ation, he would
transform his assumptions into 'objective knowledge.' But he makes no
attempt to do so. They remain assumptions from the beginning of his
Address to its end. And yet he frequently uses the word 'unverified,'
as if it were fatal to the position oh which its incidence falls.
'The scrutiny of Nature' is one of his sources of 'religious faith:'
what logical foothold does that scrutiny furnish, on which any one of
the foregoing three assumptions could be planted? Nature, according to
his picturing, is base and cruel: what is the inference to be drawn
regarding its Author? If Nature be 'red in tooth and claw,' who is
responsible? On a Mindless nature Mr. Martineau pours the full
torrent of his gorgeous invective; but could the 'assumption' of 'an
Eternal Mind'--even of a Beneficent Eternal Mind--render the world
objectively a whit less mean and ugly than it is? Not an iota. It is
man's feelings, and not external phenomena, that are influenced by the
assumption. It adds not a ray of light nor a strain of music to the
objective sum of things. It does not touch the phenomena of physical
nature--storm, flood, or fire--nor diminish by a pang the bloody
combats of the animal world. But it does add the glow of religious
emotion to the human soul, as represented by Mr. Martineau. Beyond
this I defy him to go; and yet he rashly--it might be said
petulantly--kicks away the only philosophic foundation on which it is
possible for him to build his religion.

He twits incidentally the modern scientific interpretation of nature
because of its want of cheerfulness. Let the new future,' he says,
'preach its own gospel, and devise, if it can, the means of making the
tidings glad.' This is a common argument: 'If you only knew the
comfort of belief!' My reply is that I choose the nobler part of
Emerson, when, after various disenchantments, he exclaimed, 'I covet
truth!' The gladness of true heroism visits the heart of him who is
really competent to say this. Besides, 'gladness' is an emotion, and
Mr. Martineau theoretically scorns the emotional. I am not, however,
acquainted with a writer who draws more largely upon this source,
while mistaking it for something objective. 'To reach the Cause,' he
says, 'there is no need to go into the past, as though being missed
here, He could be found there. But when once He has been apprehended
by the proper organs of divine apprehension, the whole life of
Humanity is recognis