54 
an action that aims to contract and absorb all things into 
itself, it becomes a type and resemblance, in matter, ot that 
higher law of human and divine love, which goes forth 1 
desire for closer union and communion with the whole universe 
of fooin 
But “whether thus these things, or whether or not/’ whether 
Gravitation be mediate or immediate, attraction or appetency, 
I think it must be plain that the nucleus of solid truth, even 
in Newton’s great discovery, is encompassed to this hour 
with a vast nebula of what is doubtful, indeterminate, ancl 
obscure. 
II. The Nature of Matter is the next subject to be con- 
sidered. Are modern materialists fully agreed in the nature ot 
this new divinity, which is their only substitute for the Dod 
of the Bible ? Dr. Tyndall discerns in it “ the promise and 
the potency of all terrestrial life.” Professor Huxley prophe- 
sies “As’ surely as every future grows out of past and present, 
so will the physiology of the future extend the reign of matter 
and law, until it is coextensive with knowledge, with teehng, 
and with action.” “The consciousness of this great truth 
weio-hs,” he thinks, “ like a nightmare on many ot the best 
minds of the day, and they watch the progress ot materialism 
with such fear and powerless anger, as a savage feels when 
the great shadow creeps across the sun.” And Professor 
Haeckel, of Jena, extols Kant’s Nebular theory, because it is 
purely mechanical or monistic, makes use exclusively ot the 
forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every super- 
natural process.” ,, 
A philosophy, then, in which matter supersedes and swallows 
up mind, and dispenses wholly with a God, ought surely to 
give some distinct utterance as to the nature ol its own divini y. 
But when we look closely, what do we find ? Nothing but 
obscurity and contradiction, clouds and thick darkness. 
And first, does this matter which has “the promise and the 
potency of all terrestrial life,” really exist at all ? The leaders 
of the new philosophy are not agreed, even as to its bare 
existence. The doctrine of Berkeley, which denies an objectn e 
material world, and reduces everything to mental ideas and 
sensations, has had many disciples down to our own day. 
Mr. Mill speaks with scorn of those who profess to see in this 
theory any contradiction of reason and common sense. He 
adopts it fully, and would baptize all material objects by 
a new name. They are things no longer, but only “ perma- 
nent possibilities of sensation.” But how can feelings and 
sensations be possible, if there is no thing to bo felt, and 
