Optics.

one of the foci of all those orbits; that the radius vector of each planet passes over equal spaces in equal times; that the square of the time of revolution is, in every instance, as the cube of the mean distance from the sun. In the midst of these sublime achievements, optics came forward to lend its helping hand. The telescope, invented by Galileo, vastly widened the field of "the science of space." The moons of Jupiter were observed; and the phases of Venus, and the occultations of the planets, were used as data in determining longitude.

the seven

teenth century.

But it was not alone in the study of nature Literature of that this age excelled. Spinoza was the contemporary of the greatest lights in modern literature, -the greatest lights in all literature. The first half of the seventeenth century was the golden age of the drama. Corneille, Calderon, Shakespeare, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher lived and wrote during that period. Cervantes gave to the world Don Quixote in this age. John Milton was the contemporary of Spinoza. To show the activity of the theological and religious mind in this era, it is needful only to name the WestTheological minster Assembly, the Synod of Dort, the controversy between Augustinians and Arminians, Port Royal, Jansenism. What splendor of intellect, what keenness of logic, what patience of labor, and how great wealth of piety and burning devotion are called up to our minds by the mention of such names as John Howe, Richard Baxter, Jeremy Taylor, Isaac Barrow, John Owen, Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Fénelon, Bossuet, Fléchier,

activity.

It was in the very focus of all this unparalleled brilliancy of thought, with a mighty hunger for truth, driven to his task by the persecution of friends, and every energy aroused to its utmost by the great examples about him, that the champion of pantheism took up his problem. God seemed, in his providence, to have specially arranged for the solution under the most favorable circumstances

withhold them.

Divine

possible. The man, the age, and the immediate influences under which he acted, were all that the most earnest friends of the cause could desire. If it failed despite these signal advantages, it would fail utterly and irrecoverably; and therefore God did not purpose. Wishing to show to his children that the speculation they had chased so many ages was a baseless dream, he allowed it every opportunity for proving itself true. When all things were ready, and victory seemed most likely to crown the adventure, the word was given, Come forth into the arena; produce your cause, and set in order your arguments.

LECTURE II.

THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF PANTHEISM.

pantheism.

A GENERAL definition of pantheism may be Definition of given in few words. It is the doctrine that God includes all reality, and is identical with it, nothing besides him really existing. To use the Greek phrase, he is τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ πᾶν. the One and the All. Spinoza's way of stating it is, "Besides God, no substance can exist, or be conceived to exist."1

How it differs from theism and atheism.

The doctrine thus enunciated will be made clearer, perhaps, by comparing it with theism and atheism. The theist separates nature from God, in his system, and recognizes the existence of both; the atheist starts from nature, and denies the existence of God; the pantheist starts from God, and denies the existence of nature. Atheists and pantheists agree in opposing the theist, alleging that his doctrine involves a species of dualism, not the dualism of Zoroaster and the Manichæans, which asserts the eternity of matter and of moral evil, but that distinction between the Creator and the creation which admits of secondary causes in nature, and of free-will in the rational creature. The dualism is only that which is necessary in order to moral govern

1 Ethics, Part 1, Prop. xiv.

ment and responsible action. Yet objection is made to it, as not evolving all reality out of a single principle; as implying an ethical universe, whereas all existence is embraced under the natural, and must be so regarded, or there can be no simple and perfect philosophy. The atheist and pantheist are alike in starting with a single postulate, which, they claim, is all-inclusive; and they throw out the matter of freedom and responsibility for the assumed philosophical advantage of entire unity of system. But though alike in standing upon a basis of monism, they seem nevertheless to be in direct and necessary antagonism to each other. One of them does not believe in any God, the other believes in nothing but God. This hostility is apparent rather than real, however, at least in its religious aspect; is not so much in ideas as in language. Wherein When the atheist has explained what he means

atheism and pantheism

by the word “nature," and the pantheist defines agree. that which he chooses to call "God," it is often clear that they both mean the same thing; that they occupy common ground in their attitude towards Christianity, although their methods of philosophizing may be opposite. One denying nature, and the other everything but nature, it is clear that they must alike reject the super-natural. The uninitiated reader gets a profound impression of the piety of Spinoza while reading the pages in which Novalis extols him as "the God-intoxicated man;" but when he learns that the "God" which produced this intoxication was only an impersonal substance constituting the universe, he knows that he has been misled by a verbal juggle. Piety quite as good as this might be legitimately felt, and no doubt was, by Auguste Comte, if not also by Baron d'Holbach.

LECTURE II.

THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF PANTHEISM.

pantheism.

A GENERAL definition of pantheism may be Definition of given in few words. It is the doctrine that God includes all reality, and is identical with it, nothing besides him really existing. To use the Greek phrase, he is τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ πᾶν - the One and the All. Spinoza's way of stating it is, "Besides God, no substance can exist, or be conceived to exist."

How it differs from theism and atheism.

The doctrine thus enunciated will be made clearer, perhaps, by comparing it with theism and atheism. The theist separates nature from God, in his system, and recognizes the existence of both; the atheist starts from nature, and denies the existence of God; the pantheist starts from God, and denies the existence of nature. Atheists and pantheists agree in opposing the theist, alleging that his doctrine involves a species of dualism,—not the dualism of Zoroaster and the Manichæans, which asserts the eternity of matter and of moral evil, but that distinction between the Creator and the creation which admits of secondary causes in nature, and of free-will in the rational creature. The dualism is only that which is necessary in order to moral govern

1 Ethics, Part 1, Prop. xiv.