594 
Animism versus Hylozoism. 
[Odtober, 
Mind ? It cannot be a faculty of a solid atom, or molecule, 
or of a drop of water, or even of a living plant. Can these 
forms of matter reason, or draw inferences ? Man, and per- 
haps also the higher classes of animals, can do this. And 
if so, surely no £ mens sana in corpore sano ’ can doubt the 
existence in these organisms of something which can deal 
with matter, and is therefore superior to it. The Materialist, 
then, who ventures to reason on the subjedt, first tacitly 
assumes that he has, or (more stridtly) is, a ‘mens sana ,’ and 
then turns round and formally denies it. He cuts away the 
branch on which he sits, and the result is somewhat incon- 
venient. 
The truth is, that C. N., and those who think with him, 
draw a wrong inference from an admitted truth, viz., that it 
is a law of our present economy, that one mind can only 
manifest itself or its working to another mind, by being em- 
bodied in matter. Moreover, it may possibly be a general 
law of all finite beings, that a material vehicle is a pre- 
requisite to inter-communication of any kind. But this, if 
it be so, in no way proves that body and mind are not two 
distindt entities, blended rather than united, and mutually 
affedting each other. 
Let me now point out another fallacious inference. Hylo- 
zoic Materialism, we are told (p. 521), maintains “ the 
inherent vitality or energy of Matter.” This appears to be 
borrowed from Strauss, who says “ Life is only a special, 
viz., a most complicated, form of mechanics.” Even could 
this be proved (which it cannot be), the whole tenour of 
C. N.’s articles show that he bases this theory on the alle- 
gation that Science has proved that every atom of matter is 
in constant motion, in one way or another. 
Well, be it so. I do not deny it. But what then ? This 
does not prove matter, perse, to be alive. Such a conclusion 
destroys all distinction between life and motion. Besides, this 
fact (if it be one) is at least as logically explained by the hypo- 
thesis of an ever-present acting Mind, — a personal though 
invisible Being, the all-wise Maker and Ruler of the world. 
What conclusion can be more 4 lame and impotent ’ than 
to say that a thing is alive because it moves ? You must 
prove that it is s^//-moving, before you can prove that it is 
alive. Is a stone alive, because it moves when thrown by 
the hand of man ? Does it choose its own course ? or is it 
the human will that chooses it ? 
With respedt to the (so-called) axiom of modern Science 
(p. 522), all that Science pretends to show is, that no por- 
tion of matter is in a state of absolute rest. It does not, and 
