon- don, 1878); Fiske, Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy (Boston, 1905); Natural Religion in Quarterly Review (Oct., 1882); Thompson, What is Religion in British Quarterly Review (October, 1879); R^VILLE. Prolegomena to the History of Religions, tr. Squires (Lon- don, 1884) ; Idem, The Native Religions of Mexico and Peru (tr., London, 1884).

John T. Driscoll.

Nausea (latinized from the German Grau), Fred- eric, Bishop of Vienna, b. c. 1480 at Waischenfeld (Rlancicampium) in Franconia; d. 6 Feb., 1552, at Trent. He was the son of a wagonmaker and received his early education at Bamberg and probably at Nu- remberg under John Cochlseus ; with Paul of Schwartz- enberg, canon of Bamberg, he pursued humanistic, juristic, and theological studies at Pavia, Padua, and later at Siena, there obtaining degrees in Law and Divinity. Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, Archbishop of Bologna and papal legate in Germany, employed him as secretary and as such Nausea was at the Diet of Nuremberg (1524), at the convention of Ratisbon, at the Diet of Ofen. and for a time at Rome. In 1.525 he accepted the parish of St. Bartholomew at Frank- fort-on-the-Main and the dignify of canon, but was soon obliged to leave on account of the intrigues of the Lutherans who even excited popular riots against him. He came to .\.schaffenburg and (152(j) to Mainz as preacher of the ciithedral. He attended the Diet of Speier (l.Ti!)) and w:is chosen coun.-^cllor and preacher (1.5:«) at the court of King Ferdinand. On 5 Feb., 1,5H.S, he was named ((iHiljulor to .lohn Faber, Bishop of Vienna, succeeding hini in \'<\\. Nimsca laboured ze;ilously for the rcuiiiim of the Lutherans with the Catholics, and together with other i)relates, asked Rome to permit the clergy to marry and the laity to