Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 11.djvu/641

Rh he might say, "the orchards of the world! They deteriorate and decay, and nothing remains of them at last but withered branches, dead trunks, and rotten stumps. Where are the orchards mentioned by Pliny, the orchards of the middle ages, the old Indian orchards, or even the orchards of the Revolution? The history of apples does not show an instance of an orchard growing by its own efforts. The vitality which impels one orchard in its growth has always been kindled from the vitality of an orchard behind it. This is the simple truth of history, which makes all such discussions as Mr. Darwin's respecting the descent of the golden pippin from the sour and miserable crab as false to fact as they are abhorrent to pomology."

In regard to the second and main position of President Seelye's address respecting the relations of religion to civilization, it is chiefly interesting from the indications it affords of the rationalistic tendencies of New England orthodoxy. We by no means object to the prominent part which he assigns to religion in promoting the progress of man; and are only agreeably surprised at the catholicity of his position. The president says that "human nature reveals no internal impulse to improve and perfect itself;" this he maintains is due to an external impulse, to a power above man, which he assumes to be the agency of supernatural religion. But the transition from barbarism to civilization has taken place on an extensive scale. President Seelye asks, "Where are now the civilizations of Tyre and Carthage, of Nineveh and Babylon?" His question implies that they once existed, and his hypothesis of their origin is that they were the product of religious inspiration and supernatural agency. It will be hardly claimed that those ancient and extinct civilizations were due to the Christian religion; but if not, then they were caused by other religions potent with genuine inspirations and supernatural in their elevating influence. Yet is it not the essence of orthodoxy that it is the only true faith, and that all other so-called religions are delusions, impostures, and heathenish superstitions? The implication of the inaugural address contravenes evangelical theology by assuming that there are other religions than that professed in New England, which are genuinely attested as of supernatural influence by their civilizing impulses, and which have been in operation whenever and wherever there has been any improvement in the condition of humanity. Now, this recognition of the universality of genuine religious influences, as opposed to the exclusive claims of any particular system, we understand to be the broad ground of rationalism; and, if Amherst orthodoxy can accept it, we shall certainly be the last to complain. We only hope, however, that this surrender, horse, foot, and dragoons, to ultra-rationalism, is not to be considered as a bomb-shell in the camp of evolution.

It is a serious question whether President Seelye has not here put a strain upon the claims of supernaturalism which endangers them. Granting the universality of the religious agency, he must explain why it is not always efficient in the work of elevation. The president points impressively to the phenomena of national degeneracy and decay. Viewed as a part of the order of Nature, these phenomena are explicable; but, from President Seelye's point of view, what reason is there why all that had been gained should be thus thrown away? His theory that true religious influences are coextensive with all phases of human progress is an important step in the liberal direction; and his further assumption that the rhythmic successions of progress are due to an intermittent supernaturalism can have little other tendency than to eliminate the supernatural from the investigation of the subject. Why should President Seelye