( 65 ) '37 



Mr. Huxley makes but small reference to thought ; he 

 only tucks it in, as it were, as a mere appendicle of 

 course. 



It may be objected, indeed to reach the last stage in 

 this discussion that, if Mr. Huxley has not disproved 

 the conception of thought and life " as a something 

 which works through matter, but is independent of it," 

 neither have we proved it. But it is easy for us to re- 

 ply that, if "independent of" means here "unconnected 

 with" we have had no such ojpject. We have had no 

 object whatever, in fact, but to resist, now the extrava- 

 gant assertion that all organized tissue, from the lichen 

 to Leibnitz, is alike in facult^'and again the equally ex- 

 travagant assertion that life ^nd thought are but ordi- 

 nary products of molecular chemistry. As regards the 

 latter assertion, we have endeavored to show that the 

 processes of vital organization (as self-production, etc.) 

 belong to another sphere, higher than, and very differ- 

 ent from, those of mechanical juxtaposition or chemical 

 neutralization ; that life, then, is no mere product of 

 matter as matter ; that if no life can be pointed to in- 

 dependent of matter, neither is there any life-stuff inde- 

 pendent of life ; and that life, consequently, adds a new 

 and higher force to chemistry, as chemistry a new and 

 higher force to mechanics, etc. As for thought, the en- 

 deavor was to show tha?it was as independent on the 

 one side as matter on the other, that it controlled, used, 

 summed, and was the reason of matter. Thought, then, 

 is not to be reached by any bridge from matter, that is 

 a hybrid of both, and explains the connection. The re- 

 lation of matter to mind is not to be explained as a 

 transition, but as a contreconp. In this relation, how- 

 ever, it is not the material, but the mental side, which 

 the whole universe declares to be the dominant one. 



