I beg to present the following as the foundation for a series of
articles which it is proposed to present in due time. At first glance it
may be deemed too abstract for the purpose in view, but it must be
remembered that all action is primarily derived from a common basis of
life, and that it is from this basis all action _must_ spring, because
general principles only are deducible from it:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.” Although human conception cannot trace existence back to the
time when “the Word was God,” the proposition is one which consciousness
can accept without analysis, and define and understand as the Absolute
in its broadest sense; but, when invested with the infinitude of
phenomena and facts, the mind loses itself and gives way beneath the
universal evidence that life, power and motion form a unit. Accepting,
then, this proposition, without attempting to solve it, a basis is found
from which to reason, and which we could not have discovered by
reasoning backward from effects. God was in the beginning: the beginning
was God. Acknowledging this, the mind cannot conceive of aught else
existing in the beginning. He was the Supreme Whole, the great Central
Heart, from and by which all things were to come. This truth should be
fully accepted, for from it can be shown that the facts of the present
are the legitimate outgrowth of this complete Oneness.
All nations have had a god or gods, though no two of them have been
identical. Nor has the conception of a god remained unchanged with any
people for any great length of time. Were each person to define his idea
of a god, there would be nearly as many different ideals as there are
individuals in the nation, thus showing that all knowledge is relative
or symbolic. As there can be but one god conceived of under our
proposition, the question arises how so many can be held up before the
Christian world, and each claimed to be “the only true god.” In the
solution of this will be found the chief burden which ignorance and
superstition use to load the mind with their absurdities. Freed from
this burden, the mind would form a true conception of the unity in
diversity of nature, and recognize God as infinite and eternal. It will
be readily admitted that God is indestructible. So, too, is matter. Then
we have from the beginning two indestructibles—or, at least, for the
present, it must be assumed they are two—God and Nature, Spirit and
Matter, or Power and Resistance. These embrace “the Whole,” from which
nothing could have been taken away or added thereto. As God, therefore,
was All in All at the beginning, so he must ever remain the same; and
this is true also of Nature.
Reasoning thus from this basis it must be found that every power has its
origin in the first power—God, the mainspring of all action. Life, then,
may be said to be motion making itself manifest under the influence of
power—to what? It may be difficult for the mind to accept so broad an
application of this all-pervading power, but it confesses it without
comprehending it whenever it declares that God is omnipotent and
omnipresent. The world little thinks of the extent of such an assertion,
for it breaks down all the Christian ideas of that antagonism known as
the Powers of the Devil; it banishes the possibility of creation proving
a partial failure and enables the soul to recognize an ever-present,
all-pervading, though inscrutable God.
It may then be asked, Is God omnipotent? If believers in an incarnation
of Evil answer yes, what becomes of the foundation for such a belief? If
no, what becomes of their God? If He be omnipotent, He must be not only
the source of all power, but All Power. To assert otherwise is to
declare that there are two infinites—an assertion which contains its own
refutation. While the mind can conceive that God is All in All, it
cannot at the same time conceive that He is not All in All, or that the
Devil is a part of the All in All, in opposition and contradistinction
to God. Those, therefore, who believe that God is All in All, and also
believe in a Devil, believe an impossibility, for two persons or things
cannot be the same, or occupy the same place at the same time. The
absurdity, then, of the divisibility of the Supreme Power becomes at
once apparent. The argument is of importance as it furnishes a
well-defined basis, which meets every difficulty and arrays it in
support of the unity of all things and the supremacy of God.
The question, what and where is God? has been often asked; but the
various attempts to answer the unanswerable, have only given the
unreflecting mind another’s idea instead of a just and comprehensive
conception of God’s complete existence. In reasoning on so important an
inquiry, the mind should soar above principles and ideas, and in one
vast grasp say that God is the whole. Where is God? He is everywhere. In
this answer we have no clearer solution of the query than we have when
we say God is incomprehensible to the human mind; still the form is such
as the mind can use in measuring its relative parts.
From the Great First Cause, and from it alone, has come the present in
all its beauty and variety, material and spiritual. Though the effects
may continue to increase in number throughout an infinite future, the
sum of them can never amount to the First Cause. God must and will
forever remain superior to all the effects of the workings of this
power.
The material universe, science tells us, is composed of some sixty-four
or more elementary parts. An element cannot be resolved into two or more
different substances. These elements combine under certain conditions
and in certain proportions with each other to form compounds differing
materially from their component parts. Everything we see in nature is
formed of these elementary materials; yet, extensive as these compounds
are, they are fashioned according to universal and unchangeable laws.
While the existence of any of the elements uncombined is rare, their
combinations fill all space, and are co-extensive with the Divine
Spirit. Spirit and Matter—God and Nature, seem, therefore, to be forever
united.
But how have all these things come? What is this inexhaustible power
everywhere manifested, and what the laws governing its application? Go
back to the time when no compound bodies existed on this planet, and
what was there? God was there in all his absoluteness, all his infinity.
All the elements of matter were there in the same proportions and
quantities as now exist, but uncombined. In an abstract sense, an
element is a unit mass, without life, power or motion. What constitutes
it an existence, gives it life, power and motion, and the capacity of
combining with other diverse existences? We cannot conceive of matter,
even in its simplest form, as devoid of all active life principles, for
that would be to conceive a place, occupied by matter, where God is not.
Each element, therefore, contains its portion of the Eternal Spirit,
without which it would not even be a substance, but with which it can
unite with other similarly endowed simples. It seems impossible not to
conclude, then, that the life, power and motion found in all material
substances, is that life and power we call Infinite.
To further illustrate this indwelling life principle, we quote from a
celebrated author, who, speaking of the “winds and currents of the sea,”
says: “Men try to explain everything by the wind and the current. Now
there is in the air a force which is not wind, and in the water a force
that is not current. This force, the same in the air as in the water, is
effluvium. The air and the water are two masses of liquid nearly
identical and changing mutually into each other. * * * The effluvium is
alone fluid; the wind and the current are only impulses. The effluvium
is a steady stream * * * and is invisible. Yet from time to time it
says, ‘There I am;’ and its way of saying so is a thunder clap. The sea
is as much magnetic as watery. An ocean of forces floats unknown in the
ocean of currents. To see in the ocean only a mass of water is not to
see it at all.” To which we would add, that to see in the manifestations
of nature, nature only, is not to see it at all, for the power producing
it is not recognized. What is seen is not the reality, but that through
which the reality makes itself known.
What has thus far been considered may be consolidated into this
comprehensive proposition: That there is a power existing everywhere, of
which we can know nothing absolutely except that consciousness tells us
it is. At the same time we are conscious of our incapability to define
or comprehend it, and that all we can ever know of this power is its
physical manifestations. Hence the knowledge of what we see, hear, feel,
taste and smell is abstractly symbolic and relative, the only absolute
knowledge we can possibly have—if knowledge it be—is a consciousness of
our infinite existence. In this view of the existence of God, which is
the basis of all religious ideas, religion may be said to be superior to
science, because it remains immovable in consciousness. Religion belongs
to the unknowable; science deals with the knowable, which is the
manifestation of the unknowable. Therefore, viewed philosophically,
religion and science stand for the subjective and objective whose
relations comprise the whole. The presence, then, in consciousness, of
what we can by no means account for, must be the actual presence of that
of which consciousness is made up—the elementary spiritual principles
representative in us as individual existences of the great Infinite
existence.
Ambiguity in the use of terms leads to confusion of ideas and thought,
and is one great general cause of the ignorance and superstition still
existing among apparently enlightened nations. Many terms, supposed to
convey certain well-defined ideas, are found to be deficient when
analyzed, and others stand for nothing in substance. Many are in common
use whose meaning the man of religion, science or philosophy would be
embarrassed to explain. Chief among these are: The Infinite, The
Absolute, Causation and Effect, Power, Motion, Matter, Space, Time,
Resistance, Eternity, Immortality, Good, Evil, Heat, Light, Rewards,
Punishment, Justice, Law, Order. As the argument proceeds it will be
seen how nearly the whole of these and many similar terms are resolvable
into the few which convey realities.
All things that can be resolved into parts cannot be said to be
existences. Existence carries with it the idea of permanent continuity,
something self-dependent, superior to everything else as an entity. What
one term will express absolute superiority? The universe of space is
occupied by matter which, acted upon by an incomprehensible Power,
produces manifestations or motions. These being successive, time becomes
a necessary constituent. Do we need any other term to cover all the
manifestations? Is there any part of the universe left untouched by the
few terms? But allowing that they include the Whole, some one must be of
primary consequence, while the others are auxiliary thereto.
The term Motion will be found, on analysis, to be the result of Power
acting upon Matter, and the proposition is comprehensive enough to
include every known movement. Hence every manifestation in the material
world can readily be accounted for by the combination of these two
terms. Though not so immediately apparent, it will be shown that mental
manifestations are also included in this. If all manifestations are then
explainable by these two terms, all minor terms must be but names for
the different forms under which these two manifest themselves, and into
which they must ultimately be resolved. Motion, it was found, was
resolvable into Power and Matter. Can these be resolved into anything
more general than themselves?
The universe is composed objectively of matter. Is it made up of
anything else? An absolute vacuum is an impossibility in thought. Then
what we term space is filled with something, and only matter is
comprehensive enough to include all. But matter alone would convey the
idea of space filled with something at perfect rest. The term motion
then becomes necessary. This involves a subject, the cause of the
motion; and an object, the thing moved—power the cause, motion the
object. Can these be resolved into anything more general? As stated, the
universe is composed of matter, manifesting itself by and through
motion; and motion, as was seen, can be caused only by the application
of power to matter, and no other term is sufficiently general to
comprehend the causes of motion. By the union or duality of power and
matter everything is brought within the sphere of consciousness, if not
of comprehension. But which of all the manifestations of power acting
upon matter is of primary importance? Of which does consciousness
earliest take cognizance?
The universe of matter is boundless. Space conveys the idea of something
beyond which there is nothing. Else it would be limited by that which is
beyond, and we can conceive of nothing as existing without extension,
and extension implies the occupancy of a certain defined limit, which
limit must be within space. Space being undefinable, that which occupies
it must partake of the same characteristic when considered as a whole.
The same line of reasoning applies to power and time. Succession of
events compels an occupation of a part of infinite duration as matter,
relatively considered, occupies space; that is, between two or more
separate facts there must be a lapse of time before consciousness can
arrange them so as as to take cognizance thereof. Whether this is of
itself an actual existence, or some method of an actual existence, it is
a necessity to consciousness. Hence, time is related to power as space
is to matter. Power and matter being the subjective realities, while
space and time are their objective results, or the necessary effects of
the experience in consciousness of their united result, which is motion.
Our ideas of space and time are derived from experiences of power acting
upon matter, while motion, the effect thereof, unites the two in
consciousness as relative realities which must be a part of absolute
realities.
It is clear, then, that all we can know of the unknowable arises from
our experience of power and matter, and that within the sphere of their
manifestations all effects are included. But while each is necessary to
produce effect, we must not forget that we would have no consciousness
of the existence of matter were it not the object of the application of
power; hence we must conclude that power is of primordial importance,
and, as such, the most general and comprehensive of scientific terms.
All knowledge and consciousness grow out of experiences of power, which
must be considered the general ultimate. All theories regarding it are
but theories. Power is untouched by them, while matter, space, time and
motion may be considered either as its constituents or as modes of its
manifestations.
To make the argument more complete to those unaccustomed to resolve
phenomenon into its ultimate cause, some illustrations of such
resolutions will prepare the mind to accept the conclusions arrived at:
Let it be supposed that some circumstance calls for the manufacture of
cotton cloth unlike, in some respect, any ever manufactured—say in
width—how must it be produced? Reasoning inductively and given the raw
material, the last necessity apparently is a loom that will admit of the
width required and the prepared webbing and filling. Still, the cloth
cannot be produced without the further aid of motion in the loom, which
motion must be generated by power through certain machinery, obtained
from setting free such portion of power as had been concentrated in
coal. This expands water into steam; steam in escaping compels the
piston of the engine to move, and this motion is communicated to the
loom, the required cloth being the effect. It will be seen that whatever
intermediate processes were necessary they were all resolvable into the
power concentrated in the coal. What was then of first importance in the
production of cloth? It was neither the loom nor the cotton nor the
machinery, but the power giving motion to all. This illustration may be
used symbolically to explain everything incomprehensible in the
universe, that is, all manifestations of power working in and through
matter, producing motion and its effects.
All material effects being explained by power acting on matter, may not
this simple formula equally symbolize all mental operations the product
of which is thought? The question primarily arising would be, what is
thought and how is it produced? Let us analyze it. Something cannot be
produced from nothing. Thought is something. Thought is then the product
of something previously existing. Immateriality cannot be conceived of.
Therefore thought is not only material in itself, but the product of
matter in motion; and as motion is only possible through power applied
to matter, thought must be a result of such an operation. Can it be
explained and comprehended upon this theory? Let it be supposed that
some great noise should suddenly occur just outside a house in which
were 5,000 people. Each one would ask the mental question, or “think,”
What was that caused by? Now, that thought would be the product of the
sound heard. But how heard? Simply thus: Rapid vibrations of the air,
caused by some unknown matter in motion, came in contact with the organs
of hearing, were transmitted to the nerves, and finally taken up into
consciousness. The whole operation is a purely physical one, and there
is a perfect equivalent between the amount of vibration and the
resulting sensation; in other words, the effect corresponds to the
cause. It may also be remarked that a hundred physical bodies of
different weights produce as many different sensations; the difference
being always in exact proportion to the difference in their respective
weights. Similar differences follow when matter at various degrees of
temperature comes in contact with the body. The same is true regarding
light upon the optic nerve.
Let us next see if that variety of thought or sensation which arises
spontaneously within the individual is due to any different agency.
Perhaps the most comprehensive and conclusive evidence of the material
origin of thought is, that a child born under even favorable
circumstances, but kept from all external, material and mental
manifestations, grows up a simple idiot. Without, then, the
manifestation of power acting upon matter, no original individual
thought or conception is possible with the supposed exception of
spontaneous thought hereafter to be treated. Further evidence of this is
seen when an adult is kept in solitary confinement, or cast away upon an
uninhabited island; memory fails, language is lost, and the person
becomes a semi-idiot. The following extract, from an address by Dr. J.
W. Draper, is made to show that scientific men are admitting the fact
that the mind is the result of the processes here indicated—a collection
of facts gained by impressions constantly repeated. He says: “There are
successive phases * * * in the early action of the mind. As soon as the
senses are in working order * * * a process of collecting facts is
commenced. These are at first of the most homely kind, but the sphere
from which they are gathered is extended by degrees. We may, therefore,
consider that this collecting of facts is the earliest indication of the
action of the brain, and it is an operation which, with more or less
activity, continues through life. * * * Soon a second characteristic
appears. The learning of the relationship of the facts thus acquired to
one another. * * * This stage has been sometimes spoken of as the dawn
of the reasoning faculty. A third characteristic of almost
contemporaneous appearance may be remarked—it is the putting to use
facts that have been acquired and the relationships that have been
determined. * * * Now this triple natural process * * * must be the
basis of any right system of instruction. It appears, then, that contact
and constant intercourse with external manifestations is not only
necessary for the production of thought and its collaterals, but that to
retain the consciousness which makes thought possible such
manifestations must be continuously impressed upon the individual. This
seems to be conclusive that mind is the result of the experiences of the
manifestations of power.”
There is still more subtle evidence that thought, which is only the
memory of past manifestations of power, or deduction of reason upon
them, is the product of material action. All mental action depends upon
the nervous apparatus, and is limited by its capacity. The activity and
power of this apparatus is in a great measure dependent upon the
quantity of phosphorus supplied to it, and this varies at different
periods of life.
The point in question is further sustained by the fact that the rapidity
of thought varies with the supply of blood to the brain. Reduce the
action of the heart to forty beats per minute, and a feeling of languor
permeates the whole system. On the other hand, excess of cerebral
circulation results in excitement amounting sometimes to actual
delirium. We must, then, either admit that mental action is a product of
material power, and consequently itself material, or else conclude that,
while it is the result of the expenditure of power, it is in its
character immaterial, which would be absurd, because it is impossible to
represent immateriality in thought, as consciousness requires a
subjective action and objective reception of it to complete a thought,
while immateriality is neither.
Not only is mental action affected by the quantity of blood supplied to
the brain, but also by its quality. This is fully shown in the progress
of certain diseases that prevent its being properly oxygenized, and even
more conspicuously in the administration of anæsthetics. A similar
effect can be produced upon the brain by deep, full and continuously
rapid breathing, by which an undue amount of oxygen is introduced into
the circulation.
It appears, then, that having a perfect nervous apparatus, certain
special materials must be supplied to it from or by which to manufacture
mental and nervous action. Excessive mental action and powerful and
continuous emotions produce, as everybody knows, physical prostration.
From whatever position, then, we may view any action the physical,
mental or nervous system is capable of producing, we come finally to the
conclusion that they are possible only as the result of the expenditure
of some physical power, and every mind that will justly consider the
evidence must give its adhesion to what science is rapidly making plain.
Before closing the consideration of thought another phase of its
manifestations demands attention. Who has not observed the effect of one
or two minds concentrated upon another person unconscious of the
intention? The object of such concentration becomes conscious of the
fact, and invariably, though involuntarily, looks in the direction
whence the influence proceeds. Before following this to its legitimate
deductions it must be taken for granted that there is an individual
existence after the dissolution of the physical body. Nearly all people
accept this as a part of consciousness. From two propositions already
received and well understood, a third may be deduced, and along with it
will follow such legitimate additional thoughts, ideas, impressions, and
modifications of former ones, as such deductions necessarily imply. But
how shall those thoughts not derived from anything already in
consciousness, be accounted for? And are not all conscious of receiving
many such thoughts in passive conditions and during sleep? Following up
the truth that something cannot be produced from nothing, the source of
these must be found, else our premises are false or incomplete.
Every variety of mental action can be communicated. Given a mind
possessed of a new truth and one that has not yet perceived it, the
former can communicate it to the latter. This communication and
reception have been effected through the medium of speech. Another
method is through written or printed language. All this is simply
symbolic. Sounds and written or printed forms are in themselves nothing
but motion in the atmosphere and material formations by common consent
accepted to represent other and previous material formations. The one
thing of primary importance is, that the symbols used must be previously
understood by both parties to represent identical things at all times.
Thought, expressed in an unknown language, is not comprehended; this
indicates that thought abstracted from form is never communicated. It
cannot rise into consciousness even, except through an established form.
Capability of thought is only possible as the result of constant contact
with external manifestations, systematized under certain regular and
received forms which always remain purely symbolic.
It remains to be considered how mind affects mind, through the
concentration of the will, without the apparent use of the above methods
of communication. We have seen that sounds produce an effect upon the
object through the sense of hearing. But can you analyze hearing, and
show how the sounds rise into consciousness? When forms are used an
effect is produced through vision. But how does vision rise into
consciousness? We have seen that an effect is produced by a
concentration of the mind upon an object, but how this effect rises into
consciousness is beyond our comprehension.
We can now proceed to the application of what has been offered, to the
communication between minds by other methods than sound and form. Whence
all these thoughts and impressions that steal into consciousness through
no apparent form? The conclusion seems inevitable that mind can
influence mind, whether it be within a physical organization or out of
it. We predicate, therefore, that all thoughts, ideas, impressions, and
sensations not coming from present external manifestations nor from
previously acquired facts, nor yet from direct communications through
recognized symbols, are emanations received from some unknown mind
either in or out of the physical form. Nor can we escape from this
conclusion, unless we concede that this case forms an exception to the
general law. All forms, then, of thought, emotion and sensation are the
legitimate result of the expenditure of power, and may be arrayed in
support of the premises that Life, Power, and Motion, wherever found,
are Unitary.
Let us consider in continuation, what application this unity has as the
basis of physical life. What constitutes this basis? Is physical life
the direct effect of the edict of a God reigning over the whole universe
from some unknown point within it? No, the theory of a special
Providence is fast giving place to new and better things—to law and
order. It is beginning to dawn upon mankind that “the only true God”
must be beyond our comprehension as the universe is, and that it is
folly or presumptive egotism to assert that God is this or that. A God
possessing such inconsistent infinite powers as are usually ascribed to
him, is fast being discarded by all thinkers. Therefore the basis must
be sought elsewhere.
The universe is ruled in uniform ways. Special enactments for special
contingencies are inconsistent with our conception of the nature of that
general law by which all is governed. This alone is inferable, when
viewed with the conclusions previously arrived at, that things of which
we can be conscious are unitary in origin and in ultimate effect.
Supreme rule is removed beyond the pale of vicissitudes of time and
circumstance. The deduction, then, is that the cause of physical life is
universally the same, the manifestations being varied according to the
properties involved in them. Does life then consist of anything more
than this uniform Basis Power?
The world of mind demands facts, not theories. Truth is no longer
feared, no matter how terribly it may shock the sensibilities of the
religiously-educated and philosophically-dwarfed intellect. Let us have
truth, then, even if it strips away the last of our preconceived
opinions. The cry for more light continues to extend. You who cannot yet
endure its brightness hide yourselves behind clouded dogmas, creeds and
theories. We know no creed but that which declares that an infinite,
inscrutable Power is the life of all things, material and spiritual; we
know no dogma save that life is the operation of this Power; we know no
theory but that which makes clear the laws and modes by which these
operations are governed.
Discarding, then, all dogmas, the growing minds strikes boldly out for
truth, and he who catches but faint glimpses of it badly performs his
duty if he attempts to hide it from his brothers. If in its attainment
the Church crumbles, why falter? If governments totter, why falter?
Whatever will be crushed out by new discoveries and publication of truth
has already performed its mission. Suppose, for example, that the
grossest materialism ever conceived of was absolutely true, would it not
be best that the world should be convinced of its truth? It speaks
little for any system of religion or philosophy that it cannot bear the
light of facts, but evades, shuts out, or hurls anathemas at that which
it cannot refute. Such a course stands condemned before the tribunal of
a progressive philosophy. The very effort of a late institution in
opposition to physical freedom precipitated upon it its own destruction;
such will doubtless be the result of an attempt now being made by a
powerful institution to rivet religious bondage upon its subjects.
In continuing this subject, extracts will be made from Prof. Huxley’s
lecture, “The New Theory of Life, or Matter the Basis of Vitality,” to
show that science has demonstrated that “life” is the same everywhere;
and though he disclaims materialistic philosophy, the tendency of these
extracts is in that direction. While matter must be looked to for all
expression of facts, it must not be overlooked that the realm of power
or spirituality is the producing cause; consequently, while allowing
science full scope in analyzing, demonstrating and systematizing facts,
religion must not be despoiled of its basis idea which remains immovably
fixed in consciousness. The Professor says: “I have translated the term
_Protoplasm_, which is the scientific name of the substance I am about
to speak of by the words ‘The Physical Basis of Life.’ * * * * To many,
the idea that there is such a thing as a physical basis or matter of
life may be novel. * * * Even those who are aware that matter and life
are inseparably connected may not be prepared for the conclusion plainly
suggested by the phrase ‘The Physical Basis of Life.’” After giving
various illustrations, drawn from nearly every department of nature,
grasping contrasts and dissimilarities, he adds: “I propose to
demonstrate that, notwithstanding these apparent difficulties, a
three-fold unity—a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form and a
unity of substantial composition, does pervade the whole living
world; * * that the complicated and multifarious activities of man are
comprehensible under three categories—either they are immediately
directed toward the maintenance and development of the body, or they are
to effect transitory changes in the relative positions of parts of the
body; or they tend toward the continuance of the species. Even the
manifestation of intellect, of feeling and of will, are not excluded
from the classification.”
Prof. Huxley then illustrates the action of the _protoplasm_ in the
common nettle and in the drop of blood, showing that both plants and
animals have their origin in a particle of nucleated _protoplasm_, and
that this _protoplasm_ “not only dies and is resolved into its mineral
and lifeless constituents, but is always dying, and strange as the
paradox may seem, could not live unless it died.” Thus we are led to the
conclusion that all matter has a common basic principle by which we
obtain our evidences of it. It is equally clear that analysis fails to
grapple this principle, for the process dissipates the power that
compelled the combination. Dead _protoplasm_ differs from living in that
something has departed from it, and though we cannot catch this to
decide upon its nature, can we with consistency say it is a property of
matter? If it is, what has become of it that it does not manifest itself
again upon the recombination of the matter it once made use of? One fact
is evident, and seems to be conclusive. This life principle never
manifests itself through artificial combinations of matter. Again, is
there no difference between ordinary matter and “matter of life?” What
changes the former into the latter, and _vice versa_? If chemical
analysis can tell us nothing about the composition of living matter,
what can it tell us of life itself? If nucleated _protoplasm_ is the
basis of all life, and yet nothing but matter, why does one “structural
unit” of it produce a plant, another an animal? While it is evident that
the material composition of these units is uniform, it seems to be quite
absurd to say that chemical analysis teaches everything that they
comprehend.
If the manifestations of matter are the result of its properties, the
law must be of general application. Water always seeks its level: is
that a property of water or the result of gravitation? Water can be
expanded into vapor: is this a property of water or the result of the
introduction of heat? Is it a property of matter that transfers the
digestible and animal food we eat into man? Does man exhibit nothing but
the properties of matter? It is evident that after the strictest
chemical analysis the vital life principle common to all matter remains
unreached—thus indicating its great ultimate character, which is beyond
the reach of both chemical and mental analysis.
What is this power by which the nucleated _protoplasm_ of the various
species always produces representatives of the one which furnished the
germ? If it were simply a property of nucleated _protoplasm_, considered
as matter, why should not a germ from the lion just as readily produce a
lamb? In the various crosses between animals, the aggregated masses of
_protoplasm_ partaking of both, the inference plainly is that in each of
the particles of _protoplasm_ was contained a power which controlled
their successive aggregations and modifications. Other evidence that the
determining power is something more than a mere property of matter is
found in the fact that if the young of several different species of
animals be reared in company and fed with the same material, they will
each retain the peculiarities of the species they represent, modified
somewhat by the community of influence exerted on them. The same is true
of the offspring of different races and nations.
The law indicated is still more generally applicable, descending as it
does from the wide range of species and nations to each individual
member thereof. Upon different individuals the same cause, acting under
like circumstances, produces different effects, and this difference is
dependent upon something more persistent than matter which is constantly
changing. Is this persistent individuality a property of the matter we
possess now, or of that which we shall be made up of some years hence?
The consciousness of each one answers that this individuality is
superior to the vicissitudes of matter—this consciousness having this
peculiarity over its consciousness of the manifestations of matter, that
while it constantly acquires new experiences it loses none of those
previously acquired.
We know nothing of this power, except that it is a name for an unknown
cause: and so far as practical utility is concerned, the distinction
between power and matter might be discarded, the danger of falling
thereby into the slough of materialistic philosophy being avoided, if we
remember that all the knowledge we can acquire is simply relative and
symbolic.
Returning for a moment to the fact of reproduction, to ascertain if
possible the determining power by which one “structural unit” of
nucleated protoplasm develops into a beast, and another chemically
identical into a man, and realizing fully that this power is beyond
common modes of proof we infer that a reasonable conclusion can only be
deduced from observing the general unchanging law of the constant
recurrence of similar results under similar circumstances. The first
step in the inquiry is to ask what “protoplasm” is, and how and where it
is obtained.
Prof. Huxley informs us that its chemical constituents are carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, which form carbonic acid, water and
ammonia; and that these are compounded by plants into the “matter of
life” or protoplasm, which is the first compound of elements possessing
inherent organic motion. This being the only way protoplasm can be
produced, we must always look to the vegetable world for continuous
supplies of it; and though we obtain it in large quantities from the
animal world, it is only at second-hand. In the vegetable world, then,
must we find the first traces of organic life. But though plants thus
manufacture protoplasm, they are not wholly protoplasm, but consist of
various other elements necessary in an organized form. The manufacture
of protoplasm may be considered the end of the vegetable world. This
substance builds up the animal world, and forms a connecting link
between the kingdoms.
How long it took protoplasm to produce its ultimate animal man we cannot
ascertain, but the numerous species and varieties thereof between the
simplest and most complete compounds signify a labor of which we can
scarcely conceive, and yet science has traced and classified it all,
each succeeding link in the chain being a little more complex, until man
appears. As no higher types have been produced it is fair to presume
that none can be. The formula, then, that will present man will include
everything below him in the order of creation, not only in the animal
and vegetable kingdoms, but in the inorganic world upon which the
vegetable is founded.
It remains to be observed that in the order of nature each of the
various species of animals reproduces its kind, and gradually merges
into the next higher, but never recedes. Each species represents in
different proportions and numbers the “structural units,” from which,
reproduction follows, each unit containing the life principle
representative of the general life principle of the animal from which it
comes. Now, it is predicated as a result of the study of nature that
this life principle is the determining power that controls the process
whereby protoplasm builds up such various and dissimilar material
reforms. Dead protoplasm consists of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen; living protoplasm, of these permeated and held together by
this life principle, and this differs in its controlling power according
to the formations it has gone through. Thus the “structural unit” of the
lion or of the horse, containing the life principle peculiar to each,
develops into a lion or a horse, as the case may be, unless in this
process it is furnished with living protoplasm containing a life
principle of different determining powers, when the aggregate result is
a modification of the two powers.
Again, if the phenomena presented by matter are its absolute properties,
the same elements and combinations should always produce identical
results when taken into the human system. Do facts coincide with this?
This “matter of life” should, if it is simply matter, always produce
similar effects from whatever source it is derived. It is a
physiological fact, however, that habitual living upon certain kinds of
food—all containing this identical “matter of life”—does produce
heterogeneous effects, mental and physical, upon the system. Thus, if a
person who has constantly lived upon animal food changes his diet
entirely to fruit and vegetables, a corresponding change will take place
in his individual capacities.
The same point is well illustrated by a case which occurred in England,
where saltpetre, obtained direct from the soil, was quite inert compared
with that obtained from animal substances, the cause of the difference
being due to the tact that the latter, in passing through the animal
kingdom, had acquired a power which it did not previously possess. This
illustration is of general application. It is evident that matter, in
passing through each successive and higher organic form, becomes
impregnated with the life principle which determines such form, and
which manifests itself in all future combinations into which such matter
enters.
The question now naturally arises, Is there a life principle common to
all matter, which has become variously modified as the elements of
matter have become modified by having given rise to or passed through
the different changes and steps between its original homogeneous state
and its present heterogeneous condition? Or are we to conclude that all
matter is dead, except that termed “matter of life?” That there is,
consequently, no life except organic life, and that this organic life is
a special creation entering into a single compound, which thereby raised
to the dignity of “matter of life,” makes use of other elements as
auxiliaries to its supreme rule? With all proper deference to “matter of
life,” we would ask, what do we know of life except as a result of
motion? and where can matter be found that does not manifest motion? and
how could the compound in which the “matter of life” is first found,
have been compounded without motion? If the life principle, manifested
by protoplasm, is simply a property of matter, I see no logical reason
why the motion existing in matter should not with equal propriety be
called its property. This brings us to first principles, to the
threshold of elemental combination, for if this power determines the
forms compounds shall assume, why should it not determine simple
elemental form also?
Protoplasm is the foundation of all organic life; and if we add to this
that this substance is itself the ultimate of a previous system of
formation, the formula will express the whole. Yet it must not be
forgotten that the building up of organic life is the result of a
constructive power common to the universe, and not indigenous to
protoplasm alone. It must then be apparent that there is a power common
to all matter, of which the motion or life inherent in living protoplasm
is but a modification; also, that the capacity of this common power for
modification is only limited by the necessary forms to represent it, and
the time required to develop them.
If this view of the power that pervades the universe is correct, the
real basis of life lies retrospectively far behind the motion contained
in or manifested by the matter of life, and this motion, instead of
being life of matter in its absolute sense, is but one of its modes of
expression. This homogeneous power common to matter still exists,
undisturbed in extent, though most heterogeneously distributed in the
formations which make up the present external universe.
The basis of physical life, then, is this power, and this power is the
same that was found to be unitary, though incomprehensible in its
extent, while its manifestations are simply symbolic of that unlimited
power which is alone attributable to the Unknowable, commonly designated
God. If this conclusion is not in accordance with the modes of
manifestation, there is no halting-place between it and the opposite
extreme of the materialist that “there is no God”—that matter is all
there is in the universe. If materialistic philosophy involve “grave
error,” it becomes the duty of all who detect this tendency to preserve
and point out the distinctions between the “matter of life” and the life
of matter.
If the true province of philosophy is to discern the “soul of truth,”
said to exist “in all erroneous things,” it ill becomes the ultra
Spiritualist with a “soul of truth,” contained within his vast body of
errors, to denounce the ultra Materialist, who, if he has not the “soul
of truth,” has a vast body of it. To the superficial thinker, the
Materialist may seem to be the more consistent of the two, as he can in
part comprehend his truth, while the Spiritualist cannot. Whether one is
more or less consistent than the other matters not, so far as their
predications are concerned.
But the ultra Spiritualist would show his consistency by descending to
the plane of the Materialist to find in his “body of truths” evidences
of the handiwork of his God, which his ultra religious ideas fail to
furnish; and the ultra Materialist would show his by ascending to the
plane of the Spiritualist to find in his “soul of truth” the key that
shall transform his “body of truth” into living evidence of an unlimited
Power entirely beyond the pale of matter or the keenest scientific
analysis.