430 
Correspondence . 
rjuly, 
cases there is “ the entrance or exit of an invisible entity ” ? I 
do not ; and if I predicate such an entity in animals* it is because 
they furnish evidence of volition, which cannot be reasonably 
ascribed to mere matter. But I must again remind C. N. that 
the energy to which he attributes chemical, as well as vital, pro- 
cesses, must in reason have a cause, and that a Mighty and 
Intelligent Cause. 
There is yet another fallacy to be noticed, in p. 316. Animal 
life is asserted to be a mere chemical process, because it is main- 
tained by several chemical operations, and “waxes or wanes” 
with their energy. This, however, though in reality but partially 
true, merely shows that vital bodily powers have been made, to 
a great extent, dependent upon these wondrous processes, and 
wholly fails to prove that they are identical with vitality. C. N.’s 
conclusion is far wider than his premisses. 
In p. 317 he asserts — in opposition to my hypothesis — that cel- 
lular vitality is identical with that of the conscious brain. This 
may be quite true. But the brain is not the whole of the living 
organism ; it is only one of its organs. And the faCl, ad- 
mitted, by no means disposes of the distinction he alludes to, 
because the anima is connected, more or less, with every part of 
the body, especially with the other vital organs, and with the 
blood and nerves. I beg to add that I do regard sensation as 
belonging to (not proceeding from) the nervous tissue ; but per- 
ception of that sensation as belongingto the living anima associ- 
ated with it, exclusively. 
C. N. imagines a great difficulty in the way of the dualist (in 
the last paragraph of this page). But the difficulty vanishes in 
the light of the admitted faCt, that the higher faculties of the soul 
have been made dependent (but only in our present state) upon 
the health and integrity of its corporeal organs, ^nd more espe- 
cially of the brain. 
In conclusion, and in reply to C. N.’s protest against my 
assumption that the “ initiation of life in non-living matter is the 
aCtion of a higher power,” I would ask, Is not the energy to 
which C. N. attributes it an unseen power ? if we call it the vis 
insita , or “implanted force,” in Nature ; I ask, Whose force ? and 
who implanted it ? I am thoroughly convinced of the futility of 
the attempt to eliminate the constant, universal presence of an 
Almighty and All-wise Being from the material “ Cosmos.” Yet 
this is not Pantheism, ancient or modern ; for matter is the pro- 
duction of God, and therefore not God himself. This Eternal, 
Self-existent Being is the Jehovah of Holy Scripture, who says 
* In reference to a remark made by C. N., in p. 317, “that the consistent 
dualist must believe that an anima resides in the lowest animals,” I have no 
doubt that this is so. But I also believe that the variety in the scale of these 
anima is as great as that of their material organisms ; and that the desired 
length of their individual existence is equally various, ranging from a few 
minutes to a virtual eternity. 
