THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE.
‘For I reckon, that the sufferings of this present time are not
worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in
us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God.’—ST. PAUL (Rom. viii. 18, 19).
‘Rabbi Jacob said, “This world is as it were the anteroom of
the world to come. Prepare thyself in the anteroom so that thou
mayest be fit to enter the banquet-room.”’—_Mishna_, _Pirke
Aboth_, chap. iv. par. 16.
‘Eternal process moving on
From state to state the spirit walks,
And these are but the shatter’d stalks,
Or ruin’d chrysalis of one.’—TENNYSON.
192. In the preceding chapters we have examined by the light of
our present knowledge the possibilities contained in the visible
universe. What is it good for in the way of possible immortality? is
the question we have tried to answer. It will have been seen that
the reply is eminently unfavourable. If we take the individual man
to begin with, we find that he lives his short tale of years, and
that then the visible machinery which connects him with the past, as
well as that which enables him to act in the present, falls into ruin
and is brought to an end. If any germ or potentiality remains, it is
certainly not connected with the visible order of things.
If we next consider the human race we find that the state of
advancement to which they have attained is in many respects greatly
due to their physical surroundings. Coal and iron have been as
instrumental in promoting knowledge as Galileo and Newton, but our
whole stock of these materials will come to an end. By economy it
may be possible to lengthen out the period during which they can be
supplied, but is it not manifest that we are year by year exhausting
them as sources of available energy?
Are we not inevitably led to conclude that our present state cannot
last even for a lengthened period, but will be brought to an end long
before the inevitable dissipation of energy shall have rendered our
earth unfit for habitation?
193. But even supposing that man, in some form, is permitted to
remain on the earth for a long series of years, we merely lengthen
out the period, but we cannot escape the final catastrophe. The
earth will gradually lose its energy of rotation, as well as that
of revolution round the sun. The sun himself will wax dim and
become useless as a source of energy, until at last the favourable
conditions of the present solar system will have quite disappeared.
But what happens to our system will happen likewise to the whole
visible universe (Art. 116), which will, if finite, become in time
a lifeless mass, if indeed it be not doomed to utter dissolution.
In fine, it will become old and effete, no less truly than the
individual—it is a glorious garment this visible universe, but not
an immortal one—we must look elsewhere if we are to be clothed with
immortality as with a garment.
194. Now, if we regard the dissipation of energy which is constantly
going on, we are at first sight forcibly struck with the apparently
wasteful character of the arrangements of the visible universe. All
but a very small portion of the sun’s heat goes day by day into what
we call empty space, and it is only this very small remainder which
can be made use of by the various planets for purposes of their
own. Could anything be more perplexing than this seemingly prodigal
expenditure of the very life and essence of our system? That all but
a petty fraction of this vast store of high-class energy should be
doing nothing but travelling outwards in space at the rate of 188,000
miles per second is hardly conceivable, especially when the result of
it is the inevitable destruction of the visible universe, unless we
imagine this to be infinite, and so capable of endless degradation.
195. If, however, we continue to dwell upon this astounding
phenomenon, we begin to perceive that we are not entitled to assert
that this luminous energy does nothing but continue to travel
outwards. It is perhaps too much to say that Struve’s speculations
prove an ethereal absorption, but they must be taken in connection
with other considerations. We have already maintained (Art. 151),
that we cannot regard the ether as a perfect fluid. Now it is not
easy to suppose that in such a substance all vibratory motion should
pass outwards without in the smallest degree becoming absorbed or
changing its type.
We are prepared doubtless to expect a great difference between the
ether and visible matter in this respect, but can hardly imagine that
it is absolutely free from the capacity of altering the type of the
energy which passes through it. Such a hypothesis appears to us to
violate the principle of continuity.
196. But we may go even further than luminiferous vibrations which
take their rise chiefly at the surfaces of bodies, and extend our
speculations into the interior of substances, since the law of
gravitation assures us that any displacement which takes place in
the very heart of the earth will be felt throughout the universe,
and we may even imagine that the same thing will hold true of those
molecular motions (Art. 56) which accompany thought. For every
thought we think is accompanied by a displacement and motion of
the particles of the brain, and we may imagine that somehow these
motions are propagated throughout the universe. Views of this nature
were long ago entertained by Babbage, and they have since commended
themselves to several men of science, and amongst others to Jevons.
‘Mr. Babbage,’ says this author,[57] ‘has pointed out[58] that
if we had power to follow and detect the minutest effects of any
disturbance, each particle of existing matter must be a register of
all that has happened.’
197. But again, we are compelled to imagine (Art. 215) that what we
see has originated in the unseen, and in using this term, we desire
to go back even further than the ether, which, according to one
hypothesis (Art. 152), has given rise to the visible order of things.
And again, we must resort to the unseen not only for the origin of
the molecules of the visible universe, but also for an explanation
of the forces which animate these molecules (Art. 150), and not
only so, but we are always carried back from one order of the unseen
to another (Art. 220). Now if this be the case—if THE UNIVERSE be
constructed with successive orders of this description connected with
one another—it is manifest that no event whatever, whether we regard
its antecedent or its consequent, can possibly be confined to one
order only, but must spread throughout THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
198. To conclude: we are thus led to believe that there exists now
an invisible order of things intimately connected with the present,
and capable of acting energetically upon it—for, in truth, the energy
of the present system is to be looked upon as originally derived
from the invisible universe, while the forces which give rise to
transmutations of energy probably take their origin in the same
region.
And it appears to us to be more natural to imagine that a universe of
this nature, which we have reason to think exists, and is connected
by bonds of energy with the visible universe, is also capable of
receiving energy from it, and of transforming the energy so received.
In fine, it appears to us less likely that by far the larger portion
of the high-class energy of the present universe is travelling
outwards into space with an immense velocity, than that it is being
gradually transferred into an invisible order of things. This last
conclusion is, however, more of the nature of a speculation, and is
by no means essential to our argument.
199. If we now turn to thought, we find, (Art. 59) that, inasmuch
as it affects the substance of the present visible universe, it
produces a material organ of memory. But the motions which accompany
thought must originate in and also affect the invisible order of
things, because in the first place the forces which cause those
motions are derived from the unseen, and because, secondly, the
motions themselves must act upon the unseen, and thus it follows,
that ‘_Thought conceived to affect the matter of another universe
simultaneously with this may explain a future state_’ (see Anagram,
_Nature_, October 15, 1874).
200. This idea, however, requires further development and
explanation. Let us therefore begin by supposing that we possess a
frame, or the rudiments of a frame, connecting us with the invisible
universe, which we may call the soul.
Now each thought we think is accompanied by certain molecular motions
and displacements in the brain, and parts of these, let us allow, are
in some way stored up in that organ, so as to produce what may be
termed our material or physical memory. Other parts of these motions
are, however, communicated to the invisible body, and are there
stored up, forming a memory which may be made use of when that body
is free to exercise its functions.
201. Again, one of the arguments (Art. 84) which proves the existence
of the invisible universe, demands that it shall be full of energy
when the present universe is defunct. We can therefore very well
imagine that after death, when the soul is free to exercise its
functions, it may be replete with energy, and have eminently the
power of action in the present, retaining also, as we have shown
above, a hold upon the past, inasmuch as the memory of past events
has been stored up in it, and thus preserving the two essential
requisites (Art. 61) of a continuous intelligent existence.
202. The conception of an unseen universe is not a new one, even
among men of science. The deservedly famous Dr. Thomas Young has the
following passage in his lectures on Natural Philosophy:—‘Besides
this porosity, there is still room for the supposition, that even
the ultimate particles of matter may be permeable to the causes
of attractions of various kinds, especially if those causes are
immaterial: nor is there anything in the unprejudiced study of
physical philosophy that can induce us to doubt the existence of
immaterial substances; on the contrary, we see analogies that lead
us almost directly to such an opinion. The electrical fluid is
supposed to be essentially different from common matter; the general
medium of light and heat, according to some, or the principle of
caloric, according to others, is equally distinct from it. We see
forms of matter, differing in subtility and mobility, under the names
of solids, liquids, and gases; above these are the semi-material
existences, which produce the phenomena of electricity and magnetism,
and either caloric or a universal ether. Higher still, perhaps, are
the causes of gravitation, and the immediate agents in attractions
of all kinds, which exhibit some phenomena apparently still more
remote from all that is compatible with material bodies. And of these
different orders of beings, the more refined and immaterial appear
to pervade freely the grosser. It seems therefore natural to believe
that the analogy may be continued still further, until it rises into
existences absolutely immaterial and spiritual. We know not but that
thousands of spiritual worlds may exist unseen for ever by human
eyes; nor have we any reason to suppose that even the presence of
matter, in a given spot, necessarily excludes these existences from
it. Those who maintain that nature always teems with life, wherever
living beings can be placed, may therefore speculate with freedom on
the possibility of independent worlds; some existing in different
parts of space, others pervading each other unseen and unknown,
in the same space, and others again to which space may not be a
necessary mode of existence.’
203. It may now be desirable to reply by anticipation to certain
objections which are likely to be made to the theory we have
proposed. Let us divide these into three categories—religious,
theological, and scientific.
_Objection First (Religious)._—It may be said to us, ‘Who are you who
are wise beyond what is written? Are ye of them to whom it was said
of old, “Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum”? Beware of the
words of the great Apostle of the Gentiles:—Φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ
ἐμωράνθησαν.’
_Reply._—As we have already said (Art. 50), we do not write for
those who are so assured of the truth of their religion that they
are unable to entertain the smallest objection to it. We write for
honest inquirers—for honest doubters, it may be;—who desire to know
what science, when allowed perfect liberty of thought, and loyally
followed, has to say upon those points which so much concern us all.
We are content in this work to view the universe from the physical
standpoint; you may therefore perchance esteem us of the earth
earthy; nevertheless we think that our strength lies in keeping up a
communication with those verities which we all acknowledge.
204. _Objection Second (Theological)._—Your idea of the spiritual
universe is analogous to that of Swedenborg, and we must therefore
dismiss it as untrue, inasmuch as we cannot recognise the assumption
of the spiritual body until after the resurrection.
_Reply._—All that we have done is to remove the scientific objection
to a future state, supposed to be furnished by the principle of
Continuity. We know nothing about the laws of this state, and
conceive it to be quite possible, if otherwise likely, that the soul
may remain veiled or in abeyance until the resurrection. We maintain
only that we are logically constrained to admit the existence of
some frame or organ which is not of this earth, and which survives
dissolution—if we regard the principle of Continuity and the doctrine
of a future state as both true. Besides, the analogy of Paul, in
which the body of the believer at death is compared to a seed put
into the ground, not only implies some sort of continuity, but also
expresses his belief in a present spiritual body. _There is_, says
the apostle (observe, not _there shall be_), a spiritual body. Again
the same apostle tells us (2 Corinthians v. 1), ‘That if our earthly
house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we _have_ a building of God,
a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’
205. _Objection Third (Theological)._—Your argument will apply to
the brute creation as well as to man; now we cannot recognise the
immortality of the brutes.
_Reply._—As before stated, we know nothing about the laws of the
invisible universe, except that it is related by bonds of some kind,
possibly of energy, to the present. All we have attempted has been
to remove an objection to the doctrine of immortality which has
been wrongly put forth as scientific, or at least as consistent with
scientific knowledge.
206. _Objection Fourth (Theological)._—The reasoning you adopt being
founded on the law of continuity, seems to imply the development of
man’s frame from those of the inferior animals, and therefore by
implication contradicts the scriptural account of the creation and
fall of man.
_Reply._—We cannot perceive that our reasoning is in the least degree
inconsistent with the account of man’s origin given in Scripture.
This account implies no doubt a peculiar operation of the invisible
universe, but our reasoning compels us to look in this direction for
the origin of certain occurrences. Whether the production of man has
been the occasion for a peculiar interposition of the unseen it is
not within our province to discuss. We can only say that we see no
reason from our principles to question the view which asserts that
man was made by a peculiar operation out of a pre-existent universe.
207. _Objection Fifth (Theological)._—The resurrection consistent
with your theory could not be a resurrection of the same particles as
were laid in the grave, and in this respect it would be dissimilar to
that of Christ.
_Reply._—A dissimilarity between the two exists under any theory, for
the body of Christ did not experience corruption, while the bodies of
believers in Christ are manifestly dissolved by death.
[We make the following suggestion with much hesitation.
What we have to say is founded upon an exceedingly able work by
Edward White, entitled _Life in Christ_, which has recently been
published, and from which we extract the following passage (page
263):—
‘But the Saviour was Divine. As man, identified with human
nature, He died, and His death became a sin-offering; as God He
could not die. As man He was made “under the law;” as God He was
above the law laid on creatures.... He arose, therefore, as the
Divine Conqueror of death, “God over all, blessed for evermore,”
and was thus “declared to be the Son of God with power, according
to the Spirit of holiness, by _His resurrection_ from the
dead.”—Rom. i. 4. He rose, not “in the likeness of sinful flesh;”
not “under the law,” but in the character of the “Lord from
heaven,” “our Lord and our God:”—not in the image of the “son of
Adam,” but as the “Son of the Highest,” having delivered us from
wrath by the death of His humanity, to endow us with immortality
through the life of His Divinity. He was no longer “the man of
sorrows,” but The First and The Last and The Living One; no
longer crowned with thorns, and clothed in a peasant’s robe, but
wearing the diadem of the Lord of the Universe, and shining with
the supereminent splendours of the Godhead.’
If then Christ died as man, and was reanimated in virtue of His
divinity, the analogy between Christ, who is the head, and believers,
who are His body, will be complete if we suppose that each believer
dies as a man, but is raised up by virtue of the divinity of Christ,
and inasmuch as the Head is not present here in His glorified bodily
form, so it cannot be supposed that His members should at present
assume that form.
But when Christ appears again upon earth we are told that His members
being raised in what is termed the first resurrection will then
accompany Him.
And judging from S. Matthew (chap. xxvii. verse 52), something of
this kind, but of a partial nature, took place when Christ locally
appeared, after His resurrection, in Jerusalem.
In fine, the true analogy between Christ and the believer should
prevent us from supposing that while Christ is absent in His
glorified body believers should nevertheless assume theirs.
Now this delay implies the corruption of the believer’s body, and
renders us unable to believe that the very same particles will be
raised again as in the case of Christ. But surely no one can suppose,
that if moral and spiritual identity is secured, the mere material
particles can be of any consequence.]
208. _Objection Sixth (Scientific)._—If the general principles on
which all material organisms are constructed are the same throughout
the world, is not this an argument by analogy that all such organisms
have a similar relation to the universe? On what principle then can
immortality be assumed to be possible for men while it is denied to
brutes?
_Reply._—When we speak of the general principles on which all
organisms are constructed being the same, we mean that certain
chemical and physical laws apply both to man and the brute creation.
Gravitation and chemical affinity are the same for both. There must
also be a similarity in tangible substance, inasmuch as both co-exist
in the same visible world. In fine, there must be many points in
which man is very similar in construction to the lower animals.
Thus each possesses nerves—each has what may be termed delicacy of
construction—the frame of each possesses materials which will burn in
the fire. In fine, not only do strong similarities exist between all
animals, but there are also strong similarities between animals and
vegetables. But what are the points of dissimilarity between man and
the lower animals? Is it not that the latter are utterly incapable
of thinking thoughts such as those which form the present subject
of discussion? In fine, the greatest difference between man and the
lower animals is not so much in bodily structure as in style of
thought. But each thought has no doubt (Art. 59) a concomitant in the
brain. Inasmuch therefore as the style of thought is very different
in man and in the lower animals, the physical concomitants of thought
must be very different in the two cases. But this is the very region
into which science has been as yet utterly unable to penetrate. We
have, however, strong reason for supposing that in such a region the
concomitants of thought would prove to be very different in man and
in the brutes. Thus the argument tells quite the other way; and we
are entitled to say, that inasmuch as there are enormous practical
differences in thought and the higher kinds of power between man and
the lower animals, so the scientifically perceivable concomitants of
these differences would (if we were able to examine them) be found
extremely different in the two cases.
209. _Objection Seventh (Scientific)._—If there be, as you say,
this duality in the present human frame, how can the spiritual part
remain latent so long as it does? Even if trammelled by the grosser
substance, we might expect that at least on rare occasions it should
somehow manifest itself.
_Reply._—As a matter of fact we know that ordinary consciousness can
remain latent or inactive for hours, if not for days, and then return
to us again. There would be force in this objection if it were not
true that consciousness is capable of entering into the dormant or
quiescent state.
Again, it is possible that there have been and that there are
occasional manifestations of this spiritual nature.
For, in the Christian records visible manifestations of the spiritual
element, even in this life, are asserted to have taken place on
rare occasions. But if you have dismissed these manifestations as
inconceivable, you cannot now bring their absence forward as an
objection.
210. _Objection Eighth, (Scientific)._—Your doctrine of immortality
does violence to that great principle, the conservation of energy.
For it is manifest that if energy is transferred from the visible
into the invisible universe, its constancy in the present universe
can no longer be maintained.
_Reply._—In reply to this objection we may state that when we
assert the conservation of energy it is as a principle applicable
under special limitations. For instance, it is only by assuming the
continual passage through ether of a large portion of the energy of
the visible universe that the doctrine as at present held can be
maintained. Now the only addition that our theory suggests is the
gradual carriage into the invisible universe of some part at least of
the energy of gross matter which is associated with thought. But is
even this necessary? for this supposes thought to originate through
the matter of the visible universe, and then to affect the invisible.
But the reverse order of occurrences is quite as tenable, especially
if we suppose with Le Sage that the forces which set in motion the
molecules of visible matter are derived from the unseen universe. It
may safely be said that our hypothesis is not upset, and never can be
upset, by any experimental conclusion with regard to energy.
211. _Objection Ninth (Scientific)._—We cannot understand how
individuality is to be preserved in the spiritual world.
_Reply._—This is no new difficulty. We are as much puzzled by what
takes place in our present body as we can be with respect to the
spiritual. Thus, let us allow that impressions are stored up in
our brains, which thus form an order connecting us with the past
of the visible universe. Now thousands, perhaps even millions, of
such impressions pass into the same organ, and yet, by the operation
of our will, we can concentrate our recollection upon a certain
event, and rummage out its details, along with all its collateral
circumstances, to the exclusion of everything else. But if the brain
or something else plays such a wonderful part in the present economy,
is it impossible to imagine that the universe of the future may
have even greater individualising powers? Is it not very hazardous
to assert this or that mode of existence to be impossible in such a
wonderful whole as we feel sure the universe must be?
212. _Objection Tenth (Scientific)._—Even if it be allowed that the
invisible universe receives energy from the present, so that the
conservation of energy holds true as a principle, yet the dissipation
of energy must hold true also, and although the process of decay may
be delayed by the storing up of energy in the invisible universe, it
cannot be permanently arrested. Ultimately we must believe that every
part of the whole universe will be equally supplied with energy, and
in consequence all abrupt living motion will come to an end.
_Reply._—Perhaps the best reply to this objection is to say that the
laws of energy are rather generalisations derived from our experience
than scientific principles, like that which we call the _Principle
of Continuity_. There would be no permanent confusion of thought
introduced if these laws should be found not to hold, or to hold in a
different way, in the unseen universe. Nor can we regard the law of
the Dissipation as equally fundamental with that of the Conservation
of Energy. What is to prove it in the unseen? We have shown
(Art. 112) how Clerk-Maxwell’s demons (though essentially finite
intelligences) could be made to restore energy even in the present
universe without spending work. Much more may of course be expected
in a universe free from gross matter.
213. _Objection Eleventh (Quasi-Scientific.)_—You speak of energy
being transferred to the unseen, so as to store up for each
individual a record of his every thought. You have not shown, as you
were bound to do, how such transferred energy could be definitely
localised in the unseen.
_Reply._—The obligation is entirely the other way. It is you
who are bound to show that such localisation is impossible. You
quasi-scientific men assert that science disproves all such
things. We have shown that Continuity demands an infinite series
of developments. These _may_ be either living or dead. But
scientific analogy shows that they bear all the marks of intelligent
developments. How can there be any doubt or difficulty about our
choice under these circumstances? Obviously we cannot accept dead
and yet intelligent developments. And although our evidence from
analogy may not amount to proof, it is very strong. Yet you objectors
virtually assert that you can show its impossibility. Do so, if you
can. Give us any proof of the impossibility of an organ connecting
us with the unseen universe, or any analogy even apparently against
it, and we shall be glad to receive and consider it. We have no doubt
that you will thus help us to strengthen our case. You forget that it
is you who are the dogmatists—you who assert that these things are
incompatible with scientific knowledge, but who, strangely, do not
bring forward any proofs of the truth of your assertions.
But in the present case, it so happens that, even with ordinary
matter, an infinitely extended medium could be constructed (as
Clerk-Maxwell has shown), such that all rays diverging from any
point of it whatever shall be brought accurately to a focus at
another definite point; every point of space having thus its definite
conjugate.
214. Having replied to these objections, let us now endeavour to
realise our present position. It is briefly as follows:—What we have
done is to show that a future state is possible, and to demolish any
so-called scientific objection that might be raised against it. The
evidence in favour of the doctrine is not derived from us. It comes
to us from two sources: in the first place, from the statements
made concerning Christ; and, in the second place, from that intense
longing for immortality which civilised man has invariably possessed.
The case stands thus: certain evidence from these two sources in
favour of our doctrine has been adduced, but scientific objections
have been raised against the possibility of the doctrine itself,
and these we have attempted to overcome. But while we may suppose
the scientific objections to the doctrine itself surmounted, there
yet remains an equally strong scientific objection to that portion
of the evidence in favour of the doctrine which is derived from
the Christian records. ‘Granting,’ it may be said to us, ‘that
immortality is possible, what reason have we, beyond certain vague
yearnings, for believing it likely? No doubt, if Christ rose from the
dead, the probability in favour of it would be very strong; but we
have an objection to the assumed fact of the resurrection of Christ
no less formidable than that which you have overcome with regard to
the doctrine of immortality itself.’
215. We must now proceed to examine the validity of this objection,
and in so doing we find it convenient to approach the problem of the
universe not from the side of the future but from that of the past.
We have already (Art. 85) defined the principle of Continuity, in
virtue of which we believe ourselves entitled to discuss every event
which occurs in the universe, without one single exception, and to
deduce from it, if we can, the condition of things that preceded the
event—this being also in the universe. We have likewise given reasons
for believing that the visible universe must have had a beginning in
time, and it may be desirable to recapitulate these here. In the
first place, it is generally allowed by men of science that atoms
form the stuff or substance out of which the visible universe is
built. Why, then, it is asked by the materialists, cannot we suppose
these atoms to be infinite in number, in which case, as far as
energy is concerned, we may very well suppose this universe to last
from eternity to eternity; and if in addition we may conceive these
eternally existing atoms to be in some sense alive, have we not here
a hypothesis which will explain the continuous life of the universe
as well as its continuous energy?
Let us in the meantime reply to the first statement in the
hypothesis, reserving that part of it which concerns life for a
future occasion (Art. 240).
Our objection to regarding the visible universe as having endured
from eternity is threefold. In the first place, this hypothesis,
to be tenable, assumes the infinity of the visible universe.
This, however, is a pure assumption. We may not be able to prove
the contrary, but we perceive no reason why the visible universe
should be regarded as infinite. No doubt, if scientific principle
imperatively demanded the eternity of the present visible universe,
we should be compelled to acknowledge its infinity as a consequence;
but we shall see presently that scientific principle leads quite in
the opposite direction. So that the weakness of the hypothesis in
question is, that while it is contrary to scientific principle it
likewise assumes the infinity of the visible universe, which is a
pure assumption.
Our second objection is that, in virtue of the principle of
Continuity, we are compelled to believe in the infinite depth of
nature, and hold that, just as we must imagine space and duration
to be infinite, so must we imagine the structural complexity of the
universe to be infinite also. To our minds it appears no less false
to pronounce eternal _that aggregation we call the atom_, than it
would be to pronounce eternal (Art. 85) _that aggregation we call the
sun_. All this follows from the principle of Continuity, in virtue
of which we make scientific progress in the knowledge of things, and
which leads us, whatever state of things we contemplate, to look for
its antecedent in some previous state of things also in the Universe.
Our third objection is that which we have stated in Art. 163. It
arises from the belief that the dissipation of the energy of the
visible universe proceeds _pari passu_ with the aggregation of mass,
and therefore that since the large masses of the visible universe are
of finite size, we are sure that the process cannot have been going
on for ever, or, in other words, the visible universe must have had
its origin in time.
216. Let us therefore apply to that stupendous event, the production
of the visible universe, not irreverently, but in hopeful trust, the
principle of Continuity, and ask ourselves the question, What state
of things also in the universe, what conceivable antecedent can have
given rise to this unparalleled phenomenon—an antecedent, we need
hardly say, which must have operated from the invisible universe?
It is a great and awful phenomenon, but we must not shrink before
size; we must not be terrified by the magnitude of the event out of
reliance upon our principles of discussion.
Now, if we regard the appearance of the visible universe, and
approach it as we would any other phenomenon, we have only two
alternatives before us. Creation is not one of these, inasmuch as we
are carried by such an act out of the universe altogether. We are,
therefore, driven to look to some kind of development as the cause of
the appearance of the visible universe. This development may either
have been through the living or through the dead; either it was the
result of a natural operation of the invisible universe, or it was
brought about by means of intelligence residing in that universe
and working through its laws. To determine which of these two
alternatives is the more admissible, we must bear in mind the nature
of the production, and argue about it just as we should argue about
anything else.
217. Now, this production was, as far as we can judge, a sporadic
or abrupt act, and the substance produced, that is to say the atoms
which form the material substratum of the present universe, bear (as
Herschel and Clerk-Maxwell have well said) from their uniformity of
constitution all the marks of being manufactured articles.
Whether we regard the various elementary atoms as separate
productions, or (according to Prout and Lockyer) view them as
produced by the coming together of some smaller kind of primordial
atom—in either case, and even specially so in the latter case, we
think that they look like manufactured articles. Indeed, we have
already shown (Art. 164) that development without life, that is
to say dead development, does not tend to produce uniformity of
structure in the products which it gives rise to.
218. Thus the argument is in favour of the production of the visible
universe by means of an intelligent agency residing in the invisible
universe.
But again let us realise the position in which we are placed by the
principle of Continuity—we are led by it not only to regard the
invisible universe as having existed before the present one, but the
same principle drives us to acknowledge its existence in some form as
a universe from all eternity. Now we can readily conceive a universe
containing conditioned intelligent beings to have existed before the
present; nay, to have existed for a time greater than any assignable
time, which is the only way in which our thoughts can approach the
eternal. But is it equally easy to conceive a dead universe to have
existed in the same way during immeasurable ages? Is a dead universe
a fully conditioned universe? For, regarding the laws of the universe
as those laws according to which the intelligences of the universe
are conditioned by the Governor thereof, can we conceive a dead
universe to exist permanently without some being to be conditioned?
Is not this something without meaning, an unreality—a make-believe?
And if it be said that under these circumstances the conception in
any form of immeasurable ages of time is unreal, we may reply by
granting it, and asserting that in such a case we are driven not
merely from the fully conditioned to the partially conditioned,
but even to the unconditioned; in other words, the hypothesis of
a permanently dead universe would hardly appear to satisfy the
principle of Continuity, which prefers to proceed from one form of
the fully conditioned to another. Nor is the difficulty removed by
the hypothesis that the matter of the unseen universe was always in
some simple sense alive, and that the motions of its various elements
were always accompanied with a very simple species of consciousness,
much more simple and rudimentary than any life that we know of here.
For to this it may be replied, how is it possible to conceive that
life has remained in this rudimentary form through a past eternity,
and only developed into intelligence since the production of the
visible universe?
219. For the benefit of our readers we shall now endeavour to review
as clearly as we can the point at which we have arrived, and the
steps which have brought us to it.
It will be remembered that in our definition (Art. 54) we agreed to
look upon the Creator—the Absolute One, as conditioning the universe,
confining the term universe to that which is conditioned. Thus we
conceive a stone to be in the universe, we conceive a man to be in
the universe, and to work in it, but we conceive Absolute Deity to
be above the universe rather than to work in it in any way analogous
to that in which a man works in it. Would there not be a confusion
of thought if we regarded the same Person as conditioning and yet
conditioned? Now, what the principle of Continuity demands is an
endless development of the conditioned. We claim it as the heritage
of intelligence that there shall be an endless vista, reaching from
eternity to eternity, in each link of which we shall be led only from
one form of the conditioned to another, never from the conditioned to
the unconditioned or absolute, which would be to us no better than
an impenetrable intellectual barrier. It has also been seen that in
this endless chain of conditioned existence we cannot be satisfied
with a make-believe universe, or one consisting only of dead matter,
but prefer a living intelligent universe, in other words, one
fully conditioned. Finally, our argument has led us to regard the
production of the visible universe as brought about by an intelligent
agency residing in the unseen.
220. We have arrived at this result from general principles, and
without any definite theory as to the _modus operandi_ of the
intelligent developing agency which resides in the unseen universe.
When we keep to well-ascertained principles we are on solid ground,
but when we speculate on the method by which the development is
accomplished we enter a very different region, where the chances are
greatly against our particular hypothesis representing the truth.
Nevertheless, _for the sake of bringing our ideas in a concrete form
before the reader, and for this purpose only_, we will now adopt a
definite hypothesis.[59] Let us begin by supposing an intelligent
agent in the present visible universe,—that is to say a man—to be
developing vortex-rings—smoke-rings, let us imagine. Now, these
smoke-rings are found to act upon one another, just as if they were
things or existences; nevertheless their existence is ephemeral, they
last only a few seconds. But let us imagine them to constitute the
grossest possible form of material existence. Now, each smoke-ring
has in it a multitude of smaller particles of air and smoke, each of
these particles being the molecules of which the present visible
universe is composed. These molecules are of a vastly more refined
and delicate organisation than the large smoke-ring; they have lasted
many millions of years, and will perhaps last many millions more.
Nevertheless, let us imagine that they had a beginning, and that they
will also come to an end similar to that of the smoke-ring. In fact,
just as the smoke-ring was developed out of ordinary molecules, so
let us imagine ordinary molecules to be developed as vortex-rings
out of something much finer and more subtle than themselves, which
we have agreed to call the invisible universe. But we may pursue the
same train of thought still further back, and imagine the entities
which constitute the invisible universe immediately preceding ours to
be in themselves ephemeral, although not nearly to the same extent as
the atoms of our universe, and to have been formed in their turn as
vortex-rings out of some still subtler and more enduring substance.
In fine, there is no end to such a process, but we are led on from
rank to rank of the order imagined by Dr. Thomas Young, or by
Professor Jevons, when he says that ‘the smallest particle of solid
substance may consist of a vast number of systems united in regular
order, each bounded by the other, communicating with it in some
manner yet wholly incomprehensible.’ Our meaning will be made clear
by the following diagram.
Here (0) denotes the evanescent smoke-ring, (1) the visible universe,
(2) the invisible universe immediately anterior to the present, (3)
that of the next order, and so on.
Again, (0) is developed out of (1); (1) is developed out of (2); (2)
out of (3); (3) out of (4), and so on. Further, (1) both precedes and
follows (0) in point of duration, while (2) bears a similar relation
to (1), (3) to (2), and so on.
[Illustration: (Five concentric rings marked 0 to 4)]
Again, the material substance of (0) is a phenomenon of that of (1),
that of (1) a phenomenon of that of (2), and so on. Go back as far
as we choose, we are only led from one phenomenon to another; so
that, as far as their essential nature is concerned, all are equally
phenomenal, and the mind cannot repose in any order as its ultimate
haven of thought, but is driven inexorably forward to look for
something different.
We see too, that, as far as energy is concerned, that of (1) is
greater than that of (0), inasmuch as (1) develops (0), that of
(2) greater than that of (1), inasmuch as (2) develops (1), and so
on. Therefore, if we go infinitely far back, we shall be led to a
universe possessing infinite energy, and of which the intelligent
developing agency possesses infinite energy.
It will also be seen that, inasmuch as all these various orders exist
together at the present moment, the energy of their sum must be
infinite, and this energy will never come to an end. In other words,
the Great Whole is infinite in energy, and will last from eternity to
eternity.
[If merely to prevent, in future, the possibility of a mistake
which has already been made by some of our critics, including even
Professor Clifford, it may be well to sketch here very briefly
another and quite different concrete illustration of our idea.
Just as points are the terminations of lines, lines the boundaries of
surfaces, and surfaces the boundaries of portions of space of three
dimensions:—so we may suppose our (essentially three-dimensional)
matter to be the mere skin or boundary of an Unseen whose matter
has _four_ dimensions. And, just as there is a peculiar molecular
difference between the surface-film and the rest of a mass of
liquid—wherever such a surface-film exists, even in the smallest
air-bubble—so the matter of our present universe may be regarded as
produced by mere rents or cracks in that of the Unseen. But this may
itself consist of four-dimension boundaries of the five-dimensional
matter of a higher Unseen, and so on. We might even try to explain
by this how it is that so very little of the nature of definite
description of the Unseen is given, even by a learned man like
Paul—for the notion of four dimensions would have been totally
unintelligible to any one eighteen hundred years ago. And just as
he says he heard in the third heaven ‘unspeakable words which it is
not possible for a man to utter,’ so he may have seen things which
language was incompetent to describe. But on this hypothesis, as
on the former, reflection leads us to the ultimate conception of
an infinite series of Universes, each depending on another, and
possessing of course among them an infinite store of energy.]
Before concluding this article we would desire to reply to two
objections which have been made to our book. It has been alleged by
some that we advocate the doctrine of the past eternity of stuff or
material. We therefore take this opportunity of stating that the
Principle of Continuity as upheld by us has reference solely to the
intellectual faculties. We are led, for instance, by this principle
to assert that the process of production of the visible universe must
have been of such a nature as to be comprehensible more or less to
the higher intelligences of the universe.
But we are not led to assert the eternity of stuff or matter, for
that would denote an unauthorised application to the invisible
universe of the experimental law of the conservation of matter, which
belongs entirely to the present system of things. Again, it has been
objected that we advocate an ethereal future state. To this we reply
that our principles do not lead us to assert that the ether must
play some important part in our future bodies, for our knowledge
of things is vastly too limited to enable us to come to any such
conclusion.
221. Let us here pause for a moment and consider the position into
which science has brought us. We are led by scientific logic to an
unseen, and by scientific analogy to the spirituality of this unseen.
In fine, our conclusion is, that the visible universe has been
developed by an intelligence resident in the Unseen.
Of the nature of this intelligent agency we are profoundly ignorant
as far as Science is concerned. So far as Science can inform us, it
may consist of a multitude of beings, as the Gnostics have supposed,
or of one Supreme Intelligence, as is generally believed by the
followers of Christ. As scientific men we are absolutely ignorant of
the subject. Nor can we easily conceive information to be attainable
except by means of some trustworthy communication between the beings
resident in the Unseen and ourselves. It is absolutely and utterly
hopeless to expect any light on this point from mere scientific
reasoning. Can scientific reasoning tell us what kind of life we
shall find in the interior of Africa, or in New Guinea, or at the
North Pole, before explorers have been there, and if this be so, is
it not utterly absurd to imagine that we can know anything regarding
the spiritual inhabitants of the unseen, unless we either go to them
or they come to us?
It is therefore of supreme importance for us to know whether there
has been any such communication. It would be affectation in us not to
say that if there be any such trustworthy communication, we believe
it will be found in the Christian records.
It has been said to us by our critics, ‘What have you to do with
these records?’ To this we reply, Not perhaps so much as a professed
theologian, but still something.
There is a well-known record, which claims to give us the history
of a communication with the spiritual intelligences of the unseen.
If true, it must of course teach us many things which science is
utterly incompetent to reveal. Nevertheless it is the object of
this book to prove that science alone gives us by logic and analogy
combined a certain insight into this most interesting and mysterious
region. Working our way upwards, we have reached by the principle
of Continuity certain regions. Working their way downwards, the
Christian records have reached these same regions of thought. Now
if our scientific logic be correct, and if the Christian records be
trustworthy, we should expect the two accounts of this common region
to be consistent with one another.
Let us here therefore inquire what the Christian records say
regarding this mysterious, infinitely energetic, intelligent
developing agency residing _in_ the universe, and therefore in some
sense conditioned, to which we have been led by scientific analogy.
222. These records, as they are interpreted by the majority of the
disciples of Christ, are believed to lead to a conception of the
Godhead, in which there is a plurality of persons but a unity of
substance. It ought, however, to be remembered that here the word
_person_ does not mean the same thing as it does when applied to
ourselves, but only denotes some distinction which may be regarded as
best expressed by this word. _Our_ idea of person or individual is
derived solely from our experience in the position which we occupy in
the universe.
The first Person in this Trinity, God the Father, is represented as
the unapproachable Creator—the Being in virtue of whom all things
exist.
Thus it is said (John i. 18), ‘No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.’
Again, Paul tells us (Rom. xi. 36), ‘For of him and through him and
to him are all things.’ Also (1 Cor. viii. 6), ‘But to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him (εἰς
αὐτόν); and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by
him.’
Also (Eph. iv. 6), ‘One God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in all.’ Also (1 Timothy vi. 16), ‘Who only hath
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
whom no man hath seen, nor can see.’
223. Again, of the second Person of the Trinity we are told, in
addition to what we gather from the expressions just quoted (John i.
1), ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was
made.’
Again (2 Cor. v. 10): ‘For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ.’
Again (Col. i. 15): ‘Who is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of every creature: for in him were all things created that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.’
Again (Heb. i. 1): ‘God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners,
spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of
all things, by whom also he made the worlds.’
224. It is, we believe, a prevalent idea among theologians that
these passages indicate, in the first place, the existence of an
unapproachable Creator—the unconditioned One who is spoken of as God
the Father; and that they also indicate the existence of another
Being of the same substance as the Father, but different in person,
who has agreed to develop the will of the Father, and thus in some
mysterious sense to submit to conditions and to enter into the
universe.[60] The relation of this Being to the Father is expressed
in Hebrews[61] in the words of the Psalmist, ‘Then said I, Lo, I
come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do
thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.’ In fine, such
a Being would represent that conditioned, yet infinitely powerful
developing agent, to which the universe, objectively considered,
appears to lead up. His work is twofold, for, in the first place, he
develops the various universes or orders of being; and secondly, in
some mysterious way He becomes Himself the type and pattern of each
order, the representative of Deity, so far as the beings of that
order can comprehend, especially manifesting such divine qualities as
could not otherwise be intelligibly presented to their minds.
Such a being is therefore, in virtue of His office, the King of
angels and ruler of the invisible universe, and to him the term Lord
in the poem of Job is supposed to apply (Job i. 6): ‘Now there was a
day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,
and Satan came also among them.’
225. It would thus appear that what may be termed the Christian
theory of development has a twofold aspect, a descent and an
ascent; the descent of the Son of God through the various grades of
existence, and the consequent ascent of the intelligences of each led
up by him to a higher level,—a stooping on the part of the developing
Being, in order that there may be a mounting up on the part of the
developed. Thus it is said (John iii. 13), ‘And no man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
which is in heaven.’ Again (Eph. iv. 9): ‘Now that he ascended, what
is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the
earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above
all heavens, that he might fill all things.’
226. It is naturally in accordance with these views that the Angelic
Host should be represented as taking an intelligent interest, even
if they did not, as the Gnostics thought, take an active part, in
the creation of the visible universe. Thus the Lord is represented
as asking Job (Job xxxviii. 4), ‘Where wast thou when I laid the
foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who
hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations
thereof fastened? or who laid the corner-stone thereof, when the
morning-stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?’
227. It is also in accordance with these views that the same
hierarchy should take an intelligent interest in the life of Christ.
Thus we read (Luke ii. 13), ‘And suddenly there was with the angel a
multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God
in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.’ And again
(1 Timothy iii. 16): ‘And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.’
228. It will be remarked that the views which we have now put before
our readers have been developed more especially from the objective
point of view, and that our reasoning has been founded on the
principle of Continuity as applied to the outward universe. In truth
we seem to get a much firmer and more tangible hold on the objective
element of the universe, that is to say, on energy (Art. 103), than
we can on intelligence and life. For if we approach our individual
consciousness it is very manifest that we have no well-founded
principle wherewith to guide our speculations similar to the
principle of Continuity; for this, if we had it, would at once inform
us whether the doctrine of immortality is true or false.
We know very well that the universe will remain after we are laid
in the grave, but some of us are not equally certain whether we
ourselves shall then continue to exist.
Thus there appears to be a difficulty which we see at present no
means of surmounting in dealing with individual consciousness. But
while the continuance of individual life is enveloped in mystery,
it is believed that we have obtained hold of a general principle
regarding the distribution of life not greatly inferior in breadth
and generality to the law of Continuity. We mean the principle
that life proceeds from life, or, to speak more accurately, that a
conditioned living thing proceeds only from a conditioned living
thing. That dead matter cannot produce a living organism is the
universal experience of the most eminent physiologists.[62] In
fact, the law of Biogenesis is justly regarded by Professor Huxley
and others as the great principle underlying all the phenomena of
organised existence.
Professor Roscoe, again, approaching the subject from the chemical
point of view, says, speaking of red blood corpuscles, ‘We have not
been able, and the evidence at present rather goes to show that there
is not much hope of our being able, to construct these granules
artificially; and the question is in this position, that so far as
science has progressed at present we have not been able to obtain
any organism without the intervention of some sort of previously
existing germ.’
229. If we assume the truth of this principle it appears to lead us
directly to infer that life is not merely a species of energy, or
a phenomenon of matter. For we have seen (Art. 103) that the great
characteristic of all energy is its transmutability—its Protean power
of passing from one form to another. We may no doubt produce large
quantities of electricity by means of an electrified nucleus, but we
can do the same without any such nucleus—we can make unlimited steel
magnets by the help of one piece of loadstone, but we can do this
even more effectually by means of a galvanic battery—we may produce
fire from a spark, but we can obtain it without a spark.
Life, however, can be produced from life only, and this law would
seem to give an indication that the solution of the mystery is not
to be found by considering life as merely a species of energy. It is
some time since we gave up the idea that life could generate energy;
it now seems that we must give up the idea that energy can generate
life.
230. In preceding chapters we have given our readers a sketch of the
methods according to which men of science imagine that evolution has
been carried out in the universe of energy and in that of life. In
both worlds the principle of Continuity requires that in endeavouring
to account for the origin of phenomena we shall not resort to the
hypothesis of separate creations, that we shall not pass over from
the conditioned to the unconditioned; and Darwin, Wallace, and
their followers have, as we have shown, endeavoured to prove that
processes still pursued by nature are sufficient in a great measure,
if not entirely, to account for the present development of organised
existence without the necessity of resorting to separate creations.
Darwin especially imagines that all the present organisms, including
man, may have been derived by the process of natural selection from
a single primordial germ. When, however, the backward process has
reached this germ, an insuperable difficulty presents itself. How was
this germ produced? All really scientific experience tells us that
life can be produced from a living antecedent only; what then was the
antecedent of this germ? Hypotheses have no doubt been started, but
we cannot regard them in any other light than as an acknowledgment of
a difficulty which cannot be overcome. We appear to have reached an
impenetrable barrier similar to that which stood in our way when we
contemplated the production of the visible universe. And precisely
as we felt compelled by the logic of scientific process to deal with
this first barrier, so we must likewise assert for ourselves with
becoming reverence a similar freedom of action in dealing with the
second. Therefore, if life be one of the things of the universe,
if the assumption of a creation of life in time be inadmissible,
and if it be contrary to all experience to allow the possibility
of the production of life from antecedents not possessing life,
we are entitled, even in such a case as the present, to make use
of this conclusion derived from experience, and are thus forced
to contemplate an antecedent possessing life and giving life to
this primordial germ,—an antecedent in the universe, not out of
it,—conditioned, not unconditioned. Now, what is the meaning of this
conclusion? In the first place, it does not mean that the antecedent
to the primordial germ must be a like germ, for we know from
experience that while life is always produced from life, like is by
no means always produced from like. In this case more especially the
living antecedent must be in the invisible universe, and therefore
altogether different from the germ.
231. If we now turn once more to the Christian system, we find that
it recognises such an antecedent as an agent in the universe. He is
styled the Lord, and Giver of Life. The third Person of the Trinity
is regarded in this system as working in the universe, and therefore
in some sense as conditioned. One of His functions consists in
distributing and developing this principle of life, which we are
forced to regard as one of the things of the universe; just as the
second Person of the Trinity is regarded as developing the objective
phenomena of the universe. Thus one has entered from everlasting into
the universe, in order to develop it objectively, while the other has
also entered from everlasting into the universe, in order to develop
its subjective elements, life and intelligence.
Thus we read (Gen. i. 2), ‘And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters;’ implying, we may imagine, a
peculiar operation of this Spirit preceding the advent of life into
the world. Again, when in the fulness of time, Christ, the developing
agent, made His appearance here, and submitted to the trammels of
a human nature, this appearance was preceded by an operation of the
same Spirit.
232. It may here be desirable to discuss somewhat fully the position
of life in the universe, as we are constrained to view it in virtue
of the scientifically established principles of biogenesis.
If then the matter of this present visible universe be not capable of
itself, that is to say, in virtue of the forces and qualities with
which it has been endowed, of generating life; but if we must look
to the unseen universe for the origin of life, this would appear to
show that the peculiar collocation of matter which accompanies the
operations of life is not a mere grouping of particles of the visible
universe, but implies likewise some peculiarity in the connection
of these with the unseen universe. May it not denote in fact some
peculiarity of structure extending to the unseen?
In fine, to go a step further, may not life denote a peculiarity
of structure which is handed over not merely from one stage to
another—from the invisible to the visible—but which rises upwards
from the very lowest structural depths of the material of the
universe, this material being regarded as possessed of an infinitely
complex structure such as we have pictured to our readers in a
previous part of this chapter (Art. 220).
If we suppose any such peculiarity to accompany life we cannot fail
at once to see the impossibility of its originating in the visible
universe alone.
233. Again, it is well known to many of our readers that discussions
have frequently arisen regarding the peculiar place and function of
life in the universe. What is its relation to energy? it certainly
does not create energy—what then does it do?
One way of replying to this question is indicated in the following
passage, which we quote at length from an article on ‘The Atomic
Theory of Lucretius,’ in the _North British Review_ for March 1868:—
‘It is a principle of mechanics that a force acting at right
angles to the direction in which a body is moving does no work,
although it may continually and continuously alter the direction
in which the body moves. No power, no energy, is required to
deflect a bullet from its path, provided the deflecting force
acts always at right angles to that path....
‘If you believe in free-will and in atoms, you have two courses
open to you. The first alternative may be put as follows:
Something which is not atoms must be allowed an existence, and
must be supposed capable of acting on the atoms. The atoms may,
as Democritus believed, build up a huge mechanical structure,
each wheel of which drives its neighbour in one long inevitable
sequence of causation; but you may assume that beyond this
ever-grinding wheelwork there exists a power not subject to but
partly master of the machine; you may believe that man possesses
such a power, and if so, no better conception of the manner of
its action could be devised than the idea of its deflecting the
atoms in their onward path to the right or left of that line in
which they would naturally move. The will, if it so acted, would
add nothing sensible to nor take anything sensible from the
energy of the universe. The modern believer in free-will will
probably adopt this view, which is certainly consistent with
observation, although not proved by it. Such a power of moulding
circumstances, of turning the torrent to the right, where it
shall fertilise, or to the left, where it shall overwhelm, but
in nowise of arresting the torrent, adding nothing to it, taking
nothing from it,—such is precisely the apparent action of man’s
will; and though we must allow that possibly the deflecting
action does but result from some smaller subtler stream of
circumstance, yet if we may trust to our direct perception of
free-will, the above theory, involving a power in man beyond that
of atoms, would probably be our choice....
‘We cannot hope that natural science will ever lend the least
assistance towards answering the Free-will and Necessity
question. The doctrines of the indestructibility of matter and
of the conservation of energy seem at first sight to help the
Necessitarians, for they might argue that if free-will acts
it must add something to or take something from the physical
universe, and if experiment shows that nothing of the kind
occurs, away goes free-will; but this argument is worthless,
for if mind or will simply deflects matter as it moves, it may
produce all the consequences claimed by the Wilful school, and
yet it will neither add energy nor matter to the universe.’
234. Now there appears to us to be a very serious objection to
this mode of regarding the position of life, unless it be somewhat
modified. Let us take one of the visible masses of this present
universe, such as a planet. Suppose for a moment that instead of
being attracted to a fixed and visible centre of force such as
the sun, it is bound to an invisible and vagrant centre, the only
condition imposed upon whose irregularities is that it shall always
move in such a manner that there shall be neither creation nor
destruction of energy.
We have only to imagine for a moment such a universe in order to
realise the inextricable confusion into which its intelligent
inhabitants would be plunged by the operation of a viewless and
unaccountable agency of this nature. No doubt the hypothesis
regarding life, which we have quoted above, limits this mode of
action to the molecular motions of matter, but if our line of
argument has been followed throughout, the reader will probably
acknowledge that the superior intelligences of the universe may
have the same appretiation of molecular motions that we have of
those of large masses. Now they would in turn be put to inextricable
confusion by the advent of an unperceivable, and, from the nature of
the case, irresponsible force entitled _will_ operating towards the
deflection of these molecular motions, even although the energy of
the universe should remain the same. We think that Professor Huxley
and some others who have opposed this mode of regarding the position
of life have been somewhat unjustly blamed. They have driven the
operation of the mystery called life or will out of the objective
universe, out of that portion of things which is capable of being
scientifically studied by intelligence, and in so doing they have
most assuredly done right. The mistake made (whether by this party or
by their adversaries) lies in imagining that by such a process they
completely get rid of a thing so driven before them, and that it thus
disappears from the universe altogether. It does no such thing. It
merely disappears from that small circle of light which we may call
the universe of scientific perception.
But the greater the circle of light (to adopt the words of Dr.
Chalmers), the greater the circumference of darkness, and the mystery
which has been driven before us looms in the darkness that surrounds
this circle, growing more mysterious and more tremendous as the
circumference is increased. In fine, we have already remarked that
the position of the scientific man is to clear a space before him
from which all mystery shall be driven away, and in which there shall
be nothing but matter and energy subject to certain definite laws
which he can comprehend. There are however three great mysteries
(a trinity of mysteries) which elude, and will for ever elude, his
grasp, and these will persistently hover around the border of this
cleared and illuminated circle,—they are the mystery of the soul’s
domicile, in other words, of the universe objectively viewed; the
mystery of life and intelligence; and the mystery of God,—and these
three are one.
235. But in this latter statement we have transgressed the limits of
our inquiry, and are content to be driven back. Suffice it to say
that these three gigantic mysteries will persistently hover around
the illuminated circle, or, to speak more properly, the illuminated
sphere of scientific thought, of which duration, extension, and
structural complexity may be regarded as the three independent
co-ordinates in terms of each of which the process of development
goes on simultaneously as the boundary of the sphere is enlarged.
Within this sphere we have only that which can be grasped by Physical
Science, but we are not therefore to infer that matter and the laws
of matter have a reality and a permanence denied to intelligence.
It is rather because they are at the bottom of the list—are in fact
the simplest and lowest of the three—that they are capable of being
most readily grasped by the finite intelligences of the universe.
The following words of Professor Stokes, in his presidential address
to the British Association at Exeter, occur to us as very clearly
embodying this thought:—
‘Admitting to the full as highly probable, though not completely
demonstrated, the applicability to living beings of the laws
which have been ascertained with reference to dead matter, I
feel constrained at the same time to admit the existence of a
mysterious _something_ lying beyond, a something _sui generis_,
which I regard, not as balancing and suspending the ordinary
physical laws, but as working with them and through them to the
attainment of a designed end. What this _something_ which we call
life may be is a profound mystery.... When from the phenomena
of life we pass on to those of mind, we enter a region still
more profoundly mysterious. We can readily imagine that we _may_
here be dealing with phenomena altogether transcending those
of mere life, in some such way as those of life transcend, as
I have endeavoured to infer, those of chemistry and molecular
attractions, or as the laws of chemical affinity in their turn
transcend those of mere mechanics. Science can be expected to do
but little to aid us here, since the instrument of research is
itself the object of investigation. It can but enlighten us as to
the depths of our ignorance, and lead us to look to a higher aid
for that which most nearly concerns our well-being.’
236. In fine, the physical properties of matter form the alphabet
which is put into our hands by God, the study of which will, if
properly conducted, enable us more perfectly to read that Great Book
which we call the Universe.
We have begun to recognise some of the chief letters of this
alphabet, and even to put them two and two together; and, like an
intelligent but somewhat conceited child, we are very proud of our
achievement. Like such a child we have not yet, however, completely
grasped the fact that these letters are only symbols, but look upon
them with intense awe as the great thing in the world, meaning of
course our world. We look with a sort of adoration towards those
pages in which there are words of two syllables, and are ready
to fall down at the feet of that older and wiser child who has
penetrated into the depths of such profound mysteries. Our belief
is that all knowledge is made for the alphabet just as the little
musician believes that all music is made for the piano.
237. Life, then, whatever be its nature, may be supposed to penetrate
into the structural depths of the universe. Its seat is in a region
inaccessible to human inquiry, and equally inaccessible, we may
well suppose, to the inquiries of the higher created intelligences.
Intimations of its presence are no doubt constantly emerging from
this region of thick darkness into the objective universe, but when
they have reached it they obey the ordinary laws of phenomena,
according to which a material effect implies a material antecedent.
Notwithstanding all this, life exists just as surely as the Deity
exists. For we have subjected both these mysteries to the same
process, and have found it as difficult to rid ourselves of the one
as of the other.