Page images
PDF
EPUB

versary, the destroyer. What, then, shall I say of such a doctrine of devils as that, even if a man did repent, God would or could not forgive him?"

From the sermon on "The Consuming Fire," we have the following passages, as logical as they are eloquent :

[ocr errors]

For

"But at length, O God, wilt Thou not cast death and hell into the lake of fire- even into Thine own consuming self? "Death shall then die everlastingly, and hell itself shall pass away. Then, indeed, wilt Thou be All in all. then our poor brothers and sisters everyone O God, we trust in Thee, the Consuming Fire,- shall have been burnt clean and brought home. For if their moans myriads of ages away would turn heaven for us into hell shall a man be more merciful than God? Shall of all His glories His mercy alone not be infinite? Shall a brother love a brother more than the Father loves a son? more than the brother Christ loves his brother? Would he not die yet again to save one brother more?. It is so plain that every one may see it, every one ought to see it, every one shall see it. It must be so. is utterly good and true to us, nor shall anything withstand His will. Our longing desires can no more exhaust the fulness of the treasures of the Godhead, than our imagination can touch their measure. Of Him not a thought, not a joy, not a hope of one of His creatures can pass unseen; and while one of them remains unsatisfied He is not 'Lord over all."

[ocr errors]

He

From these extracts we may get a clear conception of the faith which animates the works and governs the life of George MacDonald. Never himself doubting the Fatherly care and omnipotent love of God, he constantly aims to stimulate the consciences and to develop the faith of his readers.

Charles L. Simmons.

[blocks in formation]

In a previous article on materialism, I reviewed the arguments presented by the advocates of this much vaunted theory of Skepticism, and attempted to show that the hypothesis of the eternity of matter, persistence of force, indestructibility of energy, and the doctrine of evolution had not been demonstrated as doctrines of science, and even if they had been, they would not prove materialism. There are two other theries of the origin of life and mind upon which materialists rely, known among scientific writers as that of the spontaneous generation of living organisms, and the kindred theory that mind is the result of the molecular action of the brain. The first is necessary to enable materialists to bridge the chasm between the living and the dead without an act of creation, which would show in nature the presence of creative mind and will. The second is necessary to show how mind springs from matter, and to reveal the method by which a material cause can produce an effect greater than itself. is true that this is a violation of an axiom of philosophy; but what does materialism care about the first principles of science, laws of thought, the intuitions of the reason, and the axioms of philosophy?

It

The theory of the spontaneous generation of living organisms has not been verified. It is not a fact of science. Dr. Bastian claims to have demonstrated it by experiment; 1 but Dr. Tyndall, by a long series of experiments carefully conducted, has shown that he was mistaken.2 But if spontaneous generation was a verified fact, it would not prove materialism by proving the material origin of life. Generation, whether spontaneous or from living germs, is the method and not the cause of the origin of living organisms. The existence of the method proves the existence of a cause that works 1 Bastian's Beginnings of Life. Popular Science Monthly.

vital is an orga

The one builds

according to such method. The only cause adequate to produce all living organisms by any conceivable method is a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Creator. It is thus seen that the theory of the spontaneous generation of living things, even were it true, would not show that matter was the efficient cause of life, and failing in that it could. not prove the truth of materialism. But chemical and vital forces are so unlike in their action as to show an unlikeness in nature. They act in different ways, move in opposite directions, and produce different results. Vital force is constructive, chemical force is destructive; the nizing, the chemical a disorganizing, force. up an organism, the other disintegrates and destroys it. In all the living processes of nature vital force controls, governs, and directs the chemical forces. The vital is master, and the chemical forces servants, in all the building and organizing work of Nature.3 Forces so unlike in their nature, action and function could not have been evolved the one from the other.4 Involution must be equal to evolution, because it is a self-evident proposition that from nothing nothing can come. Nothing can be evolved from matter that was not previously contained in it; and as life and mind are not essential properties of matter, they can never be evolved from it. This is selfevident. There is no known power or process in nature by which the living is derived from the dead without an act of divine creative quickening. Life is not the result of organization, but organization is the result of the action of life. Life is a force which reveals its presence by the production of living forms, vital organisms. It resists the action of chemical forces on living plants, animals and men, and at the same time directs them to co-operate with it in the construction of living forms.6

Life as it thus controls matter and governs physical forces, shows its superiority to matter. which would not be the case if the cause of all life was material. The origin of life is * Liebig's Chemistry. 4 Tideman's Physiology of Man, p. 14.

5 Liebig's Animal Chemistry. Paine's Institutes of Medicine, 112
6 Mulder's Chemistry of Vegetable and Animal Physiology, pp. 54-59,

spiritual, and its presence and power cannot be explained by the hypothesis of materialism. The theory that all mind is the result of the molecular activity of the brain, though held by some Christian scientists in common with materialists, tends to materialism. Professor A. E. Dolbeare, of Tufts College, says, "We find mind associated with matter, protoplasm in some form. We have no knowledge of mind apart from such association. And furthermore, wherever we find mind thus manifested we find an organ called a brain, made of nerve tissue of complex chemical composition, and furnished with a wonderful supply of blood vessels."7 If this statement of the Professor were true, it would only prove that brain structure and a nervous organization were necessary as instruments to the manifestation of mind, and not as the active cause in its creation. But the statement is not correct, for we find creative mind revealed or manifested in nature in the absence of brain structure. It is only true where we find mind manifested in connection with the living organisms of men or animals. It does not touch the larger question of the manifes ation of creative and controlling mind in the universe. But nature reveals the presence of mind in the wise, benevolent, orderly and harmonious movement of her forces, as really as man does in his rational actions. scious of mental action in either case. ence of mind because the actions of men and the move. ents of nature are rational. And brain structure is no more the cause of the presence of mind in man, than it is of the presence of mind in nature. Material forms are the instruments of the manifestation of mind in both.

We are not conWe infer the pres

The Professor thinks the instrumental relation of brain to mind will not account for the influence of food and stimulants on mental manifestations. But why not? The brain is a living organism, and food and stimulants wil! affect its action as a living organ, whether the relation of that action to the mind is instrumental or causal. Whatever disturbs the healthy and 7 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY for April, 1876, pp. 215, 216. 8 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, April, 1876, p. 217.

normal action of the brain will modify the manifestations o mind as really if the brain were the instrument of thought, as it would if it were the cause of thought. If the brain manifest mind in thought, emotion and volition. it does it by action; and whatever disturbs this action will modify the mental manifestation. The effect of food and stimulants on the healthy action of the brain is the only question that the science of physiology can answer. Whether that action sustains a causal or instrumental relation to thought and its manifestation is a question of psychology and not of physiology. It is a question for philosophy, and not for science, for science deals only with phenomena. It is the function of philosophy to deal with causes. Physiology as a science can only deal with the functions of a living, material organism, and is, therefore, wholly incompetent to determine what is the cause of thought, emotion, volition and action. It can show the instrumental relation of brain to mind, but it cannot show any causal relation between the two. It can show, and has shown, by the researches of its most eminent investigators, that the brain is not the cause of mind. They have pointed to the fact that the very structure of the organ shows that it is an instrument of the mind and not its cause. The whole nervous system, the brain included, is a mechanism, and requires a force to move it.9 This force is mind.

This shows that the claim made by Professor Dolbeare and others in the interest of materialism, that the cause of mental phenomena is purely a question for physiologists,1o is unscientific and unphilosophical. Physiologists can study the phenomena of the material instrument of mind, but cannot determine the question of the spiritual cause of thought, emotion and volition. This is not a question of physiology alone. Psychology and philosophy must contribute something to the solution of the problem presented in the relations of body and mind. To qualify an author to speak with authority on this subject, he should not only be a physiologist, but a psycholo

Draper's Physiology. Vol. i.; pp. 285, 287, 321.

10 UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, April, 1876, p. 119.

« PreviousContinue »