Volume 1

Encyclopædia of religion and ethics / edited by James Hastings ; with the assistance of John A. Selbie ... and other scholars.

Date:
1908-1926
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Encyclopædia of religion and ethics / edited by James Hastings ; with the assistance of John A. Selbie ... and other scholars. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    119/932
    Baldwin states it, the theory is ‘ that individual modifications or accommodations may supplement, protect, or screen organic characters and keep them alive until useful congenital variations arise and survive by natural selection.’ Finally, in thinking over this difficult problem of adaptations, we must remember the importance of the active organism itself. As Professor James Ward has well pointed out, it may seek out and even in part make its environment; it is not only selected, it selects ; it acts as well as reacts. And although the details and finesse of this may have been mahorated in the course of selection, the primary potentiality of it is an essential part of the secret of that kind of activity which we call Life. view York, 1899; C. Lloyd Morgan, Animal BehaviMuui, London, 1900, Habit and Instinct, London, 1896, The Interpre- tation of Nature, London, 1906 ; T. H. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation, New York, 1903; H. Munsterberg, Die Lehre von der naturlichen Anpassung, Leipzig, 1886; R. Otto, Naturalistische und religiose Weltansicht, Tubingen, 1904 (Eng. tr. London, 1906); Herbert Spencer, Principles of Biology, revised ed. 1898, Partii. ch. v.; A. Weismann, The Evolution Theory, 2 vols. (Eng. tr. London, 1904). J. Arthur Thomson. ADELARD.—Adelard of Bath (Philosophus An- glorum) occupies a distinctive position among the schoolmen of the 12th cent., as a chief representative of the philosophic doctrine of ‘ Indifference.’ This was one of tne mediating theories in the great mediseval conflict as to the nature of universal con- ceptions (genera and species) and their relation to the individuals comprehended under them. It lies between the extreme Realism on the one hand, which attached substantiality only to the univer- sals, and the extreme Nominalism on the other, according to which generic conceptions were mere names, while reality belonged only to the indi- viduals. It tends, however, to the side of Nominal- ism, inasmuch as it gives up the substantiality of universals, and makes the universal to consist of the non-different elements (indifferentia) in the separate individuals, which alone subsist substanti- ally. Everything depends on the point of view from which the individuals are regarded : according as attention is fixed on their differences or their non-differences, they remain individuals or become for us the species and the genus. Thus Plato as Plato is an individual, as a man the species, as an animal the subordinate genus, as a substance the most universal genus. This doctrine of Indifference was probably first stated in Adelard’s treatise de Eodem et Diverso, composed between 1105 and 1116. [It has recently been edited Iw H. Willner in Beitr. z. Gesch. a. Philos, des Miffelalters, ed. by Cl. Baumker and G. V. Hertling, Munster, 1903.] Adelard seeks to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, and says : e genus 3 and i since those univen exist except in the things ol so far as they are called g imagination, Plato n 1 reality the; The doctrine of Indifference was also represented by Walter of Mortagne (died as hp. of Laon, 1174), whom some indeed have regarded as its originator, while others again have traced it to a supposed late view of William of Champeaux. Besides the above-mentioned tractate, Adelard wrote also Qucestiones Naturales. He had travelled widely and acquired great physical learning, especi- ally from the Arabs, out of whose language he translated Euclid. He teaches that the knovdedge of the laws of nature should be united with the recognition of their dependence on God’s will. He says; ‘It is the will of the Creator that herbs should grow from the earth, hut this will is not without reason.’ Mere authority he compares to a halter, and desiderates that reason should decide between the true and the false. Liteeatubb.—Art. ‘Scholasticism’ in EBr^ xxL; Erdmann, Grundriss der Gesch. d. Philos.* [Eng. tr. 1890] L 5 160; Windel- band, Lehrhuch der Geseh. d. Philos.^ (1893) 5 23; Ueberweg- Heinze, Grundriss der Gesch. d. Philos.^ (1894-8) iL § 25, which see for a fuller bibliography. R. S. FRANKS. ADIAPHORISM. — Three meanings of this word are given in the dictionaries: (1) the theory that some actions are indifferent, i.e. neither bad nor good, not being either commanded or forbidden by God, either directly or indirectly ; so that they may be done or omitted without fault; (2) the theory that certain rites or ceremonies, not having been either commanded or forbidden by God, may freely be used or omitted without fault; (3) the theory that certain doctrines of the Church, though taught in the word of God, are of such minor importance, that they may be disbelieved without injury to the foundation of faith. (Although this use of the word can be found in good authors, it is a question whether it is accurate). I. Actions.—Very early in the history of the Christian Church the gospel began to be conceived as a new law. Perhaps the wider meaning of the word ‘ law ’ had something to do with this. But it was to be expected that those who had grown up under a system of rigid prescription, not only of rites and ceremonies, but also of domestic ob- servances and the details of personal conduct,—a prescription, moreover, that had Divine authority, —should be unable to conceive any other method of moral life. It is not strange, therefore, that St. James (1“) speaks of the gospel as ‘the perfect law of liberty.’ The early converts to the gospel had been heathen ; the customs in which they had been bred were abhorrent to a Jew ; they were cor- rupting; and therefore those new-made Christians had to be taught and drilled in the first principles of morality. In the Early Church, before the hooks of the NT had been written and for many years afterwards, the OT was the word of God read in their assemblies for Avorship ; and its pre- scriptions for conduct, its rules of common life, and its religious institutions became authoritative. It seems likely that a legalistic conception of Christi- anity must always preponderate in a community recently Avon from heathenism. Such converts remain under tutelage, and discipline must be rigidly exercised, untU the fundamental principles of right living ai'e Avi-ought into their conscience. Marcion urged the rejection of the OT Laav. As the Church began to spread through all classes of men, and to have i)art in the whole of their daily life, it began insensibly to accommodate its ascetic rules to the necessities of the case. Gradually there grcAv up a distinction hetAveen a laAV of morals incumbent upon all men and a higher rule of life voluntarily assumed, but Avhen once assumed, of lasting obligation, and by the observance of Avhich a man might earn a higher reAvard than Avas due to the simple observance of the commandments of God (consilia evangelica), and might even deserve enough of God to be able to transfer some of his merit to others (opera supererogativa). An ascetic life was looked upon as holier than the observance of the duties of one’s calling in the Avorld. To the commandments of God Avere added the command- ments of the Church. The Reformation assailed this notion of an esoteric and artificial righteousness. The moral injunctions of Jesus and His holy example ai'e for all alike. The works of our calling are the sphere in Avhich to serve God. No one can fulfil the laAv of God, much less can any one exceed it. All arc