204 
name of psyche, to which I by no means object,* but on the contrary gladly 
take it as the basis of what I have further to say, with this preliminary 
observation, that we have here passed the bounds of all possible scientific 
investigation ; seeing we have to do with that which is not ponderable or 
visible, nor can in any way be brought within the cognizance of our senses. 
The mind can only grasp it as a living idea caused to inhere in each organism, 
and to build up and maintain that organism according to the preconceived 
plan of the Creator. 
How else can we explain the phenomena of life ? How conceive of the 
possibility of its commonest manifestations ? Why should a crab, which has 
lost its claw, reproduce a crab’s claw rather than a human hand l The 
notion of the infinite variety of created things arising from the qualities of 
protoplasm is (as I have shown) absurd ; and, moreover, this variety is pro- 
duced (as Huxley has so well shown t) as if by an invisible artist shaping 
the organism from the very commencement according to its “ kind ” ; “ fashion- 
ing ” in continuance its members when as yet there was none of them ; and 
in the meantime, leaving tokens in each case of the links which connect each 
individual with the grand whole ; so that all is shown to be the evolution of 
the harmony existing in the infinite Aoyog or Word, of which all creation is 
but (as it were) the expression. 
The 2 ) s ychc, whilst it inheres in the organism, dominates and turns to its 
own end all chemical forces. Take away the psyche and in the moment all 
is reversed. The torch no longer burns but is at once extinguished. 
I may add that according to the belief and experience of mankind in all 
ages, this psyche is not necessarily dependent on or even connected with 
protoplasm. 
In propoimding the opposite doctrine, contrary to all evidence, Positivism 
proves itself an Impostor, and should be dealt with accordingly. 
Rev. C. L. Engstrom. — T he Rev. J. H. Barker has asked me to read the 
following communication ; the views are his own, and, as only the reader, it is 
unnecessary for me to say whether I agree with them or not : — 
“ While I fully acknowledge the formidable difficulties surrounding 
the subject of this able and interesting paper, — difficulties which might 
well deter any but the acutest intellect from attempting to grapple 
with them, — I may yet, as one of the oldest members of this Institute, claim 
the privilege of making a few remarks upon it. The mystery of Life is a 
subject upon which I have bestowed much thought ; and I entirely concur 
with the author of this paper, that the solution (or even partial solution), of 
the problem ‘is one of the most pressing duties of this generation.’ I 
would begin by expressing my conviction that it is hopeless to expect to 
* But, if we have 4>vxh feminine, we must also have ipog masculine, or 
our ’Idea (being thus differentiated in nature), would be incomplete. The 
French term “ puissance formatr ice v is liable to no such objection. 
t See “The Contrast between Crystallization and Life,” Transactions, 
Vol. VIII., p. 194. 
