Life.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4266, 2 September 1882, Page 1 (Supplement)

Life.

Lecture by Rev. S. J. Neill.

No. 111. How hare we come to be what we are, manifesting mental and physical qualites p We are, as to mind and body, in the human form: what produced this bodily form; what brought us to this mental state ; and what is the relation in which these two conditions stand to each other P These are the great problems of philosophy. We observe ,'thnt men differ in the manifestation of mental qualities more than in the manifestation of bodily qualities. We discover that certain bodily phenomena are very often associated with certain mental qualities, so that we can judge of the benevolent man, the cruel man, the man who is reflective, or the man who is passionate. Further, we observe that the infant, though manifesting none |of the mental phenomena which distinguish man, has a brain relatively large compared with the body ; the proportion, according to Fiedemann, being about 1 to 5 85 in the male, and about 1 to 6*5 in the female. Brain, though closely connected with the phenomena called mental, cannot be everything, for here, with a brain large in relation to the body, the self conscious* ness of the infant is nil. Is mind only a a certain condition of molecular action, which a musket ball, a current of electricity, or a little prussic acid can so disarrange that the thing we call mind ceases altogether? Or do the poison or the ball simply make the bouse in which the mind now dwells no longer habitable ? If our bodies at this moment became dissipated, should we not see each other as truly and really as we do now ? I think we should. We have spoken at length on the nature of things, because in all our considerations of human life we must continually revert to this subject. Clear views of this, or even of the nature of the difficulties connected with a philosophy of Being will be a very necessary step in the science of any department of Life. If we start from the'phenomena of thougbtandextension,orofmind and matter we come at last to consider what is matter in itself, and what is mind in itself—what is the substance or essence of mind and of matter? Three theories are possible: one essence underlying the phenomena both of mind and of matter; two essences or a second essence created by the first essence. Idealism supposes that the mind essence is the only one, and it causes the phenomena of matter to appear, there being no essence proper to matter itself, just as we send forth words, and as a shadow, though apparently real, is not so. Materialism supposes that matter-essence is the only essence, and the phenomena called mental are only special modifications of the matter essence. This seems to be what Professor Tyndal spoke of in the wellknown sentence, "The promise and potency of matter." The third hypothesis, that one essence called the second essence out of not being into existence, is what is meant by Creation in the strict sense of the word. Science declares, however, that there is no such thing as a single atom of matter being either created or annihilated. " Should it be proved," says a learned scientist, " that a single atom of matter has ever been created or annihilated, it might well fill every thoughtful mind with alarm, for then the whole universe might stand a chance to be entirely blotted out of existence, and all human beings swept into oblivion and nonentity." Dr Hodge, after discussing the theories of Wallace, Darwin, &c, sums up under—" Theories of the Universe " : —1. The purely atheis tie theory, the assumption of -which is that matter accounts for all phenomena, and (2) the theory that matter was created, but that God intervened no further. This does not cover the whole ground, and does not define what is mean by "matter;" whether what is commonly called matter, or that which is the essence *of the physical universe. The word bara in Genesis, rendered, create, means simply to cut, ' carve out, or form by safnasc, and is i rendered in the LXX. iadiffeivutiy by'the ! Greek words poiein and ktidsein, though j by the former only in the first chapter. It may throw some light on the constiiu« i tion or being of the universe-—the fact i that nil things appear to exist as comple*!

mentary to each other* on purpose that they should unite and open channels wherein life should hare new outlet. The birth of a child may be the' mystic symbol in which the secret of the unirerse lies hidden, or rerealed, as wo are able to read it. Man has often been called the epitome of the unirerse, the micrososm which manifests or reflects the macrocosm, and to a certain extent we know that ii true, it may be true beyond what we know—man may be the; great hieroglyphic, the sacred symbol of the unirerse—body, soul and spirit. At any rate our perception of the unirerse must be the avenue of our knowledge conoern* it, and our measure of it. Each mind is its own measuring rod by which it measures the world. When considering our origin as sentient and intelligent beings, we consider the theories of spontaneous generation and evolution. Each solar system was once,. in all probability, a vast mass of retj ratified matter, which, revolving and becoming denser, threw off portions wbioh eventually became planets fit for life. But whence came even the lowest forms of plant or animal life? The lecturer stated the extreme riew of spontaneous generation as held by Dr Hollick—an ardent disciple of Haekel. This supposed that the phenomena of heat, light, thought, &c, were capable of being transformed into each other, backwards and forwards. A quotation was made from Oliver Wendell Holmes' "Mechanism ot Thought and Morals," to the effect that the intellectual product does not belong to the category of forot at all as defined by physicists. It does not answer their definition "as that which is expended in producing or resisting motion.'' It is not convertible into other forms of force. You cannot lift a weight with a logical demonstration, nor make a tea-kettle boil by writing an ode to it. Reference was made to the experiments of Redi, Neetham, Spallanzani, Pasteur, Bastian, and others in Italy, Holland, Austria, Germany, and America. The theory of spontaneous generation had been proved and disproved, proved and disproved for more than a century. Some time ago a challenge was given and accepted - between the upholders of the germ theory and those advocating spontaneous genera* I tion; but the experiments did not take place before the joint committee owing to misunderstandings. However, we may. without being scientists, conclude that nothing can produce that which it does not contain; nothing can produce life higher than itself has. There must be in* volution before evolution is possible. The lecturer then spoke of the tendency of thought regarding evolution, mentioning the views of Prof. Calderwood, of Edin* burgh, and Prof. Knight, of St. Andrew's. There were two currents of the evolution theory, the common one moving towards Materialism, and tending to obliterate mind, and another, less known, on a higher level, moving through the physical in search of the spiritual, and at length flowing into the absolute, as the sum of all existence. Hegel was identified with the latter. After referring to the strata of the earth, from granite to soils, to the growth of religion, and of language^ Sec, the lecturer said, from all these investigations we may conclude that nothing perishes, and .that no progress is lost. j "My own dim life should teach me his, ! That life shall live for evermore, Else eavth is darkness tot he core, L » And dust ami SSfies airthaTis:" -