"_Substance_ is that which is and abides;" "that which subsists of or by
itself; that which lies under qualities; that which truly is--or
_essence_." "It is opposed to _accident_." "In its logical and
metaphysical sense it is that nature of a thing which may be conceived
to remain when every other nature is removed or abstracted from it; the
ultimate point in analyzing the complex idea of any object. _Accident_
denotes all those ideas which the analysis excludes as not belonging to
the mere being or nature of the object." It is said that our first idea
of _substance_ is, possibly, derived from the consciousness of self, the
conviction that, while our sensations, thought and purposes are
changing, we continue the same. "We see bodies also remaining the same
as to quantity or extension, while their color and figure, their state
of motion or rest may be changed." It has also been said that
_substances_ are either primary, that is singular, individual
_substances_; or secondary, that is genera, and species of _substance_.
Substances have been divided into complete and incomplete, finite and
infinite. But it is to be remembered that these are merely divisions of
being. Substance is properly divided into matter and spirit, or that
which is extended and that which thinks.
"The foundation principle of substance is that law of the human mind by
which every quality or mode of being is referred to a substance," or the
consciousness of a cause for every effect. "In everything which we
perceive or can imagine as existing, we distinguish two parts, qualities
variable and multiplied; and a being one and identical; and these two
are so united in thought that we can not separate them in our
intelligence, nor think of qualities without a _substance_." So it is a
self-evident or first truth, that there is a subjective or inner man
which thinks, reflects and reasons, for memory recalls to us the many
modes of our mind; its many qualities and conditions. What variety of
mental conditions have we not experienced? These are all so many
evidences of an internal _substance_ that we call spirit. That spirit is
to be distinguished from thought as cause is from effect is evident; and
also from matter lying in the accident or quality of body, is certain,
from the fact of its being subject to such rapid and instantaneous
changes of condition. Amidst all the different modes, qualities, or
accidents of mind, we believe ourselves to be the same individual being;
and this conviction is the result of that law of thought which always
associates qualities with things.
In the world around us phenomena, qualities or accidents are continually
changing, but we believe that these, all, are produced by causes which
_remain, as substances, the same_. And as we know ourselves to be the
causes of our own acts, and to be able to change, within a moment, the
modes of our own mind, so we believe the changes of matter, which take
place _more slowly_, to be produced by causes which belong to the
_substances of matter_. And underlying all causes, whether of the
qualities of matter or mind, we conceive of one absolute cause, one
substance, in itself persistent and upholding all things in nature. This
substance we are pleased to call spirit; and this spirit we call God. To
deny this is to strike down a grand law of thought, the foundation
principle of substance, and make the testimony of our own consciousness
A LIE! The inorganic forces, about which "unbelievers" have so much to
say are altogether operative in the realm of _substance_; that is to
say, they belong to the _invisible_. Organic and inorganic are the same
as visible and invisible. We know matter by its qualities, and we know
mind by its qualities. These two, in qualities or attributes, contrast
with each other like life and death. One is extenuated and the other
extended; one is invisible the other is visible. Of the existence of
these substances and their laws we have evidence in conscious knowledge,
in that we know that we have no control over the involuntary or
sympathetic nervous system, and have the most perfect control over the
voluntary nerves. The forces controlling are as different as these
qualities themselves. If man is simply a material organism, why this
contrast? We are told that _life itself_ is a group of co-ordinated
functions. But what correllates that force?
It is very common for the advocates of the evolution hypothesis to
measure the period between this and the origin of life by the phrase,
"Millions and millions of years." The only object that such writers have
in view in so doing is to bridge the gulf between the _assumed_ origin
of life and mind and the evidence necessary to its establishment as a
fact in science. They tell us that "life is a property which certain
elements of matter exhibit when united in a special form under special
conditions." But when we ask them to give us those certain elements of
matter, they immediately inform us that "matter has about sixty-three
elements; that each element has special properties, and that these
elements admit of an _infinite variety of combinations_, each
combination having peculiar properties." This, as a fort, is a stand
behind the dark, impenetrable curtain of an _infinite variety of
combinations_. It is just as dark and as destitute of proof as any
pope's assumed infallibility.
Mr. Haeckel says: "As a matter of course, to the _infinite varieties_
presented by the organic forms and vital phenomena in the vegetable and
animal kingdoms, correspond an equally _infinite variety_ of chemical
composition in the protoplasm. The most minute homogeneous constituents
of this life substance, the protoplasm molecules, must in their chemical
composition present an _infinite number_ of extremely delicate
gradations and variations. According to the plastic theory recently
advanced (?) the great variety of vital phenomena is the consequence of
the _infinitely delicate_ chemical difference in the composition of
protoplasm, the sole active life substance." What a multitude of
infinities. But then, an _infinite number_, and an _infinite variety_ of
_infinitely delicate_ gradations and variations, with millions and
millions of years, do not remove further from sight life in its origin
than does the materialistic philosophy of one substance. They constitute
the _web_ and _filling_ of the _blanket of oblivion_ used by
materialistic doctors to cover up their ignorance of life and its
origin. A half dozen "INFINITIES," and "MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS!"
What! should I care if my ancestors were "tadpoles," when they are HID
AWAY IN THE CENTER OF INFINITIES, and laid _away back yonder_, so far
off as "MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS?"
When we ask our friends for the proof necessary to establish this
speculation as a fact among facts, they find it very convenient to
betake themselves to _infinities_, and _millions_ and _millions of
years_.
But we Christians do not ask them to give us an _infinite variety_,
etc., but to give us the "certain elements" of which "life is a
property," and the "special form in which these certain elements were
united," and the "special conditions" that existed when life first made
its appearance by spontaneous generation. When we do this we are
immediately carried away into the _infinities_. The result is that the
solution of the problem of the origin of life by spontaneous generation,
as a property of "certain elements of matter, united in a special form,
under special conditions," is buried forever out of sight. This same
definition of life is found on page 69 of a work entitled, "The System
of Nature," published by D. Holbach, a French Atheist, in 1774, in these
words: "Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert
and dead assumes action, intelligence and life when it is combined in a
certain way."
Voltaire answered: "This is precisely the difficulty. How does a germ
come to life? Is not this definition very easy--very common? Is not life
organization with feeling? But," says Voltaire, "that you have these two
properties from the motion of matter alone: it is impossible to give any
proof, and if it can not be proved why affirm it? Why say aloud, 'I
know,' while you say to yourself, 'I know not?'"
Our Atheistic friends say: "The forms of life vary because of the
difference in their molecular construction, resulting from different
physical conditions to which the various forms have been subjected."
Wonderful discovery! Does it explain the evidence of design which is
presented in pairing off male and female in the same form of life?
Dr. Parvin is often referred to as "frankly admitting that the doctrine
of the evolution of species is accepted by three-fourths of the
scientific men," and that this doctrine has, in their minds, "rendered
nugatory the hypothesis of a vital immaterial principle as a causal
factor in the phenomena of life and mind." Allowing this statement its
full force, it is still true that none but Atheists can possibly be
included in the "three-fourths." So much the worse for them. But it is
an Atheistic trick to try to succeed by a misrepresentation of facts.
One of their number recently said, "It is now almost universally
believed by those who have investigated the subject that life
originated from natural agencies without the aid of a creative
intelligence. Then those who have investigated the subject are almost
universally _Atheists_?"
It is said that "vital activity, whether of body or mind, is a mode of
motion, the correllate of antecedent motion." But what correllated the
force? According to this logic life came from the antecedent motion;
that is, from the motion of dead atoms. But motion itself is the
manifestation of energy, and there must of necessity be something behind
it to which it belongs as an attribute. Do you say it was dead atoms, or
matter without life? Then dead atoms set dead atoms into motion and
produced life! Can you believe this? If you can, you need find no
trouble in believing in the most orthodox hell. Can you get more out of
a thing than there is in it? We don't think so. But we do think that
there is credulity enough, even blind credulity, in the advocates of
spontaneous generation to enable them to believe anything they may
happen to wish true. We are told that "life in its higher forms is not
an immaterial entity, _nor the result_ of a special form of _force
termed vital_, but, that it is a group of co-ordinated functions." Then
what correllated the force? If it was not vitality what was it? But this
is just equivalent to saying that life does not proceed from life. So,
in the realm of inertia or death, without a God and without life, some
kind of a mechanical operation among dead atoms took place which
produced "a certain chemico-physical constitution of amorphous
matter--on that albuminous substance called sarcode or protoplasm,"
which evolved more than was involved, or brought organic life out of
dead inorganic matter. But life is simply a "mode," or "degree of
motion?" But we are curious to know just here whether the advocates of
this system of things do not believe that there always was a degree of
motion. Perchance they do, but then they certainly can't believe that
this particular degree or mode of motion which they called _life_ was
eternal. So, then, a degree of motion is life, and a degree of motion is
not life. This thing of confounding life with motion I'm thinking leads
to difficulty. I can see how motion may be the result of life, but just
how it is _life itself_ I can't see quite so well. Is cause and effect
the same?
We have a most remarkable, and yet a natural, concession made in the way
in which men who feel the weakness of their cause generally make
concessions. It is a statement said to be made by Baron Liebig; it is
this: "Geological investigations have established the fact of a
beginning of life (?) upon the earth, which leaves no doubt that it can
only have arisen naturally and from inorganic forces, and _it is
perfectly indifferent whether or not we observe such a process now_."
This statement is untrue as respects geological facts. But the
concession is, that spontaneous generation is not to be an observed
fact. "Perfectly indifferent whether or not we observe such a process
now?" Well, it never was observed. Mr. Liebig's statement doubtless
proceeds from the conviction that the system is never to be established
by observation. It is simple imagination. Virchow says: "We can _only
imagine_ that at certain periods of the development of the earth unusual
conditions existed, under which the elements entering into new
combinations acquired in statu nascente vital motions, so that the usual
mechanical conditions were transformed into vital conditions." In this
statement it is well for us to remember that it is not only simple
imagination, but also that vital motions were the cause, bringing about
vital conditions, that is to say, life, before life was, transformed
mechanical conditions into vital conditions. So, in this very singular
imaginary hypothesis touching the origin of life we have the usual
circle suicide of the system. "Vital motions transform mechanical
conditions into vital conditions," and vital conditions fill the world
with "vital motions," and life itself is only a degree "or mode of
motion." _Such_ is their travel around the circle.
* * * * *
Can you believe that _vital motion_ transformed mechanical conditions
into _vital conditions_, without _life_ being the cause of those _vital
motions_?