The Open Court.



Entered at the Chicago Post-Office as Second-Class Matter.

Vou. I. No. 16. CHICAGO, SEPTEMBER 15, 1887. { Three Dollars por Year.

Single Copies, 15 cts.



Some Relations of Science to and Progress. Part lI.

G. Gore, LL.D., F.R.S.. .421 Are we Products of Mind? Part I. Edmund ‘Montgomery, M.D...428 The Positive Virtues. PartI. Prof. Thomas Davidson The Mystery of Pain in a New Light. XenosClark............. Monistic Mental Science. S. V. Clevenger, M.D Free Thoughts. Felix L.Oswald,M.D

EDITORIALS. The Old and New Phrenology


Through What Historical Channels did Buddhism Influence Early Christianity? Part III. Concluded. Gen.J.G. R.Forlong.....


Thought Without Words. Correspondence between Francis Galton, the Duke of Argyll, Mr. Hyde Clarke, Mr. T. Mellard Reade, S. F. M. Q. and Max Muller ve

CORRESPONDENCE. The Ethical Movement in England. William Clarke James Parton on Labor Cranks Again Goethe and Schiller’s Xenions. A Criticism. W. F. Barnard Dr. Carus’ Reply


Unrevealed. Helen T. Clark Magnanimity. Sara A. Underwood.............................05.


Facts and Fictions of Mental Healing. Charles M. Barrows

Christian Science Pamphlets and Recent Literature on Mind Cure.447 Vorfragen der Ethik. Dr. Christoph Sigwart

Sketch of a New Utilitarianism. W. Douw Lighthall, M.A., B.C.L.447 The Monk’s Wedding. Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

The Scientific Basis of Progress. G. Gore, LL.D., F.R.S............. 447 Review of the Evidences of Christianity. ‘Abner Kneeland

The Bible, what is It? The Divinity of Christ. J.D. Shaw

Periodicals. The Art Amateur.—The Revue de Belgique ..........448



I like the paper. It is good. Albany, N. Y.

I like your paper very much. J. E. Sutton, Olathe, Kan.

I was a subscriber to the Zudex from the first to the last number. AsI like Tue Oren Court as well, if not better, shall probably continue.—Jas. G. Ricuarpson, Lake City, Minn.

I wish it every success.—THos, DUGAN,

A great improvement even on The Index.—

Sample copies of THe Oren Court have reached us, and we are much pleased with your publication. It only needs to be brought to the attention of the public to insure its suc ess.—H. L. Stewart, Norwalk, O.

The next number of THz Open Court will find me in New Bedford again. I go back much improved in health, and shall resume my parish work again on Sunday, the 18th, with good hcpe of being able to continue it.— W. J. Potter, Sugar Hill, N. H.

Your mid-August issue of Tuk Open Court is a splendid number. Max Miiller, Reville, Proctor! Names that stand for all that is highest and best in the wor!d of science and letters. I wish Tne Oren Court long life and abundant success.—J. T. Forp, Independence, Ore.

This [No. 15] is decidedly the best number, both on the practical side, as shown by Mrs. Underwood, Flora McDonald and ‘* Wheelbarrow,” and on the speculative one, where great originality is shown by Conway, Gunning and Gen, Forlong. The argument that Christianity came from Buddhism has now become irresistible.—F. M. H.

I want a journal which can find weighty reasons for right living without going out of this world in search of them, and which can find the Good Being within the universe, and not outside of it. Monism and Unitarianism should mean the same thing in fact, as they do etymologically.—Rrv. PERRY Mar- SHALL, Stowe, Vt.

Dr. Clevenger, in the last Open Court, premises to give us some relief from the dreary, Dismal Swamp, German and Texas metaphysics which I have from the beginning feared would be a millstone round the neck of your enter- pr-se. As much earthly physics as you please, and that of the monistic kind, but relegate metaphysics to the clouds where it belongs.—A. B. BRADFORD. Enon Valley, Pa,

I think well of Tue Open Court. Mr. Conway’s chat with his old philosophic friend, the chimpanzee, was quite interesting. I think it would harm no one to read Wheelbarrow twice. Professor Max Miiller is a study— right or wrong. Every number of Tot Open Court has lessons enough for a fortnight.—Cuas, Nasu, Worcester, Mass.

G. V. Gizycki, a German philosopher, who writes from time to time letters on the latest philosophical literature to the Deutsche Rundschau, mentioned in his last (August number of this magazine) Harris’s Fcurnal of Speculative Philosophy as the only philosophical journal in America. I wrote him yester- day drawing his attention to Tuk OrEN Court, and mail to-day No. 13 to his address.—Jos. BRUCKER, Medford, Wis.

* * * Tue Oren Court, one of the most philosophical and scientific trea- tises on ethics, morality and the proper life to live that it has been my good fort- une to find in the literary field. It attempts to lift religion from the filthy quag- mire of corruption and_krst for power and wealth into which Christian priests and their dupes have dragged it; but this effort will be futile, because religion is naturally the common enemy of mankind, and the sooner it is banished from the earth the better it will be for the welfare of humanity and the honor of the universe.—P. V, Wisg, Newark, N. J.

Number 10 of THe Oren Court, re-mailed at my request, has come to ‘hand. The casual delay of its reception has not made its contents stale. Mrs. Underwood’s poem, “I Do Not Know,” isa tid-bit. There is not a werd of it from which I can dissent, and as a whole it accords with my own experience touching its subject-matter. The last stanza savors most of hope, though it merely vies with the preceding in expression of natural piety. Is it not ridicu- lous to imagine that a mind capable of such aspiring sentiments may be evanes- cent like a rainbow? Is it possible that the ‘‘ Power’? which evolves condign personalities has no longer use for them than is manifest during their tempo- rary earthly careers? What enables the author of this poem to say bravely, “Yet death I tear not,” is her instinctive belief in the absolute propitiousness of human destiny. Moreover, it is her apprehension, however unconscious it be, of what her avowal implies reflectively, that blandishes the dubious thought—* But should immortal life, my friend, be ours, I shall be glad as you.” So wilf every virtuous liver say. And who or wha# but the author of human niture makes all worthy livers wish to live forever ?—not here, indeed, but in some probable fairer clime of endless consciousness. Does he, she or it— the ineffable ‘‘ Power that makes for righteousness ’’—mean only to tantalize the most grateful of conscious livers? If not, then what surer pledge of our immortal destiny is possible than this innate desire? Let us always cherish good old common sense; but in so doing we need not a/ways turn a deaf ear to the hardly yudible voice of uncommon sense; e. g. ‘‘ He that keepeth my say- ing.”’ solil »quized Jesus, *‘ will never see death,”” How so? Because in reality there is no death among the living. The phenomenon so designated is better

conceived as the translation of immortal personality to a region of higher life.— GeorGe STEARNS, Rockbottom, Mass.

The August 18th Orpen Court continues Max Milller’s “Simplicity of Thought,” Part II, followed by Part I of Separation of Church and State,” ‘Breadth and Earnestness,”’ Aristocratic Protestuntism,”’ “Science of the New Church,” editorials, essays, correspondence on many important topics, poetry and book reviews. THe Open Court is a thoroughly interesting and instructive periodical.—Sunday Democrat-Gazette, Davenport, Ia.


( te measure; 14 lines to the inch, 126 lines to the column.)

For each insertion, without choice 6f position: in narrow column, 10 cents per line; in wide column, 15 cents per line. :

For each insertion, without choice of position: one column (narrow), $12; one column (wide), $16; one page, $30.

For specified position, 20 per cent. will be added to the regular rates.

Discounts on advertisements continuing for three months or more, or amounting to or exceeding $100, and rates to publishers negotiating directly with THE OPEN Court, can be obtained on application. ,

Tue Open Court is sent free to advertisers while their advertisements continue.



> Furry ‘.’ Cents °.°

Six numbers of THE AMERICAN ART MAGAZINE will be sent to any address, post-paid, for FIFTY CENTS.

In these numbers are OVER TWO HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS by the leading American Artists, and a score of articles on Art Topics by prom- inent writers. Among the full page illustrations in these numbers are— Abbott Graves,

Paul Rajou. Walter Shirlaw. W. L. Taylor. M. L. D. Watson, Charles Volkmar.

Roses—Photogravure, : : - : PORTRAIT OF WHISTLER, - . : *‘Goop MORNING,” - - - - + Cape Breton, FisHer Boy—Photogravure, StupDIES OF CHILDREN, - - - - Ducxs—Etching, - - - - - And many others. #*sThis is the best offer ever made by any periodical in this country. This American Art Magazine is published monthly. Yearly subscription, $2.50. Single numbers, 25 cents.



Bucuanan’s JourRNAL oF Man.


Dr.J.R. BUCHANAN, 6 James Sr., Boston.


‘‘He stands at the head of the thinkers of this nation, and has given to the topics with which he regales his readers his best thoughts.”—Go/den Gate (San Francisco). : p>:

“No brief notice would convey a good idea of the worth of this magazine. —Richmond (Mo.) Democrat. :

““ His monthly is one of rare merits, as is everything that comes from the pen of this advanced thinker.” —Aostrum, (Vineland, N. F.

‘Several years ago the Advance, in an article on Psychometry, expr¢ ssed the opinion that Dr. Buchanan was the greatest discoverer of this age, if not of any age of the world.”—Advance, (Worthington, pone) P ;

“Tt is a gold mine for thoughtful persons.”"—Deutsche Zeitung, (Charles- ton, E. C.) , 4 ev

“Dr, Buchanan’s name has been so intimately associated with the fore- most moral, educational, medical and political reforms which have agitated ~ public mind for the last half century, that the mention of it in connection w1 the foregoing publication under the old-time name will doubtless draw to it an extensive patronage.”"—Hall’s Fournal of Health ( New York). ;

“His method is strictly scientific. “* * * We rejoice that they are - the hands of one who is so well qualified as the editor of the Fournal to : them justice, both by his indomitable spirit of research, his cautious analysis © facts and his power of exact and vigorous expression.” —New York Tribune. 7

“No person of common discernment who has read Dr, Buchanan's writ- ings or conversed with him in relation to the —_— which they treat can have failed to recognize in him one of the foremost thinkers of the day. He is tainly one of the most charming and instructive men to whom anybody ee} On thirst for high speculation ever listened.”—Lonisville Fournal (edited ©) Prentice and Shipman).

The Open Court.



Vou. I. No. 16.


{ Three Dollars per Year. ) Single Copies, 15 cts.


In an address delivered in Birmingham at the unveil- ing of the statue of Sir Josiah Mason, Sir John Lub- bock correctly remarked that it is not “merely in a material point of view that science would benefit this nation. She will raise and strengthen the national as surely as the individual character.” In illustration of this statement I would gladly be permitted to make the following remarks, with the object of showing that our moral character is being strengthened by a general recognition of scientific laws as a foundation of the chief rules of moral conduct.

It is commonly believed that moral actions are alto- gether unaffected by scientific conditions; that science has little or no connection with morality, that it can shed no light upon the questions of the freedom of the human will, the origin of sin and evil, etc., and that moral phenomena cannot be scientifically investigated, but must be examined by other methods than those usu- ally employed by scientific researchers.

While earnestly wishing not to disturb the cherished beliefs of other persons, I venture to say that moral phenomena have relations to physical and chemical ones, and are capable of being scientifically investigated, and that the chief rules of morality have a scientific foundation. It is well known that the moral faculties are capable of ‘being strongly affected by a physical shock to the brain, by intoxicating liquors, drugs, etc., and that by placing temptations before persons experi- ments may be made on their morality. That the physi- cal state of poverty is a source of crime, and that of wealth conduces to licentiousness, are also commonly known facts.

The method of scientific research is alike in all sub- jects, - : :

The essential nature of truth, viz., universal consist- ency, or agreement with all known truths, is the same in all subjects, the chief mental powers employed in dis- covering truth are also the same in all inquiries, in morals as in physics and chemistry. There is no easy method or special faculty, call it “conscience” or what we will, which enables us to infallibly arrive at truth in moral questions; we investigate such problems by the

aid of precisely the same intellectual powers and pro- cesses as we do physical and chemical ones, viz., by means of perception, observation, comparison, and in- ference, employed upon the whole of the evidence, by observing facts, comparing them and drawing infer- ences, by analyzing, combining and examining the evi- dence in every possible way, and thus arriving at consis- tent conclusions. What is right and good and what is wrong and evil are determined by precisely the same general mental methods as what is true.

But although in investigating moral questions we must employ the usual intellectual processes we may arrive at correct conduct in two ways, viz., either blindly or intelligently; blindly by trusting to our inherited and acquired tendencies, and intelligently by the conscious use of our knowledge and intellectual powers.

Morality is an art, consisting of rules which are to be followed. At present it is in the empirical or dog- matic state, and has not arrived at the scientific stage or been hitherto recognized as being based upon funda- mental scientific principles. cause they have been found to be good, because we are told to do so, or because it is the custom, and not be- cause the rules are enforced by the divine authority of immutable laws.

Moral phenomena are subject to the law of causation.

The affairs of this world appear to be governed not by what we consider strict rules of justice, but by necessity, i. e., by the fundamental principle of causation and the other great laws of science. According to the scientific view of universal causation, the present state of the universe is a consequence of all its past condi- tions, and its future is all implicitly contained in the present, and will be evolved out of it in accordance with the laws of indestructibility of matter and energy, and the equivalency of forces. Out of nothing, nothing alone cancome. Wecan not create anything, not even an idea. All things are evolved. It has taken ages to evolve our present state of knowledge. We are wonderftilly con- stituted; while each man is all important to himself, and eften acts as if he was the center of ail things, he is but as an atom upon this great globe, and the earth itself is only a minute speck in the universe, one amongst a hundred millions of worlds.

According to the law of causation, whatever is, under the given conditions, must be, Starvation forces

We obey certain rules be-


a man to steal, and our regard for the safety of our property compels us to punish him. Whatever is, also must be, whether it agrees with our ideas of justice or not; if the number of paupers around us was doubled, we should have to pay double poor-rate, whether we helped to produce the increased pauperism or not. Af- flictions visit the saint as well as the sinner, and we have no choice but to remain upon this planet and accept this life with all its pains and penalties.

All animals are as puppets subject to the great physi- cal powers of the universe. About fifteen hundred millions of human beings are carried through space upon the surface of this globe at a rate of about eighty thousand miles an hour, whether they are willing or unwilling; and man is only one out of about three hun- dred and twenty thousand different kinds of living crea- tures; he is also only permitted to live a limited number of years, and his body is then compelled to return as dust to the earth from whence it came. The great number and variety of diseases and accidents to which he is subject, show the narrow limits of his power of resistance to natural influences.

Less important matters must yield to greater ones.

By the unavoidable laws of nature, less important objects are obliged to yield to greater, life of all kinds is ruthlessly sacrificed when more serious interests are at stake. The wholesale destruction of human life and happiness by earthquakes, famines, volcanoes, storms and floods, takes place utterly regardless of the suffer- ings and cries of mankind. The preservation of human life is of less importance than the proper adjustment of terrestrial forces and the operation of great natural laws. By a single earthquake in Java about thirty-two thou- sand persons were killed and multitudes injured, rend- ered homeless and insane; during famines in India, mill- ions of human beings have died in an entirely helpless state by the fearful process of starvation, and the simple list of earthquakes, floods, and famines within historic times would fill a volume. “In Japan earthquakes occur at the _ rate of two a day.” (Nature, Vol. XXXIV, p. 456.) Various religious beliefs, also, which afforded consolation to millions of believers, are gradually being sacrificed to

the fesistless progress of new knowledge, regardless of the mental suffering thus occasioned.* Science, however, has already by means of telegraphs and steam locomo- tion, nearly rendered famines impossible, and will prob-

ably in due time, render more uniform and more consist- ent with truth some of our religious beliefs, and thus harmonize religion itself.

The idea of Evil is essentially human.

Probably, in the view of an infinite intelligence, whatever is, is right, and all that is, is good, but our

*The Parsee priest, who, after having traveled a great distance to worship the “‘ sacred fire’’ at Baku, is shocked to find the object of his devotions sur- rounded by oily derricks, petroleum reservoirs, oil distilleries, the machinery of modern science and a busy manufacturing population.


intelligence is extremely finite, and therefore whatever causes pain, unhappiness, or discomfort to sentient crea- tures, especially to ourselves, we, in the narrowness of our views, call an evil, and he who wilfully does an evil act is termed_a sinner. A volcanic outburst on an uninhabited planet would not be considered an evil, because it would not affect sentient creatures. We fear pain as if it was always an evil, but it is usually a check to wrong conduct and is often of great good in warning us to take care of our life. The endurance of pain often secures to us greater subsequent pleasure. Injuries and benefits are alike due to natural agencies, and pain and evil are results of the same causes as that which is good and pleasant; the same cold atmosphere which kills the feeble, invigorates the strong, the rain falls where we do not as well as where we do require it, the same wind which wafts a ship to port detains the outward bound. All evil and good is relative, and that which is a curse to one man is often a blessing to another; money is a blessing to the wise, but often a curse to the foolish.

The Scientific basis of Rules of Morality.

No one but a person ignorant of science would deny the supremacy of scientific laws over the existence and actions of mankind, or that the principles of science con- stitute a foundation of rules of human conduct. The laws of nature are the commands of God, and are cer- tainly a basis of moral as well as of physical guidance; the first rule of righteousness, 7hat we should do unto another as we would have him do unto us under like circumstances,” is manifestly based upon the great law of causation, viz, that the same cause always produces the same effect under like conditions;” and if this law was uncertain the rule would be unsafe. Herein lies a fundamental and scientific basis of morality, which every teacher of that subject will probably have to study.

The Scientific basis of Life and Consciousness.

That our existence depends upon physical and chem- ical circumstances, is admitted by all intelligent persons; no one will deny that air and warmth are necessary to our existence, or that foods sustain and poisons destroy life. Not only our existence but also our consciousness of existence, depends essentially upon scientific condi- tions, the same fundamental circumstance, viz, inequality of impression which compels a stone to move or a vol- taic couple to produce an electric current, excites a man to feel and think and this non-uniformity of impression as the basis of consciousness and thought is known as “the theory of relativity of impression.” We cannot even think of an event in time or a point in space, with- out reference to some other event or point, without a difference of impression we can distinguish nothing. Time, space and the rapid motion of the earth in its orbit being perfectly uniform in their influence upon us, are not directly perceptible to our senses; and even the pres- sure of the atmosphere while it is uniform is not


perceived. When we wish to lose consciousness and thought, or fall asleep, we exclude as completely as we can all changes of impression, of motion, sound, light, pain and pleasure; unusual and changing impressions prevent slumber.

Scientific necessity consistent with freedom of Will.

The question of freedom of the will is elucidated by science. Man is as truly and probably as completely subject to causation as is a stone ora plant. The human will is not a causeless phenomenon, it is determined by motives, by influences within and around us, potent causes, such as alcohol within, or danger to life from with- out, powerfully affect our volition. If, as is sometimes asserted, volition was a “supernatural power,” experi- ments could not be made upon it by means of alcohol, drugs, etc. We often cannot detect our own motives, because we cannot think and at the same time com- pletely survey our act of thought, the two simultaneous actions in the same organ being incompatible. The freedom of the will is limited, we are only really free when we conform to natural laws, and we are usually restrained when we attempt to disobey them; the larger our knowledge of natural laws the greater our freedom of volition. There are bounds of freedom of action which we may not exceed, we are more free to obey moral rules than to infringe them, we are much less free to do evil than to do good, less to cause pain than to confer pleasure, but all living creatures are free to inflict pain upon others in certain cases, especially when it is necessary in order to maintain life, and this is the basis of justification of animal slaughter, of all surgical oper- ations and of so-called “vivisection” experiments. These scientific facts agree with and reconcile the seem- ingly contradictory doctrines of free will and necessity.

But, notwithstanding that we are usually more con- strained to do right than wrong by the influence of natural laws and circumstances, we still appear to be able to control our own actions and do as we like within certain limits. This power of self-regulation, however, so commonly regarded as a proof of conscious free- dom, is not so, because it is possessed by various inani- mate mechanisms, a steam engine for example, which, by its action upon an intermediate agent, the governor, regulates its own speed.

Scientific basis of Sin and Evil.

Scientific knowledge sheds light upon the origin of evil, sin and suffering. The very existence of evil is dependent upon non-uniformity of cerebral impression ; if there was no inequality of such impression there would be no consciousness, and therefore no pain or unhappi- ness, sin or evil. Consciousness of pleasure as the result

of obedience, and of pain or unhappiness as the effect of error or disobedience, operate as regulators of conduct, and largely compel us to act rightly. The existence of evil is also related to the size and condition of the human


brain; perfectly moral conduct would probably necessi tate perfect knowledge, and perfect knowledge would probably require an infinitely perceptive and perfect brain, but a man’s brain can only retain a finite number of ideas and a very limited amount of knowledge. A perfect man would be a god and have infinite percep- tion and intelligence, but as man does not possess these attributes, he has no infallible guide to correct conduct; “conscience” does not absolutely tell him, and reason, based upon very limited knowledge, is the final but falli- ble arbiter in all cases.

New scientific knowledge diminishes evil.

Knowledge is frequently indispensable to moral con- duct; there are plenty of difficult cases in life in which the desire to do right is not sufficient; the commission of evil is usually a result of ignorance, and if men could in all cases foresee and completely realize all the conse- quences of their acts, they would rarely commit sin. The results of wrong doing are essentially the same, whether it is intentional or accidental. The evil which we are absolutely compelled to do is not necessarily immoral. The chief causes of sin and error are the finite capacities of our brain, the incompleteness of human knowledge and defective training and education. Man’s ignorance is gigantic. Knowledge is power” and new truth makes us free. It is increased knowledge which makes men more free to act rightly, and it is largely by the discovery and dissemination of truth that science con- duces to morality. Truth is divine and the great scien- tific laws which govern the universe and mankind are divine commands, and those who, either through igno- rance or intention disobey them, do so at their peril. It is a conspicuous fact that those who profess to study and inculcate divine commands, largely omit to study and expound these, there is, however, a sufficient cause for this. If those laws were generally known and acknowl- edged, there would be more unanimity of religious belief and a less amount of sectarian strife.


1. Voluntary movement the key to the problem.

A solid scientific basis cannot be given to ethics and religion before the following question is definitely set- tled: In what relation does mind or consciousness actually stand to our own body and to physical nature in general?

No scientifically warranted answer has gained cur- rency thus far. It has not yet become certain whether our bodily organization is an outcome of mental effi- ciency, or whether mind is, on the contrary, an outcome of organic activity, or whether mind and the organism are two separate but intercommunicating entities.

It is quite certain, however, that our ethics and religion have always taken shape, and will continue to


take shape, in accordance with our faith in one or the other of these modes of connection, believed to subsist between the two constituents of our seemingly dual nature.

Now, if we desire to build on a firm scientific foun- dation, and not go on blindly surmising or eternally see-sawing, we have seriously to grapple with the prob- lem, however abstruse and uninviting this task may appear to many. There is, indeed, much likelihood that, before long, scientific philosophy will succeed in solving it, for it is a riddle whose parts are all openly manifest.

I have recently drawn the attention of the readers of this journal to a scientifically grounded attempt at solu- tion of this great problem of mind and organization on the part of one of our foremost students of organic evo- lution; and they have since had the privilege of becom- ing acquainted with a concise and forcible statement of it by its own author.

In this his very courteous and highly interesting reply to my criticism, Professor Cope does not feel compelled to budge one inch from his former position. He still main. tains “that mind is a property of matter in energetic action; or, in other words, that mind is the property of some kind of energy;” that, if this be admitted, then “mind is the property of something which posse:ses momentum, and is also a property of some kind of motion,” and “as these are the conditions essential to the communication of motion to other matter, mind can con- trol matter. (g. e. d.)”

He “awaits with interest a disproval of these posi- tions.”

To this pithy declaration of his leading propositions it may at once be objected that the “energy endowed by Professor Cope with the additional efficiency of con- sciously deflecting matter from its mechanical path is a power nowise recognized in physical science. It is here an entirely novel agency, and it involves as complete a petitio principii as can well be found, for it assumes, unproved, to start with, all that is called in question, namely, that “mind can control matter.” From the premise, that matter in energetic action” “can be con- scious,” it does by no means legitimately follow that this accompanying consciousness is able to control the ener- getic activity of the otherwise purely mechanical motion of such matter.

The only “energy” hitherto recognized by physical science—the very same science of objective observation to which Professor Cope professes faithfully to adhere— this “energy” is strictly and solely the power which moving matter possesses of working absolutely precise mechanical effects upon other matter. Therefore, no amount of consciousness superadded to this power can possibly affect the physical result. Even fully admitting Professor Cope’s fundamental proposition that energy


can be conscious,” it would not be the consciousness ot the energy, but the energy itself, namely, 1% Mv? which does a// the moving. This is incontestably the doctrine taught by our present physical science in accord- ance with its a posteriori method, and there is no get- ting round it, unless you upset it altogether.

Besides, “energy” cannot properly be called «a property of matter.” Energy is matter itself in mechan- ical motion, and its effects are always mechanically wrought on other matter—never on the matter which is its own vehicle. But it is clear that consciousness, in order to control matter, would have, first of all,to impart a designed motion to the very matter in which it itself resides.

Leaving, however, physical science out of sight, is it not anyway rather strange that the property of a thing should be able to control the thing itself, of which it is amere property? And stranger still that “the property of a property should reach all the way back and con- trol the very matrix in which it inheres and on which its very existence is consequently dependent?

These few remarks seem to me to contain a sufficient disproval of Professor Cope’s positions. But the real question under consideration lies much deeper; and as it is a most momentous one I will go to the root of it by assert- ing that whoever believes that mental power of some kind is moving our. body has consistently to adopt all the tenets of Professor Cope’s Theology of Evolution. lf we really move our limbs by dint of the mental power generally called will”—and how many theologians, philosophers and scientist are there who are not com- mitted to this assumption?—then it can be consistently concluded that our entire body, with all its vital func- tions, has been originated by a like mental power, and that such mental power must be inherent in wholly unorganized matter.

All those, then, who believe that it is mental efti- ciency by which we are controlling our body should clearly understand that Professor Cope’s strange evolu- tional and theological conclusions are the only scien- tifically warranted outcome of this almost universally accepted order of dependence. If the alleged relation proves true, then we need seek no further for a well- grounded creed; for Professor Cope has, in that case, established the only consistent one, and he has done this with a profusion of scientific means unknown to those who before him have raised theological superstructures on the same foundation.

Hitherto it has been mainly the obvious and wonder- ful adaptation of living forms to their surroundings and aims of life, that has afforded a powerful plea for the direct workmanship of a supreme mind. And _ the argument for such a consciously designing interference with physical nature on the part of a divine intelligence, was here also experientally supported solely by the


assumed fact, that our own mind originates our volun- tary movements, and gives them their purposive direction.

But the phenomena of instinct, in which purposive activities of a marvelous kind are evidently a direct outcome of consciousless organization, seemed seriously to invalidate the only plausible premise, from which the argument of design derived its convincing power. In the latter part of last century, however, the doctrine that instincts are the outcome of former conscious expe- rience and activities, which have become bodily organ- ized in the race, began to be formulated. And the well-known fact that conscious activities tend, even dur- ing individual life, to become “automatic” gave strong confirmation to this opinion, rendering it, in fact, all but certain.

Now the question here is the same as everywhere in this discussion. Are the activities which we experience as accompanied by consciousness really originated and directed by it? If so, then Professor Cope is right from beginning to end. For if consciousness originates specific activities, and if these specific activities, by being frequently originated by consciousness, compel the mate- rial in which they manifest themselves gradually to assume that peculiar constitution, which enables it after- ward to perform these same activities without the help of consciousness—then it is incontestable that conscious- ness and ncthing else has done the entire work of organization, imparting to it, moreover, specific energies by which it becomes capable of performing definite vital functions. And, as higher vitality and higher organization are wrought by successive degress on a basis of lower vitality and lower organization, beginning morphologically wholly unorganized material which is manifesting only most primitive vital activities, it may consistently be concluded that vitality and organ- ization are in all their gradations the exclusive product of conscionsness. But as such constructive conscious- ness cannot be deemed competent to create out and out the very material upon which it is working, it must necessarily be itself inherent in the least organized kind of matter found in existence, and this is as far as we know, the interstellar ether. Consciousness, in this light, is imperishable. In organic nature it securely withdraws, step by step, from its organized product, leaving at last its entire manufactured and worn out shell behind. ;

These are the principal tenets of the Zheology of Evolution, all founded, not as Professor Cope believes on “observed phenomena,” according to the @ posteriori method, but on the single a prior? assumption, that it is our mind which is originating the movement of our limbs. This foundation granted—and it is actually granted by all thinkers who believe in the motor power of mental volition—I myself confidently join Professor Cope in awaiting “the disproval of these positions.”




Evolution has become the almost universally adopted creed of owr age, and the time has arrived when a more searching and exhaustive view of it has to be formulated. Is it really only the result of selected for- tuitous variations? Or rather the effect of the mixing of divers reproductive elements? Or perhaps the conse- quence of adaptive modifications wrought exclusively by the influences of the medium? Or the outcome of fatalistic mechanical combinations in keeping with the principle of the conservation of energy? Or, on the contrary, the constant work of premeditated design on the part of a supreme consciousness? Or, at least, the work of mental power emanating from the organic individual? Or is it merely our own imperfect illusory apprehension in time-shattered glimpses of a ‘perfect reality, which is eternally and simultaneously abiding in universal thought? Or is it, finally, in all verity, what it experientially appears to be, namely, the grad- ual intrinsie elaboration of individuated living substance, by dint of multifold modes of ‘xferaction with its medium?

We are nearly all convinced that evolution takes place. We desire to know more fully how it takes place, and what it really signifies.

In this search for further and more profound eluci- dation the evolutional views of the neo-Lamarckian school, to which Professor Cope, with the help of recent biological progress and own original researches, has given consistent expression, must be deemed highly important. They are radically opposed to prevailing biological and philosophical conceptions. It is evident that they are in glaring contrast with the teaching of mechanical biologists, who have long been in theascendant in thescientific world, and whoare holding that in organic nature no other power is operative, than that very same mechanical force or energy, which they declare to be the moving efficiency in inorganic nature. And they are in glaring contrast also with the teaching of idealistic thinkers, who deny altogether the existence of anything but mind and its various modes.

It is significant that—devoting his attention to bio- logical researches of quite another kind than those I have been pursuing—Professor Cope was led, as well as myself, to adopt anti-mechanical views of evolution. Indeed, the close and critical study of any kind of organic process, renders evident the truth, that here, at all events, the combination of material particles and the energies displayed by such combinations, are of an altogether hyper-mechanical nature. And this scientific- ally well-grounded insight seems to me to constitute an essential advance, not only in biology, but also in physics.

It was direct observation of this anti-mechanical state of things which first induced me to question the general validity of the principle of the conservation of



energy. For how could this supreme mechanical prin- ciple be generally true, when it proved to be incompati- ble with the facts of organic constitution and evolution? If Professor Cope had chanced to come across the papers, in which I attack the mechanical view of nature, pleading for the existence of sfecific energies, as natur- ally belonging to special material combinations, he would have understood my scientific position. He would have found that I, in opposition to the mechan- ical physicists have long been holding, that energy or motion is not an entity separable from the substratum which forms its vehicle, and therefore not transferable from one substance to another, as now universally taught in physical science. And knowing this, he would not have accused me of arguing about energy as if it were “a concept distinct from matter.” He would also have become aware, that I, like himself, am a firm believer in specific or hyper-mechanical modes of energy. My first paper in Mind bore the title, “« The Depend- ence of Quality on Specific Energies.”


In the Shorter Catechism, which every Presby- terian is supposed to know by heart, there is a question: What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. Here the law of God is recognized as the worm of human action, and two kinds of departure from that worm are distinguished—sins of omission and sins of commission. There are many excellent things in the Shorter Catechism, and this is one of them. The law of God is the worm of human action, and there are two

The answer to it is:

forms of departure from that law.

What is the law of God? It isthe ultimate law of universal being; it is the fundamental law of the uni- verse. No matter how we conceive God, if he is the Supreme Being, this must always be true, and this, indeed, is all that is necessary for us to know. As a being is, so will he act. There is no possible departure Even God, therefore, be he what he may, must act in accordance with the laws of his being, and if he be the Supreme Being, he must act in accord- ance with the laws of being itself. The law of God, therefore, is the supreme law of being. And this law is the worm of the actions of all that is. All laws are but partial expressions of this law—suited for partial application. The two possible forms of departure from this law we call sins of omission and sins of commission. The former are failures to do what the law requires; the latter, perpetrators of what the law forbids. Cor- responding to these sins or vices are two classes of virtues, which, for symmetry’s sake, we may call virtues of omission and virtues of commission.

from that law.

The former


consist in refraining from doing what the law forbids; the latter, in doing what the same law enjoins. Now if we call the point which separates the line of the omis- sive virtues from that of the commissive virtues zero, all departures from omissive virtue, that is, all: sins of omission will be negative, while all positive com- missive virtues will be positive. If, then, a man should do nothing forbidden by the law of God,