664 Scientific Materialism [October, 
idiot, of whose very existence he was ignorant, may have 
brought against him an a( 5 tion for libel. What is the result ? 
His appetite is gone, and all the ordinary symptoms of 
indigestion come on. Yet for all this there is no physical 
cause. No material substance has been introduced into or 
withdrawn from his system. No “ force,” using the word 
in its ordinary sense, adls upon him in a different way from 
what it did previously. A purely immaterial something, a 
piece of intelligence, has adfed upon him like a dose of 
poison. That such psychic poisons — if we may be allowed 
the expression — can even prove mortal the annals of medical 
science fully show. 
These considerations bring us to one of the points on 
which we have not the pleasure of agreeing with Mr. 
Billing ; we refer to his disposition to draw what to us 
appears far too absolute a boundary-line between man and 
the lower animals. It is superabundantly proved, as far as 
testimony can prove anything, that in brutes, also, ill health 
— chronic or acute — may be occasioned by purely immate- 
rial causes, such as fear or distress. 
The author’s assumption that the intelligence of the 
lower animals is “ not that of an individual, but of the 
whole species,” is flatly contradictory to the experience of 
all who have taken trouble to observe closely and fairly. 
Between different individuals of the same species, and even 
of the same race, there occur the most manifest differences 
in mental power. One dog hits upon devices and strata- 
gems to secure his ends which never strike another. One 
spider will ballast its web in stormy weather with, e.g., a 
chip of wood, whilst other spiders of the same species, with 
the same facilities and under identical circumstances, do no 
such thing. Mr. Billing, we are sorry to perceive, goes the 
length of ascribing cases of animal intelligence to an error 
on the part of the observers. In other words, he refuses to 
admit fadfs contrary to his prepossessions. The assumption 
of an “ innate potence ” distindf from reason, and yet fulfil- 
ling the tasks of reason, is in truth a desperate attempt to 
uphold a decaying error. 
The extent to which our author’s science is diluted with 
“ Bridgewater ” is also to be regretted. We demur alto- 
gether to the fundamental assumption of teleologists that 
God’s purposes are known to mankind ; nor would it be 
hard to show, from indisputable fadts, that if a maximum 
of earthly happiness for man had been His objedt, the 
world would assuredly have been constituted very differently 
from what it now is. Teleologists have been challenged to 
